Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Infobox

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing about inappropriate categorisations stemming from the use of the 'infobox former country' for this article, Nemambrata has recently expressed concerns abut this, and I tend to agree it is not ideal. It clearly was not a country, it was an occupied part of Yugoslavia. I have just been looking at 'infobox former subdivision' which we could use on the basis that this territory was always a subdivision of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia created by the Axis. There would be some issues with some fields, but I don't think they are insurmountable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

given two weeks have passed, I assume no-one disagrees with my proposal, so I will substitute the infobox on that basis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed to resolve the problem

Problem: It is impossible to achieve consensus about the name of this article. Attempts to resolve this problem trough discussion, RfC, RM and RSN were unsuccessful.

How to proceed?

1. Mediation? The above mentioned RSN suggested a mediation on an appropriate forum, but it is unclear if the mediation can be applied here.
2. Arbitration? If Arbitration can be applied only if other activities including mediation did not successfully resolve the problem then this looks like a cul-de-sac.

There are 57 editors watching this page and probably more who read it but don't watch it. Help with resolving this problem would be highly appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies

It has been less than a month since the RfM ended, so you can't go on and start another such debate. There's always arbitration, but it wouldn't be very prudent to go there as that almost always backfires when started by users, who will be considered as editors with a COI.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to justify your accusation for COI? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a technical point about this statement. Asking for an opinion at RSN was not an attempt to resolve the lack of consensus, and neither is it an appropriate venue to do so. RfC has been the only method actually used to attempt to resolve the lack of consensus for a title change shown in two RMs. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy explains that going to RSN is one of the steps in resolving dispute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. Title issues are resolved through RMs. After two RMs - the title issue is concluded, at least for the near future. Simply "refusing" to accept the results of the RM and continuing with the POV-pushing is not a "dispute" - its trolling, and will probably eventually end-up on report. There is no requirement that you be "satisfied" with the state of this article for a dispute to conclude, and there is no necessity for continued debate after your proposals have been rejected by the community. The idea you seem to have is that the dispute continues until you cease voicing discontent: that is not the case. The content of this encyclopedia is determined by sources (primarily) and user consensus. When both are agaist your proposals - twice - its time to move on. Perpetual aggressive POV-pushing until you're made happy is, as you may well find out, not encouraged.

You may rest assured I at least will not be forced to further cater to your demands and immutable opinions by engaging in a long, fruitless mediation or (heaven forbid) arbitration (@ZjarriRrethues, I agree that the man likely has no concept of what that actually entails :)). -- Director (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, when you arbitrarily move the article to title preferred by yourself and 1.5 other users, ignoring good-faith objections from numerous wikipedians, and when two subsequent RMs (where's the first?) end up as no consensus, and the same two users then repeat the same arguments that were rejected by the others ad nauseam, it can hardly be called "concluded". There are other terms to describe this situation, one being "filibustering". No such user (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day No such user. Your characterisation of the move Direktor made is inaccurate, it was moved following discussion at MILHIST. There is no policy that says that all moves have to be discussed via RM. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm perfectly aware of that discussion. The problem was that the participants were you and Direktor, who advocate the current title, Panonian, who doesn't advocate it but has stated that he can live with it (whom I counted as 0.5), and one Mihlist regular, User:Buckshot06. It's all OK that you four have a conversation elsewhere, but please do not call that "consensus". And when a dozen other editors (need I count?) object to the current title, on the basis that it is not common and not recognizable by anyone from the general public, please do not use "consensus" as the argument. Opinion of three editors is hardly a "consensus". Classic Wikipedian fallacy called WP:Appeal to sources is not too persuasive, either, because your preferred title is encountered in -- how many -- 2? reliable sources, and even that in the context of describing German military setup on the territory, which is much more narrow scope than our article aims to cover. No such user (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

the users that have expressed an opinion here are split about 50/50. I see no overwhelming numbers. Also how is the scope addressed by any of the alternatives? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So, let us check your math, counting just users who objected on this page: Antidiskriminator, WhiteWriter, myself, 92.15.79.29 (whose comments I fully endorse), Nemambrata, N-HH, Zoupan, Dicklyon. Along with you and Direktor, Buckshot06 and PRODUCER expressed support for the current title. ZjarriRrethues's position is unclear to me. PANONIAN withdrew from the debate, apparently exhausted (much as I am). No such user (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have specified that the RMs are what I am talking about. Quite a few of those users did not engage in the recent RMs and have stirred since. PANONIAN was indefinitely blocked from editing in this area, which is why he is no longer engaged here. Also, I think you do both ZjarriRrethues and Dicklyon's comments a disservice. Saying you just WP:DONTLIKEIT doesn't qualify as having a viable alternative title. And on that point, your response to my question about scope is...? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor and Peacemaker67. This title is wrong. This title will be changed. We do not have stable consensus for this stupid title. Those are the facts, and directors belittling of us and this dispute resolution process is par excellence example of rude and bad faith behavior that will only move us away from gaining a useful consensus. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a process for the move which involved the editors participating at the time, which was quite a reasonable process despite No such user's comment above. We've had two recent RMs since the move that have failed to gain consensus for a change. I object to the misrepresentation, moving goalposts and straight out blatant POV-pushing that goes on here, pretending that it is policy-based argument. I've already suggested a way ahead, that my suggestion that there is no WP:COMMONNAME is blindingly obvious, and that all that is required for me to re-engage with this discussion is an acceptance of that fact. Most of the users who contribute here seem to be pushing some POV that is based on a blind refusal to accept that the sources do not agree on a WP:COMMONNAME for this occupied territory. It is apparent that many just think it is "wrong" but can't explain why in terms that are acceptable on WP. It is reasonable for me to not WP:AGF about this behaviour and instead assume that such refusal to accept that there is no WP:COMMONNAME and the regular shouting about the current title being "wrong" indicates that those editors are pushing some strange POV about this territory. If only we could get to the point where we could get some consensus that there is no WP:COMMONNAME, I would be happy to engage in discussion about what descriptive name might be used instead of the official name. We actually had quite a bit of discussion about this at MILHIST and immediately prior to that discussion. But blatant stunts like Antidiskriminator's fraudulent coloured table in the second RM don't help, they hinder any likelihood of building consensus. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there is no common name is not an excuse to keep the article at so convoluted title. In particular, since the previous (or next-to-previous? I've lost the count, Serbia under German occupation) title was reached by a proper consensus, here [1]. I think that you seriously mischaracterize both the arguments and the motives of your opposition, including particularly that "regular shouting about the current title being "wrong" indicates that those editors are pushing some strange POV about this territory", which is as bad WP:ABF as it can get. If you check the backgrounds, by means of contributions, of most people who objected to this title, you will see that none of them can be put in the category of 'POV-pushers' by any sane criterion. How about an alternate approach: accepting that the people object to the title is because it's, um, bad? No such user (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How about a policy-based discussion? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were having that, here: #List_of_names_used_in_English_language_sources. But it's stale, like pretty much every discussion on this page. At this point, we're generating only noise.
I think we could go past this stalemate by having some kind of multi-choice RFC. But that has to be carefully prepared to produce a meaningful and stable result: no ambiguities, no side effects. Like, "key players" could prepare a short list (up to 4) alternatives, with pros and cons, and present them for !voting, with preferential and policy-based arguments accepted. An uninvolved, but informed, administrator could close the RFC and decide the outcome (which shouldn't be "no consensus"). Or, if anyone has another idea... No such user (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to have had that discussion there (obviously), but that was led by me, with one comment from ZjarriRrethues. No-one else participated. So WE (in the royal sense) have never had a discussion about it. Certain editors (who will be sure to 'vote' when that happens) rarely if ever make their positions known (or make any constructive comments) when such discussions occur, but pull whatever rabbit they can think of out of their hats when it suits their purposes. I would want to see some real bona fide good faith statements from involved editors about such a process (and frankly an agreement that there is no WP:COMMONNAME so that old red herring doesn't re-appear when it suits), in which case I would be happy to have that discussion and contribute to some alternative ideas. I also don't believe that you can pre-ordain that 'no consensus' can't possibly be the result. What if there are four alternatives and they each get four votes (for example) and the preferences don't clarify things. You're not suggesting we go on raw votes and preferences, even if it is just by one third preference? I think that would be too open to manipulation. It must be based on WP policy, and an uninvolved admin might decide that there just isn't a consensus for one of the alternatives. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I'd like that we start from a clean slate, as if no title is currently at the table. I'm bothered by the proposition that "no consensus" defaults to "no change". That's why I proposed RFC (rather than RM) as the format, because it basically cannot end with "no consensus": there must be a slight preference for something. As for !voting, I certainly wouldn't suggest raw voting, but argument- and policy-based. However, I just want to point out that, in the absence of clearcut WP:COMMONNAME and source-driven argument, this sort of !voting comes down to editorial decision. However, the definition of consensus is not the "decision imposed by majority" but a "decision acceptable to all (well, most) participants". Anyway, the rules should be agreed in advance. No such user (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I don't see why an RFC is different to an RM in that respect, but I do agree rules would need to be agreed beforehand by an involved users if we were to go down that track. I would just like to point out that during previous discussions I have been quite open to a number of descriptive titles. [2] shows a few that were suggested that that I was willing to discuss further. I'm not sure they are all on the table with me now, as things have moved on, but I reject the thesis that I have ever been somehow intransigent regarding this title. Personally, if we can get past WP:COMMONNAME, any name that clearly indicates that this area was an military occupation territory and not a sovereign state would be fine with me. That is why I want to get past WP:COMMONNAME, so we can have a discussion based on the principles of WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy lately, but I think that we have a basic agreement on the dispute resolution mechanism. I'd prefer that e.g. Antidiskriminator takes over, if he's willing to, mostly because I'm short on time. There is no deadline, anyway. No such user (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@No such user: I don't know if you knew before, but you proposed a process that is already used at wikipedia. I realized it when I was invited to comment at Talk:European Union and saw there something that corresponds to your Multi-choice RFC proposal. Its section structure is basically like this:

1. a question,
2. list of alternatives with !votes with preferential and policy-based arguments accepted
3. discussion
4. links to previous discussions about the issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we see yet another RM or "quasi-RM" posted here in quick succession this entire never-ending affair will be brought to the attention of the community. Having no sources to your claim you now apparently rely on pure votes and the "this one is shorter" factor. Participants have clearly voiced their position on more than one occasion, and all this nonsense RfC business is simply an attempt to have votes cast over and over again until you "win". There is a point at which POV-pushing becomes obvious disruption.

Whereas one cannot say participants here generally like the current title (it being somewhat long and awkward), the "this is Serbia" POV-pushing line is another matter entirely. It is not a solution - it is in fact part of the reason why such a precise title has become necessary, i.e. it is part of the problem. The nonsense POV-pushing towards a "Serbia" title has to stop. Until such a time it will be very hard to have a proper, bias-free discussion here. -- Director (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Statehood dispute

I think there's no question as to whom exactly is being intransigent here, given the two RMs. The gist of this never-ending dispute is simple: User:PANONIAN attempted to imply that there existed a Serbian state during World War II (by his own repeated admission). This was in spite of the sources which, once one actually reads them, do clearly explain that this was an occupation territory, and that no political entity by the name of "Serbia" existed during this period - since 1918 in fact. PANONIAN was soon topic banned for this incessant POV-pushing, at which point the article was moved in accordance with sources and without opposition. In the meantime, though, other Serbian users that never edited this page in the past mysteriously joined in to carry on PANONIAN's torch, including obvious SPAs. At present the idea is to push a title that implies the existence of a WWII "Serbia" in any way possible (again, Antidiskriminator and his lot do actually admit this openly, and profess their belief in some ethereal undying "Serbia" that persisted and existed at this time). The fact that the current title uses the word "Serbia" does not satisfy them, as it is part of the phrase "in Serbia", which suggests that this isn't "Serbia".

This article has been added to a certain list of what I call "Serbia Under Attack" articles, like Kosovo and others, where Serbian national interests are perceived to be "threatened" in some way (Albanians pretty much have the same type of list..). Articles on such "lists" are, unfortunately, fully capable of remaining battlegrounds in perpetuity (wanna argue forever? just go to Talk:Kosovo). This article, however, lacks the admin attention of articles like Kosovo..

Any title that even remotely suggests that this occupation entity was in any way a "Serbia" is completely unacceptable in and of itself, that POV being a-historical unsourced nonsense. -- Director (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, why are you are always trying to tell us what the motives of other users are? In the division of Yugoslavia, a rump Serbia was created, placed under German and Bulgarian occupation and given a collaborationist government of limited powers. It was most certainly a rump Serbia. How else do you think it came to have the borders it did? Coincidence? I have no idea why this is controversial, except that it is a Balkan issue and they're all controversial. Every source I read calls this German/Bulgarian-occupied, collaborationist-governed territory Serbia. No, it was not a pre-existing Serbia, nor was it the acutalisation of an eternal ethereal Serbia, nor was it legal, nor was it sovereign even nominally, but it was a territory with identifiable borders that was (and is) usually called, at least for convenience, Serbia. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly so. The borders are basically what's left of Yugoslavia once a Greater Croatia is taken away and all its neighbors annex their "age-old claims". It is no mistake to refer to this area as "Serbia", and the Germans themselves did so (much in the same way one might talk about "Bosnia" or "Slovenia" in the same period). In the said geographic area they created a typical military occupation zone, and called it "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia".

However. It has been an admitted agenda of several users to push the POV that this occupation zone in and of itself is a political entity that should be referred to as "Serbia". Not a purely geographic term - but basically a WWII puppet state (quote: "Vichy Serbia"). When I tell you all this I am, of course, not making any interpretations - its been said openly.

Incessant POV-pushing along these lines is the no.1 problem of this article. The attempt is constantly being made to refer to this German military occupation zone as "Serbia" (when it is, in fact - "in Serbia"). I do not doubt for a minute that once the title was changed, further modifications would follow along those lines. -- Director (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "in" that you are laying stress on does not appear in the German. It is just "(Militär)Befelshaber Serbien" and later "Armeeabteilung Serbien". Here "Serbien" refers to the name of the command. Of course, it is not really relevant if a command was named "Serbia" since this article is about the territory associated with that command: the occupation zone. Of course the occupation zone was nothing other than a defined area with an associated command, but this area happened also to have a civil government associated with it, the Government of National Salvation. We have bifurcated our coverage, but that the territory is the same Serbia in both cases cannot be denied. It makes perfect sense to refer to it as "occupied Serbia". None of this of course is any more than a concession to the realities of war: legally there was still a Yugoslavia and no Serbia within it. It is no Vichy-type state, but it was certainly a collaborationist puppet state that was intended by its creators (the Germans) to coincide with Serbia proper. Srnec (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "in" appears when the German is translated in Hehn (the WP:RS used for the term)and also, btw, in the translations done by a de-5 Wikipedian that were obtained earlier in this discussion. IMO, the article title needs to clearly show there was no pre-existing political entity called 'Serbia' to occupy, and that this 'Serbia' was a German occupation territory. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Srnec. Firstly, German sources do use "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" [3]. Secondly: it doesn't really matter anyway. "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien" (without "in"), would be correctly translated as "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" - again merely indicating that the thing is "in Serbia", not suggesting that it actually was "Serbia". Its a fine point, but immensely important if you're here to "defend Serbia's existence".. -- Director (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You will get more hits if you search for "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien", without the "in". My point is that if I say, in English or German, that so-and-so is a commander in Malaya, it does not imply that the territory he has command over (militarily) is Malaya, but only that it must be in Malaya. If, however, I say that he is the commander of Malaya or that he is GOC Malaya then it does imply that the territory of his command is precisely Malaya. The term "Militärbefehlshabers Serbien" is similar. Malaya was not a pre-existing polity in 1941 either, but people speak about it and its occupation by the Japanese. (Of course, the governor of the Straits Settlements was the same person as the High Commissioner to the Malay states.)

I really don't know why it is so difficult to explain that there was no pre-existing polity named Serbia when the Germans occupied Yugoslavia. Obviously, there was a Serbia that existed between 1918 and 1941: the territory with a Serb majority, which was always called Serbia. There was no polity called Prekmurje between 1919 and 1941 either, but most books say that Hungary occupied it. I don't know why the term "German-occupied Serbia" or the like is so strongly opposed by you two. Srnec (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien" translates as "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia", with essentially the same meaning as "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (which is, after all, to be expected since both terms are used interchangeably). The term in German indicates that the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers is in Serbia, not that it is Serbia, that much is beyond debate imo.

The Malaya Command analogy does not apply (a "command" is a military unit), and Malaya during WWII was composed of two polities both using the name [4][5], i.e. the term was official, and could designate occupied polities that used it. Royal Yugoslavia was strictly unitarianist and did not recognize any of the modern-day nations or countries in any way. The territory with an ethnic Serb majority was quite a bit larger than this occupation zone [6] (and is still considerably larger than modern-day Serbia [7]).

Due to my concerns over consistency, I myself would be fine with the title "Military Administration in Serbia", but with a lead that makes it crystal clear the article is about the territory, not merely the body that administered it. I.e., that we're calling the territory by the name of the institution. Even that title opens the door to POV-pushing along the lines of "this article is just about the governing body! lets create a POVFORK about our fantasy WWII Serbia".. -- Director (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the territory of a military command that is itself named after a territory can be reasonably concluded to be the same as the territory after which it is named. The distinction you are making is only relevant if the the territory is to be understand as merely within Serbia but not encompassing it or bounded by it. This is not correct. The idea is of an occupied territory called Serbia ruled by a MilBfh.

I don't know what the people you're so opposed to are trying to do, since Balkan politics is (thankfully) pretty opaque to me, but I do know that if once there was a Serbia the odds of its disappearing in a mere twenty years are remote. It may go into temporary or permanent political abeyance, but people will always talk about "Serbia", just like they talk about Transylvania or the Banat. It is unsurprising then, that when the Nazis divided Yugoslavia and left an area approximating the old Kingdom of Serbia they took to calling it Serbia. Historians have followed. It seems pretty elementary to me. In no way does this imply that during WWII Serbia was (a) a country, (b) an Axis state or (c) a legal entity. Our efforts to make this clear appear unnecessarily clumsy to me. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Srnec when it comes to attributing motives to other editors. Direktor, why are you are always trying to tell us what the motives of other users are? It is impossible to resolve this issue with comments that needlessly personalize the issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is personalization. But rather the continuous, incessant, and unsourced POV-pushing of the "This is Serbia" POV. When an editor or group of editors do push the same nonsense over and over and over again, over the course of months or years, it becomes necessary to point that out to new or irregular participants. And that was the point of my comments. It is not speculation on your "motivation", its merely an attempt to put into perspective the shifting strategies being used non-stop towards the same identical goal. One that will bring this article into line with the Serbian point of view on history, rather than a neutral historiographical format.

I do hope one of the said "shifting strategies" isn't a focus on my behavior. -- Director (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Serbian translations

There are a number of Serbian translations in this article which are either unsourced, or in one case are sourced from a university webpage (about the university presumably). I have tagged two of them requesting a source or better source. In particular, one of the translations purports to provide a translation of 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', which would be a neat trick given the comments that have been made here about the name. Translations are only relevant if they appear in WP:RS in that language. The German translations of 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' and 'Military Administration in Serbia' are given because that was their original language. I imagine that the Serbian translation of 'Government of National Salvation' is likewise used in WP:RS in Serbian, but if these translated versions of the titles are not used in WP:RS in Serbian, then they should not be in the article. If they are, then it would be appropriate to provide inline citations to the WP:RS they appear in. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Will you please clarify your position?

Do you want to say about "Serbian translations" that "if these translated versions of the titles are not used in WP:RS in Serbian, then they should not be in the article" but in the same time you used English translation of German official name as title of the article although this translation is not supported by RS on English?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand your tortured English. Hehn is a reliable source that gives that exact translation. Where is the reliable source for the translation of the official title in Serbian? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fair to assume there are none. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have conducted a Google Books search for the Serbian translation of "Military Administration in Serbia" as suggested by Director. There are 10 hits [8] for that phrase in Latin script, only three of which capitalise the V in Vojna (which is the only way I can tell it is intended to be a title rather than a descriptive phrase). They are "Okupatorska podjela Jugoslavije" (1970) by Ferdo Čulinović, "Slovenski pravnik" (1920) (I assume we can discount that one), and "Zbornik Vols 18-20" (1981) by Historijski institut Slavonije i Baranje. I assume Zbornik, being a collection of documents, is a primary source. So what is the story with Čulinović? Is it reliable? If so, can it be used to support the translation in lang-sh? In respect of the Cyrillic script version, there are 7 hits [9], but only two have Војна initially capitalised, which I assume again is the "title" version? They are "Srbija i Jugoslavija 1914-1945: Volume 3" (1995) by Vasa Kazimirović, and "Teatri okupirane prestonice, 1941-1944" (1998) by Vasilije Marković. The second one has all words fully capitalised, and includes an additional couple of words the sum of which Google Books translates as 'MILITARY GOVERNMENT IN SERBIA AND BELGRADE". So based on that, and given my non-existent Serbo-Croat, I'm thinking that the only one that actually uses "Војна управа у Србији" as a title rather than a descriptive phrase is Kazimirović? Is it reliable? If so, can it be used to support the translation in Cyrillic? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Director or PRODUCER, can you have a look at the above and advise? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitrovica

Was the area of Mitrovica included in this division at all times? In Albania at War, 1939-1945[10]: Neubacher was generally pleased with the declaration but found it necessary to remove a reference to the desire of all Albanians to expand Albania's frontiers to include Mitrovica, to the detriment of Serbia...But the Germans did eventually relent and gave the Albanians some territory around Mitrovica that had been part of occupied Serbia. I checked the archives of the Albanian parliament[11] and in 1943-4 four deputies from the "Prefecture of Mitrovicë" were included(Aqif Blluta, Ferhat Abidi, Hysen Hysnija, Shaban Mustafa). Apparently, there were some territorial changes involving Mitrovica but does anyone have a source that details the exact region in order to change the maps?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day ZjarriRrethues, Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#New_source above has a link to a PDF which Srnec came up with which looks scholarly and has quite a bit of information about the border changes that occurred. I don't think it is definitive, but it's pretty useful. Have a look at it and tell me what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

According to that source the German area of Kosovo was a de facto autonomous region in 1941-3, but it doesn't detail the territorial changes (after Italy's defeat), which makes any map changes OR as we don't know which subregions were transferred and which remained in the territory of the military commander. According to Robert Elsie (although we shouldn't use his tertiary work as the direct source): 21 April: German division commander, General Eberhardt, meets in Mitrovica with Albanian leaders, among whom is Xhafer Deva, to formalize the Albanian takeover of local government and to discuss the expulsion of Serb and Montenegrin colonists.

• That being said, what constitutes Mitrovica is debatable as what we nowadays call northern Mitrovica became part of Kosovo after 1945, so Fischer's some territory around Mitrovica might refer to the entirety of pre-WWII Mitrovica.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If I recall, Mitrovica was left to Nedic. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich isn't clear about what happened in the northern Kosovo area after the Italians put up the white flag, and neither are Kroener et al. It's interesting, I'll keep an eye out for a source for any border changes. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I re-read the article linked above, and it states that "This was probably the reason they recognized the “Greater Albania” after the capitulation of Italy in its borders as previously defined between the two Axis partners (Pichler 2006; Milošević, 1991)". That seems to me to clearly indicate that Mitrovica remained in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia after the Italian capitulation, and I can find no evidence to dispute that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why Fischer says that there were some territorial changes or the inclusion of four deputies from a prefecture of Mitrovicë, which didn't exist before Italy's capitulation, and it omits possibly significant details. The map issue becomes more convoluted when you add into the equation Tomasevich's (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945) Germany consented to certain small adjustments in the demarcation line between German=occupied Serbia and Italian-occupied Albania to the advantage of Albania. These were agreed upon in Rome on Novermber 13, 1942 and became effective the following month. The first demarcation line was agreed upon in 1941, an adjusted one was stipulated in November, 1942 and a third one was possibly signed in 1943. On which demarcation line are our maps based? (Btw the reports on Mitrovica are very interesting[12][13]) --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Multi-choice RFC

Too early for this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think we could go past this stalemate by having some kind of multi-choice RFC. But that has to be carefully prepared to produce a meaningful and stable result: no ambiguities, no side effects. Like, "key players" could prepare a short list (up to 4) alternatives, with pros and cons, and present them for !voting, with preferential and policy-based arguments accepted. An uninvolved, but informed, administrator could close the RFC and decide the outcome (which shouldn't be "no consensus"). Steps: "key players" could prepare a short list (up to 4) alternatives !voting, with preferential and policy-based arguments accepted An uninvolved, but informed, administrator could close the RFC and decide the outcome (which shouldn't be "no consensus"). 1) a short list (up to 4) alternatives, with pros and cons, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia German-occupied Serbia .... ....

Comments

There are two groups of editors. One group supports the existing title and other group supports German-occupied Serbia. During many discussions on this talk page none of those two titles gained consensus. Two more alternative needed. Any proposals?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No such user engaged in some discussion, which clearly has some way to go. So why would we be putting ideas on the table? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Above, we had a meta-discussion about the DR process, which I assume we concluded successfully. Is it not the time now to put ideas on the table? I mean, we could discuss proposals first, or the process first, but at this point, this is still in an informal stage. What is your preference, how to proceed? No such user (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

But I'd like to refocus on the source analysis which was put forth above, in #List of names used in English language sources. Can we find something which at least resembles a common name? No such user (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what would you propose, No such user? I can only see some version of "Occupied Serbia" something... --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Naturally. Since the idea is (and always has been) to call this thing "Serbia". Have I not been saying the same thing several times just above? There was no political entity called "Serbia". And any title that deliberately makes such an implication is against the facts and the sources (as quoted over and over again to the point of absurdity), and is therefore unacceptable. No variation on the theme of "occupied Serbia" can I agree to.

The current title uses the phrase "in Serbia", and therefore makes no implication that this entity is "Serbia". This title was unacceptable to PANONIAN for the very same reason, and still is unacceptable to those who have mysteriously appeared to carry on his torch. -- Director (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@No such user. The clear implication of our discussion was that we would discuss process (and WP:COMMONNAME). Antid's preemptive listing of options does not show good faith, and your suggestion that Antid should take over the discussion from you is in my view a poor choice given his behaviour here. There are others available. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I hatted the proposition above, as premature. Let us continue meta-discussion. No such user (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I have said numerous times, I want to see some discussion and general consensus in response to my exposition on WP:COMMONNAME, then we can talk about the WP:TITLE principles and the proposed process. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in like this, but, Peacemaker, expositions are generally more lengthy than most want to read. There is no logical reason this page should have the title it does. Can you please point out to me the specific issue you had with "German occupied Serbia" or any other proposed name? I don't know what your angle is here, but it comes off very unflatteringly. Personally, I don't care what you want to see. In fact, I don't know of any other editor who does. (By extension, I am the only one who wants to see what I want here. That's part of being individuals.) --Nouniquenames 04:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the unsolicited advice, Nouniquenames :-). My comment was in the context of my ongoing (at that stage) discussion with No such user about how the discussion could be moved ahead, based on WP policy. It was also in response to the complete failure of a number of other editors here to even engage with WP:TITLE (as they appear to believe WP:DON'TLIKEIT justifies a move). Essentially all I was asking for was a discussion based on WP policy, not people's personal opinions (ie It's "wrong", "bad" etc). My "angle" (if I have one) is we should use WP policy to decide article titles, not POV-pushing. A lot of POV-pushing goes on around here from all sides. I think my comment was reasonable, I'm not too fussed if my "angle" of insisting on using WP policy comes off as unflattering. Really unflattering "angles" appear all over the Balkans articles (and this talkpage). Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing

"What, I can't post yet another RM?! Well then lets post an RfC! Lets vote over and over and over again until I finally win and this article is called 'Serbia'".

Give it a rest, Antidiskriminator, and please stop attempting to impose your "structures" on others. Users have not agreed to go forward with an RfC of this sort. I for one consider it disruption that, after two RMs, you're still shoving this "Serbia existed!!" nonsense down people's throats. The current title isn't perfect, and no title really is - but good enough if it puts an end to nationalist POV-pushing that has plagued this article since it had the misfortune of being created.

I for one am not prepared to even consider any title that refers to this area as "Serbia" or suggests anything even remotely similar. Lets have that as the starting point. Can you provide a title suggestion that does not push that nonsense POV? Or is that the point, really? -- Director (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, we're trying a dispute resolution here, with assumption of good faith on all sides. You're actively disturbing that. If you're not "prepared to even consider any title containing Serbia", please 1) take note that the current title is Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia 2) kindly consider removing yourself from this debate. Thanks. No such user (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith applies to initial discourse, where I believe I have done so. But WP:AGF can hardly be interpreted to apply after months upon months of unrelenting nationalist POV-pushing. I believe I'm actually being helpful (WP:NPOV) by putting this current discussion in perspective with regard to the one same POV that has been peddled here for months and years. To reply to your numbered points:

• 1) You've misquoted me, my words were not "any title containing Serbia". I stated that "I am not prepared to even consider any title that refers to this area as 'Serbia'", and I hold to that. I am familiar with the wording of the current title - I implemented it. Furthermore: if you would please read my above post in the "Help needed to resolve the problem" section, you will find a more thorough explanation of what I mean by "title that refers to this area as Serbia". Things like "German-occupied Serbia" and "Serbia under German occupation" do clearly imply there was a Serbia under occupation - which is precisely the agenda.
• 2) I do not wish to inflame hostility further in responding to your rude "request", but please note that I have been an active participant here for quite some time. I'm not going anywhere, in fact - I'm back from vacation. Rather I recommend you familiarize yourself with the long history of this article's talkpage (or at least read other users' responses in full).
  Also, for future reference, if you want someone to go - whatever you do don't tell him to "kindly consider removing himself". That's what you say if you want the fellow to stay.. [14]

I shall reiterate: this is nothing more than the third vote these folks are trying to organize in order to finally have their way. Its disruption and POV-pushing in its purest form. -- Director (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I may not have been active enough in order to have a more comprehensive view but I think that a third move discussion in less than two months will be just as ineffective as the previous ones ceteris paribus.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor: I'm rather familiar with the history of this talk page, as much as its TLDR nature and my limited time permitted. I will be first to admit that Panonian had a... peculiar POV in this matter. But he is long gone from this page, and you keep on seeing "nationalist POV-pushers" in anyone who comes here to suggest that the current title is ludicruous. So, let me offer another explanation, which could, by the Occam's razor, be more plausible than your conspiracy theory: People object to this title because they feel it is artificial, contrived and uncommon, and not because they have nationalist motives. Your supply of AGF is pretty short, I must say. As "another nationalist POV-pusher" Srnec said above, that I fail to see a controversy in referring to this entity as "Serbia" in some form, as all our sources, including Tomasevich, do in one form or another. The reading that such title implies some form of legitimacy of that pseudo-state and continuity to some other entity is borderline paranoid only in your mind. The controversy is created by you, as it so often happens when you occupy a talk page, by accusing all others of nationalist POV-pushing and proclaiming yourself as The Only Defender of Truth.
So, since you openly declared that you do not want to be a part of any solution (that does not 100% conform to your view of the matter), I must conclude that you're part of the problem. No such user (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you please stop with the straw men? I did not "declare that I do not want to be part of a solution", I merely stated that a title that calls this entity "Serbia" is unacceptable. Which it is, as it is contrary to the facts (not my own opinion). I am fully open to discussing alternatives that do not make such a misleading claim. An option that comes to mind is "Military Administration in Serbia", which is a format used in other articles on similar territories. And I did not call Srnec a "nationalist POV-pusher" nor do I believe you are such. Please cease repeatedly misrepresenting my position in such a blatant and offensive manner: I don't know with whom you're discussing but it is not I.

However, I must say I do not see any problem to "solve" in the first place. Before we consider any alternative title, why don't you please demonstrate an objective, policy-relevant flaw in the current, historical title (and please don't bring up commonname again). Demonstrate a problem. The title is somewhat awkward at first glance, I'll grant you that, but I would not call it "artificial" or "contrived" - its about as genuine and accurate as it gets.

Furthermore, as Srnec has noted previously, the POV wars of this article require a precise title of that sort, so as to avoid the "Vichy Serbia" POV from being pushed even more actively. It is not the perfect state of affairs, but it is the best we can have. If you believe for one moment that PANONIAN's POV has gone with him - it is probably because you were inactive here. For the third time: that is not an opinion or impression - its stated fact on the part of users Antidiskriminator and WhiteWriter, who do openly profess their belief in the existence of WWII entity by the name of "Serbia". And do still demand that the title of this article be, essentially, "Serbia" ("XY Serbia" or "Serbia under XY", etc..). It is simply that PANONIAN absence has shifted this article more towards neutrality, and now POV-pushing in that same direction seems somewhat less extreme - though its no less a fantasy.

And please generally cut down on the hostility and aggressive tone. -- Director (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing of the "Help needed to resolve the problem - II"

A week ago I wrote my second invitation to editors to bring proposals how to resolve problem with conduct of the editors of this article.

There was only one proposal how to resolve the problem with conduct of the editors of this article. I proposed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but my proposal did not gain full support of editors.

I don't intend to spend more time and energy on this article unless someone presents some evidence that there is a chance to resolve the main problem with this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, i propose to start very simple. What is the attitude of active editors on this page. Do we have a problem about the article title? I say Yes, per arguments above. Others? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith and effort but I don't think wikipedia is democracy. This section is over. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not again! Just so it's clear, no, per arguments above. I've been trying to have a useful dialogue with NSU and Srnec above, but this is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's pointless. Either make a policy-based argument or drop the WP:STICK. I will not engage in more of this nonsense. Peacemaker67 (talk)

Well, WP:STICK doesn't seem to be embraced as this is the fourth such section so consider taking this to AE Peacemaker67.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I briefly entered this debate a while back that until recently the page had been at "Serbia under German occupation" (I thought we were trying to change a long-standing name, or some version of it). The discussions cited in support of that move in April are here, and seem to involve about three editors, with only Peacemaker unequivocally in favour of the move. Nor was it conducted as an RM - in effect it was a unilateral move, with no consensus in any real sense. Since then, we have had I think two RMs, both of which have left us at the bizarre status quo, due to, er, "no consensus". However, if one ranges across the history and entirety of the debates, we can see there was a stable title, which has clear majority support. WP titles can't be run on the basis of unilateral moves away from the common, sensible, logical one to obscure and unclear ones, followed by "oh, but if you want to move it back, you need to do a formal RM and get not only a majority but need unanimity". The onus there is back-to-front and we need to take a step back - that original move should simply be reverted, and those in favour of the "Military Commander" title need to open an RM and get agreement for that change. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa.. not quite. You're missing a few pieces of the puzzle. The name of this article changed rather frequently, and "Serbia under German occupation" was not a long-standing title either. The move by Peacemaker was most certainly not "unilateral", and was supported by - all users involved in the article at that time. A consensus move - hence the fact that it was not opposed, and thus did not (and does not) need an RM. I also would not agree that the current state of affairs is "bizarre" in some way - this is what the thing was called.

As for the "common, sensible, logical one" - it also was introduced without an RM, as a temporary solution over an even worse title (I ought to know - I suggested it). It is also without real support in the sources, and is in fact a-historical (there was no "Serbia" back then) and thus highly in favor of a Serbian nationalist POV. You must remember these are the dreaded "Balkans Articles".

The current title also has significant, I dare say majority support at this time (in spite of the fact that it has "too many words"). The official name of this area is preferred due to the complexity, obscurity, and controversial nature of the subject, and also due to a lack of an NPOV alternative.

P.S. The fact that the (coincidentally) Serbian users on this talkpage continuously stir up trouble with regard to this title really should not be taken as indicative of some sort "failing" in the current state of affairs. -- Director (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

hear, hear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never had the time to delve into the deep history of the page (as evidenced by the fact that I missed the page was moved in April). However, that move was near unilateral - I can find only Peacemaker unequivocally in support in the discussion linked to. As to the title itself, as noted though per endless talkpage discussion, there are plenty of sources that talk about "German-occupied Serbia" or something close; there are virtually none that use this formal title in English. The NPOV argument is a red herring twice over - if that is what it is commonly called, and that is how we style most other occupation pages (which we do), then that is what we call it. And as for the "there was no Serbia", of course there was. Whether it was a sovereign state, or what its exact boundaries were, is neither here nor there. We - and the real world - can talk about the Occupation of the Ruhr easily enough for example. Finally, you are miscounting numbers if you really think the current title is the most preferred one; nor am I Serbian btw. N-HH talk/edits 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ps: also, I don't get the "Serbia" problem on another level - the current title refers to this place being "in Serbia" yet there seems to be no veto on that. It is understood, isn't it, that the phrase "British-occupied Germany" for example means "[that part of] Germany that is occupied by Britain" as much as it does "Germany, which is occupied by Britain"? N-HH talk/edits 11:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply the phrase "in Serbia" is 1) historically accurate, and 2) it makes it clear that this territory itself is not "Serbia". Its precisely because of this that the current title is unacceptable to our resident Serbian users. It could be three words long, but if it includes "in Serbia" (or any formulation that does not imply the thing is "Serbia") - we'd still get this continuous disruption. The idea is to suggest that "this is Serbia!", and that's something that is highly POV and unacceptable to users that base their position objectively on sources.

The term "Serbia" in that context (WWII) is, and was, used as a geographical term, indicating a vaguely-defined area of land, in the same way the terms "Bosnia" or "Slovenia" were used. However, every new Balkans state (Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina included) made the teaching that "Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia always existed!" an integral part of their state school system. Now, of course, we must here imply that Serbia existed when it did not exist (and it did not exist 1918-1945). There are a number of articles like that, plagued by faulty preconceptions instilled by an educational system developed during bitter ethnic conflict (on the part of all of the warring sides). -- Director (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite incorrect, false, bland and untrue explanation of DIREKTOR, N-HH, yes, you are right, and that is fact. This awful title was pushed without anyone's agreement, against wiki rules, and we should restore status quo, before DIREKTORS massive push. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mhm. And have you ever "massively pushed" any alternative that does not basically call this occupation zone "Serbia"? All we ever hear from you are variations on the theme of "XY Serbia" ("occupied Serbia") or "Serbia XY" ("Serbia under occupation").. And besides, you and User:Antidiskriminator openly admitted to pushing the existence of a "Serbia" during WWII: the statement above includes no speculation on my part whatsoever, but mere reiteration of your own stated position. -- Director (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained just above, and others have presumably said previously, the phrase "German-occupied Serbia" does not imply Serbia existed as a sovereign state with definite boundaries nor does it imply that this territory/area constituted the whole of any such Serbia, were it possible to define it. Equally, if it's what sources most commonly use - which it is - it is OK for us to use so long as it is not glaringly POV (which it is not, you have to look for it - and it seems some people are looking very hard). Your ignoring that explanation and simply repeating arguments based on such assertions does not constitute rebuttal. N-HH talk/edits 13:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course that is does not! And i already explained that to DIREKTOR numerous times. There is no other way to explain the area that using word Serbia. Not even to mention numerous sources that use the same term. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Settle down please, WW, I believe we're trying to have a conversation here. -- Director (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH Actually, what it does imply is that a country called "Serbia" existed and was occupied by Germany. "German-occupied Serbia". Serbia exists today as a country, and did basically exist as a country for centuries, apart from the 1918-45 spell. I maintain any person arriving at the page, having heard of Serbia as a country, would inescapably get the impression there was a country there that was occupied. Just like a whole bunch of other countries were "German-occupied" at that time.

Furthermore, the question isn't "why not use German-occupied Serbia?" (for an answer see above), the question is "why should we use it?". And for that question I have no answer. Surely not simply because it has less words than the current, non-misleading title?

To be perfectly clear, though: while I do not object to the current title (being historically accurate) and do support it against any "this is Serbia"-type title, I would not mind a shorter title along the lines of "Military Administration in Serbia", following the example of other similar articles. What is your opinion on that alternative, N-HH? -- Director (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a simple matter of English-language construction that "German-occupied Serbia" does not imply that Serbia is a distinct country or that all of the place known as Serbia was occupied by Germany. That's simply wrong, and, as I said, repeating it over and over does not make it any more true. As for other alternatives, the point about "German-occupied Serbia" is that it is short, clear, and identifies the parties involves - and is also the term, along with close variations, that seems to be most commonly found in real-world literature. It also matches with most of the similar articles here. The current title is lengthy and convoluted yet utterly unclear - "Military Administration in Serbia" is more concise, but again carries no information. "German military administration in Serbia in WW2" might work, and improves on "German-occupied Serbia" by adding a time-point - but it seems we're looking for a solution to a problem that only exists in the minds of one or two editors here, not a solution to a real problem. N-HH talk/edits 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself rather familiar with the English language and its grammar. Yes, the phrase does not imply that all of "Serbia" was "German-occupied". All it does is it says "Serbia" was "German-occupied". But what is "Serbia"? Its a country. When someone says "Serbia", do you think "oh its a vaguely-defined area of land during World War II", or do you think - "a country". The latter implication must be avoided or else the title is POV on what is actually a very sensitive subject.

I hope I can assure you" the problem is not "in anyone's mind", and has plagued this article for years now. This used to be an actual former country article about a World War II "Serbia" ("Nedic's Serbia"). It has since been slowly and painfully "wrested from the clutches" of that POV, but pushing in that direction still has not stopped in any significant way. (ps: As you can actually see just below :)) -- Director (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

N-HH, problem is far bigger than that. So, i will comment this in a true wiki way, with sources.

Sources about country called "Serbia" that existed and was occupied by Germany in WWII.

• "the original state having been in existence before the occupation" (puppet government)
• "fully occupied country" (Serbia)
• "the German military commander appointed a low-grade Serbian Administration often commissioners who were put in charge of the ministries, under the control of Turner and Neuhausen, as a simple instrument of the occupation regime"
• "General Milan NediN, who became the president of the new civil government of Serbia"
• "the other puppet state, Serbia"
• "Germany established the puppet state of Serbia"
• "A puppet state of Serbia was created"
• "a small puppet state of Serbia was established"
• "recreated country of Serbia"
• "The Axis also created two quisling states: Croatia and Serbia"
• "Croatia (Pavelic) and Serbia both established fascist states allied to Germany"

No matter on the fact about implying about Serbia, or not, we have sources that Serbia did existed, and that fact is hidden under the carpet with no real reason. Now, please, can anyone tell me, wh we dont include these sources in the article? Or what are better sources that say opposite? --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean googled, copy-pasted, misrepresented, cherry-picked quotes User:PANONIAN gave to you without either of you reading one of them? :) Without even conducting a proper test or research on this obscure and difficult subject. And thank you for again confirming that you are indeed attempting to imply the existence of a Serbian state here. Please be sure to express "outrage" once more when your POV agenda is explained to others. Also, thank you for once again displaying the fact that you're (topic-banned) User:PANONIAN's WP:MEATPUPPET. Those are his cherry-picked quotes that were thoroughly discredited months and years ago by more detailed and focused sources specifically on the state of affairs in this part of occupied Yugoslavia. -- Director (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As ever, these kind of issues get bogged down in overinterpretation, sometimes from both sides of the fence. It doesn't matter what Serbia was or is exactly. This article is not about Serbia per se, and especially not modern Serbia - it is about a thing that is commonly called and clearly described as "German-occupied Serbia", or something similar. Whether Serbia, or this place, was a state or country - or not - or what its precise borders were, or whether they matched the German-occupied bit, does not matter for the purposes of the title itself. This place is an area - related to the area known as Serbia - known as "German-occupied Serbia", to be further defined and explained in article text. Easy. And finally, by your logic above Director, we cannot talk about "Anglo-Saxon England" because it was not a unified country and is not the same England as today's England. Indeed - that's the point of qualifying adjectives. Nor does it matter btw what you claim the motives of people arguing in favour of such a title allegedly happen to be, as long as the immediate arguments themselves are sound. N-HH talk/edits 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I shall reply in detail.

• @"Nor does it matter btw what you claim the motives of people arguing in favour of such a title allegedly happen to be, as long as the immediate arguments themselves are sound." - There is a lapse in communication here. As I said, I'm not "alleging" anything - I am merely reiterating what the people are saying, as you can see just above (and as I have pointed out). These folks are, and have been, continuously attempting to imply the existence of an imaginary Serbian WWII state. That's what they say, not I. And their immediate arguments, beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT - are non-existent, rather than "unsound".

• @"It doesn't matter what Serbia was or is exactly." Very strange statement...? It does, actually.

• @"This article is not about Serbia per se, and especially not modern Serbia". - Certainly, and I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was making a point re the common meaning of the term "Serbia". The thing was and is a country.

• @"commonly called and clearly described as 'German-occupied Serbia', or something similar." As I have explained - that is not the case, or else we'd have been done with this months ago. Again I must stress the immense complexity of the subject matter, which unfortunately requires some kind of understanding of WWII Yugoslavia. As you might imagine, many very thorough tests were conducted on the subject.

• @"Whether Serbia, or this place, was a state or country - or not - or what its precise borders were, or whether they matched the German-occupied bit, does not matter for the purposes of the title itself." True. But what is your excuse for implying this occupation zone was a country. Argument from ignorance: the question isn't "why not use a title?", the question is "why use it in the first place?". The current title is the historical official name. I mentioned all that you're referring to merely as an attempt to explain why that title is being incessantly pushed on this talkpage. To refer to your example: why would be want to use "Anglo-Saxon England" in the first place?. Obviously that's the commonname over there, but I'm afraid the analogy does not apply here in that regard.

-- Director (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As N-HH has already said, Direktor, the title "German-occupied Serbia" does not in any way "imply this occupation zone was a country." There is far to much mindless repitition on this talk page. N-HH already explained what virtues the title "German-occupied Serbia" has, so why are you asking him to do so again? But if repitition is in vogue, I'll not buck the trend: reliable sources, like Tomasevich, have no compunction about using the term "German-occupied Serbia" or similar and certainly none about calling the territory of the German occupation authority "Serbia". I know nothing of Balkan politics, so I am not sure exactly whose side I end up being on when I advocate not being more sensitive than historians. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugh.. in the end its irrelevant whether it implies that or not - there's no reason to use a random generic cockamamie title like that in the first place. When I talk about the inherent implications of such a phrase (and they most certainly are there) - I'm not thinking up excuses not to use it (there's no relevant justification to use it in the first place) - I'm actually attempting to explain why its being pushed by the Serbian folks going for the "puppet state" POV. Is a title being pushed in accordance with a POV agenda POV in and of itself? That's another question, but a marginal one at this point. -- Director (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I note here that no-one who has advocated "German-occupied Serbia" (with the notable exception of No such user) has expressed an interest (or even offered an opinion) on my suggestions above regarding variations on "Serbia-Banat". "Military Administration in Serbia" needs some disambiguation as the Austrians also had one, but in general terms I am willing to discuss some options around it as a compromise solution. The consistent pushing of only one possible solution (ie it must be "German-occupied Serbia") in face of suggestions by Director and myself of sourced alternatives that meet our concerns indicates to me that there is no intention by some editors to reach a consensus here unless the result is the one that they want. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested several titles besides the current one and "German-occupied Serbia", so certainly there is more than one notable exception (for instance, I suggested "Axis occupation of Serbia in World War II", which you shot down). But what am I to make of Direktor labelling the term a "random generic cockamamie title", when it is used 30 times in Tomsevich's book War and Revolution in Yugoslavia? When it is used by Gerhard Weinberg in World at Arms, and by Sabrina Ramet in The Three Yugoslavias? This leaves me unconvinced that your and Direktor's concerns are reasonable. In no other area of European history do we do this kind of thing.

I have not commented on your Serbia-Banat suggestion because I am not in fact greatly interested in re-titling this article. If you want my opinion, it is that such a title would not be the best of those suggested and not a great enough improvement on the current title to interest me in proposing it. I am engaged in this discussion purely because I think your and Direktor's reasoning is faulty, and that the current title does not conform with Wikipedian usage, but I can stomach it. I've grown used to it. Srnec (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I was also amenable to some variation of "German-occupied Serbia" rather than that specifically and/or to some form of other alternative altogether, as noted in the thread above; but sceptical about the need when we have a more or less obvious, clear option in front of us already, the objections to which remain, as agreed by several contributors here, to be ill-formed (and I've nothing to add that I haven't said already in response to those objections). The current title is, as noted ad nauseam, obscure, unclear and little used in English-language literature. It's a wider WP problem that due to the human tendency/ability to adapt to and accept things around them, such dodgy titles tend to acquire defenders and also people who grow used to them even if they dislike them (per Srnec, for example). Yet when anyone new comes along, as they will regularly, their immediate reaction is to say "WTF?" and start raising objections, which are then shot down by the first group. Hence, we have endless debate, instability and all the while an article stuck at an odd name. N-HH talk/edits 10:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

New source

This looks highly relevant. It is in both English and Serbian, and contains an extensive bibliography and maps. Specifically, it is a PDF of Zoran Janjetović, "Borders of the German occupation zone in Serbia, 1941–44", J. Geogr. Inst. Cvijic, 62(2): 93–115. He once uses the phrase "the territory under the German military commander in Serbia". He also uses, once each, the terms "German-occupied Serbia", "German-occupied zone of Serbia" and "(occupied) Serbian state". Twice he refers to "occupied Serbia" and once to the "German-occupied part of Kosovo". It is more important to use this source to update the article than to argue over the title. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good find. Looks scholarly, although the English is a bit scratchy. Certainly heavily referenced, although mostly with what appear to be local scholars. Certainly something to add to the mix. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've started using this for the new Geography section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed to resolve the problem - II

The discussion was very useful. During discussion two basic positions cristalyzed:

Main proponents	Is there a problem with the title of this article?	Why?	Is there a problem with conduct of this article's editors?	Why?
Peacemaker67 and Direktor (probably supported by Buckshot06 and PRODUCER)	No	After two RMs - the title issue is concluded	Yes	The current title means that this entity was not state because it says "in Serbia". Editors who want to rename this article are POV-pushers struggling to impose their POV — that this entity was actually a state. By doing that they want to win significant point in statehood dispute of this entity.
Antidiskriminator (probably supported by WhiteWriter, 92.15.79.29, Nemambrata, N-HH, Zoupan, Dicklyon and NoSuchUser)	Yes	The current title does not meet requests of Wikipedia:Article titles policy.	Yes	A group of editors don't allow to resolve the title issue. "You get about 10 people commenting, often mostly with a serious investment in the topic, and once as many as three or four insist on a dubious status quo for whatever reason, that acts as an effective veto."

There are maybe a couple of editors who can be added (or removed) to above mentioned list but what is most important is that there is finally some improvement with this article.

Based on the discussions on this page it can be concluded:

• There is no consensus that this article actually has the "title issue".
• There is a consensus that this article has serious problem with conduct of its editors.

Now the main problem can be defined like this:

Problem: This article has serious problem with conduct of one of the following groups of editors (or both?) who:

1. Support renaming of this article because they are POV-pushers struggling to impose their POV, which is that this entity was actually a state.
2. Don't allow to resolve the title issue and insist on a dubious status quo for whatever reason which is as an effective veto.

Are there any proposals how to resolve problem with conduct of the editors of this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I will gladly accept anyone's advice about conduct in order to regain normal title for this article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

not another simplistic and inaccurate wikitable! I note that you are not interested in continuing the policy-based meta discussion that NSU and I discussed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please stop posting these sort of "declarations" where you inaccurately summarize the position of other users and proclaim various "consensuses". RfC/U about whom? Me or you? :) I would be more than happy to put forward a full account on the continuous personal attacks (against Peacemaker particularly) you folks have been posting here months after month. Not to mention that after about two years and two RMs you continue restarting essentially the same issue over and over again. -- Director (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you constantly creating new headings and sections, over and over again? Only logical way i see is to destabilize any attempt to find better useful title for this article with disruptive non helpful spam comments. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already advised against a third RfC in such a short period of time, not to mention that I don't understand the purpose of a user conduct request. RFCC can't impose sanctions on anyone and it can't enforce any kind of a solution regarding content disputes. In fact, you can't even include someone as a participant, if they don't agree to take part in RFCC.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WW, it's rather ironic that you are criticising Director when nearly all the new headings and sections on this talkpage are created by Antidiskriminator. Mind having a go at him about it? Because I'm thoroughly sick of it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC):::

Antid created section in order to propose new solutions toward dispute resolution. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ah, no. It's the same solution. NSU proposed a new approach but Antid has ignored it and recycled the same inaccurate nonsense in a different table. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether Peacemaker and Direktor would comment on the current featured article, Spanish conquest of Guatemala? Specifically, do they think that title implies the existence of state called Guatemala before the Spanish conquest? What is the difference between a title like that and proposed titles like "German-occupied Serbia" or "Serbia under occupation during World War II" for this article? Srnec (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of that part of the world, but it certainly seems ahistorical to me. If there was no Guatemala, it can't have been conquered by the Spanish. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

At least your consistent, but it appears Wikipedia's policies are more lenient. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

well, when I raised this issue at MILHIST a while ago, I got quite a bit of support, so I'm not the only one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Re "Spanish conquest of Guatemala". Well, the "Guatemala" in there is basically the same as the "Serbia" in "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Its used as a geographic term, to denote an area of land - not indicating a state. The whole example has practically nothing to do with this issue. The objection is not against the use of "Serbia" (i.e. "Guatemala") as such (obviously), the objection is against the implication that "Serbia" ("Guatemala") is a country. The title "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" makes no similar implication (such as "German-occupied Serbia"). This is all, of course, on top of Peacemaker's retort. -- Director (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How does "German-occupied Serbia" suggest a state named Serbia and "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" suggests no such thing? I would think that "occupation" implies mere territory while conquest suggests organised resistance. But if there was no organised Guatemala there couldn't have been any organised Guatemalan resistance. Serbia was a perfectly current term in 1941 and there is no doubt that the territory was occupied by Germany. Unlike "Malaysia", which post-dates WWII, "Serbia" was in used before and during WWII. Srnec (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree with Peacemaker that "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" is an unfortunate title, but the implication is weaker: that is not a "country article" (i.e. an article about a political/territorial entity). Compare, for example, "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" and a hypothetical "Spanish-conquered Guatemala" article, with its own infobox etc. Would it not suggest that Guatemala existed more strongly? Rather than simply being a geographic term used inappropriately out of necessity?

My problem is with the format "XY Serbia" (e.g. "Occupied Serbia") or "Serbia XY" (e.g. "Serbia under occupation"). Such titles are basically "Serbia", and thus essentially proclaim this occupation zone to be "Serbia" - when no such entity existed for 20 years. I hope I've been somewhat clearer. -- Director (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But the form "Occupation of Serbia" would not be a "country article", so your objection cannot hold against that proposal. And does "Spanish-conquered Guatemala" really suggest that Guatemala existed more strongly than "Spanish conquest of Guatemala", given that both clearly refer to a Guatemala that was conquered by Spain?

As an aside, you will always have my support to remove misleading infoboxes. This article, in any guise and under any title, doesn't need one. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant a 'political/territorial entity article', not necessarily a "country" as such (it could be a region, a colony, a Reichkomissariat, etc.). -- Director (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Director and I are not on the same page on this. I believe both formulations re:Guatemala are equally ahistorical. To my understanding of the history and contemporary names of regions in Mesoamerica, Spanish conquest of Guatemala should probably be Spanish conquest of the Maya or something like that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Peacemaker, that "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" is unfortunate. My point is that the title of this article is being held to a different standard from that of a recent featured article. Director, I see no difference in kind between "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" and, say, "Axis occupation of Serbia" except that in the former case "Guatemala" is an anachronism whereas in the latter case "Serbia" was a contemporary term. There is also no difference in the implications of "Spanish-conquered Guatemala" and "Axis-occupied Serbia" with respect to the existence of Guatemala/Serbia, although only the latter term is idiomatic in English. Srnec (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Srnec, I don't think it is appropriate to creating another unfortunate (and ahistorical) and imprecise article title here or being lenient in respect of WP policy in such a highly disputed area as the Balkans. A cursory look at the talkpage of Spanish conquest of Guatemala indicates that Mesoamerica does not share the highly charged environment we deal with in many articles covered by the Balkans military history taskforce. Per WP:TITLE, once we move past WP:COMMONNAME, then all I believe is needed is a descriptive title that unambiguously defines the scope of this article (per WP:PRECISION) as being about an occupied territory, not an occupied country. If you look at my initial comments in the move discussion here [15], you will see that I have consistently treated this issue as one where the key issue is WP:PRECISION. In my view German occupation territory of Serbia or a similar formula would be an alternative option that addresses WP:PRECISION. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

But the main point of all objections is that Serbia is the name of that occupied territory, and that usage of that term does not necessarily imply that it is a country. That, in 1941, there was no region officially called 'Serbia', is not an anachronism, because one used to exist, in somewhat different borders, until 1918 and from 1943. Our sources does not seem to be overly concerned with that.
Interestingly enough, I'm having a dispute with Panonian (!) in Talk:Central Serbia#Does this region still exist? where he claims that Central Serbia does not exist anymore, because it was erased from some Law on statistical areas.
I guess I could live with German occupation territory of Serbia, but it's neither fish (used in sources) nor fowl (common). No such user (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your dispute with Panonian doesn't surprise me. The "fish nor fowl" thing should be "chicken and egg" in my opinion. My understanding is that WP:COMMONNAME comes first, then we look at the principles of WP:TITLE. It's no good to say it's neither used in sources or common. My understanding is that we do the WP:COMMONNAME test first, then if there isn't one (I really can't see how there can...), we look at the principles. It seems to me that nearly everyone here wants to keep WP:COMMONNAME up their sleeve so they can have it both ways, and the policy just doesn't read like that (in letter or spirit, IMO). If we could just get past WP:COMMONNAME we could have a sensible discussion about the principles, but no-one seems interested. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because you insist on precision, but nobody is denying the precision of the current title. The problem is that it is uncommon and unclear. Is even a user familiar with World War II Yugoslavia going to recognise immediately what this page is about from the title? I think not, whereas "Axis occupation of Serbia" or "German-occupied Serbia" is immediately recognisable and just as precise. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Srnec, your comment immediately above is exactly why I insist on precision. "Serbia" wasn't occupied by the Axis. It was occupied by the Germans (who had increasing help from Bulgarian troops over time), but it was a German occupied and administered territory. The fact that you have suggested "Axis occupation of Serbia" is just as precise as the current title strengthens my concern that there are a number of editors commenting here who don't know enough about the arrangements that were in place from 1941-1944. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Natural languages are not meant for this kind of precision. By "Axis" I mean the signatories of the Tripartite Pact. That is all. Serbia was occupied by Germany and Bulgaria, both signatories. I mean by "Axis" to exclude the rejoinder that Serbia wasn't occupied by only Germans. Parts of what could be considered Serbia were occupied by Hungary, but there is no possible way to make the borders of the territory this article is about constant and unchanging, so I don't see that it matters. I don't have a problem calling it a German occupation because it was a German occupation from the command-and-control standpoint and in terms of the civil administration, but much of Serbia was actually occupied by Bulgarian troops. That's all. The current title is not perfectly precise either because the office of "Military Commander in Serbia" did not exist during the whole time period covered. Or are we to assume that the term covers all the HQs whatever their name? But isn't that imprecise? Srnec (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My reading of Tomasevich—I have Occupation and Collaboration right here, and I read The Chetniks not long ago but it is now in the library—only confirms me in my opinions. For instance, he casually refers to Serbia as a "country" and has no qualms talking about "occupied Serbia", even referring to it as a "state jurisdiction". Srnec (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah no, actually. This article is not about what 'could be considered Serbia', it is about a specific occupied territory with specific boundaries. Hungary annexed Backa and Baranja. They did not occupy/annex any part of the territory this article refers to, which all fell under German military government, assisted by a Volksdeutsche administration in the Banat, ethnic Albanians in northern Kosovo and the Nedic regime in Serbia proper. The article Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 deals with the area of modern-day Serbia that was occupied/annexed by Hungary. This article relates to a region the Germans called "Alt Serbien" plus the Banat and a bit of northern Kosovo (Tomasevich 2001 p. 63). There were only very minor boundary changes of this territory during 1941-1944. Your assertion is wrong about the "Military Commander in Serbia", because the function and role remained but was given to generals that had larger commands instead of to a general who only had that responsibility. For example, the "Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia" (Bohme) still performed the role of "Military Commander in Serbia" as well (Tomasevich 2001 p. 69). Even Felber was also the "Military Commander in Serbia" in addition to his role as Befehlshaber Sud-Ost (Tomasevich 2001 p. 72). I have copies of both Tomasevich volumes myself, and I'm pretty familiar with them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that the term "Axis" is accurate and the only reason I have used it is because Serbia was not occupied by only German troops, not even the subject of this article as it stands was occupied by only German troops. My whole point about Hungary was that part of Bačka could be considered part of Serbia and that therefore the title "Axis occupation of Serbia" would allow for a more expansive conception of Serbia. I have no desire to expand the bounds of this article, but I also have no desire to limit it for all time. If we want to keep it about the German zone, that's fine. That's a changing zone, but it is clearly defined. It would also be clearly defined if "Serbia" were taken in the same sense as "Guatemala" in the article title that started this whole conversation. And there would be nothing wrong with that. It's just editorial decisions.

I do wonder why the term "Serbia" poses so many problems, but "Bačka" doesn't. Does the Hungarian article imply that Bačka was a sovereign country in 1941?

I think your citation "Tomasevich 2001 p. 72" is misleading, as the author does not say on that page that Felber was "Military Commander in Serbia". A minor matter, yes, but in a dispute about terminology it is not acceptable to play so fast and loose. My whole point was that the post "Military Commander in Serbia" (Militärbefehlshaber Serbien) did not exist during the whole period covered by this article—although I may be wrong. I am not talking about "function and role" but about the actual name of a command. If there was no Mbfh. Serbien throughout the whole period, then the title is imprecise. Srnec (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My issue with the article title has always been about precision and using historically accurate (and properly sourced) terms for the occupied area. In the MILHIST discussion linked below, it was pretty clear that MILHIST editors who contributed to the discussion thought that

• effort should be made to use contemporary placenames
• using strictly modern placenames is misleading and anachronistic and encourages a false sense of continuity
• we shouldn't rewrite history
• we should be linking to the name contemporary with events
• occupation policies for each of its constituent/replacement entities differed considerably, so separate articles seem sensible
• Where relevant, the articles should note differences in the territorial composition of these entities from other entities of the same name to avoid confusion

I would oppose the expansion of the scope of this article beyond its current scope, (ie to a more "expansive conception of Serbia"). This article is about the territory under German military government. Setting the "false sense of continuity" issue aside for a moment, the history of those 3.5 years is complex enough without adding further complexity. "Axis occupation" is imprecise because the scope of this article is the area under German military government. The Bulgarians were under German command, and the Germans continued to govern the whole territory, so even from a legal perspective it remained a German occupied territory throughout, not an Axis one.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the issue with Serbia is either, it's in the current title. Further to that, the use of "Serbia" in the context of "German-occupied Serbia" completely excludes the Banat, which was an important part of the territory in economic and demographic terms, and made up around 13% of the population. This is probably why several sources actually refer to this area as "Serbia-Banat". Which could be a solution, as in Serbia-Banat (1941-1944). It may not be the most common of all the many names, but it is used in sources, including these ones [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], it avoids the issues of "Axis" vs "German", and even "territory" or "occupied" in the article title. It actually might be a good policy-based solution to the current impasse, and Banat (1941–1944) (which is a WP:SPINOFF of this article) already uses that article title style. The same approach could be used to address the valid point you made about Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 (which was actually an annexation, not an occupation) by moving it to Bačka and Baranja (1941-1944). What do you think? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This article used to rest under the title Serbia (1941–1944) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (give or take an en-dash), so it may as well end up in a full circle. However, in my view, it de-emphasizes its nature of an occupation zone (and leaves its status ambiguous) even more than "German-occupied Serbia" and likes.
If we analyse WP:PRECISION, it states that "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.", and then goes on to examples and disclaimers that "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria." I think that you will agree that the current title is over-precise, because it refers to the translation of German official title, virtually unknown to wider readership.
On the end, what is the downside of German occupation of Serbia? It clearly states that it was an occupied zone. Tomashevich [24] names the chapter "German system of occupation in Serbia", first words of it are "Serbia proper", uses "This section describes the German occupation regime in Serbia", and on p.65 says "these regulations applied only to German-occupied Serbia". I can sort of understand Direktor's concern that it implies existence of pre-1941 Serbia, but I hope that we have proven so far that this concern is too far-fetched. There certainly was an entity called Serbia before WW1 and after WW2, having different borders but the same core, and our sources name the subject unambiguously "Serbia" in multiple forms. We cannot put every possible disclaimer into the name such as Independent State of Croatia (Axis puppet state)" just because that entity wasn't independent: it was its common (and official) name. For WW2 Serbia, unfortunately, "official" and "common" do not coincide. No such user (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no WP:COMMONNAME, which is precisely why we have the current official title. The NDH example isn't really relevant, as the official and WP:COMMONNAME are one and the same. I can only assume you have read all the previous discussions, and must know what my line of argument is in respect of WP:COMMONNAME. Tomasevich introduces this territory by describing one element of it as "Serbia proper". That's not all of it though, because the other parts that were included in it were the Banat (quite a large area) and northern Kosovo (a pretty small area). He makes that clear. I don't see how Serbia-Banat (1941—1944) is more ambiguous than German occupied Serbia. I don't agree that the current title is overly precise. This is an area that needs to be defined precisely for the reasons that are clear from many threads of this talkpage over months now. All that aside, if you feel it is absolutely necessary to have "occupied" in it, "German" should be used rather than "Axis" per my discussion with Srnec. I certainly would be willing to discuss German-occupied Serbia-Banat (which should not need disambiguation as I am not aware of any other time that Serbia and/or the Banat were occupied by the Germans). I continue to share Director's concern about the implication of the use of "Serbia" on its own, and believe that "Serbia-Banat" does not have that implication. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is not a single WP:COMMONNAME; instead, there is a spectrum of descriptive names in common use. I'm broadly familiar with the history of the talk page, but you must admit it was too tl;dr for a side observer to comprehend. I don't like variations on the Serbia-Banat theme at all, because they aren't used either in sources or in common parlance. While Banat technically was part of this entity, the focus of this article, as of most of our sources, is on Serbia proper, so Banat should be mentioned firs and taken out of the equation (and certainly from the title) second. Again, I think you seek for too much precision, something that, as Srnec said above, "Natural languages are not meant for." As for the statement "This is an area that needs to be defined precisely for the reasons that are clear from many threads of this talkpage over months now" -- sorry, I disagree: I suspect that history of this talkpage, full of conflict, is what obscures your perspective, and make you refuse proposals for a simple-minded, descriptive name.
Anyway: since we do not seem to converge anywhere, I will rest my case for a while. More important than the title, contents of this page are now more accurate, detailed and sourced than a year ago, for which I commend you. I still disagree with your and Direktor's reasoning, but at the moment it should probably be left at "no consensus" position. No such user (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree about the Banat, as that region was a large fraction of the Territory, had some legislative links to the puppet regimes, strong economic links to the Serbian National Bank established by the Germans, was the main source of SS-Prinz Eugen, and remained under the direct control of the military commander throughout. Serbia-Banat is used in sources, per my links above. Perhaps when I have expanded the article to cover the full scope of the arrangements across the whole territory, this will become clearer. Nevertheless, this has been a useful and civilised discussion (which has been rare on this page as you are aware). Thanks for noticing the improvements to the content and for your interest and comments. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about ahistorical titles of other articles

Here is the discussion I'm referring to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_113#Historical_periods_and_toponyms. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your question was: " Essentially, the question is whether it is ok to create articles about the occupation of a topographical area in WW2. The newly created article is Occupation of Serbia in World War II. See this discussion. My query is whether it is ok to create such articles." (diff)

The answer: "the Germans effectively(?) broke up Yugoslavia, and occupation policies for each of its constituent/replacement entities differed considerably, so separate articles seem sensible. Where relevant, the articles should note differences in the territorial composition of these entities from other entities of the same name though to avoid confusion" (diff)

Conclusion: No, you did not raise this issue at MILHIST. No, you did not get "quite support there". Your opinion was that the article in question "is a WP:POVFORK of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia that should just be a redirect. This is not the first time you try to misinterpret other discussions on RSN or WikiProject Military history in order to support your POV. Please don't do it anymore. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost speechless. You twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. "Pot, this is kettle, over..." You are the king of cherrypickers, Antidiskriminator. I abase myself in your presence! Clearly that discussion on MILHIST in which I used Occupation of Malaysia in WWII as an example, was about the exact issue I was discussing with Srnec, ie the ahistorical naming of an article using the name of an entity that did not exist at the time (ie Malaysia). Which was exactly what Srnec and I were talking about regarding Guatemala. Talk about misrepresentation! If this continues, I'll have to put you up for some kind of award. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Miss Representation? :) -- Director (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR: Please stop calling me names.

The discussion you pointed did not confirm your point based on example you used. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in your opinion on this. It is just blatant misrepresentation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a joke, Antidiskriminator, it wasn't intended to offend ("calling you names"?). If you want I can strike the comment, no problem. -- Director (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate if you could strike your comment please.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if both of you could please strike comments in which you were calling me names ("king of cherrypickers" and Miss Representation).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Peacemaker67.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you DIREKTOR.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a move in good faith

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Neither the original nor the alternate proposal have achieved consensus in almost three weeks. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia → German-occupied Serbia or → Military Administration in Serbia (see Alternate proposal, below) – The title of this article seems improper. In good faith, I propose the article be renamed to German-occupied Serbia. This seems most in line with currently used sources (counting rearrangements of the words as the same). This is also apparently supported by prior research on this page. --Nouniquenames 04:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Welcome, Nouniquenames. I consider it might have been better if you had attempted to have a discussion about the title before proposing this move, because you could have found out that User:PANONIAN's "prior research" is completely flawed and useless. But since you have... Rather than repeat yet again my posts made here [25] about this exact move, I will just observe that it is the same move that was the subject of an RM closed on 21 August as Not Moved. Not that any consensus is fixed in stone, but the number of RMs and new threads about the title of this article is really getting ridiculous. User:PANONIAN's Google hit numbers you have linked to as "prior research" that "apparently" supports this proposed title are completely inaccurate and misleading, and should not be used for any purpose, let alone to justify this move. They are not actual hits, but the front page "Google estimate" which turns out to actually be a small number of hits. Here is what PANONIAN said the hits were [26] (797, a huge number), and here is the actual number of hits [27] (24) as shown on the last page of hits. Even those would need to be looked at to ensure they aren't actually referring to something else. Another example of the unreliability of PANONIAN's "prior research" is the supposed 179 hits for "Serbia under German occupation", which is actually 72 by "Google estimate" [28], but turns out to actually be a total of 17 real hits [29]. Again they need to be looked at in some detail to check they are even about this territory. So, really, 24 vs 17. There are many names used for this territory, and this one has no more discernable commonality than any other. There is no WP:COMMONNAME for this territory. If you want to have a discussion based on WP:TITLE, I'm happy to do that, but please check the "prior research" before linking it here as support for a move. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The link to that research was just gravy on the mashed potatoes, and, based upon your concerns, I removed it. I started by looking at the links listed in the references section. The title this article now has seems both unlikely and unnecesary for an encyclopedia. The title I suggested has been suggested before, and seems a more likely and still factual title. Apparently there was some disagreement in prior attempt(s) to move this page, and I read above that there were concerns about another editor suggesting a move. I am an uninvolved editor. I found out about this for the first time when reading your posts at AN/I and AE. Perhaps all involved can clearly communicate based upon the current article title and the proposed article title using policies, precedents, and, if necessary, even WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT as arguments. After all, an honest look at the move can't hurt anything. --Nouniquenames 07:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, I oppose the move because I consider the proposed title is an ambiguous or inaccurate name for the article subject, even though it is used in reliable sources. It is ambiguous because it implies the pre-existence of a defined "Serbia" to be occupied. Between 1918-1941 there was no defined "Serbia", the Germans defined it and gave it an official name when they occupied that part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I believe your proposed title should be avoided (per WP:UCN) for that reason even though it is more frequently used by reliable sources than the current official title. There are many names for this subject, several of them almost equally common, but the more common ones have problems with ambiguity, so it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the other sourced names, of which the curent name is one. I've identified other sourced names that could be used, such as a variation on "Serbia-Banat" which slightly better defines the article subject than your proposal. Although "Serbia under German occupation" is considerably worse than your proposal. I also WP:DONTLIKEIT :-) Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So, based on your response, it became an area called Serbia and was (already) occupied by German forces. Based on that, the proposed title would seem logical. --Nouniquenames 03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire. Based on my response, the proposed name would seem ambiguous. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose on numerous grounds. The proposed title is not, in fact, the commonname. And didn't we just finish with this a brief while ago? N.b. among the many other reasons described ad nauseam in the previous RM, an article with such a title would be a clear WP:REDUNDANTFORK with the Axis occupation of Serbia article. -- Director (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title "German-occupied Serbia" is descriptive, commonly used in sources (but not THE most commonly, admittedly -- they use a variety of names) and satisfies WP:NDESC: "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions." I cannot accept Direktor's reasoning that it reflects a Serbian nationalist POV, and I think that such reading is way too sensitive. German-occupied Europe certainly does not imply that Germans occupied all of Europe. The problem with the current title is not just that I WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- pretty much every side editor who stumbled on this talk page said that they don't like it. And, last but not the least, the current title was not introduced by a wide consensus, but by a rather quick agreement of two or three editors who were active at the talk page. No such user (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  P.S. Here are the results from Google Book Search for the exact string "German-occupied Serbia". I do not want to prove that it is the most common name, but that it is a common name, and that our sources do not have particular qualms using it:

10 top sources using "German-occupied Serbia"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tomashevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, p. 203: "Hitler's decision to dismember Yugoslavia after the conquest effectively divided the Volksdeutsche among four different state jurisdictions: German- occupied Serbia (the Yugoslav Banat), " Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Serbia: the history behind the name, p. 141: "Those fortunate or near enough fled to German-occupied Serbia or to Italian-occupied coastal areas;" Sabrina P. Ramet, The three Yugoslavias: "An estimated 120,000 Serbs were deported from the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) to German-occupied Serbia," Gerhard L. Weinberg, A World At Arms: "In German-occupied Serbia, the major economic aim of the Germans, the exploitation of the Bor copper mines, was attained," David Cesarani, Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies: "In German-occupied Serbia, local military commanders included male Gypsies with the thousands of Jews shot in reprisals" Jeanette Keith, Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Fight: "Since April 17, Yugoslavia had ceased to exist as an independent State; in German-occupied Serbia, ltalian-occupied Dalmatia," Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Hitler's new disorder: "Serbs left in tens of thousands — 5,000-10,000 to Italian-occupied Montenegro, 23,000 to German-occupied Serbia." Nigel Thomas, Wehrmacht Auxiliary Forces: "Einsatzgruppe 'Sudost', formed in early 1942, covered German-occupied Serbia, Greece and from late 1943 Albania;" János Bársony, Ágnes Daróczi, Pharrajimos: The Fate of the Roma During the Holocaust: " In German-occupied Serbia, the concentration camp for the Roma was set up in Nis"

• Searching for similar string "German occupation of Serbia" yields similar count and quality of results. The current title, "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" has the grand total of "about 5" [30] No such user (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support for "German-occupied Serbia" - or alternatively some close variation of it, for example possibly with "during WW2" added, per all the discussion above. The current title is rarely seen in real-world sources and utterly uninformative as a description. By contrast, the proposed title is commonly seen in real-world sources in some variation or other and clearly descriptive. The oft-repeated objections that there was no such state or even place as Serbia, that not all of "Serbia" was occupied and/or that it is a POV step too far in favour of Serbian nationalism are, as noted, either just plain odd arguments or irrelevant to the precise naming issue at hand. And the reason why this keeps coming up should not be a reason to shut this down, but instead a prompt to people to start thinking that maybe there is a real problem with the current title, which a succession of different people coming across it are flagging up, and which can be solved once and for all. N-HH talk/edits 13:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support Per my reasons presented above, per nominator and User:N-HH. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, there can't be a WP:COMMONNAME for a region that existed neither as a sovereign state nor as an administrative unit.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't there? I'm not sure I understand the point. And surely the article here is about an administrative unit? N-HH talk/edits 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a clearly defined German occupation territory (under German military government) which included pre-Balkan Wars Serbia (circa 1912), plus the Banat and also a small part of northern Kosovo. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, hence my confusion over the original observation. N-HH talk/edits 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. It just occurred to me reading N-HH's post below: does everyone here know about the Axis occupation of Serbia article? And the fact that Serbia was to all intents and purposes occupied by the Germans almost exclusively? In addition to the other arguments against this move, WP:POVFORK/REDUNDANTFORK is a little something to consider. -- Director (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not until the other day. I don't understand what your point - are you saying that article should be deleted as a POV fork; or that its existence has some impact on what name we give this article? N-HH talk/edits 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Axis occupation of Serbia article is a completely ahistorical WP:REDUNDANTFORK which is supposed to be about the Axis occupation of all of the territory which is now Serbia, which includes Croatian (NDH), Hungarian, Bulgarian, Albanian annexations of Yugoslav territory and this territory as well. It's bizarre. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I get the point it is trying to make, but it does not constitute a coherent or discrete topic as commonly understood. We have the territories and divisions as they were during WW2, which is what matters. N-HH talk/edits 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is about one of the several standard-issue German occupation territories. To make it about the occupation of Serbia, as such, is to create an obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK. That article over there was described as a fork, but it was kept - on the grounds that this article is about a German institution, not the occupation of Serbia as such. k? Simple, and very straightforward, and I don't buy that you didn't understand my point. There is simply no way this project can justify having the "German-occupied Serbia" article and the "Axis occupation of Serbia" article. I'm assuming here you're aware of the fact that basically all of present-day Serbia was under German occupation? -- Director (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that article could one day be merged into this article. That really doesn't affect the name change proposed here, but it's an interesting point for afterward. --Nouniquenames 03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Support per No such user and N-HH. I don't think I have much to add to what they say. "German-occupied Serbia" is indeed common in the literature, and much more understandable to the reader than the current convoluted title. By the way, what's with the disruptive "counter" move proposal immediately below? Athenean (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And there's not much to say to that other than "no its not the commonname". And why is presenting another alternative to the current title "disruptive" of all things? That's what I'd call posting an RM on the same subject twice in two months (e.g. this thing). -- Director (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the instructions at WP:RM, in bold face font (which I have replicated here), Do not put more than one move request on the same article talk page, as this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. --Nouniquenames 03:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that if posting an RM on the same subject twice in two months, posting a third RM while the second RM is still open is even more disruptive. Athenean (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; obvious WP:COMMONNAME fail. bobrayner (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is surely one of those situations where there isn't a clear winner on a discrete common name - we're talking more about various competing similar or not-so-similar descriptive titles, all of which are common enough in different contexts and writings, which we need to pick something from. However, we can say with certainty that the current title isn't even in the running and the above proposal beats it on the common name score by a long, long way. N-HH talk/edits 08:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Either it is, or it is not, the common name. It is not, because there isn't one. We don't just look at the common name score, we apply the principles of WP:TITLE to select a sourced title that isn't ambiguous (among other things) and that was a significant reason why we ended up with the one we have. The proposed title is ambiguous. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is by far more common name then current one... --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Its also in-line with your POV. "Commonname" means "the most common name", not "any more common name that I think might help me push a Serbian puppet state". -- Director (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mere Google Book hit numbers do not clinch things, not least becasue sometimes the one phrase can refer to different things and also because we are talking about variations on descriptive titles rather than explicit "names" as such, but in fact of course "German-occupied Serbia" has far, far more than any other suggested variant I've seen (hundreds, compared to less than five for example for the current title). Tomasevich - who is surely not a Serbian nationalist and is probably the most cited writer for this page as a whole - seems to use it quite happily over and over again as his most common term for referring to this same place as far as I can tell (with some hedging around the Banat area). All this suggests, prima facie, that it is the common name, and we need something strong to rebut that. "POV" exclusions to common names that are happily used in the real world have to be pretty explicit and understood. You can't just assert such a claim, or invent your own rationalisation as to why a particular title could be seen as POV if one chooses to look at it that way. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Somehow that line of argument always pops up when Google testing does not support the proposed name. And let us not forget the fifteen or so other objections to this proposal. -- Director (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - there are more sources for name "German-occupied Serbia" than for "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Second name have support from only one English source which is 40 years old. Nemambrata (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; per the numerous valid and convincing arguments set forth by Peacemaker, Director, ZjarriRrethues, and bobrayner. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: the proposed title is much more common than the current one. The current one is actually never used in literature as a proper noun (with "Territory" spelled uppercase). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFF (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that RJFF (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Been kind of expecting this, out of experience. After two weeks of no activity a user (that didn't even sign his two posts) mysteriously appears to vote just now that EdJohnston has proposed on WP:AE that this article be move-blocked for a year. This is very shady. Imo the inescapable conclusion is that the idea is to move the article and have the new title protected by admin action. Always suspicious votes on these RMs, likely more on the way.

And shouldn't this RM have been closed at this point? After almost three weeks and two weeks of inactivity? -- Director (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RM will be opened for 2 weeks. And i will not allow this bull...it. User is here for years. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And User:WhiteWriter appearing immediately in two seconds to defend the guy.. wow, déjà vu And how did you learn so instantly how long the user was around? :)

The RM is up for 18 days and has been inactive alone for almost two weeks. And canvassing isn't sockpuppeteering, WW. You can be for years and still be canvassed because an admin proposed a move block on AE. Anyone else coming, WW? -- Director (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, everything matched as you planed! Or maybe not. We will see will you (or your friends) act in the same way for editors supporting your view. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're asking me to canvass in response to your canvassing? :) Please, WW.. you're insulting my intelligence and probably that of most participants here. Just stop. You're making it more obvious. -- Director (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am informing editor of this comment, not worthy of a reply. You are so proficient in GAMING THE SYSTEM and TRAVELING CIRCUS that you make completly unrelated things obvious. Bravo. I am out of this insane conversation. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For your information: I just like to participate in RM discussions: I regularly check the list of open RMs at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and choose to express my opinion on the RMs that seem the most interesting to me (some examples from my recent contributions: List of extinct flora of Australia, List of caliphal governors of Sind, Paris-Orly Airport, The LSD Story, Vushmgir, Palmyra, New York, Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Ram Avatar Sharma). No one has canvassed me. I should have known that this subject is so heated that participating in the discussion leads to immediate personal reactions. --RJFF (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Peacemaker, Direktor, et al. Distinction between labels of convenience and actual naming should be made. Ramming move proposal after move proposal through on a controversial topic distracts from actual content improvement (and, IMO borders on outright disruption). Would be amenable to the alternate proposal below. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why this RM wasn't simply stricken, and Nouniquenames reported. There's enough disruption here as it is, and now, thanks to this nonsense, the article may well end up needlessly move-protected for a year.

"Proposed in good faith"? What, as opposed to proposing in "bad faith"? -- Director (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I propose that this RM stays open for at least 14 days, just on procedural grounds. Whatever decision is to be made, it should be reached by a significant number of editors, so that we don't have further quarrels if a real consensus was obtained. No such user (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that as long as there isn't any obvious ballot-box stuffing. The more uninvolved editors the better as far as I am concerned. That way we either get a real wider community consensus that with any luck will actually be based on WP policy (not just a whole pile of the usual suspects who just don't like it) and hopefully that means the title will be stable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Very hard to imagine an RM without the three or four Serbian users voting in concert, whether for or against. We even had accounts created specifically to change this article's title. -- Director (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Related WikiProjects have need notified about this request on talk pages. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Mhm. Is that supposed to justify the future appearance of your pals here? Just like in the previous two RMs? Be certain that you're going up on report this time alongside Antid should more evidence of blatant WP:CANVASSING appear. I do believe a clear pattern will have presented itself at that point. -- Director (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I cant wait to see that WP:BOOMARANG. I have a lot of evidences also, but for something else. Now get off me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes, just no more obvious WP:CANVASSING, please, if its not too much to ask. A third canvassed RM would be a bit too much, don't you think?

Your friends and acquaintances began appearing about this same time in the previous RM as well, so forgive me if I find your notice above a tad foreboding ("RM not going as planned again? Call in the cavalry!.. again! Oh wait, I better make it appear as though they came because of this...") -- Director (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, i learned from the best. Thank you for that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The circle is now complete [31]? In that case, allow me to impart another piece of wisdom upon you: [32] -- Director (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Only an accent of evil, yes, indeed! And too bad about Bugs Bunny! :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

How about Military Administration in Serbia or German Military Administration in Serbia, as a compromise version? The format (or a variation thereof) seems standard for this type of occupation zone (German military administration in occupied France during World War II; Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France; German military administration in occupied Poland..). It also enjoys widespread use in sources: there are about 120 publications that use the specific term, including Tomasevich, Ramet, Kroener, Browning, etc. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Certainly prefer this to "German-occupied Serbia". At least it is consistent with the titles of other similar entities during WWII. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's utterly unclear and generic terminology - it doesn't say whose administration and it doesn't refer to a foreign occupation. At face value, it could simply mean a period of internal martial law at any point in time; it could even simply refer to how the Serbian armed forces are administered. And, despite the claims above, it is not "consistent with the titles of other similar entities during WWII" - the umbrella page for starters is called "German-occupied Europe" (which, note, does not imply Europe is a country, or that all of Europe was occupied). The table there clearly shows "occupied" or "occupation of" dominating the terminology. N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You can't be serious? You appear yet again to be displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject and nature of this article, and even WP:TITLE for that matter. This article deals with a "standard-issue" Nazi German military occupation zone. There were six such zones, and five of them have articles. Besides this one, that's four articles - three of which use a variation on the theme of "Military Administration in". The Axis occupation of Serbia article is what you're talking about.

What's more "generic" than 'German-occupied Serbia'? And where exactly does it say the WP:TITLE need state exactly "who, where, and when occupied whom, and how".

Seriously, N-HH, this is the fourth time you've made statements and bold claims without fully understanding the nature and history of the dispute you've entered, not to mention the complex and difficult subject matter. I get that you want to "rise above the quibbling" and that you'd really "like" a simple title like "German-occupied Serbia" - but I think its about time to actually read the sources and familiarize yourself with the obscure topic you're talking about. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH. I might point out that the ones in that table that have "occupied" or "occupation of" in the article title were countries or in one case (the Channel Islands), clearly defined entities before the war. "Serbia" was not, so your point is moot as far as I am concerned. The entities that were similar use the "Military Administration" approach. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am serious, and stand by all the points I have made. Please quit with the "you don't understand this topic" and "go and do your research" etc too. As for what is "generic" and WP:TITLE, please see the second sentence of that policy - "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles"; see also the requirement for "precision". I explained clearly why this proposed title is ambiguous and unclear. Perhaps you'd like to read what I said again before sounding off at me. As for the "no such thing as Serbia", or rather "no such clearly defined thing", we've been over that 1000 times. It's a debatable point and irrelevant to this name anyway. And I have no idea why I am being recommended an article that is being attacked, probably correctly, as a POV fork anyway. N-HH talk/edits 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, deny everything and cherry-pick the arguments to reply to. "It doesn't matter what Serbia was or is".. Pff, who needs research, right?

This proposed title is not at all ambiguous. There was only one thing in this universe that was ever called "Military Administration in Serbia". That title distinguishes this article most clearly from any other entity in the entire spectrum of human knowledge.

The article in question (Axis occupation of Serbia) is currently not being "attacked as a fork". It had been "attacked", but in the end the matter was dropped - as this article is about a German occupation zone, not the occupation of Serbia. Note the difference, please. -- Director (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't get my point when I say "it doesn't matter what Serbia was or is". There's no point explaining it yet again, but it's got nothing to do with ignorance or lack of research. As for ambiguity, see this, for example. As for lack of clarity, see - again - my initial explanation as to how it will potentially read to the passing non-expert reader. Finally, I don't understand the difference. It seems to me, semantics aside, that they refer to the same thing as a topic to be addressed in an encyclopedia. N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"There was only one thing in this universe that was ever called "Military Administration in Serbia"" -- Quite unlike Imperial and Royal Military Administration in Serbia. No such user (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Some sort of expansion seems necessary, like "German Military Administration in Serbia". Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad point. @No such user, there's the "Army", and then there's the "Royal Army". I trust you don't find the two blurring beyond distinction? And thank you for providing another example of the common usage of the proposed title format.

To be clear, however: even though the adjective is imo unnecessary, I would not really mind "German Military Administration in Serbia". Though I thought we were concerned with conciseness.. -- Director (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I could live with "German military administration in Serbia", although I still think it comes second best to the concise description afforded by the main proposal of "German-occupied Serbia". The latter is shorter, yet nonetheless makes clear we are talking about a defined territory, and an occupation of that territory - which by definition involves administration of some sort - rather merely than a more abstract process of administration. (And no, per past debate, I don't think the "in" is a crucial requirement or makes a substantive difference). N-HH talk/edits 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think "it has less words" is a policy-relevant argument. Especially taking into consideration all the objections: highly misleading, Serbian-nationalist POV, obviously not the commonname, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, does not describe the subject of the article (a German occupation entity), etc.

Shall I copy-paste the objections from the previous RM? -- Director (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And shall I then copy-paste all the refutation of those claims, and then we can really have fun? (and what FORK has to do with article title debates is anyone's guess). I was responding favourably to a compromise proposal here, while explaining that I still prefer the first alternative. There's no need to dive in with more carping on about that first alternative. 08:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you haven't really responded favorably to the compromise proposal - if you're not assenting to the compromise proposal. I'm reasonably certain most users, that aren't pushing the "Serbian puppet state" POV, would agree to it. (And even the fellas hoping to push the "puppet Serbia" POV might agree to it out of the mistaken belief that they might be able to change the article's scope sufficiently, or create a POVFORK about their puppet state.)

N-HH, you must understand that the fundamental problem of this article is the constant POV-pushing in the direction of presenting this article as a Serbian puppet state. This is a very obscure neck of the woods and its easy to manipulate the informal terminology used by some sources to push Serbian nationalist POV. I am constantly concerned about where this article will go under constant nationalist POV-pushing pressure. If its called "German-occupied Serbia", we're likely to see the infobox and lead changed, calling this place "Serbia", perhaps even misuse of the Government of National Salvation insignia. If its called "Military Administration in Serbia", then the Serbian nationalist POV might claim this article is "about the administration", not the occupation zone, and create (another) POVFORK about the territory. Its painfully obvious to anyone involved here long enough that we're dealing with premeditated POV-pushing "strategies".

This is a complex bit of history, and all sorts of word games, misquoted sources, POVFORKS, and weasel words can be used to twist and push in the completely ludicrous direction of a "WWII Serbia". What this article (and the few related articles) need is the kind of attention Talk:Kosovo gets, with knowledgeable admins on-hand to put down this Balkans nationalist rot. -- Director (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that nationalism is a problem in Balkans articles, almost certainly including this one. I'm just not aware that it affects this article-name issue in quite the way that is being claimed. We seem to be constructing objections to a commonly used term, based on our own complex rationalisations. The question here, as ever, is simple - what term is usually used in the real world by mainstream sources to describe this thing clearly, recognisably and with minimum ambiguity? When we find that, we use it too. If that happens to be the same word that raving nationalists use as well, that is irrelevant - so long as we're not doing it for the same reasons. Nazis might talk about pan-Germanism or Greater Germany, for example. It doesn't mean we can't use the phrase, as a simple descriptive term. N-HH talk/edits 11:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:POVTITLE, as I have pointed out more than once (not to imply anything, but I have participated in about several dozen RMs, and do have about seven times your contribs). I am pointing the above facts to illustrate the necessity of a precise title (Precision) for this difficult subject. Unfortunately, the proposed name all the way above ("German-occupied Serbia") would 1) not represent the subject matter (a German military entity), and 2) would render this article a WP:REDUNDANTFORK with the Axis occupation of Serbia article. We need a precise title above all, a title format similar to that used in practically all articles on this subject. -- Director (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Or, i would agree, if we create new article about territory, as this will be about Administration, and not Serbia it self. Than i would agree totally on this proposal. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here we go, "let's create an new article called "Serbia 1941-1945"... Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@WW. Yes, you want your "Serbia" article and you would agree if a "Serbia" article were created and the topic of this one slashed - got it. Someone really ought to deal with the WP:POV PUSHING on this article. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Community will deal with it, in the proposal above this one. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but if anyone who only participates in move discussions shows up (i.e. canvassing), you should know that there will be admin intervention.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, admin is highly needed to clear a striking mess from here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Visoko potreban"? Could you please explain your above post? -- Director (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. per Director's reasoning. Amend to add "German" however. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question - would that make it "German military administration in Serbia"? Apteva (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe that is the intent. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - there are more sources for name "Military Administration in Serbia" than for "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Second name have support from only one English source which is 40 years old. Nemambrata (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: "German-occupied Serbia" is much more common. Literature never uses "German Military Administration in Serbia" as a proper noun (with "Military Administration" spelled uppercase). The proposed title is still preferrable over the current one, as "German military administration in Serbia" it a little more common than "territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFF (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that RJFF (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I was kind of expecting this. After two weeks of no activity a user (that didn't even sign his two posts) mysteriously appears to vote just now that EdJohnston has proposed on WP:AE that this article be move-blocked for a year. This is very shady. Imo the inescapable conclusion is that the idea is to move the article and have the new title protected by admin action. Always suspicious votes on these RMs.. -- Director (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Without any further words, nonsense. I will not allow this bull...it. User is here for years. Would you mark it for opposite vote? I doubt. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's why you appeared instantly to defend the guy with ready knowledge on how long he's been here (not that it matters as far as canvassing is concerned). Should you refactor my comments again you will have a chance to explain it on the appropriate community noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are proficient in noticeboards also... All best, be well. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Live long and prosper, brother WhiteWriter. -- Director (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I remind editors that behaviour on this article talk page (among other things) is currently being scrutinised at AE, and suggest editors might try to be on their best behaviour.... :-). Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and I do apologize for my informal manner up there, WW. It's just so annoying to see these strange folks come out of the woodwork the second things aren't going so well in one of these repeating, never-ending "serial RMs". When i noticed the AE recommendation, experience told me someone was going to appear, and WW is going to defend the guy at once. After two weeks of complete inactivity. I mean these have to be some pretty impressive coincidences (and every RM the same ones). And the fact ZR noticed, that the two guys defending Antidiskriminator at AE just happen to be unrelated Greek users..

I mean, we don't have this sort of "advantage". There isn't an army of Norwegians and, I don't know, Iranians waiting to grant support at need (apart from the ANZAC, of course :))-- Director (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And then you would understand my feeling with you constant violent accusations of me about something in which i actually never participated. If you ask me, there is no doubt that someone has canvassed before, but this page is watched by 58 people except me. Not to mention all others. All best. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you notice, I did not say a word about you. Then you started defending yourself. Two seconds after my comment. -- Director (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You're not on your Pat Malone there, there are not too many Aussies lurking about around here either... Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Distant second choice; I favor the German-occupied Serbia proposed above. However, it is still better than the current title. If accepted, should be lowercased, German military administration in Serbia, because it isn't the proper name. No such user (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be lowercase. This was the official name of the administration. See other similar articles as pointed to in the proposal. -- Director (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source using this name with uppercase spelling? I have not found any. --RJFF (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, e.g. [33][34]. But its not so much a matter of sourcing its just plain grammar, and policy I believe. -- Director (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's the proper name of the administration per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you took it out of context, which is the title of the report: Concluding Report on the German Military Administration in Serbia, which is naturally in title case. Ramet uses lowercase [35], as does Sörensen [36], Rubenstein [37], Browning [38], Longerich [39], Kitchen [40], Encyclopedia of the Holocaust [41],... No such user (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the authors of the relevant literature do not consider it a proper noun. Or they all have poor grammar. --RJFF (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying this for one second. The name of the institution that governed this territory was Militärverwaltung in Serbien, translated "Military Administration in Serbia". Its a name of a historical institution, a proper name. Its not something we're describing. And yes, the sources you cite do have their grammar wrong in this respect. -- Director (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And you came to that conclusion... how? German uses title case for all nouns, so how do you know that it translates to "Administration" better than 10+ of our reliable sources?
Besides, our article covers the period of the German administration (=occupation), not just the German Administration (=government). Those same sources use the term to refer to the whole territory, not just the government. For example, Sörensen says "They divided the country between German military administration in Serbia, and the eastern parts, and Italian rule over Montenegro,..." No such user (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Um.. it has nothing to do with German spelling (and yes, I'm aware all nouns are in title case in Hochdeutsch). Its the official name of a historical institution, a government. Lowercase is grammatically wrong. Like spelling "Council of Ministers of Poland" as "council of ministers of Poland".

This article covers a German WWII occupation territory, one of six such entities. This is not a "period article". -- Director (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the viewpoint: let me use German military administration in occupied France during World War II as an example. That article uses lowercase in the title, but starts with "The Military Administration in France (German: Militärverwaltung in Frankreich)", which apparently was the proper name of the government. Once you add "German" to the "*ilitary *dministration in Serbia", you turn (translation of) the official name into a descriptive phrase. All the sources I quoted above use the term as the descriptive phrase: please find me one which unambiguously uses the title case. (Tomasevich used the term "military administration" several times here, but always as lowercase). No such user (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually that article was originally "Military Administration in France", and its longer due to disambiguation. There were German and Italian military administrations in France, and Germany had a military administration there in WWI as well as WWII. So "German" is justified to disambiguate from "Italian" and "during WWII" is there because there was a WWI administration as well. Of course, this is the wrong way to disambiguate and that title is generally very bad, "(Nazi Germany)" in the brackets would suffice, but this is off-topic.

I actually don't think "German" is necessary at all (and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC agrees), I assent to the addition purely out of a desire to be done with this hellish article. Its a rather weak excuse to use lowercase for the proper name of a historical government organization, and there's no way I myself could possibly agree to the introduction of a blatant error of that sort for no reason. "Military Administration in Serbia (Germany)" is probably what we should aim for per WP:DISAMBIG, but I don't really care that much at this point. The incessant "puppet Serbia" POV-pushing has created too much bad blood to allow for amicable, constructive discussion of that sort. -- Director (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, for some reason, you insist on an official title of some kind. Myself, and others of similar opinion, feel that some kind of descriptive title is called for, because the focus of the article is not just the government, but the historical period on a certain territory. No such user (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Full circle... The focus of the article isn't "just the government", of course it isn't. The proposal here is that we call the military occupation territory (the subject of this article) by the name of its governing organization (kind of like General Government, and basically all similar articles) - because its shorter, more common in sources, and more elegant.

So that's hopefully made clear. And, as I already said about twenty times, I anticipate that if the article is moved to this proposed title, the "puppet Serbia" POV-pushing will continue along the lines of stripping this article and/or creating a POVFORK with the rhetoric that "this article is about the government, so we need one about SERBIA!". Its a flaw. And that's why I, "and others of similar opinion" were never 100% for this title. But that's its only flaw and I can live with it (like the current title, which is long and clumsy, or "German-occupied Serbia" which has about 56 separate flaws). Whatever its called, the scope of this article is, and has been, the military occupation territory. A historical political entity.

You asked me to explain why the proposed title is uppercase.. I endeavored to do so. The phrase you refer to is the official, proper name of a historical government/organization. If you do not support this proposal, change your vote to "Oppose". -- Director (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after my GBook research just above, I came to like your proposal more (only to a lowercase title), because 1) it is used in the sources 2) it is in line with France and Poland articles and 3) the word "wikt:administration" has exactly the desired ambiguity: it can refer to government, or to a period of rule, so every "side" could interpret it as they see fit :). So instead (with an additional bonus to spite you :P, see [42]), I'm striking the word "Distant" and leaving it just as second choice. Remind you, a Wikipedia poll is not just a for/against vote, so the closing admin (condolences!) will weight the opinions appropriately. No such user (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, reverse psychology works very well :). I also know how RMs work, I did participate in quite a few. And in my opinion, its pretty obvious there's no consensus for either proposed title, not by a long shot.

P.s. it was my position from the start that "Military Administration in Serbia" should be the title. I asses that much of the (non-POV) opposition to the current title is in essence purely due to its length and clumsiness. Imo we would have been done with this had we gone with "Military Administration in Serbia" instead of "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". -- Director (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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