Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Official name for the Territory referred to as 'Serbia under German occupation'

Due to the incredible number of WP:TLDR posts here, I have created this section to list all the references that provide the official name of the territory that is currently referred to in the title of this article as 'Serbia under German occupation'. I have also provided the relevant quote from each reference.

1. Pavlowitch 2002, 'Serbia: the History behind the Name', p. 141. "What was left of Yugoslavia, roughly pre-1912 Serbia, was placed under direct German military rule (along with rich grain-producing Banat just north of it, controlled through its sizeable ethnic German population). It was officially called the 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia'."

2. UK Naval Intelligence Division 1944, 'Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration', p. 380. "But the central government of Serbia is not that of an independent state. The country is officially the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens and the supreme authority is the GOC for the whole area of Serbia."

3. Paul N Hehn 1971, 'Serbia, Croatia and Germany 1941-1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans', in 'Canadian Slavonic Papers', Vol 13 No 4, pp. 344-373. "Officially labelled the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), it comprised some 4 million inhabitants, 28% of the original population of Yugoslavia."

4. Bond and Roy 1975, 'War and Society: a yearbook of military history', Vol 1. p. 230. "The most important took place in the 'Independent State of Croatia' and in the 'Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia' (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien)."

5. Kerner 1949, 'Yugoslavia', p. 358. "The full title is Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens."

Now, three of these state that the official title of the territory was a minor variation on 'Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens', and two of the same refs provide the name translated into English. A further ref gives an identical name and provides the German translation. Another one states that was the 'full title' of the territory. Of the sources that provide a translation, one says 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' and two render it as 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. So far as I am concerned, this settles the matter as to what the official name for the territory was. Once we have determined the article title, this official title should be used in the lede and infobox, and the term 'the territory' should generally be used to refer to it subsequently in the article, unless a quote is presented which uses the word 'Serbia'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Google Scholar search for Hehn that shows the official name. [[1]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In this case both names and both translations are correct, depending on context. Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien is the military, i.e. the shortened, title while Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien was the slightly more prosaic form for administrative use. Tberefore we can either use 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' in the article. A third version Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens is a form using the genitive which was, as far as I can tell, not an official designation. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please consider

Since the parts of Serbia to which this article refers to retained its status as a country during the German occupation, someone has to look in the records of its two governments: Commissioner Administration, Government of National Salvation (Serbia). Both governments must have produced laws, state journals, official declarations. If someone looks at these records, you will realize that at the bottom there will be a signature including the name of the territory. Before 17 April 1941 this must have read "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". After? If this name is consistently used for both governments, then we might have a name. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Its rather a bit more complicated unfortunately :(
  • @"Since the parts of Serbia to which this article refers to retained its status as a country during the German occupation,..". - That's the whole point, they did not retain the status as a country, and they didn't have the "status of a country" beforehand. And even the very meaning of the term "Serbia" in this context is unclear, and varies from source to source. Namely, since 1918 there was no political entity of any kind named "Serbia", and even geographically the term was not clearly defined. We've encountered sources that use it 1) as geographic term, 2) as a collective term for the entire territory (and all institutions and entities therein), and 3) as one of the many short terms for the Government of National Salvation.
  • Re looking up Nedic government documents. Your proposal would be perfectly logical for most situations, but unfortunately, the Government of National Salvation of General Milan Nedic is an excellent example of why WP:OR is not a good idea. The Nedic government is not a reliable source by any standards, as it was consistently lobbying to achieve the status of a puppet state, rather than just a government, founded and serving as a "subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities".
-- Director (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no pre-formed opinion, you say that they didn't have the "status of a country" beforehand. I understand that until 17 April 1941 there was a country called Kingdom of Yugoslavia with Dragiša Cvetković as a Prime Minister. Is this wrong? I am only reading Wikipedia. Do you agree on that or not? --FocalPoint (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

correct so far. At that point there was a lot of annexations of Yugoslav territory, and this bit was left over and remained under occupation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I will assume that User:DIREKTOR would also agree and I continue: The "bit that was left over and remained under occupation", had a prime minister, yes or no? And he issued laws as president of the administration of ... whom? Of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? I suppose not, but I do not know. Find the documents. I do not propose to take whatever name is there and use it here. I propose to examine this and then continue the discussion. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Director, however I can point you to Raphael Lemkin [[2]], who discusses the laws made in the territory starting on p. 248 and then translates a number of key documents starting on p. 591. Can I just point out at this juncture that we already have a name for this territory? It is (depending on the translation) the 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. Both versions are sourced as the 'official name'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @FocalPoint. Yes.. a misunderstanding on my part then. You said "since the parts of Serbia to which this article refers to retained its status as a country during the German occupation", I thought you thought the "parts of Serbia" themselves were a country before the war. They were of course part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia before the war, so in that sense they did used to be a part of a country before the war came to Yugoslavia in 1941. The Axis completely destroyed and dismantled the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and while of course there was a government-in-exile, as far as the Axis was concerned there was no such country anymore. No Axis political entity was considered to be a continuation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in any way shape or form.
Also an apology due from me. As I am not familiar with the subject (an advantage, since I have no preference), I used the wording "parts of Serbia", while there would be no misunderstanding if I had mentioned parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The "bit that was left over" was first placed under military administration, and then the military administration formed a local government to assist in its occupation duties. As the man says:

"The Germans established a military government of occupation in Serbia proper. (...) The Germans regulated a wide range of administrative, political, economic, cultural, ans social matters during their occupation of Serbia. Since it was impossible for them to take on all aspects of the day-to-day operation of the Serbian administration, however, they had to establish some domestic public body that would carry on administrative chores under their direction and supervision. This they quickly did in the form of a puppet government, which could issue orders that came from them or that had been sanctioned in advance" (Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume II, pp.175-177)

Its simply a puppet government created to aid the day-to-day administration of the occupation zone, an occupation zone called 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'.
-- Director (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


  • Nota bene: anyone starting research into this matter should be careful not to get confused (as I was) by the many meanings of the term "Serbia" in the context of WWII Yugoslavia.
    • The official name of this territory was 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' (or variations thereof), as was established by Pecemaker, and that's one of the few things which isn't disputed at this point. Now this territory had the German 'Military Administration in Serbia' as its governing authority, and its subordinate Serbian puppet government (this was briefly the 'Commissary Government', and then the 'Government of National Salvation' for the vast majority of the war). The 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' can be informally referred to, as a whole, as "Serbia" for short.
    • "Serbia" can also informally refer to the 'Government of National Salvation' alone.
    • And finally "Serbia" is very often used as a purely geographic term. When used in such a manner, it usually denotes roughly the area occupied by post-war Serbia - but an author can also choose to use the term as a geographic label for the lands that were part of the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. There was no real contemporary definition of what "Serbia" is, since no country by such a name officially existed for some time before and during the war.
It can all be incredibly confusing and complex, particularly for a non-local. And there is no question that authors more-often-than-not use the term in more than one sense in a single publication. In short, what this does, unfortunately, is it makes it a futile effort to try and derive any meaning from the context of the word "Serbia" as used by sources. It also pretty much invalidates any search engine research as to whether "Serbia" is the most common name for something or other in this context. -- Director (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I pretty much concur with the above. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not dispute statement of DIREKTOR that term "Serbia" might have different meaning in different sources, but if we examine maps from that time period we will see that there was entity named "Serbia" (and it is what this article is about): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. (why authors of these maps would show entity with borders and name "Serbia" if it was not a name of territory?). Speaking about official documents published by Serbian government from that time, I have some of them here: 1. post stamps from 1941 naming territory in Cyrillic "Србија" - Serbia, 2. post card from the time naming territory in German "Serbien" - Serbia, 3. propaganda placate published by Serbian government where phrase written in Serbian Cyrillic says "породицама у Србији" - "families in Serbia", 4. Money from that time described as "Serbia km31 1 Dinar (1942)" - on the coin there is a Cyrillic name "Србија" - Serbia. PANONIAN 10:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
For the millionth time. We can not derive anything from map labels, propaganda posters, coins and such nonsense - that's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And your preposterous conclusions are the perfect example of why WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is basically forbidden. Will you finally read that policy? This has to be the sixtieth time you've decided to try and proclaim the existence of a new country on what is blatantly your own research - based on Government of National Salvation propaganda no less!
There was no entity named "Serbia". You can call it "Serbia", just as you can use that word for fifteen different things in this context, but the name of this occupation zone was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". And let us recall the fact that you have no real sources whatsoever for your claims of "puppet state" and "country". And that even if you did, they'd be contradicted by a multitude of sources and constitute WP:FRINGE nonsense. That basically means - don't bother. -- Director (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is enlightening to see the research of User:PANONIAN, however, I am talking about official documents. A stamp is not representative, because it has only limited space. A postcard or a placate is not official. A Dinar is official, but still not a signature per se. To User:DIREKTOR: Thank you for the answer. Please believe me that I am not going to support the name that someone might (or not) find, just because there is one source. But this will be the name to research further, just in case something is missed. Was there an official state gazette at the time, issuing laws etc? How did the puppet government (or non government - call it whatever you want) signed itself as?--FocalPoint (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@FocalPoint, I'll say again: even if there hypothetically were official documents by the Government of National Salvation, to conclude anything from them is non-published WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This would be the case even if we had no reason to consider the Government of National Salvation to be a biased source on this issue - and we do. Its one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies, so please take it into account. I recommend you form an opinion on the basis of secondary sources rather than applying such a simplistic approach. -- Director (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully understood what you said and I repeat that I fully agree with the No Original Research Policy for writing articles. I would not dare to make any conclusions whatsoever. I would only check this name (if it exists and it is different from what is presented here already) in secondary sources. --FocalPoint (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I would check, but I have no idea where to find any such documents. But it would serve no purpose anyway, even if we did find them. Based on the coins I would assume Nedic did use "Serbia" as much as possible in his bid to have himself "upgraded" to head of a puppet state. All that, however, would serve us not at all in determining what his real status was. Like the man says:

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor, it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort." (Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume II, pp.175-186:)

That's what the sources have to say - and there's not a single source in contradiction. Yet this nonsense dispute persists because of nationalist POV. (General Milan Nedić, of course, was the head of the Government of National Salvation.) -- Director (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, this is secondary source and usage of this source cannot be seen as original research. Also, there is no source that says that name of the territory was not "Serbia", so names in these maps are not contradicting to sources. And what "Government of National Salvation propaganda" you speak about? Can you elaborate this little bit? Whom they wanted to deceive by such propaganda? Germans? Voters in election? Do you have a source that says that usage of name "Serbia" was part of government propaganda? Also, this source shows entity with name "Serbia" and therefore can you please present a source that says that "there was no entity named Serbia"? Also, I already said that name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" referred to German military district that was located in country named Serbia and that had same borders as this country. The basic phrase "in Serbia" means that German military district is located in Serbia and therefore, it imply that there was Serbia. Also, this coin that using name "Serbia" was issued by the bank which was controlled by the Germans. Why they did not used name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in that coin? Obviously, we have a duality of terms, here. Article should speak about both, country of Serbia and German military district in Serbia since the country named Serbia is a primary entity here - German district is only something that was located "in Serbia". I also presented very real sources that using terms "occupied country" and "puppet state" for Serbia. Also, if you say that these are contradicting some other sources, please present such sources here since I did not saw such "contradicting sources" presented. Also, the quote from Tomasevich that you presented only says that "powers of Nedić government were strictly limited" and that "it had no international standing", but this is certainly not evidence that "Serbia was not country". This source only confirms that Serbia was "occupied country" and that powers of its government were strictly limited (and that government did not had international standing). So, basically Tomasevich says that Serbia was not an "sovereign internationally recognized country" (and I fully agree with that statement), but one cannot conclude from this source that Serbia was "not country at all". DIREKTOR, you should firstly inform yourself what term "country" means - "a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography", which is exactly what Serbia was (a distinct entity that was not part of any other entity). PANONIAN 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
FocalPoint, here you have official documents of the government: http://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Ogledi07.pdf Examples - page 135: IZJAVA KOMESARA ZA UNUTRAŠNJU UPRAVU U SRBIJI ("statement of the commissioner for internal administration in Serbia"), page 138: UREDBA O ŠTAMPI U SRBIJI ("regulation about printing in Serbia"), page 155: UREDBA O PRAVNOM POLOŽAJU NEMAČKE NARODNOSNE GRUPE U SRBIJI ("regulation of legal status of German ethnic group in Serbia"), page 194: UREDBA O UVOĐENJU NACIONALNE SLUŽBE ZA OBNOVU SRBIJE ("regulation about national service for renewal of Serbia"), etc, etc. There are lot more documents in that source. PANONIAN 18:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Wow. Its masochism at this point, but here goes:

  • Yes your map lists "Serbia" as the name for this zone. Yet you've decided to do WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and decide that this means that it was a puppet country. Even though the map explicitly lists "Serbia" as a (quote) "occupied territory" [8], and depicts Axis puppet states in a distinctly different way. WP:OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". So just because you derived your own conclusions from secondary sources and not primary sources - does not mean you didn't derive your own conclusions. This is the 19th time I've explained this policy to you on this talkpage (I've counted).
  • You can use the term "Serbia" to refer to about a half-dozen things. There was no entity with the official name "Serbia", and that's what matters. As I've said about 10 times up 'til now, it can be used as a short term for the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' (and about a half-dozen other things in the context of WWII Yugoslavia).
  • You completely misread Tomasevich here, probably deliberately. And misrperesented him in a paragraph where he explicitly denies the existence of a puppet state:

"Although the German-Italian agreement of April 21, 1941 called for the establishment of an 'independent Serbia', Serbia had in fact a puppet government and Germany accorded it no status other than that of a fully occupied country."

So what can we conclude from this brief quote? 1. Tomasevich did not actually contradict himself in the same book, and does not go against everything else he wrote there (large parts of which I actually I quoted for you here). 2. You are either deliberately trying to deceive people, or did not understand the English sentence. 3. in spite of probably googling for hours on terms such as "country Serbia" - you do not have a single solitary source that claims there was a "country" called "Serbia" created by the Germans.
  • To use the coin image issued by the Government of National Salvation to conclude that there was a "duality of terms", is not only blatant WP:OR, its very bad, blatant OR. There was no "duality of terms" - you claim there is. And we have already established several times the word "Serbia" is be used (among other things) as a short term for the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. But you conveniently "forgot" that as well, again, and now the merry-go-round starts on another spin..
  • You can't draw conclusions from primary documents, even if they were not from an inherently biased source... etc. etc.

This just ridiculous. It has to end. -- Director (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, long posts about various subjects are indeed not helpful, so let firstly solve the issue whether Serbia was a country or not. Let analyze this sentence from the source: "Although the German-Italian agreement of April 21, 1941 called for the establishment of an 'independent Serbia', Serbia had in fact a puppet government and Germany accorded it no status other than that of a fully occupied country."
Basically, that sentence means:
  • 1. that there was Serbia that had puppet government ("Serbia had in fact a puppet government")
  • 2. that Serbia had "no status other than that of a fully occupied country"
  • 3. that there was "call for the establishment of an independent Serbia" (but that this was not achieved and instead "Serbia had in fact a puppet government")
So, DIREKTOR, do you agree with this analysis or not? I think that you do not know difference between terms "independent country" and "country". Also, do you agree with description from Country article which states that "country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography". Was Serbia such "distinct entity" or not? PANONIAN 20:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You want me to help you understand the paragraph, is that it?
  • 1. You are continuously and deliberately using the myriad meanings of the term "Serbia" in this context to cloud and confuse the issue. @"...there was Serbia". What does that mean? Does that mean "there was 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'"? Yes. Does it mean there was a country or puppet state called "Serbia"? No. As I said above, because the word can mean about a half-dozen things, its a futile effort to try and derive any meaning from the context of the word "Serbia" in sources. You will of course continue to do so, however, because rhetorical confusion is your best card and primary tool. Tomasevich is referring to the occupation zone as "Serbia". Other scholarly sources have conclusively identified that the official name of that occupation territory was 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'.
  • 2. Since you're not very familiar with WWII history in general, you do not understand that what it means to grant something the status of a "fully occupied country". That just means the territory was placed under full military occupation, with no kind of autonomy whatsoever - let alone that of an independent state.
  • 3. That part of the sentence merely means that the German-Italian agreement of April 21, 1941 included as one of it provisions the creation of a Serbian puppet state. As Tomasevich states quite explicitly - that never happened.
In short, Tomasevich explicitly states a Serbian puppet state was called for, but never founded.
So you've got a map that lists this area as an "occupied territory", and a quotation that explicitly states a Serbian puppet state was never formed. And those are the sources you brought. Oh and you've got that coin too, excuse me. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I will fully arise myself above personal issues from your post and I will focus on the sentence only: phrase "Serbia had in fact a puppet government" does not imply whether Serbia was "puppet state" or the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". In fact, this author do not using name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", so let focus on what author actually said here - he used name "Serbia" and said that it was "fully occupied country". Author is very clear here - he do not using phrase "occupied territory", "occupation zone", "Territory of the Military Commander" - he using phrase "occupied country". Can you explain why author used term "country" if he thought that "it was not a country"? Also, Tomasevich does not say that "Serbian puppet state was called for, but never founded" - he does not using term "puppet state". What he said is that "independent Serbia" was never founded. Author is very clear about everything and you actually do not reading text itself, but instead you including your own phrases and opinions that are not used or mentioned by this author. PANONIAN 05:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
But of course, "I do not reading text".. Or could it be that you do not quite understand? We're playing word games now, is that it? I wish you would "arise" above that.
  • "Independent Serbia" is a direct quotation from the Axis treaty, not the author's own words. The Axis did create puppet states, but even the Nazis did not actually call them "puppet states" in their documents. In fact, I recall a puppet state actually having the name "Independent State of Croatia". Puppet states are indeed nominally (de jure) "independent" countries, but not de facto. In short, the author is not trying to say there was a de jure Serbian state that wasn't de facto independent - he's saying there was not even a de jure independent state. And all this is perfectly plain and obvious from the text.
  • Yes of course, you're clinging to the word "country" even though it makes no sense at this point, and your interpretations are directly contradicted by practically everything the author wrote on the subject. *sigh* Tomasevich is merely saying that the territory he calls "Serbia" had the status of a "fully occupied country". I.e. that the territory had the status equal to that of other WWII countries that the Germans placed under military occupation. As opposed to that that of a de jure "independent" puppet state.
Panonian, you either occupy an area, or you create a puppet state. You do not create a puppet state - and then place it under military administration and occupation. If you do, then its no longer a puppet state (which is at least de jure independent) - it becomes an occupied territory with a puppet government. When the Germans placed an area under military occupation, they always founded a local government or administration, simply because it is impossible to administer the area without one. By your standards, there wasn't a single occupied territory in all of Europe. -- Director (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
O, you do read and understand text, but due to the fact that text fully contradicting your position, you twisting words from the text and trying to convince people that text does not say what it say. There is no other logical explanation for your behavior. And I really do not care about your "hypothetical situation" elaborations. We simply discussing what author said (not what "he wanted to say" according to user:DIREKTOR). He said Serbia was "fully occupied country". And I do not see why an "puppet state cannot be created and then placed under military administration and occupation". Who exactly says that this event cannot occur? You? Please quote some author that support such view. PANONIAN 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, its all part of my "plan". Classic WP:BATTLE. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A few examples to compare the situation in other places:

--FocalPoint (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC) --FocalPoint (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia, Vichy France, and the Independent State of Croatia are quite different from what we have here.
  • Slovakia was of course, a full, de jure independent, puppet state. Created before the war even. It was completely under German influence, and was a true "puppet state", but it was certainly very far from a military occupation zone.
  • The Independent State of Croatia was also a full, de jure independent, puppet state.
  • Vichy France, until Anton, was practically an fully independent state. It is debatable whether it can even be called a "puppet state".
The other two are very good examples. Though its worth noting that, in spite of its name, the Hellenic State was not a "state", but a puppet government. The wikilinked article would here correspond with the Government of National Salvation article (which was written by PANONIAN and is currently ridiculously biased). The name, "Hellenic State", like the use of the word "Serbia" by the Government of National Salvation, was the result of aspirations towards the status of a de jure independent puppet state. Another thing to note would be that the administration in Norway was civil (Reichskommissariat), not military, as in Greece and here. This all nicely visible on the map provided by PANONIAN [9]. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I gave these examples to do exactly what you did. A critical examination and an attempt to find differences and similarities. I would like to point out that "Hellenic State" is fully documented as the name that the government which was appointed by the Germans was using. The only reason of this different name was that the Germans did not accept the previous name (Kingdom of Greece) since the King had fled and did not collaborate with the occupation forces. But I would not put it in as a name (or certainly not as the only name) for a map, I would use Occupied Greece, following the practice of the bibliography. As for the Government of National Salvation article, I would really like to understand your perspective, why you think it is POV (please do not answer here), since, as far as I am concerned it seems to be having only names and no opinion there (but then again you might be seeing something that I do not). --FocalPoint (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation process Discussion process

1. Let start mediation with this - the discussion on this page should be civilized

Firstly, I think that discussion on this page should be civilized and that DIREKTOR should not mention false assumptions about my intentions like this: [10]. I never stated that I "want an infobox so that I can pretend this is a country". Also, here he accused me for nationalist POV, which I consider insulting. This way of constant personal harassment is simply unacceptable. Can somebody please force this user to behave civilized for a start? I appeal to administrators to impose sanctions against DIREKTOR if he continue with that kind of behavior. PANONIAN 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

did I start this by mentioning that I had not even started editing this article before you started claiming I am a sock? No? Stick to evidence if you want to get a sensible mediation. I imagine this is why many mediators shy away from touching articles related to the history of Yugoslavia. We have someone willing to intercede, and you immediately carry on like a pork chop on a barbie. Stop. Please. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
yes, but we solved the sock question: I said that I will not accuse you that you are a sockpuppet of DIREKTOR and I am not doing that any more. However, DIREKTOR constantly insulting me personally trying to present me as nationalist and POV-pusher. This simply have to stop. PANONIAN 09:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You can open it, but I will not participate. And no, you can't reach some agreement there and then force others to abide by it, if that's your idea. The point is that everyone who is involved in the dispute participates. If that is not the case, a mediation will not solve the dispute. I certainly have no intention of not discussing on the talkpage or editing the article. -- Director (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You do not want to participate? So, what you want then? To ignore opinions of others abd to solve this by revert warring? I clearly said that I am ready to respect your views and to work to make article NPOV (not to force my own POV). Why you cannot do the same? PANONIAN 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid my interest in continuing this to-ing and fro-ing about the article name and infobox is waning quickly, and I am not interested in entering into mediation either (although quite what you are suggesting needs mediation is not clear to me. It is not what I am interested in doing on WP. For my part, I am not sure we need an infobox on this article, or that it helps clarify anything. In my view, it creates more questions than it answers. If we are to retain one, the current one will do. I definitely consider no flag should be introduced into it, although the Military Commander's flag will need to go in the symbols section (I'll do that shortly). The map is way less than ideal, as there are numerous maps that use more than just 'Serbia' as a label. For example, 'Serbia (German controlled)' in Pavlowitch, 'Occupied Serbia' in Tomasevitch 2001, 'Serbia under German military command' in Roberts, etc. It needs changing. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So, we agreed about usage of current (neutral) infobox that will not imply what was a status of territory? Regarding the symbols, I agree that symbols of German military administrators could be included to symbols section, but we should find some source which clarifies which symbols were actually used by them - was it flag of Germany, emblem of the Wehrmacht or something else. Is there a source that clarifies this? As for map, maps from sources are usually using only term "Serbia" in the main body of the image, while descriptions "occupied", "German-controlled", etc are usually used in the map legends. I can add some kind of description to the map legend - please propose which description I should add? PANONIAN 06:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with the premise that they usually only use 'Serbia' and put the rest in legends on maps. The one in Pavlowitch is on the territory, as is the one in Roberts. Tomasevich 2001 doesn't have a title on the territory itself, but the name of the whole map is 'Occupied Serbia 1941-1944'. The only ones I've got with just 'Serbia' are Tomasevich 1975 and Cohen. That's less than half of a random sample of scholarly texts used in this article. I think the map itself needs something added to 'Serbia'. Happy to discuss what exactly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
My google preview for page where map is published in Pavlowitch's book is not available. Anyway, when I said that maps usually using only term Serbia in the main image body, I refereed to those: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links There are those that using some additional description in the main image body, but most of the maps are using it in the legend. Anyway, would you propose a description that you want me to include into map? PANONIAN 07:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I could live with 'Serbia (occupied territory)'. There's seems space for that, and it would improve clarity. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Let try this: I will leave name "Serbia" in the main body of the map, while I will change map legend into this: "Serbia (1941-1944), German-occupied territory". Would that be OK? PANONIAN 18:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue I have with your collection of map references is that these are just a series of map links without context. The references I have mentioned are WP:RS dealing with this subject, accompanied by explanatory text. I consider the map needs to be labelled with the official name of the territory, or at the very least a label that communicates that it was an occupied territory. I am sure that is well within your mapmaking capabilities. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please elaborate what you mean by "map links without context"? Maps do not needing any additional context since maps are context for themselves. Also, "explanatory text" in the references that you presented using common name "Serbia" as well and that does not contradicting to these maps in any way. As for "official name of the territory", we do not know which one was official since there are several variants of such "official name" and we do not have confirmation from multiple sources about the issue which one of them is most correct. Anyway, do you accept my compromise proposal or not? PANONIAN 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, while we are at it, and seeing as we appear to be stuck with the infobox, the infobox title should be brought into line with WP:IBX, and given we have no WP:COMMONNAME, it should be the full (official) name. WP:IBX states that this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. I am happy with 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with "Occupied territory" in the infobox? Perhaps we can use current article title "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)" on the top of the infobox instead? PANONIAN 18:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't see a good reason to extend a clunky compromise title solution to the article itself. We have an official name, why wouldn't we use it? We are not limited by the 'no use of commas in article titles' rule for the title of the infobox, and WP:IBX says it need not follow the article title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
No we do not have "an official name" - we have multiple sources that using multiple versions of "official name" (of those we have only two English-language references which contradicting one to another). We should have confirmation from more than a single source for official name. Not to mention that even these two English-language sources that mentioning "official name" are switching to term "Serbia" in the rest of the text. PANONIAN 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest some form of dispute resolution, that takes place somewhere else than this talk page. I'm not a very conventional mediator, I've got quite a bag of tricks I use from time to time, but it's up to you. If not all parties agree, then there's little I can do. Steven Zhang Talk 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your time Steven, but I am convinced by my own observations of mediation in this area before (on the Draza Mihailovic and Chetniks articles) that the benefits will be heavily outweighed by the huge amount of my time it will take up. Thanks for the offer. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks very bad to the community when users refuse a particular DR method, but I honestly do not think a mediation will help. As I said before, this is more about one user than a real factual dispute we could debate. You need but read through the discussion of the last day or two to notice that Panonian will never ever agree to certain changes he is against for personal reasons - no matter how sourced they are. No source, or lack thereof on his part (even when he actually brings forth sources against himself :)), will change his position there one iota. Nor can anyone "force" him to agree through the mediation. The whole point is to try and get users, through constant baseless opposition, to "compromise" with him in such a way as to twist what the sources have to say towards his POV as much as possible. We're supposed to meet half-way between User:PANONIAN - and the sources. That is his goal, it happened three or four times before, and I fear a mediation will only facilitate a repeat occurrence of such an outcome (which I think he also knows quite well).
Mr. Zhang, what I think we can all agree to, is that you review the sources as much as you are willing and provide a 3O on the main issue, that is to say: "was there a puppet state here called 'Serbia'?". I think we would all be immensely grateful for the effort you would put in. -- Director (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

2. The question of usage of infobox

Now, let firstly resolve the question whether this article should have infobox or not (the question of how infobox should look will be resolved in the next section). I think that article should have infobox, since this is notable subject: Serbia was an entity in Axis Europe and, as such it should have infobox. PANONIAN 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Form of the infobox

I actually do not have a strong position how infobox should look, but I do not understand position of DIREKTOR who claiming that "Serbia was not a country" and in the same time he included "Infobox former country" into article. Several months ago he protested against inclusion of "Infobox former country" into this article and agreed with usage of "Free form infobox". I do not understand why he changed position like this. So, DIREKTOR, would you be so kind to explain what is wrong with current form of infobox? PANONIAN 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

alright, I'll bite. In the interests of getting a view on the infobox from someone else, I made an inquiry with the coord of the wiki project 'former countries', and the recommendation was that the former subdivision infobox be used. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
so, what is your response to the use of the former subdivision infobox, PANONIAN? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

4. Info in the infobox

I think that infobox should use only basic info related to the subject - it should be neutral when character of this entity is in question. Therefore, I absolutely reject claim of DIREKTOR that I want to modify infobox so that it looks like "infobox of a country". I support usage of fully neutral infobox that will not imply that Serbia was a country. PANONIAN 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Usage of Nazi flag

I am strongly against usage of flag of Nazi Germany within the infobox - Serbia was not part of Nazi Germany and usage of this flag might imply that it was. I see no reason for usage of that flag here. PANONIAN 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

6. PANONIAN, are you kidding?

I think its pretty safe to ignore this thread.
PANONIAN, what sort of farce is this? :D First of all that's not how a mediation is done, and you obviously have no idea what that constitutes. Secondly, its sort of customary to seek the approval of all other involved parties before even requesting a mediation. Its not something you can use to exclude someone from the discussion who doesn't want to participate in it. But if you want to have your "mediation of one", knock yourself out. Just do it somewhere where this sort of stuff doesn't clutter article talkpages. -- Director (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Internal affairs section

This section is a hodgepodge of different subjects, including judicial/legal/reprisal/persecution, puppet government matters, military administration and the 1941 uprising. Its content should be broken up and distributed between relevant sections. I believe a new section on laws and the judicial system should be created. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should merge it with "History" section? PANONIAN 06:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
good idea, most of it is history-type material, and we do need to expand the history section substantially. I was thinking four subsections, one for each year 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944. With expansions in specific sections as required. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. PANONIAN 07:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
History section needs a lot of work. With so much focus on the nature of the territory and the administration, there is a lot of basic info on other things missing. Bor mine is a huge issue which should be given attention. Germany was quarreling over the copper from here since the '30s, and wartime Germany probably considered this resource one of its most important issues in the territory. Smederevo explosion had a large casualty rate, as did Allied bombing but they have no mention either.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

User:PRODUCER deleted paragraph that I recently added to the article claiming that it was a "copyvio": [11]. I added two sentences from two different sources and I would not agree that this is copyvio. I think that paragraph was removed without valid reason. PANONIAN 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a blatant copyright violation. You copied the text verbatim from both sources. [12][13] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Only one sentence from each source - that is not enough to be a copy violation. Wikipedia:Copyright violations says that "brief quotation" is not a copyvio. PANONIAN 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand, once again. That is not a quotation. -- Director (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What ever, I will rephrase sentences and I will write them with my own words. PANONIAN 19:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You mean "Whatever, I will rephrase the sentences and I will write them down with my own words"? Please be careful with your grammar and spelling (in the article I mean). Your reply above is another example of your dismissive attitude towards policy. -- Director (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Director, stop with this awful trolling, and cooperate! This is very bad faith, again. You should better respond something in the questions above. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"I should better responds something in the questions..."? Excuse me, what?
How is it "trolling" if I'm pointing out I have to struggle to understand what the man writes? Or that people have to correct the grammar in the article? Good English skills are required in order to participate on this project. PANONIAN has problems understanding sources, policy, and he never or rarely reads policies and guidelines when they're pointed out to him. I assume he's not actually trying to disrupt the discussion on purpose by posting OR twenty times, so I assume its difficult for him. -- Director (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, you think that you will insult me with this? I am simply ignoring all your insults from now - why would I care what someone like you thinks or says about me? So, play your game as much as you want. If administrators do not care about this kind of your behavior, why would I? PANONIAN 08:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I am insulting you by not understanding your posts? Or is it that you're trying to paint yourself as the "victim"? -- Director (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Map sources

I have pasted PANONIAN's map links here so that I can detail exactly what the sources of these maps are. I note from the beginning that these are not maps from WP:RS scholarly sources actually used in the article, but are maps PANONIAN has located on the internet which include the word 'Serbia' in the label for the territory during the period we are dealing with here. Some are from the websites of community colleges such as the Bronx community college, but one or two are from reasonably credible centres of higher education such as the University of Nevada. One of the most significant problems with many of these maps as sources is that very few of them are actually maps of 'Serbia', but they are in fact maps of Europe, Romania, Hungary or the extent of German penetration into Europe, Africa etc, and therefore are not actually sources about the subject of the article. A side issue is that the ones of larger areas or other countries/territories have almost no space to put anything other than 'Serbia' on a country or territory. Some of them are not even in English. I am afraid that eventually they became so farcical that I gave up. But I will address each one that I have looked at in turn:

  • [14] This one is actually focussed on 'Serbia', but actually reads 'SERBIA Under German Military Command'
  • [15] This link does not resolve
  • [16] This one is incredibly small and has no room for any correct label
  • [17] This one is a Europe map which doesn't even have room for SERBIA on the territory in question, so it overlaps the boundaries. Notably, it actually differentiates between 'Serbia' (which it renders in red meaning 'German Reich and occupied territories), and for example, 'Slovakia', 'Vichy France' etc (which it renders in pink meaning 'German Allies or dependent states'.
  • [18] This one is again one of Europe, with an arrow pointing at 'Serbien', however, it has a box with a swastika in it superimposed over the territory...
  • [19] This one is of Europe, but is large enough for some additional information on the label, which reads 'SERBIA 1941 Ger. Occup.'
  • [20] This one is of the extent of the supposed endstate or plans for the Greater German Reich, and the territory in question is labelled 'Reichsfestung Serbia' which translates as 'Fortress Serbia'. Not sure what use this one is.
  • [21] This one is of Europe, and is labelled 'Serbia' and the legend says 'occupied territories'
  • [22] Another Europe one, but is labelled 'Serbia militar. adm.'
  • [23] This European one reads 'SERBIA Occupied by Germany'
  • [24] This one reads 'SERBIA Under German military command'
  • [25] This one reads 'SERBIA under German occupation from April 1941'
  • [26] 'Serbia' isn't even fully on this map
  • [27] 'Srbija' isn't even fully on this map.
  • [28] 'SRBIJA', but the legend reads 'German occupation' when translated from S-C.
  • [29] 'Srbija' isn't even fully on this map.
  • [30] 'SERBIA' isn't even fully on this map.
  • [31] Is a map of Romania. 'SERBIA' isn't even fully on this map. and the NDH (also not fully on the map is marked 'CROATIA'.
  • [32] Is a map of Romania. 'SERBIA' isn't even fully on this map.
  • [33] Is a map of Hungary. 'SZERBIA' isn't even fully on this map.
  • [34] This one is a joke, surely? At this point, I just give up....
  • [35]
  • [36]
  • [37]
  • [38]
  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]
  • [47]

I suggest that unless the subject of the map source is the territory in question (ie the subject of this article), it be completely disregarded from the discussion on the map to be used in this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I second that (hope you don't mind I organized your above post a bit).
The question is what does PANONIAN want to "prove" with these maps? All these maps quoted here, if they include such divisions at all, label this territory as an "occupied territory" or "German occupied", etc. None depict it as falling in the same category as even the most dependent and controlled puppet states (such as the NDH). Unless an "occupied territory" is somehow a country(?), then with "Serbia" the sources are referring to the occupied territory, the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. That basically confirms what we already know from Tomasevich and other sources, i.e. that "Serbia" is simply the quick way one refers to the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. -- Director (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the reorg. As far as I am concerned, I think we need a map either without a label on the territory and with the full title on the top of the info box, or the full title on the territory. I'd prefer the former, because more cities could be added to the map, with a focus on the locations of the German district command HQs. I know the map was made by PANONIAN, but it really needs to be modified. Know anyone with the necessary skills? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to add the above list, the main source map I used to create the administrative map in the article is this one which is in the British Library. It was created by the British Army during WWII. The title given here is also what is on the map itself.
* Title: Serbia - June 1944, MDR Misc 8380
* Author: Great Britain Middle East Command Base Survey Drawing and Photo Process Office, No 1
* Contributor: Great Britain. War Office. General Staff. Geographical Section.
* Subjects: Serbia - -- Maps and charts -- 1944
* Publication Details: [Cairo] : [Survey Directorate, Middle East], 1944.
* Language: English
* Identifier: System number 005000789
* Notes: Shows admin divisions (okruzi and srezovi) and limits of area occupied by Germany. Originally classified Restricted.
This is not intended to express a preference either way as to the title of the whole article, it is just to explain why the title of the civil admin map is Serbia (1941-44). XrysD (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Relating to Peacemaker's request for a replacement for the PANONIAN map in the info box to replace the existing one, as a mapmaker I offer to do one. I suggest that a label for the territory over the area on the map itself is unnecessary as it is redundant. The map title would be Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia in accordance with the article title. Please let me know if you would like me to create this. XrysD (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Um..? yes, the map's object is to depict specifically the organs of the Government of National Salvation. As such, its title doesn't really have any significance one way or the other as to the title of this article or the status of the territory as a whole. I don't think anyone can question its accuracy and sourcing.
Thank you for your offer, XrysD, I for one think its a good idea. -- Director (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, I hope that you clearly saw that most maps from these links are using name "Serbia" and your claim that they using it because "there is no room for longer description" is really funny. I see no evidence that authors of these maps would include any additional label if they had more room. PANONIAN 16:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The only thing that's "really funny" is your refusal to accept the plain obvious fact that "Serbia" is the short term for 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. And the only thing the maps make clear, is that this was an "occupied territory" NOT a country or puppet state. According to your own maps, and your own sources, this area even had the same status as military-occupied territories in the USSR. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Let focus on article changes, not on your own (fully irrelevant) fringe theories. Point is this: if most maps from most sources using name "Serbia" for the area, why we should invent new map that using other name? Shortly: there is no a single source with a map that naming this area 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. There is just one single textual source that saying that this was official name and it contradicts to most sources that using name Serbia for the area. PANONIAN 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
XrysD, I have a question for you: if your source is using title "Serbia", why you want to draw a map that would use title "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia"? On which source you would base that map? I do not think that title of Wikipedia article is an example of reliable source. PANONIAN 19:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
After we have established in detail how there are no sources that support your claims of there being a puppet state here, I quoted WP:FRINGE to explain how even if you did hypothetically find one or two, they would constitute a WP:FRINGE theory, since practically all other sources disagree explicitly. Now, having seen that there is such a thing as "WP:FRINGE", you're misquoting it in every post for no reason. This is either deliberate misquoting or you do not understand the policy, one of those two. Incredible.. That's it for me. -- Director (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This is the score: Source: 1 - DIREKTOR: 0 (you have 0 sources that saying that this was not state). Next question? PANONIAN 20:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not about a score. But seeing as you want one, of the maps I actually bothered to investigate, in only ONE case did I suggest there wasn't enough space for anything else. What about the one with the swastika on it? No comment? What about almost all of them that have additional words? Nothing to say on that? YOU produced these sources, but you ignore anything that doesn't correspond with what you want in this article. Few of the sources would meet WP:RS criteria as they are presented. We have no real idea where they were originally drawn from. You have obviously only chosen maps that you consider support your position, but there is still one with a swastika on it, and almost all of the ones that are actually about the relevant region have something added to the title and/or the legend to show it was an occupied territory, under military administration etc. I'm sorry, but the next step is to disregard all of them that can't be verified as WP:RS, which as it stands, is just about all of them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"Score" is just funny answer to DIREKTOR's insult and personal attack addressed to me (or perhaps I should be angry because of that?). As for maps, of course, there are those with additional descriptions (I did not created that lists of sources to address the issue of what is written on the map, but to address the issue that term "Serbia" was used for the area, with or without additional description). Speaking about additional description, most maps are using only term "Serbia", while in those that using additional description there is no general agreement of the form of that description. Therefore, only term "Serbia" without description would be supported by largest possible number of sources, while any form of additional description is supported by very small number of sources. PANONIAN 07:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The source map for the civil administration map is titled Serbia - June 1944. That is why I gave my map a similar title. I suspect the Serbian civil administration of the territory probably did refer to it as Serbia (there is anecdotal evidence for this; the name Serbia on the money for example). I have not seen any official documentation of the Serbian civil admin though, so this is only speculation. This I believe is why it was labelled as such on the British source map. However, the civil admin was subordinate to the German Military Administration which called it Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien. As I understand it, the infobox map is meant to be a simple map of the territory so would be titled with this name. XrysD (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to add the following into the mix [[48]]. This is from a truly comprehensive text on Germany in WW2, this part of this volume concentrating on wartime administration etc. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

History section

Peacemaker67, is there any valid reason why you want to include texts about governments and resistance into "History" section? This is against practice used in other Wiki articles, where sections about government are not included into "History" section but are separate from it. PANONIAN 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of no such "practice", PANONIAN. This is not a former country article and will not be written as such. -- Director (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Please spare us of your fringe theory about character of the area. You do not want former countries in the examples? No problem. These are not countries: Kosovo Vilayet, Manitoba, Split-Dalmatia County - in all these articles (and in many other) section about "Administration" is separated from "History" section. Now, is there a reason why we should implement different solution here and merge the two sections? PANONIAN 19:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we shouldn't? The only articles of a similar type as this one are the other half-dozen occupation zones. There is no common practice here, you are inventing it. That's the bottom line, really.. -- Director (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes there is reason: it is ugly and confusing for readers. History section should be formed chronologically, not thematically. It should contain only brief history of the area, while other article sections should deal with specific subjects, it is most logical and best approach. PANONIAN 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
@ PANONIAN. Yes, there is a valid reason. Why would you assume that there wasn't? As far as the History section is concerned, a lot happened in 1941, including the establishment of the military administration, the appointment of the Commissioner Administration, the commencement of the uprising, the appointment of the Nedic puppet government, the raising of the Serbian State Guard and other auxiliaries, the crushing of the uprising, and the Partisan and Chetnik retreat from the occupied territory into eastern Bosnia and Montenegro respectively. One continuous section without subsections covering 1941 would be unwieldy and would not help the reader. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, then perhaps you can mention these events briefly in the "History" section (with some sub-titles, of course, but not with ones that would contain a single sentence). I am proposing only 3: "Invasion and occupation", "Establishment of the Military Government and the Commissioner Administration" and "Beginning of the resistance and the establishment of Government of National Salvation". However, all of them should be brief and most of the info about Serbian governments should be written in the "Administration" section, so you should not move content from there. PANONIAN 06:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, we're on the same page then. I want to discuss the current content of the 1941 subsection before I get started trying to get the whole History section into shape. It seems to me that for these sections to be brief, we need to stick to factual events, and move any exploration of the motives of the Germans, Nedic and Mihailovic out of the History section to the relevant sections, or in the cases of the Germans and Nedic, some of it could probably go to the main articles on the Military Administration, and Government of National Salvation. I'm keen to cut the existing 1941 subsection down, briefly mentioning the invasion and occupation, establishment of the military government, appointment of the Administration, the uprising and the appointment of the Nedic government, then the First Enemy Offensive, breakdown between DM and Tito and the retreat of their remaining forces from Serbia. It will be big enough without going into differing perspectives on why it all happened that way or the motives of the players. Is that OK? I'd be happy to paste my proposed subsections here first for discussion as we go. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
can you respond please, PANONIAN?

Top of the infobox

Now, since term "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was included in the top of the infobox, two other names (which are more widely used in the sources) should be added as well: these are "Serbia" ([49], [50]) and "Nedić's Serbia" ([51]). Both names are more widely used in sources than name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", which is supported only by one single English-language reference: [52]. PANONIAN 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

you just will not read policy or guidelines, will you? Even if I link them. Please read them and try arguing from a Wikipedia policy or guideline perspective instead of this WP:OTHERSTUFF basis. I have comprehensively debunked 'Serbia' as a WP:COMMONNAME. You obviously had no credible challenge to my policy-based argument regarding WP:COMMONNAME, because you would have had a go at the time. But instead you tried another angle to get what you want. Try reading a scholarly source that is actually used in this article, and what they use to refer to the territory, and stop trying to use the label on a map on some page of the website of the Bronx community college and raw Google Books hits instead of WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of unsourced translations

This has been an issue in this article for some time. This is a territory with an official name in English which is drawn from the German (obviously because the Germans established it). Any translations of these names need to be sourced to be included. We don't just translate terms into the local language just because something happened there. Unless there is a source for the Serbian translations of the title, please stop adding them to the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Never

  1. address other users in a heading
  2. use headings to attack other users

I noticed that headings on this talk page contain one user's username. I believe it is against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which explains this issue under this secton. If I am right somebody should remove usernames from the headings on this talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the name from the section I started. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Military Commanders in infobox

G'day Director. I'm afraid the list of Military Commanders in the infobox conflates Military Commanders with the Chief of the Military Administration. Turner and Neuhausen were the latter. Are you happy for me to amend, or would you prefer to do it yourself? I think it should be the names of the Military Commanders such as Dankelmann etc (ie the supreme authority) rather than the Chiefs, but it just needs to be consistent. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead, Peacemaker. -- Director (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
done, but there appears to be a syntax/formatting problem with the infobox, which I don't have the skills to fix. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I did warn you this infobox isn't quite "polished" [53]. I tried everything, it appears to be the very fact that there's an entry under "leader6 =". -- Director (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the "deputy" entries as that seems to fix the problem. Its really an error (on my part) anyway. Once you think about it the PM of the puppet government isn't really the deputy military commander. We should save them for the Government of National Salvation article. -- Director (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, maybe the deputy should be the Chiefs of Military Administration, ie Turner and Neuhausen etc? I could ask the coordinator of the Wikiproject former countries to pop over and have a look at it if you thought it was worth it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree on the chiefs (was that the title of their office?). You might as well ask, I'm stumped. -- Director (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Chef der Militärverwaltung in Serbien (ie Chief of the Military Administration in Serbia). Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
And that's a good translation? Well ok. Its just I can't help imagining them with feathers on their heads and a long pipe.. :-) -- Director (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Subdivision" infobox and symbols of Nazi Germany

Regarding the new "Subdivision" infobox and symbols of Nazi Germany that were added to the article by DIREKTOR, I am expressing my strong objection to this action:

  • 1. name of that new infobox is "Infobox former subdivision", which is not appropriate since Serbia was not subdivision of anything (and DIREKTOR also does not denying that: [54] - quote: "PANONIAN, noone is contending that the territory was annexed by Germany, or that it was a part of Germany, or its subdivision, or anything of the sort."). "Infobox former country" should be used instead, since Serbia was not subdivision or part of any other entity.
  • 2. DIREKTOR added to the article flag and coat of arms of Nazi Germany and these were not symbols of the territory (page about used new infobox says that usage of flag is optional and that usage of flag within article is connected with common name of the territory in whose article this infobox is used). In another words, infobox guideline says that even usage of flag that was actual flag of any territory in whose article this infobox is used is fully optional and does not say that flag of foreign country should be used in that infobox. What DIREKTOR done here is clearly an example of "disinfobox": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes (or infobox with inaccurate data). Symbols of Nazi Germany should be removed from infobox since there is no source that says that these were symbols of this territory. Alternativelly, these symbols could be moved to infobox of Military Administration in Serbia article, which speaks about German administration. PANONIAN 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The name of the template is utterly irrelevant. Just like all other templates, it can be used for a wide variety of purposes that may or may not correspond exactly with its name. Its usage is what matters, and we know this is proper usage as its introduction on this article was done according to the recommendation from WikiProject Former Countries. And I would appreciate it if you referred to this territory on this talkpage by its actual name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", rather than simply "Serbia", to avoid confusing readers (unless that is exactly your intent, of course).
  • This article will not be made an exception from all other articles on German occupation zones [55][56][57][58][59][60] [61], because you are offended by the fact that your country (or rather our country) was occupied. This was a German military occupation zone, hence German flag.
-- Director (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This infobox type has been used because it was recommended by the coordinator of the Wikiproject former countries, and because this territory was a subdivision of Yugoslavia, not Germany. Germany subdivided Yugoslavia into many parts, with Axis countries annexing this bit and that, and this was one of those subdivisions. I have had some discussions on the MILHIST page (of which you are aware), and there have been a couple of recommendations against using an infobox at all, and there have also been recommendations against using flags in the infobox for this article. I believe this is the right infobox if we must have one, but I am not committed to the flags. The flags are something you'll have to discuss with Director. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposing compromise

Perhaps we can create new infobox named "occupied territory", which would be used in all similar articles? The basic problem here seems the fact that we do not have appropriate infoboxes for all subjects. PANONIAN 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to create a redundant template by copy-and-pasting the "former subdivision" template and naming it "occupied territory"? No, that is absolutely unnecessary. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
PANONIAN it does not matter what the infobox is called it only matters what its used for. And this infobox is used for exactly this sort of thing. -- Director (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New sources

I also want to introduce some sources that saying that state/country of Serbia was indeed established by the Germans in 1941:

PANONIAN 19:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake... We went over this a million times, remember?? Please don't try to confuse the issue again. Some sources call the Nedic government a "puppet state", but the vast majority do not, and most of the decided minority of sources who do use such a term to describe the situation in brief do not claim anything of the sort when they enter into a more detailed elaboration. Doesn't the article already state this quite explicitly? In the lead? What's the problem? (does one of those sources state Nedic was a Croat?) -- Director (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It's bad you guys didn't included Milan Nedić in the infobox. You just bypassed him, even though he was an important figure in Serbia during the war, and he was nevertheless, a head of a puppet government that ruled Serbia along with German military administration. With such position he highly influented Serbia, truth to be said, he had very limited authoroty. Now, I am not sure that this military administration had a German flag. Different variant of Serbian flag was used as flag of Serbia in war... or maybe it was just a puppet government flag, I can't really say, but I think it should be added to infobox also. --Wustenfuchs 02:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
No see the history [62], we're having problems with the syntax. I can't get the infobox to behave. Peacemaker said he would inquire and see whether it can be fixed. Worst case scenario, we use the former country infobox. I myself support his (and Acimovic's) inclusion. -- Director (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
In the intro, it is stated: "Some sources describe the territory as a puppet state,[4] or a 'special administrative province',[5] with other sources describing it as having a puppet government.[6][7]" -- ref 4 is Vucinich & Tomasevich (1969), ref 6 is Tomasevich (2001), p. 78, - in which way is the definition of puppet state differentiated from the puppet government in these sources? Should the sentence be merged - "Some sources describe the territory as a puppet state or government,[4][6][7] or a 'special administrative province'[5]" ?--Zoupan 14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why German above English in the infobox title?

Why? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, its the archaic {{Infobox former subdivision}} template. As I said, we should probably consider using {{Infobox former country}} instead. Its the same thing, really, minus these little "glitches". -- Director (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that the infobox Buckshot06 suggested? Would it allow us to include the puppet PMs? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Its also what I originally introduced. You want I should put it up boss? :) -- Director (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
When was that? Before my time? I think you should just go ahead, it's what was agreed on WT:MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
'Twasn't so long ago if memory serves [63]. Going ahead. -- Director (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New map

I have followed up with User:XrysD regarding their offer of making a new map for this article. I have mentioned that I consider the main map should at least include all the towns that were German area commands (Belgrade, Niš, Šabac and Kraljevo), and I agree that there is no need for a 'territory name' label on the map itself. Maybe the Banat should be identified, though, even if by a shaded area or border. I've also said that it might be worth including all the towns where there were district commands, Požarevac, Zaječar, Leskovac, Valjevo, Kragujevac, Kruševac, Ćuprija, Kosovska Mitrovica, and Užice. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

everyone happy with the new map? Looks great to me! Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed! Excellent work. I wonder whether I should post a slightly modified "infobox version" like the one in the Government of National Salvation article. I don't want to offend XrysD (again), though. -- Director (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
In what way would you want to modify it and why? My only amendment to this one at this stage is the addition of the district command in the Banat. I think adding the actual county boundaries makes the map too busy for a main article map. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, the area command was in Pancevo for a few months, then Veliki Beckerek became an independent district command. They should be added to the map so that it includes all important centres. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh no big changes, I would merely introduce white instead of grey for the surrounding countries, so as to make the map "fit in" with the rest of the infobox and use the segment's own borders. Just a minor aesthetic tweak [64][65]. -- Director (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

ok. I was just about to ask XrysD to add the Banat towns and also to fix the title on the subdivisions map. Perhaps you could do the colour change after the towns have been added? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure. If necessary, I would always keep the map up to date with XrysD's changes. -- Director (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've added this here just to give my view on the proposed merging of subarticles Commissioner Government and Military Administration in Serbia. As I see it (and as per WP:POVFORK), summary style articles (such as this one), with sub-articles giving greater detail (such as Commissioner Government and Military Administration in Serbia), are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary article, conform to NPOV. That is what I believe is worth looking at with this article and two governmental subarticles. I will not be supporting a merge until this article is brought into order, and my initial position is that all three subarticles are justified. The only one I believe is under any threat at all at present (purely on a WP:NOTABILITY basis, mind you) is the Commissioner Government, and as far as I am concerned, not yet. There is no need to rush to a merge when the summary article is in such a parlous state. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, this isn't a "summary style article". Not really. And I don't think we could (or should try to) make it such. I just don't think there's any significant amount of notable info to write in the Commissioner Government article. Maybe a paragraph or two small ones that could easily fit here very elegantly. Likewise in the Military Administration in Serbia article, which is in addition, to all intents and purposes synonymous and equal in scope with this article. -- Director (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I was wanting to explore the uprising there in more detail, relating the casualties suffered by the gendarmerie etc and how this impacted on the resignation of the Acimovic government. I think that would make it notable enough, along with the list of ministers and portfolios, many of whom were notable players in pre-war politics. I don't see all that going in the main article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but that's not a subject for the Acimovic government article. Its clearly something for the Užice Uprising article. As for the list, I think its clearly below WP:NOTE, but if necessary it can easily be included here in the form of a wikitable.
I really wouldn't commit more than two articles to this subject. We have our article on the German territory, and one more on the puppet regime. That's how the rest of these things are covered, and I really don't believe its necessary to to have four articles covering this scrap of occupied Europe. I think we should try and keep the whole thing in perspective. -- Director (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. Those articles are about government and this one is about territory. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. This article is about the trees, rivers, and the fields, whereas that one is on eight people sitting in a room? Quite different topics, obviously. WhiteWriter, you keep getting confused by the names of these things (just like PANONIAN). This article isn't just about the land, so that we need another one for the administrative apparatus - its about the entire German occupation regime, that was called "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". There are real arguments for keeping those articles, but your objections are just not among them.
One question, though, WhiteWriter. I notice that you suddenly became active here only now that PANONIAN departed. How so? I cannot help but feel curious. -- Director (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There are currently six articles on this one tiny territory (I missed Banat in my last count). Three of those six are tiny stubs created all at once by PANONIAN during the conflict as WP:POVFORKS in his bid to somehow "separate" what he perceived as a country called "Serbia" from the German occupation authorities. One of those three can, in my opinion, be justified as a seperate article (Government of National Salvation). The other two are way below WP:NOTE and/or overlap almost completely with this article. -- Director (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker. Actually, I changed the title so it doesn't suit anyone's view. This way it suits your view. The default title for this sort of section is usually "Merger proposal" [66] or "Proposed merge" or something along those lines. -- Director (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
point taken, I've changed it again. My position is that there is a lot more to be added to the current spinoffs, and the case for a merge should not be proceeded with until they cover their subject appropriately. The reason they are pretty basic is because PANONIAN moved just enough there to start the article. For example, the Military Administration article explains nothing about the roles of the various heads of department (administration, police and economics) or the convoluted chains of command and control and rivalry. It doesn't explain what Neuhausen's job was etc etc. There is no desperate rush to merge. It will take me a week or so to make a good start on the Military Administration and Commissioner Government articles. Just to pull you up on the Uzice Uprising, there were attacks on the gendarmerie and Acimovic administration throughout the territory between April and August, and the Uzice Uprising should be focused on that area of the territory. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Director, WP:AGF !! If you wish to accuse WhiteWriter of being a sockpuppet, file an allegation. Otherwise, assume good faith and act in consideration with the rules. Without trying to sound too threatening, your block record etc is long and extensive, and your NPOV record is not spotless either. If I or Peacemaker67 so felt, either of us could file an AE against you as well. Your record of the last few days inclines me against that at the moment, but that is no excuse for you to snipe at other editors. Really, I'm not trying to put the heavy hand on you, I'm just asking you to act in accordance with the rules. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Buckshot06, you're absolutely in the right, my nerves are shot, I apologize. My hopes are high that we're done with those sort of issues and even seeing them loom on the horizon gives me "frustration flashbacks". I really don't want to have the same sort of discussion with WhiteWriter that we had with PANONIAN, but having had a look at their editing patterns I have to admit my allegations were indeed baseless. I don't want to appear like I'm "folding under pressure", I do honestly see it was a mistaken insinuation on my part. WhiteWriter, I do sincerely apologize. -- Director (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker. There are a lot of things one could write on extensively. I mean, I could write an article-long biography of my beagle, Toby, but the question is: is he notable? Or to be more precise, does the subject warrant a seperate article, or does it WP:OVERLAP with an article on me (one that is long overdue imo). In this case, I believe that all content that might hypothetically be added to the article can be better covered, and more appropriately, on other articles. As the background of the Uzice Uprising article, maybe? Or as part of the Yugoslav Front article, or here.

Personally, I believe that the Commissioner Government should be covered as the background section of the Government of National Salvation article, with additional information present here as part of the summary coverage of both puppet administrations. Those two will need to be written anyway, and when they're done, there won't be anything much to add other than info that would better fit on the Yugoslav Front or Uzice Uprising articles. -- Director (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS for use of Nazi Flag and eagle

I am unaware of any source that says that the Nazi flag was the flag of this territory. The oft-repeated argument that it is used on other occupied territory articles on WP is contrary to WP:NOTSOURCE. Until a source is produced for the use of this flag as the flag of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, I consider it should not be used. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This territory had no flag. It is precisely because of that that the German flag is appropriate "by default". We know there was no flag: its not an issue of sources, its an issue of Wikipedia infobox practice. When a territory/area/region/province controlled by a country has no specific flag of its own, it is customary to use the flag of the country in the infobox - rather than leaving the parameters empty for no good reason [67][68][69][70][71][72] [73]. So to paraphrase: until a source is produced for the use of a specific flag as the flag of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, I consider the default flag should be used. Is there any argument as to why the infobox of this article should be filled-out differently than the others on articles of this type? -- Director (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Having been reading more of Kroener, I believe I know what has been bothering me about this. The problem here, I surmise, is what type of occupation was in place and what flag might go with such an occupied territory. Reichskommissariats were civil administrations, our Territory here a military administration. I am thinking that the most appropriate flag for a civil administration would be the Hakenkreuzfahne, or civil flag, also known as the swastika flag (as used on the various Reichskommissariat articles you've listed above). However, in a military administration, the most appropriate flag would be the Reichskriegsflagge, or war flag. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know who reinstated the flag, and at the moment I don't much care. What's important is that there was a long and public discussion about what flag was appropriate for this article at WT:MILHIST, the answer arrived there was the flag of the German Military Commander, and another flag has been substituted. I have removed the other flag and its coat of arms, and will continue to revert insertion of any flag except the Military Commander's flag unless a similar discussion has reached consensus to reverse the Military Commander's flag insertion.
Don't you see Director that this very kind of reversing of decisions-on-little-watched-talkpages exactly itself fuels the paranoia of people like Panonian? We specifically agreed the Military Commander's flag was appropriate at this article, then he got topic banned and cannot even comment, and somebody pulls a fast one on this. Don't try to avoid the consensus of the discussion, unless you want to go through the whole debate again, with potentially me playing Red Force, as Panonian is not here to speak for the opposite view. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Buckshot, first of all there was no WP:CONSENSUS or "decision" for me to avoid, and that much seems obvious. Simply proclaiming there was one doesn't make it so. All I see was you and Peacemaker agreeing to something. And to me it looks like the "fast one" is being pulled by you, since at least two users disagree - and on very good grounds. If you want to join the discussion on the subject, please do so - but do not just come here haughtily proclaiming you "don't much care" about who agrees or disagrees with your edit. And frankly, for someone constantly pointing to WP:AGF you post a lot of semi-veiled threats. Don't be misled by both of us using capital letters in our usernames - I am not PANONIAN. And for the record this is twice you've reverted an edit on this article, both times without a clear consensus.
The personal standard of an officer can no more represent a territory than the personal standard of, well, anyone. Its unheard of, arbitrary, and I oppose it. I've never seen a single infobox with a personal standard, and I've seen dozens with the flag of the country in control. -- Director (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
the WP:BURDEN regarding the flag is on PRODUCER. I don't believe it should be restored until it is sourced. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
What is it that you would like sourced? Do you need a source that this was a Nazi German occupation territory? Well that's sourced, isn't it? Therefore we should use the Nazi German flag - as opposed to leaving the parameter blank. Just as is always done. And said practice is perfectly logical and isn't misleading in the slightest. Berlin here didn't even bother to go through the military commander, but exercised direct control just as with any German province.
This isn't a factual dispute, its a dispute that concerns Wikipedia practice. The very lack of sources supports the use of the Nazi German flag, as it is used by default for territories under German control - unless a specific flag for the German territory can be sourced (which isn't likely since there wasn't one). And like I said twice already: nobody likes the Nazi flag, but it is precisely because of what it represents that its necessary on articles such as this (and apparently, people generally agree with me there). -- Director (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for your response Director. Yes, when I'm dealing with Balkan users and I'm working from an agreement that I believe to have the status of a consensus, from a WT:MILHIST talkpage discussion, yes, I may end up looking like I'm making lots of semi-veiled threats. What would you prefer, that I talked *really nicely* to all and sundry and then blocked people just like that? You had a chance to say you did not agree to the Military Commander's flag at the end of the WT:MILHIST discussion; the discussion closed without you saying so, instead, I think your final word was 'I'll perform a good faith move' regarding this article title; and now one of the principals in that discussion is not present to put his opinion, but may be watching what we are saying. If we went back to that forum, he could speak, but he is topic-banned from this page. That means I am, unfortunately, more interested in upholding the spirit of what I consider to be that discussion than potential bruised feelings on your part. Make no mistake; we've worked together before, notably on the Red Army assaulting Belgrade, and in the interactions I've had with you, you seem to be a good editor. But this was, in my view, an agreed consensus which you did not protest and which now I should uphold. I repeat: if you want to change this, go back to WT:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's right, I remember now. That whole mess ages ago :). Well in this case Buckshot, I believe you're mistaken. There unfortunately just isn't a consensus on this question. Not yet anyway. Nor was there one at WT:MILHIST. This is me explicitly voicing opposition to the standard of the military commander at WT:MILHIST. I'm also reasonably certain I did so more than once before when the proposition was first brought up there (i.e. I believe my position was well known to Peacemaker67). As for PANONIAN, he's topic banned from this subject, and for good reason - inability to participate in a neutral way (among other things). So I don't think we should be speculating as to what he may or may not be pushing for, nor trying to think of creative ways to help him evade his ban.
As for honesty vs courtesy, let me put it this way: were you a neutral party in this discussion then the parts of your post at issue would sound more like well-meant warnings. As things are, with you advocating a particular point of view here, it sounds more like "do as I like or you're disruptive and should be reported". I'd appreciate it if joined the discussion without such insinuations or (imo obviously unfounded) claims of consensus. -- Director (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Director, if this is about WP practice, then a wider forum is appropriate. I propose taking this back to WT:MILHIST as a discrete issue applicable to all of the relevant WW2 articles. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Only if we wish to change said Wikipedia practice. I don't. And its bigger than MILHIST. As I said several times, when a region/territory/area/province doesn't have a flag of its own, and has an infobox, people just use the flag of the country. Its more general than just German occupation zones. -- Director (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Then I will get some views from the wider MILHIST community on whether there is or should be a 'practice' in this respect. Feel free to further clarify if I have not expressed your argument correctly or fully. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
There's not much to express. I'm against leaving the field empty, plain and simple. This was not an independent entity of some sort without a flag, that we might justify using none. This was a Nazi German occupation zone, hence the Nazi German flag is appropriate. Obviously, its not misleading in the slightest. That is the reasoning, and I submit as evidence of its merit the fact that it was apparently followed on all articles of this type. -- Director (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, I'm against using the war flag. The point is to show that this was a territory under the control of Nazi Germany, so I would like to use the national flag. That's not a civil flag, its a "main flag", as it were. Again, the idea is to simply designate the occupying power. -- Director (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

this territory was under the direct control of the Nazi German military, who had a flag, the war flag. There is a very good pic on Commons of the Germans raising the war flag on the Acropolis after they captured Athens. It is more appropriate to use the flag of the German military that ran the territory. We have no picture of any Nazi flag being used there, and it couldn't be more natural than to use the war flag, it is clearly identifiable as a Nazi German flag due to the prominent use of the swastika, and is more specific to this territory than the national (civil) flag of Nazi Germany. I'm not a vexillologist, but the 'main flag' as you refer to it, was the national flag of Nazi Germany and the civil flag. I consider the civil flag is the most appropriate on the Reichskommissariat articles, as they were civil administrations, but not here or on the Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well first of all, no, the territory was only nominally under military control, and was actually administered (quote) "directly" by the government of Nazi Germany (you are aware that the Nazis and the conservative military did not really like each-other much?).
  • Secondly, the war flag was not in any way a symbol of the military, the Balkenkreuz was.
  • Furthermore, the idea is not necessarily to use the flag that was used in the territory, but, as I said, to represent the occupying state. The flag used to represent Nazi Germany in all infoboxes, everywhere, is the national flag, not the war flag. For example, in military conflict infoboxes, where one might even more expect to see the war flag. Its simply the flag used to represent that country, and we're trying to represent the country.
  • And finally, even if we disregard the above, we really have no idea (apart from OR) as to whether the war flag actually was used predominantly in this territory or not. -- Director (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Director,

  • Your first point is a simplistic and inaccurate summation of the power of the Wehrmacht in this territory. The following is drawn from Tomasevich.
The military commander lacked power over economic issues in the territory due to the power of Goring's man, Neuhausen, who was the head of the economic staff (ie as Turner was the head of the military administrative staff, Neuhausen was Turner's equivalent). The military commander also initially had little control of the occupation forces (he only had the local defence battalions under his direct command), although Turner did have control over the police. However, all political control in the territory was exercised by Turner through the Wehrmacht area and district command posts who were entrusted with establishing unified administration and implementing his policies, and he controlled all the military courts that tried locals for acts against German law.
Bader, who commanded three divisions of German occupation troops, and reported to the Wehrmacht 2nd Army, was a major power in the territory from June 1941. He was essentially in a parallel command structure to Dankelmann, who could call on him to help but couldn't otherwise direct him. When Bohme arrived with the best part of three combat divisions from September 1941 onwards, he commanded Bader as well. Seven divisions of Wehrmacht. After he crushed the revolt, Bohme left, and from February 1942, all military and military administrative (political power through area and district command posts etc) power in the territory was concentrated under Bader when the roles of military commander, plenipotentiary general and Higher Command LXV were amalgamated. In January 1942, a Higher SS and Police Leader was appointed to head up the police structure (Meyszner was Turner and Neuhausen's equivalent, and the third arm of the then plenipotentiary general's staff). As you alluded to, Neuhausen and Meyszner both reported largely their own bosses in Berlin (but Neuhausen soon absorbed Turner's role and thus had a lot of power as both chief of military administration and economic dictator). Bader, the new 'commanding general and military commander in Serbia' reported not to the Quartermaster General of the Wehrmacht (as Dankelmann had), but to the armed forces commander in SE Europe (Kuntze then Lohr). Later, all troops in the territory came under the 2nd Panzer Army (Rendulic). Then Felber took it up a further notch in terms of power when he became the military commander in SE Europe but was delegated all the supreme executive powers of the armed forces commander in SE Europe, which he could exercise fully in this occupied territory. The Bulgarians were completely subordinated to the Wehrmacht area and district commands, and could not issue decrees to the populace, try locals, or even shoot hostages without the say-so of the military commander.
  • Secondly, you are mistaken about the Reichskriegsflagge. Happy to take this over to the German MILHIST taskforce, but the Balkenkreuz was used as a symbol on vehicles, aircraft etc. The Reichskriegsflagge was definitely the flag of the military, witness the German troops raising it on the Acropolis in May 1941 here.
  • I think we are trying to represent a territory under German military occupation which the Reichskriegsflagge represents better than the national flag of Nazi Germany.
  • And your last point is moot, as we have no sources on usage either way. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
German occupation troops in Yugoslavia raising the Nationalflagge.
  • Alright, let us then say that the military's control over the territory was incomplete and varied significantly in effectiveness through time. In my opinion the point remains valid. To say that this was a territory under military control would be equally as simplistic.
  • I am not mistaken. The Reich war flag was not a symbol of the military, it was a war flag (representing Nazi Germany as a whole). It certainly was used extensively by the military (as that was its purpose), but by no means exclusively. And it did not represent the military.
  • The flag is not so much there to represent the territory itself, but rather to clearly indicate the occupying country (I believe I said something of the sort in our initial discussion on the subject).
  • No, but again, we default to what is generally done. And what is generally done is neither to leave the parameter empty, nor to use the war flag. The national flag of Nazi Germany is used on every single occasion, in every infobox I've ever seen.
-- Director (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
you certainly are mistaken, the national war flag was introduced in 1935 'to be used by all three branches of the armed forces'. The reference is Davis, per the war flag article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Once again. The Reichskriegsflagge, just like every other war flag, represents Nazi Germany, not the military. Also just like every other war flag, it is intended for use by the military, but it represents the country - Nazi Germany. In other words, it is not a symbol of the military, but for the military. Its a symbol of Nazi Germany. -- Director (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I get the feeling there's some misunderstanding here. A war flag is a flag of a country that is intended for use by its military during wartime. It does not represent the military itself. We are agreed on this, I hope?
The Reichskriegsflagge was just as any other war flag. It is a flag of Nazi Germany intended for use by the military during wartime. It does not represent the Wehrmacht - the Balkenkreuz does. -- Director (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible there is a misunderstanding, however, before we move forward what evidence is there that this war flag was used by any organisation other than the military? You stated above that it wasn't exclusively used for that purpose, but that is in fact exactly who it was designed for, by Hitler. If the war flag was used by the military during wartime (no argument, although I would add 'exclusively'), represents Nazi Germany (no argument), and it was a military rather than civil occupation, I see no reason why the war flag would not be more appropriate, and specific. As far as the other info boxes of occupied territories are concerned, I consider the Reichskommisariats are not directly relevant to this article, and I have checked them and the Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France talk pages for any discussion of this issue, and found none. I also checked MILHIST archives. Therefore, I consider there is no WP 'practice' except that of the couple of editors who created those articles, and who may well have merely copied each other. Precedent, or practice, to be true guidance on an issue, requires some level of professional rigour to make it so, and I detect none. I consider that part of your argument to be a complete canard. However, I have spent far too much time on this flag issue already, and I will not dispute the restoration of the swastika flag. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Since a war flag is intended for use by the military, I doubt it was used by anyone other than the military (though its entirely possible). What I said was that the military predominantly used the war flag, but apparently not exclusively. It doesn't really matter though, my point was that its a flag of the military, but a flag of Nazi Germany intended for use by the military.
I did not say there was an explicit consensus on the issue. All I said was that I never ever saw the war flag being used to represent Nazi Germany in an infobox. Never. Not even to represent military forces. The idea is to represent Nazi Germany, and the Nationalflagge is always used for such a purpose. Since this is a project-wide practice, and this is not a factual dispute, I see no reason not to consider it a valid argument for use here as well, i.e. precedent.
Like I said from the start, Peacemaker, all I'm trying to do is bring this article "up to standard". I don't like the idea of us leaving the infobox half-empty, and I don't like the idea of inventing something special for this article. To use the German flag isn't my idea, but it seems everyone found it so logical that they employed it. And I agree: it seems perfectly natural to use the German flag for a German occupation.
P.s. Both of them are swastika flags. -- Director (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Government of National Salvation subsection

I think this section needs further expansion with developments with the government that occurred over time, but there are some aspects of the last current few paras that strike me as not NPOV. Nedic's propaganda about why he did what he did is relevant, but it needs to be balanced with other relevant sources. Unless someone objects, I'm going to start expanding it and moving material not directly relevant to the government into other sections/subsections. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The section needs to be cut-down in size and its content moved to the practically-empty Government of National Salvation article. A proper summary of said material should be sufficient here. That is the primary location where material on the GNS ought to be found. Would you consider adding your content over there? -- Director (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. Some here, some there. There really is a lot of work to do on this article... Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No, its not double the work. Just do there what you were going to do here, and I'll use parts of it to summarize here. Copy-paste. -- Director (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say it was double the work... Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian name

Just a note. The addition of a Serbo-Croatian name in the infobox needs to be sourced, that much is true (as inclusion there implies official status), but a Serbo-Croatian name in the lead need not be explicitly sourced. Its actually suggested that all relevant translations be added there. I'll be adding the Serbo-Croatian variant of the name in the lead. -- Director (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not my reading of WP:NCGN and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names. My understanding from them is that they should go in the Names section or footnotes. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Its been a while, but if memory serves I think it says so in WP:LEAD. I'll check it out again. -- Director (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup, here it is [74]. Basically what it says is that if there are too many foreign-language names, they need a separate section. Here we're only dealing with two languages, so I don't think we need another section or sub-section. But then if you'd like to move the German and SC names down south to the "Names" section, I wouldn't object. -- Director (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

wrong name

name of this page is funny. there is no reliable source that support this. page should have name serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuHu22 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

please read the footnotes. Hehn and Pavlowitch are both WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
your footnotes are unable to be read. you have any that can be read by others? Wikipedia:Verifiability not support your footnotes. HuHu22 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

infobox

location maps are standard for wikipedia infobox. why you want to have other map there? HuHu22 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

this has been discussed recently, at length on this talkpage and on the MILHIST talkpage. Please read the discussion for a detailed explanation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
it was not. infobox map was uploaded in 2 July 2012. there is no any discussion on this page after that day. HuHu22 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia → Military Administration in Serbia – This article mostly speaks about German military administrators and it should have this title. There is just one google result for "territory of the military commander in serbia" and 101 google result for "military administration in serbia" Nemambrata (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The subject of this article is the occupied territory (the physical entity), not the military administration that had supreme authority in that occupied territory. The military administration of the occupied territory is of course discussed in the article, as you would expect. The title of this article was discussed at some length in front of the MILHIST community here and was decided by consensus with the oversight of an experienced MILHIST admin User:Buckshot06. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As I have pointed out already, this is not about an administration, it is about a physical occupation territory which was administered by the Germans. As far as WP:TITLE is concerned (ie the relevant WP policy) the first thing is whether there is a WP:COMMONNAME. This discussion makes it clear that there is not. Saying that a source uses a term is no good unless you look at each hit to see what the author calls it when they first introduce it. From that point in the text, they nearly all revert to something like 'Serbia' eventually anyway. This is common in English, not always so in other languages. Frankly, it is easier to use the shorter term once they have introduced what they are talking about, rather than use the name 'rump Serbia' or one of the other names on every occasion in the text. But given that they bothered to use a different term to introduce the territory in the first place, the later uses of the term 'Serbia' are not relevant to the case for 'Military Administration in Serbia' under the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Therefore, based on the references referred to at that link, there isn't a WP:COMMONNAME. To me, this issue is one about how the word 'Serbia' is presented in the title so that anyone looking at the title would not think that this 'Serbia' was a country. Other guidance from WP:COMMONNAME includes that ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. This is, I believe, what is wrong with the title 'Military Administration in Serbia' and many of the alternatives that have been discussed before and the raw Google hits information that has been mentioned on this and other pages. They are ambiguous and inaccurate because they imply that Serbia was a state administered by the Germans. It was not a state, it was an occupation territory and it had an official name, we we have sources for (in German and English).
The second thing is to assess the WP:TITLE principles. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources (ie no WP:COMMONNAME), editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the goals of: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency.
It seems to me that most of the WP:COMMONNAME objectives are achieved by the use of a title including 'Serbia'. 'Serbia' is recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, and it is also natural because it is a term that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors might naturally use to link from other articles, although I will say a couple of more things about that later.
In terms of precision, 'Serbia' is of course far too imprecise. 'Serbia' has many meanings over a long period of time, and in this case means a very specific thing, an occupation territory. The article title must be sufficiently precise to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
The need for precision impacts on the goal of conciseness. We need to have a longer and less elegant title so that it is sufficiently precise. There is a fine line between 'Military Administration in Serbia' and using the official name. What I mean is that anyone looking for this territory will probably search for 'Serbia' (as per naturalness), be taken to the current 'Serbia' article, then have to go to the disambiguation page to find the 'Serbia' they are looking for. 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' is as precise as it gets.
Finally, consistency. Titles of articles should follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Unfortunately, due to the rather unique nature of the arrangements in the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', we really have nothing to go on.

For the above policy-based reasons, I believe that the official name 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' should continue to be used because whilst it is not exactly the most recognisable or natural title (point taken, WW), the reality is that anyone looking for this will look for 'Serbia', then go to the disambiguation page where they will find it, whatever it is called. It is as precise and unambiguous as it gets. Consistency is not an issue for us here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

“Military Administration in Serbia” can describe both, authority in that occupied territory and territory itself and it is not correct that this name do not describe territory. You can compare examples: Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France, German military administration in occupied France during World War II. Current article name, “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” is barely sourced, not established in English language and it is name used by occupation regime for illegal entity that was not recognized by rest of World. Peacemaker67 say that this name was “official”, but it was “official” only in mind of German occupators. For most of World, occupation of Yugoslavia was illegal and any entity created by Germans in territory of Yugoslavia was illegal too. We should not promote illegal names in Wikipedia and we specialy should not promote them if they are not established in English language. Name “Military Administration in Serbia” is at least established in English and less controversial because occupation administration is less illegal than political entity created against international law. Nemambrata (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This title is terrible and awful, but proposed one is even worse and misleading. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain how the proposed title is misleading? Srnec (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The subject of this article is the occupied territory (the physical entity), not the military administration that had supreme authority in that occupied territory. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If it's about the physical entity, then why no geography section? More seriously, why not just use a title like Occupied Serbia during World War II? Srnec (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree to your proposal, Srnec, with all my hart. After this, please, propose that title, i find that the best. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No. This article deals only with part of the territory of Serbia occupied by Nazi Germany during WII. Not with other parts of Serbia occupied by Bulgaria, Hungaria, Italia and Croatia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OMG Antidiskriminator, we agree on something... red letter day. Although the Bulgarians did occupy nearly all of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia by the end, but always under German overall command. You obviously mean the bits they annexed. In fact nearly all of the rest of modern-day Serbia was annexed by Axis states rather than just occupied. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose. Lets keep things as they are pending a general discussion on the appropriateness of referring to these territories by the name of their administration. -- Director (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? This is not blind voting, but discussion. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that the current title is as good as it will get, but I'd like to see more discussion in the article itself about the naming of this territory, both by the Germans and by historians. The current title will probably strike many readers as made-up, and they will need to be convinced. Convince them in the article and not on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. After deghosting there are 30 GBS hits for "military administration in serbia", with several hits referring to Turkish or Yugoslav royal military administration in Serbia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
then at a minimum it would need disambiguation, and my point about conciseness is strengthened. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No its not. Don't try to misuse my comment to support your point. "30 vs 1" instead "101 vs 1" is still very high ratio. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but it's not my problem if you are supporting my point, and I will use it if it does. Which it does. Thank you. You are clearly confusing conciseness with your attempts at establishing that 'Military Administration in Serbia' is the WP:COMMONNAME. If that is what you are trying to do, because so far the only editor actually addressing the WP:TITLE principles is me. So far all I have seen to oppose my points is raw (or deghosted, whatever that is) Google Books hits and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But back to conciseness. 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' is 45 characters including spaces, 'Military Administration in Serbia (1941-1944)' is also 45 characters. Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What you did here is Straw man fallacy. You invented name that nobody proposed ('Military Administration in Serbia (1941-1944)') then you based your point on misrepresentation of an opponent's position (length of the proposed name).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I made a reasonable assumption that you were talking about conciseness, because you mentioned that some of the hits on 'Military Administration in Serbia' related to the Ottoman empire or something, so I just added the obvious disambiguation of the year range to eliminate the ambiguity. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Nemambrata. Firstly, your references to two other articles about military administrations are not directly relevant here for a number of reasons. I assume you are referring to the principle of consistency under WP:TITLE. One of those articles is a stub, and both need more references, so I don't think it is appropriate to be drawing too strong a conclusion from them. They also differ in an important respect, in neither case did the military authorities appoint indigenous puppet governments. That is the reason I stated above that this situation is unique and I don't consider that consistency is relevant here. As far as the language issue is concerned, we have five sources that support this name as the official name. No-one has provided a reference for an alternative official name, so one source is as good as 500 in that respect. Your point about language is misleading, the official name was originally in German (obviously), and as non-English sources are widely used on WP, we ask editors to indicate their translation skills so we can get their help when we have situations such as this. I did that, and that about wraps it up as far as that is concerned. Your points about something being illegal is lost on me. What about the NDH? It was illegal under Western interpretations of the international law of belligerent occupation, but we have articles on WP about it, and we use its official name. That has nothing to do with this point. What WP policy are you referring to? I assume the declaration of independence by Kosovo was illegal under Serbian law, but that doesn't mean we can't create articles about it on WP. That would be censorship, and I'm pretty sure WP frowns on censorship. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Peacemaker, what I'm worried about is consistency. These occupation territories should be referred to in the same way wherever they're covered: as things are now, all except this one are referred to by the name of the administration itself (that is to say, the territory is called by the name of its administrative body). I would not mind any name as long as its used throughout for these sort of articles. Imo, this should be discussed at WP:MILHIST, and an overall consensus should be reached on the most appropriate name for German WWII military occupation territories. Of course, any pushing in the direction of "Vichy Serbia" is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. For now, I'm changing my vote, since here it apparently must be made blatantly clear that this territory is indeed a territory. Goodness knows we might hear "it isn't a territory its an administration, this is Serbia" one second after its renamed. -- Director (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I think consistency would be more important if the other articles on this subject were as researched and developed. They are not. I also think the puppet government issue makes it more important that this be clearly a territory, and the latter issue clinches it for me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • One last point. These were the arrangements in this territory. The territory was commanded by the military commander, the military administration was one third of his staff (the other thirds were the economic branch and the police branch) and the chief of the military administration was in charge of the military administration branch (and directed the puppet governments on day-to-day issues). For example, in January 1942 Bader was the military commander in the territory, Harald Turner was the chief of the military administration, Franz Neuhausen was the economic chief, and August Meyszner was the Higher SS and Police Leader. They were all theoretically equal and all theoretically reported to Bader. You are essentially trying to rename this article so it only relates to one third of the military government of the territory, and you are excluding the military commander (who was the supreme authority and issued all the orders, appointed the puppet governments etc), the economic chief (who was basically the economic dictator of the territory) and the police chief (who was responsible for law and order in the territory, and was effectively in charge of the Serbian State Guard). Essentially the Google Books hits for 'Military Administration in Serbia' compare apples and oranges. The territory is the whole and you are trying to rename it to be a third of the whole. That's it for me, I'm sure the admin that closes this request already has enough to read and will look at the policy-based arguments for the naming of the article and make a wise decision. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – looking at the article, I can't agree with Peacemaker67's claim that the topic is the "territory" per se. It's about the history, the people, the administration, etc. The more concise title also appears to have more appropriate scope. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawing my support; I'll stay neutral, as I think a move makes sense, but probably not this move. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – whichever title is chosen, we should fix the case error per WP:CAPS. There's no support in books for capitalizing either one (the current title is a translation from the German made by WP editors; both are descriptive, not proper names). Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day Dicklyon, actually that is not correct. Hehn (a WP:RS) says it is the official name of the territory, and uses that exact capitalisation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Was official name on English language, or German? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You can follow the link to the article from the citation, but as you can see it is in both German and English in the source. Now, this is English Wikipedia, and the territory was occupied and governed by the Germans, so obviously the original name was in German, not Serbo-Croat. The local name in Serbo-Croat matters not, as the Germans were the ones that decided it. Hehn translates it into English in parentheses after providing the official name in German. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Not quite so. Hehn says "Officially labelled the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia)." Now it's clear why all the caps in the German, official or otherwise, but there's not official name in English, so he made up a translation and capitalized it. No other book or paper that we know of uses this term. And no source has adopted his translation in the last 40+ years since he did it. Even if we adopt it, there's no reason to capitalize it, as there's no evidence that it's an official or proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Good point Dicklyon. Peacemaker67 was also wrong when he said that local name doesn't matter. Local official name is, of course, very important. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Peacemaker67, do you know what was local official name, used in official documents for this territory?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • This is becoming circular. With respect Dicklyon, you may not have read the full discussion of this issue, which includes archive pages 5-7 as well as this one (and a considerable part of a MILHIST talkpage. There are at least six sources for this name in texts written in English, including contemporary sources (1944 & 1949) in the 70's, 80's and one by a professor writing a book about the history behind the name 'Serbia' published in 2002:
        • Pavlowitch 2002, 'Serbia: the History behind the Name', p. 141. "What was left of Yugoslavia, roughly pre-1912 Serbia, was placed under direct German military rule (along with rich grain-producing Banat just north of it, controlled through its sizeable ethnic German population). It was officially called the 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia'."
        • UK Naval Intelligence Division 1944, 'Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration', p. 380. "But the central government of Serbia is not that of an independent state. The country is officially the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens and the supreme authority is the GOC for the whole area of Serbia."
        • Paul N Hehn 1971, 'Serbia, Croatia and Germany 1941-1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans', in 'Canadian Slavonic Papers', Vol 13 No 4, pp. 344-373. "Officially labelled the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), it comprised some 4 million inhabitants, 28% of the original population of Yugoslavia."
        • Bond and Roy 1975, 'War and Society: a yearbook of military history', Vol 1. p. 230. "The most important took place in the 'Independent State of Croatia' and in the 'Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia' (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien)."
        • Kerner 1949, 'Yugoslavia', p. 358. "The full title is Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens."
        • Deroc 1988, 'British Special Operations explored: Yugoslavia in turmoil, 1941-1943, and the British response', p. 232 "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia mid June 1941"

I also stand by my description of the arrangements in the Territory outlined above in One last point above, which makes a nonsense of this proposed move, because the current proposal actually changes the subject of the article by contracting its scope (which is currently about the whole German military government apparatus in the Territory from the military commander on down, not just the military administration). I have drawn that explanation from Tomasevich 2001, p. 74. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, do you know what was local official name, used in official documents for this territory? This is the third time I ask you the same question (1st time, 2nd time)
Please don't ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors and please don't repeat the same argument without convincing people because it can be seen as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You are flooding this talk page with your comments although it is obvious that Hehn is the only source for the current version of name. Other sources you presented use different or German language title. I don't think that you will convince anybody here that official name for this territory was English language name. Therefore please be so kind to reply to my question (asked for the third time).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, I have pointed this out to you before. The feeling is mutual. You almost never respond to my points, you just keep banging on about Google Books hits in an attempt to badger editors into submission. I have addressed the issue of WP:COMMONNAME in my discussions with PANNONIAN before he was blocked. I linked that discussion, but you won't engage because it doesn't suit your preferred 'consensus'. The other point I would like to make is that I try to split my time between issues like this one and actually being productive on WP by improving and promoting articles, doing backlogs tasks for MILHIST etc. I also sleep. So sorry if I don't spring to attention every time you ask me a tendentious question. But seeing as I am here, engaging with this issue, I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean on stamps, coins, or on real official documents like orders issued by the military government, or orders issued by the Serb puppet government, or what. I have a copy of Lemkin at home, but of course it is in English, so anything in it is likely to have been translated from German or Serbo-Croat. I know there is at least one order relating to the Banat that was issued by Milan Acimovic, as well as several issued by the Military Commander in Serbia, so I will have a look when I get home tonight and let you know what it says. But is that what you mean by 'local'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah... (penny drops, hit forehead with palm), in the local language! No idea, I'm assuming it was called the equivalent of 'Serbia' by the people that lived there, they were mostly Serbs after all. And I'd imagine that the German-appointed puppet government that was keen to promote a 'Greater Serbia' agenda would have been keen to use that name in its documents too. I don't read or speak the lingo. Wish I did, but I've always had trouble with the Cyrillic (it's all 'Greek' to me, as we say). I assume you do. If so, please enlighten me and provide a WP:RS. And please cut out the WP:WIKILAWYERING. Now I see, your argument is that even though the Germans occupied it for over three years and had an official name for the territory, which has been translated in WP:RS used in this article, we should ignore that and we should use the name the local people used to refer to the territory? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue.
There is an essay which says that some editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. According to the Wikipedia naming conventions, the name of this article should follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.) which is in this case Serbian language. I also don't have an idea what was it. This section is dedicated to RM therefore it would be best to discuss what is the name which is most often talked about on Serbian language within separate section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The English-language literature does talk a lot about "Serbia under German rule", or administration, control, occupation, military rule, military administration, etc. Pick one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those titles do not apply to this Wehrmacht occupation territory, which is something you will have to show before even considering them as titles. Its like saying we should rename the General Government article into the "Poland under German rule" article. They're vague terms that denote a period in the history of a (badly-defined) area. I know of only two names which certainly do apply to this territory: "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", which is often referred to by the name of its administration - "Military Administration in Serbia". If you really do have others, please show us, but do not simply list any vague term you come across as referring to this specific military occupation territory. -- Director (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make things simple for the admin closing this RM given we're approaching the 7 day timeframe, I'm listing here the individual Support/Oppose positions of the involved editors. I know that it is not a vote, just doing it so there is no confusion.

  • Support Nemambrata
  • Oppose Peacemaker67, WhiteWriter, Director, Srnec
  • Neutral Dicklyon
  • Uncommitted Antidiskriminator

Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia/Archive_7&oldid=1079335409"