Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:17, 25 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Balkan / European / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia Mid‑importance Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia -> Military Administration in Serbia, not moved, 1 August 2012, Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#Requested move RM, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia -> German-occupied Serbia, no consensus, 14 August 2012, Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#Requested move to "German-occupied Serbia"

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

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

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

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

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

Title, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two important conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Here is how I see the current situation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serbian translations

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

Will you please clarify your position?

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

Problems with page

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption

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

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

Help needed to resolve the problem

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

How to proceed?

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

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

Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statehood dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New source

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

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

Multi-choice RFC

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV-pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help needed to resolve the problem - II

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

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

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

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

Now the main problem can be defined like this:

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

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

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

Proposals

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

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

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

September 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about ahistorical titles of other articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR: Please stop calling me names.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• C-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Mid-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• C-Class Serbia articles
• Mid-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles