Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:19, 29 March 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:

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. 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 Serbia 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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

Infobox issue solution

I am not going to play rhetorical games with DIREKTOR, but question of usage of proper infobox for this article looks like valid one. Article introduction says "Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in occupied Yugoslavia", so we should use an infobox that is most suitable for "administrative area" or "occupied territory". By the way, I will now use only term "administrative area" as description of status of Serbia so that DIREKTOR have no basis to accuse me for "shifted position" or "aim to present Serbia as country". I do not see any valid reason that article about one "administrative area" do not have its own infobox. So far the only stated "reason" against existence of infobox in this article was DIREKTOR's claim that "I trying to present Serbia as country with that infobox". Regarding this accusation, I am officially stating that I have no such aims and that I consider that Serbia was an "administrative area" as it is stated in article introduction (if DIREKTOR one more time repeat these false interpretations of my aims I will ask for administrator's intervention - he also indirectly accused me that I am Nazi supporter at least two times and this behavior simply has to stop). Regarding the possible solution for infobox problem, I think that neither infobox named "Former Country" neither one named "Former Subdivision" would be best possible choice for this article. Since I think that an suitable infobox for an "occupied administrative area" does not exist, perhaps someone could create new infobox that could be used specifically for these kinds of subjects. So, since I do not know how to create such infobox, is there anybody here who know to do that? PANONIAN 18:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox country is supposedly suitable for use for a territory. However, I will ask some infobox people what they suggest.Fainites scribs 19:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned Fainites, please be sure, in order to prevent said inquiries to take the form of effective WP:CANVASSING, to emphasize that this template is being used just for the bare territory alone. That is to say, for a geographic area of land - not for a state or state subdivision, or any kind of political entity, as the template is indeed used for such purposes (by myself as well, for that matter).

Let me repeat once more, however, that even if Template:Infobox former country can in fact be used to represent the territory alone, it will still not make it any less grossly misleading to include within a territory template the two political entities. As I said, this creates the impression that the two were governmental institutions of a phantom "Vichy Serbia". In other words, in order to finally eliminate the Vichy Serbia slant in this article, this hypothetical "territory infobox" cannot include the German Military Administration or the Nedić government - or else it is not a territory infobox, but a Vichy Serbia infobox. For the record, however, I do not support such an infobox.

P.S. take note, for example, of the Kosovo article. There Template:Infobox country is being used just to represent the territory alone, and excludes any mention of the two political entities within Kosovo. While the Republic of Kosovo article and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija articles, with their nfoboxes, cover the political entities (I must say I'm proud this imo elegant and stable solution was my idea originally :)). However, I really can't support using Template:Infobox country, which is used on current subjects, for a German WWII occupation zone. Not even Template:Infobox former country, devoid of any mention of political entities, would be my idea of an elegant infobox depiction of this occupation zone. Once again, I think no infobox is a good solution, as well as the option of including two (rather small) infoboxes for the German Administration and the Nedić regime. --DIREKTOR 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: article introduction sentence says that Serbia under German occupation is an "administrative area", so why would infobox reflect "a geographic area of land" when it is not article subject? PANONIAN 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're shifting you're argument again? First it was a "country", then when that proved plain wrong you claimed it was the "bare territory" we're talking about, when that no longer looked like it will help you have your Vichy Serbia infobox, "Serbia" became a "third political entity", when you could not find any sources for that you now claim its an "administrative area". We can obviously only go on like this until we drain the English dictionary of all such terms, but this is where I draw the line. The phrase "administrative area" in the lead refers to the fact that the area was administered by the German Military Administration. That is the "administration" of the "administrative area" or "administrative territory". If you want an infobox for the administrative area feel free to introduce the Military Administration in Serbia infobox. But mark this: I refuse to follow you on this new, fourth line of reasoning you came up with to achieve the same POV goal.

Look, you want to have an infobox with the title "Serbia" that depicts the thing as near as a country as possible, with the German Administration and the Nedić government represented as its governing bodies. That is just something that I can not accept, not because I'm intransigent, but because our project would be sporting a historical error of HUGE significance for the history of Serbia, listing that country in a list of Nazi satellites where it does not belong . Why you're trying to do this I can't imagine, and I'm not usually the one that has to disassociate Serbia from collaborationism, but regardless: it is dead wrong and it will not fly. --DIREKTOR 23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it wrong? I tend to think that the Template:Infobox former country may be appropriate. Template:Infobox_Former_Subdivision says "This infobox should be used if the state in question was always a subdivision of some larger entity. For all other cases, use Infobox former country to place articles into various "Former countries" categories that would not be suitable for subdivisions of former countries." Serbia was country until 1918 and is a country today, so that complicates things a bit. I also note that these templates are part of a wiki project for former countries, one bureau of which concerns regions and evidently they did not get around to making an inforbox for historical regions. But there I found this Historical_regions_of_the_Balkan_Peninsula and that may help inform the discussion here.

The sources I've read on this historical period pretty consistently refer to the region/territory as Serbia, and Serbia was once and is now again a country, so I think we're on firm ground using the country or the former country infobox (but I would like hear what others familiar with infobox conventions have to say). I confess I'm confused by DIREKTORS apparent insistence that we should not name the political entries in control (whatever than really means in this context) of the region, since he has put one of those entities into the infobox , for example. PANONIAN prefers a different characterization. So it seems to me that the disagreements are about which entity to list and how to list them. I also think we can distinguish the quisling government and the military occupation force that controlled the territory. Activities of governments and of occupying forces may overlap, but generally, government functions and military ones are different in nature. I would also distinguish country/territory/region from those terms. I think we can say we're dealing with a region called Serbia by sources, which was governed by Nedic's quisling regime which was under the control of the German occupation. I suppose we could work in the YGE, but we'd have to make sure they were a government in name only. Is that something we can agree upon? If so, then the issue is to figure out how to express that in the infobox. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, some sources refer to the territory as "Serbia" mainly because it only did not exist for some 25 years between 1918 and 1943/44 (when the Federal State of Serbia was established). Its a name for that area on the map, and referring to it as such comes perfectly natural to me as well, even for the 1941-44 period.
• I have explained maybe 10 times why it is wrong, and I'm confused as to why you're confused. I stated plainly several times that PANONIAN mistakenly believes (probably because of the above) that the Military Administration and the Nedić government were "governing bodies" (his words) of a "third political entity" that he calls Serbia ("Vichy Serbia"). This mistaken belief he has depicted in his infobox, and this I am trying to correct. An infobox that uses the term "Serbia", a colloquial term for the territory in sources, and also incorporates the two political entities, in effect depicts - not a territory - but a state, a "Vichy Serbia" with two "governmental bodies".
  As I have said very frequently (and please read my posts before commenting on them) I am not opposed to naming the governing bodies in their own infoboxes - I am only opposed to them being bunched together in one infobox under the heading "Serbia" .
• As for distinguishing the military from the Nedić government, I think you're operating under a serious misconception here. German WWII military administrations were institutions of military occupation. Just like in any military occupation, they enjoyed supreme authority over any and all aspects of life and governance in the territory they were placed over, certainly not only the military aspects (indeed those were often separate and subordinate to military units, such as the Army Group F e.g.). The Nedić government (the Government of National Salvation) was little more than a (quote) "tool of the occupation authorities", an instrument for carrying out the Administration's orders.

What we can (and have I think) agreed upon, is that this is a territory (informally) referred to as Serbia in sources, which was governed by the German Military Administration, with the Nedić government as the latter's tool. It is PANONIAN's attempts to depict "Serbia" as another ("third") political entity, with the two real political entities as its "governing bodies", that I am trying to fix. --DIREKTOR 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing what PANONIAN proposed. And I'm not confused about the nature of the relationship of the Germans and Nedic's regime--the Germans were in control, but did not handle many of the ground level government tasks, and Nedic did engage in some activities not endorsed by the Germans. I do not think it is appropriate to say the German "governed" the territory--do you have a source that says that explicitly. Occupation forces are in control, but they do not really govern (hence the need of a puppet state). And it's not some sources, really, it is most source, at least from what I've seen. For example, see Roberts, page 19, where he speaks of Serbia being carved up and the parts not annexed by other groups (that being close to the 1912 borders) being under German/Bularian control. And I do not understand why you oppose the notion of listing the quisling and occupying forces in the same infobox, since they are closely related. It might be well to list the YGE/Chetniks there as well, since the YGE was the recognized governing body for the region labeled as Serbia during the war. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeated comments are leading us nowhere. Let first establish what is meaning of which name. These sources are explicitly stating that German Military Administration was something that governed territory, and not name for territory itself:

• - "He found his homeland occupied by German troops and governed by a German military administration"
• - "the remainder of Serbia was placed under German military administration"
• - "a Serbia under German military administration with a puppet government of its own"
• - "the Banat and Serbia were put under German military administration"
• - "Only one area, Serbia and Banat, with a population of German origin, was under direct German military administration"
• - "in April 1941, Serbia was placed under a military administration"
• - "South of the Danube, Serbia fell under German military administration. Formally, Banat was considered part of Serbia too, but effectively this area was also under German control"
• - "The German military administration in Serbia, a regime of unmitigated terror"

Clearly, all these sources are in position that German "Military administration in Serbia" was an administration/regime that governed territory/administrative area named Serbia. So, DIREKTOR, if you have any source that claims that "Military administration in Serbia" was name for territory itself you should present such source here and now. PANONIAN 06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly", PANONIAN, you do not understand that you cannot simply post sentences you yourself interpret as supporting your views ("they must be saying this or that"), they have to actually say what you're saying. None of these sources necessarily imply that Serbia was anything more than an informal name to refer to the territory (or "area" if that's your new thing) of "Serbia". Indeed, some of them actually imply the latter more directly, and one of them only mentions the name of the Militärverwaltung in Serbien (what's up with that? :). As Nuujinn points out, sources also refer to Serbia being "carved up" by the occupation forces, referring no doubt, to "Serbia" in its post-1945 borders. Nuujinn, Serbia in 1918 did not include the Austro-Hungarian province of Vojvodina (though the province quickly voted to join the new Yugoslav state). Does Roberts refer to the Hungarians or the NDH as having participated in the "carving-up" of "Serbia"? If so, "Serbia" there refers to a territory defined by the post-1944 borders, not the 1912 borders. --DIREKTOR 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn. There's no question of Nedić's status as an effective "tool" or "organ" of the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. e.g.

"But Nedić’s competence remained strictly circumscribed; indeed, his government had a largely "formal character", being for the most part restricted to ratifying decisions made previously by German authorities. The German military administration in Serbia was formidable, with a staff of 700 officers."
Sabrina P. Ramet. The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2006. Pp. 130

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor , it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, and bearing some of the blame for the harshness of the rule. As time went on, Nedić's powers, instead of being increased as a reward for his loyal service to the Germans (which was repeatedly noted by most high German commanders and officials in Serbia), were whittled away. His situation was always difficult and frustrating and the minutes of his conferences with and his letters and memoranda to succeeding military commanders in Serbia amply show that it became more and more degrading to him personally."
Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration, Stanford University Press 2001, p.182.

Nuujinn, I'm kind of frustrated with the word games on this talkpage. I am not opposing PANONIAN's version because it lists the two political entities in one infobox, though that also seems rather illogical to me. The problem is that they are listed together under the heading "Serbia", implying they were the governmental bodies of a political entity by that name. This implication is not really in question, among other obvious reasons also because the author of the infobox has explicitly stated this was his intent. I don't know what more to say on that subject.

I think the most logical course of action would be one you yourself suggested, to finally define this article as the equivalent to France during World War II and Poland during World War II, without at infobox and with separate articles (already actually created by PANONIAN ) to deal with the political entities. The other alternative is to cover the entities within this article, and using two infoboxes.

P.S. I will be leaving once again on vacation, I only got back to town for a few days. I hope we can take a break, I'll be back in a week. --DIREKTOR 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, we don't have to have an infobox, but France during World War II does, just one that labels it as a series of articles and which is more free form. Like its predecessor , it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, yes, exactly, that's what a puppet state does, administrates with limited powers under the control of it's puppet master. As for Roberts, p. 19 Serbia was carved up--parts going to Hungary, such as the Vojvodina, parts to Bulgaria, such as Macedonia, and a section of the southwest even going to Italy's puppet, Albania. That part of Serbia which was not annexed, and which had essentially the old pre-1912 borders, remained under German-Bulgarian occupation. So no, it is not that he refers to a territory defined by the post-1944 borders, not the 1912 borders. As for the quotes you present, both support the notion that Nedic was head of a government, however limited its powers were which governed, however weakly, an area called Serbia, while that area was under the control of the German occupation forces. I do not agree that listing both is equivalent to validating a notion that Serbia as used in this article was a political entity--indeed, so long as the body and the lede make that clear, there will be no question as to what we are saying. I hope you have a relaxing vacation, we'll press on in the meantime. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Um Nuujinn you're making mistakes. Please read Roberts more carefully and familiarize yourself with the borders of Serbia. He refers to Vojvodina as being one part of Serbia, and the territory defined by the 1912 borders as another part of Serbia. As I said, Serbia's 1912 borders did not include Vojvodina - are you reading my posts at all or just trying to pick a fight? Roberts is without question referring to the 1945 borders (also known around here as the AVNOJ borders). Indeed, it would be strange and unusual to refer to Serbia by its 1912 borders, the Serbian province of Vojvodina is its integral part (in general perception).

It is not a question of you "agreeing" whether the infobox implies this, indeed, experience teaches there is little or no chance that you would agree to anything I say or propose. Further, I must point out the fact that you (and Fainites) are engaged in active disputes with me elsewhere, and that it appears very likely your recent arrival is due to my involvement. I.e. you seem to have followed me here, probably to oppose whatever position I might assume, and are not objective participants imho. Indeed, both of you (misunderstanding the nature of the dispute) initially actually wrote a post or two supporting my position by mistake, intending to argue against me, and later modified your stance so that it may be in opposition to whatever edits I propose. This seems to show you were more interested in opposing me, than supporting any particular course of action on this article.

The sources "imply" no more than that "Serbia" is the name for a "territory" or "area" governed, not by the Nedić government, but by the German Military Administration (and this they state unambiguously), with the Nedić government as an effective (quote) "organ" of that administration. That is to say, yes the sources call an area by the name "Serbia", but this does not justify presenting this area as a political entity. There is a difference. And using the Template:Infobox former country, with the heading "Serbia", and with the two political entities listed as its governing bodies does imply to an unacceptable degree that "Serbia" is not a name for a territory or area (as the sources imply), but for a political entity. This is plain obvious from the usage in infoboxes on other articles, and was at the time the stated intent of the user who actually wrote the infobox. So you "disagreeing" with an obvious fact like this is, to me, evidence of an inherent lack of objectivity in your dealings with myself. "Reflexive opposition", as Nsu called it.

You may "press on", as it were, but I do not see the point of arguing without the guy you're arguing against. On the other hand, that does seem an effective way of achieving "instant-consensus" :). --DIREKTOR 11:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if I were arguing for calling Serbia in this context a political entity, you might have a point, but I'm explicitly not arguing for that. Territories and regions are generally governed. The government of the territory or region we're talking about, according to all sources as far as I know, had a quisling government controlled by a military occupational force. That's what the sources say, that's what we should say. And I simply disagree with your assertions regarding the use of the infobox being so narrowly constrained, since they are aids to navigation. Finally, as always, if you have a problem with my conduct, by all means bring it up wherever you think appropriate, but discussion of my conduct on this page seems to me to be inappropriate. Again, content, not contributor. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let move forward

OK, I now posted an free form infobox that could be used for anything (territory, person, geographic area, animal, plant, whatever). This infobox does not imply that Serbia was country and I also did not used in this infobox anything that is specifically related either to German Military Administration or to Serbian puppet governments. I tried to make this infobox to be a reflection of territory of Serbia only with info related to things such are population, religion, etc. I see that DIREKTOR does not like this infobox either, so he should say which info in this new infobox imply that "Serbia was country"? Current infobox does not "lists the two political entities in one infobox" and it is more focused on geographical data. PANONIAN 13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good starting point, since this infobox does not force us into oversimplifications. I expanded it a bit to reflect the various political entities with an interest or control in the area. I also pulled some of the material out of the lede, since that seemed heavy and did some copy edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! Fainites scribs 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The new infobox is bad, the subdivision infobox shown previously was better

I think the subdivision infobox shown a few days ago was overall better than the new one. The new one doesn't resemble the standard infobox for an historical territory. The previously shown one had predacessor and successor states. I support that one being restored. As for the section that says what country it is part of, it can say German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia - that is neutral. Just because it looks similar to the country infobox, that doesn't make a difference, there are many articles on Misplaced Pages that use that subdivision infobox for historic provinces, etc.--R-41 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Although, I was the one who included "subdivision infobox" into article, Serbia was not quite subdivision of anything and therefore such infobox would be misleading. Technically, it was also not subdivision of "German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia" because two entities (Yugoslavia and Serbia) excluded each other. Government of Yugoslavia in exile did not recognized existence of Serbia while German and puppet Serbian authorities in Serbia did not recognized existence of Yugoslavia. Anyway, I also spoke with DIREKTOR on my personal talk page and he also agreed that usage of "free form infobox" does not imply that Serbia was country. Anyway, I am not against usage of any infobox, but you have to convince other users (including DIREKTOR) why different infobox should be used. I might agree with you that other infoboxes are "better" in some aspects, but one that we currently have is least controversial and generally acceptable for most users and its usage will prevent revert warring over this article. PANONIAN 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

R-41, does the content of the current infobox strike you as problematic? My thought is we can work with the material and get that sorted out, and then perhaps choose a more appropriate infobox, perhaps even a custom one. Does that seem a workable approach? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

*sigh..* I had a feeling this wouldn't stay dead (didn't I tell you, Panonac?). Lets not touch this one, at least for now... If we really must have an infobox for the territory itself, then the current version is one of the few available options that does not mislead or imply the thing was a historical country or political entity ("Vichy Serbia").

I would still prefer we didn't have an infobox, or alternatively, if we used the infoboxes of the two political entities covered in this article (this variant), but even if the current state isn't a particularly good version, at least it isn't a decidedly bad version. --DIREKTOR 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think that we will be never able to find solution that would be seen as best by everybody, but if current solution is at least basically acceptable for everybody then we should stick to it (I do not think that current solution is best because I think that infobox should also to contain flag and coat of arms). Also, by my opinion, usage of government infoboxes would be misleading since infoboxes should present article title, not related subjects. PANONIAN 09:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

German Population was not 500,000

Given that Nedic's Serbia only included Serbian Banat, and that that the German population of that area was 120,541 in 1931, down about 6,000 from 1921, the figure of 500,000 seems to be a major exaggeration or else confusion with the total German population of the whole of Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, the Romanian/Vlach population is not listed as a minority, as there were 62,365 in Serbian Banat in 1931 and 159,549 in Central Serbia (mainly the Timok Valley) in 1921. Given the decrease in the Romanian population of Serbian Banat between 1921 and 1931, it would be safe to assume that there were 210,000 Romanians in Serbia in 1931 and some 200,000 in 1941 based on the decline in Banat between 1921 and 1948. Prussia1231 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your observation makes perfect sense. If you could give us a source for your numbers, we could fix that. FkpCascais (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be a useful addition to the article, please add, along with the relevant citation. SummertimeDoctor (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nedic regime edit

If you hit the google books link, you will find ample evidence for my edit. In fact, I searched Bailey's book online and could not find a reference to Nedic's Serbia, so I suggest it needs verification. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Books are mentioning "Nedić regime" as a name for government, not for territory. Do you have a single source that says that term "Nedić regime" was used as a name of the territory? PANONIAN 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Enter the nonsense word games... -- Director (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

why is the citation there then? Nedic regime can only be about the puppet government.Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Régime" in this context means simply "government". "Nedic regime" is just another name for the puppet Government of National Salvation of General Milan Nedic. -- Director (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why account Peacemaker67 wrote in the article that "the territory is known as "Nedić regime"? Which source support that claim? PANONIAN 22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"account Peacemaker67"? You mean why I wrote that? Well isn't it obvious? This is all just me trying to confuse you by posting conflicting statements. Its all part of my plan, don't you see? -- Director (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is Misplaced Pages account - I do not see anything wrong in such statement. Also, have you or have you not a source that says that "the territory is known as "Nedić regime"? PANONIAN 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

it seems to me that if you wan't to show that a google search on 'Nedic's Serbia' shows that sources use that term to relate to the territory, you should do that search and use the results as the citation. In the interim, I will just delete the citation, as it doesn't relate to the content. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, I will not cry if term "Nedić's Serbia" is not mentioned there. Do you agree that we then delete entire disputed sentence? PANONIAN 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of article

I propose moving this article to: Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia. My sources for this name for the territory are, in English, Pavlowitch 2002, 'Serbia: the history behind the name' p. 141 ], and Bond and Roy 1975, War and Society: a yearbook of military history, Vol 1. p. 230 ]. Bond and Roy state that the German name was Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien . This can be confirmed via a Google Books search for Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien or Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien.]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - firstly, it is not clear to what exactly term "Territory of the German Military Commander" refers to - quotes that you presented are pulled out of context. Furthermore, most sources are mentioning this territory as Serbia, so even if your sources are referring to name of the territory (which is not clear from presented quotes), your proposed name would fail to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME policy (sources that supporting "Serbia" as a most common name of the territory are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 ) PANONIAN 04:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you did not read your sources correctly. Check this: - it says "Territory of the German military commander-Serbia". Also, your own source says "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia" (somehow, you forgot to use word "Serbia" in your quote, did you?). Anyway, my argument that title of this article should respect WP:COMMONNAME policy stands, while name supported by these sources ("Territory of the German military commander-Serbia") could be mentioned somewhere in the article text. PANONIAN 04:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, according to google translate, German name "Gebiet des Militdrbefehlshaber Serbiens" would not mean "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia" but rather something like "Territory of Serbia under German military commander", which is virtually same as "Serbia under German occupation". PANONIAN 04:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your ability to misrepresent the sources I provided amazes me. First you provide a citation of Pavlowitch in another source which uses a different bit of punctuation, ie a - instead of a comma, second you accuse me of bad faith by not using the comma, when the second source I listed does not, and lastly you prefer a google translate of a phrase instead of the one from a reliable source which actually gives the official title of the territory in German! Impressive obfuscation. Then you use WP:COMMONNAME. That policy has all sorts of factors which should be taken into account, including avoiding misleading names and POV names, which are two reasons why the current title is inappropriate under that policy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not personal issue, so please do not comment "my abilities". Question is: do you have evidence that term Territory of the German Military Commander (in of - ,) Serbia (in what ever form) is an example of most common name of the territory that would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME policy? Also, do you have evidence that current name of the article is "misleading" or "POV"? PANONIAN 05:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Mid-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• C-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Unassessed Serbia articles
• Unknown-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia 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