This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yugoslavia C‑class Mid‑importance Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Serbia Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Balkan / European / World War II C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force World War II task force

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 [[1]], and Bond and Roy 1975, War and Society: a yearbook of military history, Vol 1. p. 230 [[2]]. 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.[[3]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 ) PANONIAN 04:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you did not read your sources correctly. Check this: [4] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe you have misrepresented the sources I provided. 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! Then you invoke 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) (personal tone removed by author)Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@PANONIAN, do you have evidence that you have evidence for the evidence you claim is evident? :)
What Peacemaker has done is he finally found an actual name for this territory, which pretty much makes him the deus ex machina around here - so show adequate respect, please. What we currently have is a Wikipedia-invented term, so even if ONE source uses "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", WP:COMMONNAME supports it. Do you have explicit evidence that "Serbia under German occupation" refers to this territory. Also please actually learn some German before trying to translate it :D.

@Peacemaker, could you copy down Pavlowitch and Bond & Roy? PANONIAN is absolutely married to this horribly misleading title, and has a serious case of WP:OWN. He will not change his position, but it might force him to stop repeating "evidence" all the time.. -- Director (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"so even if ONE source uses "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", WP:COMMONNAME supports it." Am I the only one who sees contradictio in adjecto here? wikt:common provides definitions "1. Mutual; shared by more than one. 3. Found in large numbers or in a large quantity."
What we have now is a descriptive title whose subject is obvious to anyone with a minimum knowledge in history. Please leave it alone, it's just fine as it is. No such user (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually, two sources use this name for this territory, and of all the so-called 'names' for this territory produced so far, they are the ONLY ones that actually state what the official title of the territory was. That is because they render the title from the German, which of course is the language that the name of the territory was rendered in. Therefore, they are the ONLY sources that have been so far located in English, for this territory. None of the others state that they are are its official name, they are just convenient phrases to identify it. The current title of this article implies, incorrectly and misleadingly, that there was a pre-existing Serbia that was occupied by the Germans. There was not, even though the Territory was largely that of Serbia in its 1912 borders. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having in mind very small number of sources that using name what you claim to be official, exact meaning and exact form of such name should be further clarified and confirmed by considerable number of other sources. Anyway, whether it was "real" official name of the territory or not is irrelevant for the question of choosing best name for this article. WP:COMMONNAME states that most common names should be used for article titles, and in this case most common name is Serbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Also, if you claim that current title is "incorrect and misleading", please provide a reliable reference that confirms your statements. Wikipedia does not support original research of the users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research PANONIAN 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Incorrectly and misleadingly?!" Are you trying to argue that Serbia didn't exist before German occupation? Sorry, but I don't find that line of argumentation persuasive, the more so because the proposed title reads "Territory of the... Commander in Serbia". How is that any less "incorrect and misleading"?
Let me state my position clearly: two English sources a common name maketh not. Or even five. I'm fine with mentioning that name somewhere in the lead or in the infobox, but moving it away from a descriptive title formulated in plain English into an obscure and convoluted title mentioned by two sources and nowhere else is way too nitpicky for my taste. No such user (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let examine the provided reference: [5] - reference states that official name of the territory was "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia" and just in one of the next sentences, the source says "In the case of Serbia". So, we have there both, official name and common name used, so if account Peacemaker67 want to use this source, he should use everything from it, not only selected phrases pulled out of context. PANONIAN 13:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user. Correct. Serbia did not exist between 1918 and 1944. "Serbia under German occupation" implies there was a "Serbia" for the Germans to occupy. There was none, nor was anything called "Serbia" formed by the Axis occupation. Incorrect and misleading. And also implying the association of a Serbian state with the Axis powers where there was none, so its incorrect and misleading in a potentially insulting way.

@PANONIAN, you're just POV-pushing. The official name was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (without "German"). It is comical and ridiculous to insist that, unless the sources should use "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in every sentence, that fact somehow "doesn't count". That sort of POV-pushing is extremely disruptive and detrimental to the encyclopedia, and can warrant sanctions.

• @"Having in mind very small number of sources that using name what you claim to be official, exact meaning and exact form of such name should be further clarified and confirmed by considerable number of other sources."
  • Haha :), nope. Unless there's a sources conflict - we just need one (1).
• @"Anyway, whether it was "real" official name of the territory or not is irrelevant for the question of choosing best name for this article. WP:COMMONNAME states that most common names should be used for article titles, and in this case most common name is Serbia."
  • As I keep telling you, your little collection of sources is completely irrelevant with regard to actually proving common usage. So get over that fact, and do some actual research - or else stop making false claims. But even if you are correct, then we need to use a title like Serbia (occupied territory), not "Serbia under German occupation". Unless you're implying the Germans occupied an area, established a territory called Serbia - and then immediately occupied it again?

And please stop repeating "provide a reference" after anyone says anything xD -- Director (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just a point of clarification here, so that we are all on the same page. In 1922, the state was divided into oblasts, and in 1929 it became a unitary state divided into banovine. The last time prior to the invasion that 'Serbia' existed was 1922. The Germans actually occupied parts of several banovine of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they did not occupy Serbia, as it didn't exist at that time. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, prior to Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, Serbia did not existed as administrative unit. But, Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941, as it is evidenced by all these sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Or you have some problem with info presented in these sources? PANONIAN 04:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

exactly which of those sources states that the Germans created a territory (or country) called 'Serbia'?Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. For example, this map comes from University of Nevada web site and it shows Europe in 1942 with territory named Serbia. All these other maps are showing same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links So, would you tell me what problem you have with info presented there? PANONIAN 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And most funny thing here - your own source (Stevan K. Pavlowitch) published a similar map that shows territory named Serbia on page 140: [6]. Would you now tell me that your own source is wrong? PANONIAN 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse the issue, PANONIAN. "Serbia" is indeed the term sources use at times because it would be ridiculous to repeat "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia" or something of the sort in every sentence. That was never contested by anyone, and I'm really starting to get sick of you exploiting it to support these absurd claims of yours. Formally, this territory was not called "Serbia". And, incidentally, as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, there are hundreds of sources that use the term "Military Administration in Serbia" to refer to this regime - so where does that leave your little personal collection?

The problem that needs to be solved is the current nonsense title. There was no "Serbia" that was under German occupation. And you, PANONIAN, are contradicting yourself at every turn. If "Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941" how could that Serbia, created by the Germans(!), be "under German occupation"? Its ridiculous. Did they create this occupation territory, and then declare war on it and occupy it again? The title implies there was a Serbia prior to 1941 that was occupied, no question. Is this what you're trying to push? Either way, you can either collaborate with others in solving this obvious problem, or you can continue to write "reports" and be disruptive (WP:OWN).

In addition, now that we know the official name of this entity, we can put together the appropriate, standard infobox for a German-occupied territory. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - this is exactly what I speak about, this is original research of User:DIREKTOR. There is no evidence that "sources use name Serbia because it would be ridiculous to repeat other name". Personal opinion and original research of User:DIREKTOR, nothing else. As for term "Military Administration in Serbia", there is also no evidence that this term refers to territory - that term simply refers to administrators of the territory, otherwise, all these maps would present term "Military Administration in Serbia" instead "Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links And this users repeating that "there was no Serbia that was under German occupation" after he saw references (maps) that proving opposite. This is trolling and disruption, and I hope that administrators now see what I speak about. PANONIAN 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, term "occupation" does not imply that occupied entity existed before occupation. Who exactly say that it imply that? You? Serbia was created by Germans and term "occupied" means that Serbia was under German military control instead that it was fully independent from anybody. There is no any contradiction there. PANONIAN 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, you should probably write some more reports... Look, you don't seem to understand what original searching is, and I'm starting to doubt you have any concept of when and where sources are necessary and should be requested. In fact, you're starting to "request sources" for any statement anyone posts, no matter how simple and/or obvious. Please don't be offended, but its rather strange and absurd - since you also don't seem to be aware it works both ways. "There's no evidence that this term refers to territory"?, well there's no evidence that it refers exclusively to the administrators of the territory either. Much as "France" can refer to the "administrators" of the state ("France has announced it will participate in the talks") and the entire political entity - since the administrators represent it. You're transmitting your confusion with this onto the discussion, and since you think this is some sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND where you and your compatriots are "defending Serbia", its impossible to correct your mistaken preconceptions. Very frustrating.

But again - stop avoiding the main issue again and again. I'll copy-paste the paragraph you ignored:

The problem that needs to be solved is the current nonsense title. There was no "Serbia" that was under German occupation. And you, PANONIAN, are contradicting yourself at every turn. If "Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941" how could that Serbia, created by the Germans(!), be "under German occupation"? Its ridiculous. Did they create this occupation territory, and then declare war on it and occupy it again? The title implies there was a Serbia prior to 1941 that was occupied, no question. In short, there was no "Serbia under German occupation". Its a problem that needs correcting. -- Director (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, any source that would support your claim that "there was no Serbia"? No? Nobody cares for your rhetorical nonsense here, you know. Engage yourself in disruptive bahaviour and I will write more reports to admins. PANONIAN 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start again before we get to the right margin. @ PANNONIAN, 'All of them?' What a claim, I thought. So I have just looked at a selection of your list of sources, and actually NONE of them say that. This is a deliberately misleading statement. NONE of those sources actually say "the Germans created a territory called 'Serbia'", or words to that effect. You are inferring this, it is not in the sources, and therefore your entire argument is WP:OR. Prior to the last 48 hours we had no idea what the real name of the territory was. Now we know, give or take a comma. Strangely enough, the name is in German... Who knew? And it wasn't 'Serbia'? I could render almost all the same sources out of context in the text of the same book and say the territory was called 'Serbia under German occupation' rather than 'Serbia' under German occupation, for example. The maps are a side issue, just now introduced, by you, to support your argument. How about we address the texts first, then deal with maps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and, I'm disruptive? Before I even started editing this article, you claimed with no substantive grounds whatsoever that I am a sock, have been rebuffed despite my plea for a CHECKUSER, continued with your accusations because you are '100%' sure I am a sock, canvassed other editors you believed would support you, and completely failed to bring evidence that what you are stating sources say is actually factually correct. And I am the one being disruptive? Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PANONIAN. "Serbia under German occupation" is the current title that you support. And you've just stated you think this "Serbia" was created by the Germans. So, according to you, the Germans occupied Yugoslavia, created a "Serbia" - and then presumably declared war and occupied this "Serbia" again. Is that what you're saying? Talk about "rhetorical nonsense". Its incredible how you just "dismiss" all this. Maybe I should "provide evidence" for it? Do you need a source? :D

The current title (directly and inescapably) implies there was a "Serbia" to be occupied by the Germans. There was no such state or entity. If the Germans created it, then it itself was an instrument of occupation, and not something under occupation. PANONIAN, can you understand the difference? Are you capable of discontinuing a self-contradicting line of argument and acknowledging that some changes need to be done. -- Director (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I was against current article title few months ago when it was proposed. However, it was a reasonable compromise (as was the older title Nedić's Serbia). So, now word "occupation" is not good for you, right? Fine, I will not cry if such word is not used. So, perhaps we can rename article to "Serbia under German administration" or "Serbia under German military administration": [7]? PANONIAN 16:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the source which specifically says that "Serbia was formed by Germans", here is such source: http://www.gimnazija.mod.gov.rs/predavanja/ustanak.pdf Quotation from the source: "с обзиром да је немачка војна сила успоставила Србију, потребно је дозволити државне и националне амблеме." (English translation: "considering that the German military force established Serbia it is necessary to allow state and national emblems.") - it is quotation from official document in the time of formation of the Government of National Salvation in 1941. All other sources from this link are showing the existence of the territory named Serbia from 1941 to 1944, and therefore, such sources are confirming that territory named Serbia was established in 1941. Otherwise, why would all these history maps show an territory named Serbia if it did not existed and was not known under that name? Also, the very source introduced by you shows on page 140 a map of the territory named Serbia and map legend there says "German-occupied Banat and Serbia". Due to the fact that shade of the pattern used in the legend is same as one used for Serbia in the main body of the map (which depicting borders that were established by Germans in 1941), there is no basis for claim that term "Serbia" here could apply either to "territory of present-day Serbia" either to some "geographical area" which was different from area within the borders which were established by the Germans in 1941. PANONIAN 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be the third time or something like that when I find myself explaining to you that what you're doing is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, so I expect you know that fully by now. Not only is it your own biased OR based on a primary source, it is also OR based on an inherently biased primary source - Nedic's government, who've been angling for years to present themselves as a "Vichy Serbia" without any success (in fact Nedic actually had his powers lessened as the war progressed). In short, a joke. Similarly, basing any conclusions on a map label is just laughable OR. When you get published, PANONIAN, then we'll talk. In the meantime, if you want to prove something, you need a source that explicitly states that. As recommended reading I would suggest this article where the logical fallacy of requesting evidence for a negative is elaborated upon.

I don't know how to respond to your first post above. Where did I say that the word "occupation" is the problem? How could anyone draw that conclusion? Just as there was no "Serbia" under German occupation, there was no "Serbia" under military administration either - this "Serbia" was the military administration. So the word "under" is the primary problem, rather. Let me try to explain again: if the Germans created your "Serbia", it is an instrument of occupation, and is not "under" occupation (or "military administration" or whichever synonymous phrase you'd care to use). -- Director (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Serbia really is the COMMONNAME (I am not yet convinced) then what about 'Serbia (occupied territory)'?Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. I know I mentioned that possibility myself, but having thought about it, its really no better than the current title. Which Serbia was it that was "occupied"? As I said, it was an instrument of occupation, not something "under occupation" or "occupied" itself. That's the gist of the problem with the current title, and my first idea doesn't really fix it. If "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME, and we're talking hypothetically here, then the part in the brackets should explain (in the simplest way) what the German-created "Serbia" was. So something along the lines of "Serbia (military administration)" comes to mind. -- Director (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing original research? How so? I only presented and quoted reliable sources, nothing more, nothing less. I showed primary source which says that Serbia was established by Germans and I also showed secondary sources that presenting this Serbia as an existing entity with its own political borders. And I do not see any evidence that government of Milan Nedić tried to "present itself as Vichy Serbia". Because of what reason they would try to present themselves as such? They were members of a government that acted within the area of its jurisdiction and I do not see that they had any need to present themselves to somebody in certain light (especially because presented document that was created by the members of the government was not created for citizens or for outside world, but was only internal document in the official correspondence between members of the government and German military officials - I do not see why they would write incorrect things there. That would mean that they wanted to lie German military administrators about existence of Serbia, which would be really something unbelievable). As for maps, maps are reliable sources and they exist exactly because of the reason that people like you would not be able to twist words from the text. If presented source (Stevan K. Pavlowitch) mention word "Serbia" in the text and publish a map that shows area with borders named "Serbia" then there cannot be any doubt what term "Serbia" means in the text of this book. Regarding my compromise proposal that you rejected, I am willing to accept any other name that will not annihilate common name of the territory supported by the sources (i.e. name "Serbia"). If term "Serbia (military administration)" is what you proposing, it is acceptable to me. However, since this title could also apply to Habsburg Serbia from 1718-1739 (which was under military administration as well), perhaps more accurate and more descriptive term would be "Serbia (1941-1944 German Military Administration)" As for common name, per WP:COMMONNAME policy, term "Serbia" is one supported by most sources, while forms of the name that containing terms "Territory of the German Military Commander" (whose most accurate form was still not clearly established), even if official, are not used in prevailing number of English-language sources when name of the territory is in question (so far, only 3 English language references were presented as a support for such name). Anyway, perhaps compromise solution like "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)" might be acceptable for you? PANONIAN 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps some of the most blatant OR I've seen yet, PANONIAN. You're presenting reliable sources, but those reliable sources do not state anything in support of your claim, so you're "extrapolating" that they do on your own (from primary sources and map labels :)).

I just stated "Serbia (military administration)" as an elegant option (and no, it cannot possibly apply to the Kingdom of Serbia :)). Another would be "Serbia (military territory)" or something like that. We must try to keep it short. But I am still not convinced at all that "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME. You have no evidence that a territory called "Serbia" was created by the Germans.

Either way, the official name is "Territory of the Military Commander, (in) Serbia". That's the name that needs to go into the infobox, regardless of the COMMONNAME. And the infobox needs to restructured as a proper infobox for a German WWII military-administered territory [8]. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote exact sentence from WR:Original research policy which can confirm that anything what I said is an "original research". Otherwise (without such evidence), please do not raise false accusations against me. I also can accuse you that your goal here is to remove name "Serbia" from this page because of personal anti-Serbian nationalistic reasons, but I will not accuse you for that since I do not have direct evidence that would support such accusation. Also, which one of my claims is not supported by sources that I presented? Please quote that claim. As for evidence for info that Serbia was created by Germans, I provided sources for that, while you did not provided evidences that these sources are wrong or invalid. We can examine these sources one by one, so let start with this one - it shows territory named "Serbia" with its own political borders? Yes or no? As for infobox, I also proposed that both names used for the territory should be used in the infobox, so what exactly is problem in that proposal? Also we agreed about compromise version of then infobox few months ago, so why you now rejecting all achieved compromises and you starting same discussions from the very beginning? You by yourself was against usage of "Infobox former country", so why you now point to article German military administration in occupied France during World War II where such infobox is used? Also, subject of the other article is very different and there are certain problems with that article and with infobox used there (that article states that its subject is an "interim occupation authority", so due to that it should not have an territory/country infobox). And you cannot possibly use one Wikipedia article as a source for other Wiki article. PANONIAN 15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just a point of clarification @PANNONIAN. I hope this is a slip of the keyboard, but it was I that introduced Pavlowitch into this discussion. By not specifying who when responding to Direktor, you continue to imply I am a sock. Direktor and I may both have problems with this article title, but we have different views and perspectives. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here are two more refs to add to the mix, firstly from 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' by Raphael Lemkin, from p. 241 onwards [[9]], and secondly from 'The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii : a philologist's notebook, by Victor Klemperer and Martin Brady p. 254 [[10]]. The first ref is a detailed text on the entire Axis occupation arrangements in Yugoslavia, and refers to 'Serbia (German occupation)', although it quite clearly explains that it was not a 'puppet state' but had a 'puppet government' (p. 11 [[11]]. It also uses the term 'Serbia (under German military administration)' at p. 53 [[12]]. The second ref relates to a map used in German schoolbooks with the label 'Region of the Military Commander in Serbia'.

here are two more refs to add to the mix, firstly from 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' by Raphael Lemkin, from p. 241 onwards [[13]], and secondly from 'The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii : a philologist's notebook, by Victor Klemperer and Martin Brady p. 254 [[14]]. The first ref is a detailed text on the entire Axis occupation arrangements in Yugoslavia, and refers to 'Serbia (German occupation)', although it quite clearly explains that it was not a 'puppet state' but had a 'puppet government' (p. 11 [[15]]. It also uses the term 'Serbia (under German military administration)' at p. 53 [[16]]. The second ref relates to a map used in German schoolbooks with the label 'Region of the Military Commander in Serbia'.

I am happy that we know the official name for the territory, as we now have a reference to it (Pavlowitch 2002). I'll leave the exact punctuation for later. As far as the WP:COMMONNAME for the occupied territory is concerned:

• Tomasevich (2001) introduces the occupied territory as follows: 'The Germans established a military government of occupation in Serbia proper, ...' (p. 175). His reference to 'Serbia proper' is a clear reference to Serbia in its former boundaries before the Balkan Wars. (ie in 1912). On the following page is a map labelled 'Occupied Serbia 1941-1944'. He then goes on to use the term 'Serbia' frequently in the following pages, including with reference to the 'military commander in Serbia'. He also uses 'Serbia proper' with a reference to the 1912 borders, on p. 95 of his 1975 work. In this work he then refers to 'occupied Serbia' then uses 'Serbia'.
• Milazzo introduces the territory as 'rump Serbia' (p. 10) then uses 'Serbia'.
• Roberts refers to 'That part of Serbia that was not annexed, and which had essentially the old 1912 borders, remained under German-Bulgarian occupation' (p. 19) then uses 'Serbia'. He also has a map on pp. 32-33 which uses the label 'Serbia under German military command'.
• Pavlowitch (2006) uses the term 'residual Serbia under German control' (p. 22), then 'Serbian Residual State' then 'Serbia'. In his 2002 text, he uses the term 'Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia', then 'Serbia'.
• Bond and Roy use 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', provide the original German name (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien), then use 'Serbia'.
• Judah has a map labelled 'Serbia (German occupied)' p. 116, on the same page he observes, 'What was left was Serbia, more or less within its 1912 boundaries'. He basically then uses 'Serbia' throughout.

My point with putting all this up is that key authors (a representative sample of ones I actually have a copy of, plus the ones I located online in the last week and have linked above) use a whole range of terms to refer to the territory we are talking about, including:

• Serbia proper
• Occupied Serbia 1941-1944
• rump Serbia
• That part of Serbia that was not annexed, and which had essentially the old 1912 borders
• residual Serbia under German control or Serbian Residual State or Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia
• Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia
• Serbia (German occupied)
• Serbia under German military command
• Region of the Military Commander in Serbia
• Serbia (German occupation)

That there is no WP:COMMONNAME among these WP:RS is clear. Google Books searches are no good in this case due to the frequency of the use of the word 'Serbia' AFTER they have introduced it with another term or phrase in the text. Saying that they all use 'Serbia' is no good unless you look at each hit to see what the author calls the territory when they introduce it. From that point in the text, they nearly all revert to 'Serbia' eventually. This is common in English, not always so in other languages. Frankly, it is easier to use the shorter term once they have introduced what they are talking about, rather than use the name 'rump Serbia' or one of the other names on every occasion in the text. But given that they bothered to use a different term to introduce the territory in the first place, the later uses of the term 'Serbia' are not relevant to the case for 'Serbia' under the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Therefore, based on the references referred to above, it seems to me there isn't a WP:COMMONNAME.

If I knew nothing about this period of Yugoslavian history and I was looking for information about this period in this part of Yugoslavia, I would naturally search for 'Serbia'. It is also the only word that is in all of the names used by the above authors. For that reason I think it would be natural for the word 'Serbia' to be retained in the title. To me, it is an issue about how the word 'Serbia' is presented in the title so that anyone looking at the title would not think that this 'Serbia' was a country. Given the number of different names used by the above authors, I think the solution here is a combination of adding an appropriate adjective to Serbia AND appropriate disambiguation in parentheses. I would be comfortable with a title that clearly shows that 'Serbia' was a German administered occupied territory. Some possible solutions for discussion include 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', Occupied territory of Serbia (under German administration), or 'German-administered territory of Serbia'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I must insist on is that the title does not present "Serbia" as being "occupied" or "under occupation". We cannot imply that WWII "Serbia" was a country, but we also cannot imply that Serbia was a country in the Interbellum that was occupied by the Germans. I can hardly see the difference between the two.

As I've been saying for a while now, there are two distinct meanings of the term "Serbia" in a WWII context:

• 1) An author can use the term in a purely geographic sense.
  • You have "Serbia proper", which usually means post-WWII Serbia without its autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina (that term rarely/never means "1912 Serbia", which was rather large and also included what the authors call Macedonia). "Serbia proper" can also be called "rump Serbia" (particularly by Serbs) or "residual Serbia", and the interesting thing is that, geographically, the post-WWII Serbia proper very closely corresponds with the German WWII "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (though not completely, as the latter was rather smaller). In fact, as an interesting note, Serbian nationalist groups often like to point out the similarity, now that Kosovo has seceded (or tried to secede) and Vojvodina has increased its autonomy ("the Americans are Nazis and want to reduce Serbia to what the Nazis had etc..").
  • The term "Serbia" itself can (and is) also used in a geographic sense. Now this can mean 1912 Serbia, that doesn't include Vojvodina but does include Macedonia, or it can mean post-WWII Serbia, that does include Vojvodina but doesn't include Macedonia. I found that authors more frequently use the post-WWII definition of Serbia when using the term in a geographic sense, which is logical after all.
• 2) The author can use the term "Serbia" to refer to the German "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". In other words, as a collective term for the Military Administration, along with its subordinate Nedic government, and the territory it controls.

-- Director (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what we think an author is using the word 'Serbia' to mean. We know, because the sources I've listed tell us when they introduce the territory into their text, and I've listed what they say. We are talking about a geographical area here. It must be, it starts with the word 'Territory'. The 'Territory' was under the full jurisdiction of the German Military Commander in Serbia. Within the 'Territory' operated a German Military Administration in Serbia, German and Bulgarian occupation forces, the two puppet governments etc. This article is about a geographical area isn't it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book using the term 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' [[17]], and one with a map that shows 'Serbia Territory of the Commander Serbia' [[18]] Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Think"? Where did I say "think"? :) I'm just trying to lay out all the uses of the term "Serbia" (and variations) that can be encountered in the sources. Its not a matter of opinion, they're usually quite obvious. -- Director (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. What I am saying is that at least one source (Tomasevich 2001) is inconsistent with your summation of how the sources usually use the term 'Serbia' in a geographical sense. See p. 63. He clearly equates 'Serbia proper' with 'Serbia, essentially in its 1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region'. Not quite as obvious as you 'think'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker, what are we arguing about? I hope you're not trying to start some spat to show Panonian you're not me? :)

Now for the record, I'm not opposing anything that you stated. But let me get this straight. According to Tomasevich, "Serbia proper" is "Serbia, essentially in its 1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region". That's practically equivalent with the extent of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (which included northern Kosovo). "Serbia proper" is usually not defined as including parts of Kosovo, because, well, that's Kosovo and that's Serbia proper (its defined in the way its defined in its article). I don't have the book with me at the moment, are you sure he's not referring to the German occupation territory rather than "Serbia proper"? Or does he consider those two equivalent? -- Director (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely considers them equivalent. In full, he says: "Serbia, essentially in its pre-1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region and the Banat, was occupied by German troops and put under a military government. The Banat was administered by the local Volksdeutsche. Serbia proper was administered by the German army of occupation, first with the help of a group of Serbian administrators-the Commissioner Administration-and then from August 29, 1941, with the help of a quisling government headed by General Milan Nedić." My reading of this is that the territory included two administrations, a Volksdeutsche one in the Banat and a military administration in 'Serbia proper' which was assisted in its work by the Acimovic/Nedic regimes. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, I don't see him equating Serbia proper with the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I thought he said so explicitly. Since this is a controversial issue I'm touching upon, I want to be clear: I myself am of the opinion that Kosovo is a region of "Serbia" in the wider sense. However, Serbia proper is practically defined as Serbia without Kosovo (and anything north of the Sava and Danube). Northern Kosovo simply isn't "Serbia proper" or "central Serbia" - its Kosovo. "Serbia proper" is basically "Serbia, essentially in its pre-1912 borders", as the image caption states here [19] (the "1912 borders" or the "pre-1912 borders" were acquired in 1878).

In addition, the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia included the autonomous region of Banat (which is today a part of the wider province of Vojvodina). Again, that cannot be considered a part of "Serbia proper" under any circumstances. To be more precise, I wouldn't seriously consider anything of the sort without explicit support.

So what we have in this area is:

• Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (with its government, the Military Administration in Serbia), and its subordinate "civil" institutions
  • Government of National Salvation, governing Serbia proper + parts of northern Kosovo
  • Volksdeutsche government in the region of Banat

The unanswered question that poses itself is whether the Government of National Salvation had any formal (or informal) authority over the Banat and its governing body? My guess would be that Germans would never subordinate Volksdeutsche to a Serbian government, but I'm not 100% certain. Reading Tomasevich, I'm even more inclined towards that position. I think we would need a source that explicitly states the GNS had formal authority over the Banat.

-- Director (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already had discussion about meaning of term "Serbia proper" in World War II several months ago, and I showed evidence that "Serbia proper" in presented source (Tomasevich, 2001) was description for "Serbia without Banat": [20] (i.e. for main part of WW2 Serbia without autonomous Banat, which was theoretically part of Serbia, but was governed by its local German minority). I see no evidence that Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to anything else (i.e. either to pre-1912 Serbia either to post-1945 Central Serbia). If there is a claim that Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to pre-1912 borders of Serbia in his 1975 work, then we would need to see clarification of that source (link please!) and exact quotation of the sentence from that source where this term is appearing. I also disagree that the "post-WWII Serbia proper very closely corresponds with the WWII territory" since there are very notable differences between these two areas. Second thing, from all presented sources, it is clear that term "Serbia" is used for the territory (in what ever form), so attempts for deletion of name "Serbia" from the article title are contrary to the sources - it is irrelevant in which form exactly is name written (Occupied Serbia 1941-1944, Serbia under German military command, etc) because there is always term "Serbia" in all variants, as well as in all history maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links Therefore, deletion of name "Serbia" from the article title would not be in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME since name is commonly used in all presented references. I will say again: for me, any article title that describe the article subject as "Serbia of any kind" is fully acceptable. What is not acceptable is title that would refer to this area as to "something in Serbia", since that would not be in accordance with the sources. Also, we can conduct a research to see which of the presented name variants is most widely used in English language sources in google books and then we can pick that name for the article title. Regarding the claim that term "Serbia" can be "also used in a geographic sense", I agree that there is such possibility, but if we have sources that showing an territory with borders named "Serbia" then it is obvious that we deal with an political and not with geographical area with this name. Also, I do not see a map in this link (where it is supposed to be located?). PANONIAN 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian you are not helping with these blocks of text. "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)", simply means that "Serbia proper" does not include the Banat. That's all. Stop misquoting sources already. "Serbia proper" can only mean one thing, and that is - Serbia proper. No scholar in his right mind would state that parts of Kosovo or Vojvodina are part of "Serbia proper". That's its very definition.

That said, these parts of Kosovo (northern parts around Kosovska Mitrovica) that were included in the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" are pretty damn small and insignificant. Its a technicality, so I guess it is possible an author can simply disregard them and refer to the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" as being composed of Banat and "Serbia proper". Either way, "Serbia proper" in general does not include parts of Kosovo, and can in no way be considered to have included the Banat - and the term is NOT synonymous with the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia".

Its really these little "simplifications" that the sources use that confuse this issue more than anything... Panonian, what do you think about "Serbia (occupation territory)"? I'm trying to think of as elegant a title as possible. But there must be no question that the article, named thusly, will have "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in the infobox and the lede (among others, in the lede, of course). -- Director (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" means that "Serbia proper" refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat. If this is not true, then the source would not use phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" but rather phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Vojvodina and Kosovo)", if it referred to post-1945 Serbia proper or "Serbia proper (in pre-1912 borders)" if it referred to pre-1912 borders. Phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" fully resembling official administrative system from the time of WW2 German occupation in Serbia. Anyway, since I think that nobody here would advocate renaming this article to "Serbia proper", it is pointless to discuss about this term any more. Regarding the "Serbia (occupation territory)" as a proposal for article title, while it is not unacceptable, it is too simplistic. So, why we should not use my compromise proposal "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)?" Is there some problem with this title or not? As for infobox and the lead sentence, I have this compromise to propose "Serbia or the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia". A fair compromise? PANONIAN 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH.. No, PANONIAN, that is NOT what that means. Please improve your English/German language skills before entering into these arguments. And stop interpreting the sources. If the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat" - that is not what it says. Not only are you doing OR, you're doing bad OR because you don't quite get what the source is saying. And frankly, this is a complicated issue Peacemaker and I are having trouble getting to grips with - and we actually read some of the sources. Its annoying to have to correct you constantly, let alone deal with your suspicion-driven refusal to accept that you're making a mistake. That is forgetting about the fact that you're continuously insulting us both by referring to us as the same person, and are using confusing terminology out of POV reasons. You're also writing blocks of text in not-so-perfect English that are very difficult to read. Could you please do something about all this? We're trying to fix this article here.

Enough "compromises", we do this by the book. IF the COMMONNAME is "Serbia" as you claim, then the part in the brackets is supposed to be as simple as possible. So I'll take "simplistic" as a compliment. The exact layout of the lede will be written in accordance with specific instructions at WP:LEDE. The infobox will use the official name, as is also general practice.

HOWEVER, I'm starting to lean towards Peacemaker's position. I don't think "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME, and I think we should start thinking along the lines of his proposals. I'm sorry you don't like the word "in", but the Germans apparently liked it a lot. -- Director (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot have been any clearer about this. I am not interested in removing the word 'Serbia' from the title of this article and have never suggested it. So far as I can see, neither has Direktor. I don't know why you keep banging on about it, PANNONIAN. The second thing is that it is absolutely clear from several sources that the Military Commander in Serbia was responsible for an area of occupied territory, that included Serbia proper AND the Banat. It was the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' according to the sources. Under his authority, administrations were set up in Serbia proper AND in the Banat to help him do his job of governing so resources could be exploited. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I still think "Military Administration in Serbia" is descriptive, and more common and elegant than "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Though I would prefer the latter to any user-invented alternatives, and there is no question that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is what we need for the infobox and the lede. -- Director (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more elegant, but we are talking about a territorial unit here, not an administrative one. It was a territory, that was its official name (give or take a comma etc), and frankly, I'd be happy with any one of the three that are sourced. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move this ridiculous dispute to article about Banat. I tell you here and now that I opposing renaming that article to "Veliki Bečkerek District" (if you want to support that name as "official") - common name used for that area in most sources is Banat, as well as common name used for subject of this article is Serbia. Now about term "Serbia proper" again: phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" used by Tomasevich clearly describing Axis political division of the area and therefore there is no evidence that such term referring to any political territory from other time periods. In fact, if we watch this with "post-WW2 eyes" then we would say that Axis Serbia included "most of Central Serbia, northern Kosovo and the rest of Banat". Note that one part of Banat (Pančevački Rit) was located in post-WW2 Serbia proper, so if we describe post-WW2 Serbia proper we would not exclude Banat from it. There is also a question why Tomasevich did not used phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat and Kosovo)". The fact that he did not used such phrase would mean that he considered north Kosovo to be a part of Serbia proper (as it indeed was in the WW2). Or to put it like this: Tomasevich speaks about WW2 and his usage of term "Serbia proper" clearly corresponding with political situation from WW2 and there is no evidence that he used this term anachronistically and that he referred to territories from other time periods. Regarding claim that if the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat" that is not what it says, I can say that if the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to post-WW2 or to pre-1912 territory" that is not what it says. And again, do not accuse me for OR without evidences since I did not accused you for much worse things. In fact, aims to annihilate WW2 Serbia were aims of Croatian Ustaša fascists from WW2. Ante Pavelić hated so much that Axis Serbia exists and wanted from Germans that they abolish her and divide her territory between neighboring Axis states (Croatia included). Maybe some people would more like that Hitler destroyed Serbia completely and killed all Serbs, but it is not what happened. So, even if we again have to argue here for months, implementation of Croatian Ustaša POV into this Serbia-related article would never be acceptable. This article could be written only in accordance with NPOV policy of Wikipedia and existence of 100 revert-warring Croatian accounts could not change the policies of Wikipedia. In fact, whether you two are sockpuppets, meatpuppets or two Croatian users who coordinating their anti-Serbian campaign in Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. You will not "defeat" presented sources by unsourced empty rhetorics because your rhetorics would be always countered with sources from my side. So, if you again want to argue here for months, so be it. Of course, if you give up POV pushing and if you show willingness to accept info from presented sources and to achieve compromise, I would be here. Regarding the compromise, you did not gave me answer to my question: is there a reason for this article not to be named "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)"? As for term "Military Administration in Serbia", there is no single evidence that such term was used for territory - it was used for governing body of the territory and therefore, article about territory cannot be named like that. As for infobox and the lead sentence, we have to use compromise solutions there too and you also did not said is there something wrong with compromise that I proposed: "Serbia or the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia"? PANONIAN 10:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have civil discussion about this issue than lower myself to your level. But, I've had more than enough of your incivility, harassment and accusations of being a sock or meatpuppet of Direktor, Ustase POV, 'Croatian user' rubbish etc. I AM AUSTRALIAN. I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO YUGOSLAVIA, NOT ANY POV ASSOCIATED WITH ANY FACTIOBN, COUNTRY OR WHATEVER. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT I DO. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY AT SPI THAT I AM NOT A SOCK. YET YOU CONTINUE. Frankly, Direktor frustrates the hell out of me at times, and your constant reference to socks and meatpuppets is insulting on more than one level. I am reporting you, despite my earlier pledge to rise above it, as I am sick to bloody death of your crap about socks, meatpuppets etc. You behave incredibly badly in this space, and it is time that your behaviour was brought before some non-involved admins who can take some action about it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Peacemaker, I may be frustrating, as you say, but I would appreciate it if you didn't actually go out and insult me for the sake of proving to User:PANONIAN, of all people, that you're not me. PANONIAN isn't very picky about his accusations. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you're frustrating (at times) isn't insulting, Direktor. Everyone around here seems to have a hairtrigger... :) Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not buying that, dear Warmaker67. Your general contributions in various articles are so anti-Serbian that it is simply impossible that you do not originating from former Yugoslavia and that your ethnicity is most likely not Croat (even if you indeed live in Australia today). Yes, I have no evidence for that to present to Wikipedia community, but other Serbian users in Wikipedia absolutely agree with me about this. And there was no proof that you are not sock either - declined request for conduction of checkuser is not an evidence (although, I am not 100% sure by myself anymore that you are sockpuppet due to the timing of your appearance here, but you cannot convince me that you do not coordinating your edits with DIREKTOR and that you do not originating from former Yugoslavia). And feel free to notify admins about my behavior - I stand behind everything that I said, I did not directly insulted you in any way, and I have right to express my suspicions about your identity especially due to the fact that you are involved in revert warring with various Serbian users in various articles - scope of your interest in Wikipedia absolutely does not correspond with something that would be expected to be the interest of an "retired Australian Army officer" (which you claim you are). PANONIAN 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, WP policy does not require me to sell you anything. Anti-Serbian hey? So what am I doing editing articles on German units and operations, Serb and Croat units, Serb and Croat politicians and leaders, Australian POWs escaping from camps in Slovenia, etc etc. I'm on an anti-Serb crusade? This is absolutely delusional stuff. How many retired Australian Army officers do you know? Maybe I wrote my doctoral thesis on civil war in Yugoslavia during WW2? How do you know that my grandfather wasn't a POW in Slovenia and went back there many times. Maybe my grandfather was a RAF bomber airman who parachuted into Yugoslavia when his bomber was shot down. Maybe all of those things are true, maybe none. Frankly, it's none of your business. You are very quick to make assumptions about what a retired Australian Army officer's interests might be. Just because you are here on WP focusing on articles to do with Serbia, doesn't mean I have to do the same regarding articles on Australia. If you want to edit articles on Australia, you go right ahead, you have my permission... Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, DIREKTOR, since I opened an report about you here, plase explain to people why you deleted referenced info from the article that common name used for the terrritory was "Serbia" and why you wrote that territory is named "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" when the only source that mentions official name here uses name "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia", see: [21] User:PANONIAN

I reverted info that was added without agreement. Direktor, first gain consensus, and then edit. --User:WhiteWriter

Ah yes, but when PANONIAN adds information without consensus and is reverted, he actually reports the revert because his stuff was "sourced", or so he claims (as if the others' additions weren't). Do I detect a double standard, WW? I've reverted all additions and restored the status quo ante. Of course the real victims here are the poor admins who are expected to actually read the nonsense.. -- Director (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I provided TWO sources at the top of the section above. One is Pavlowitch, the other is Bold and Roy. They differ only in that one (Pavlowitch) uses a comma, and one (Bold and Roy) uses 'in'. The one that uses 'in' provides the German title in parentheses after the title in English. A search of the title in German shows multiple good hits on Google Books, and therefore supports the translation used in Bold and Roy. My German grammar is not perfect, but it's good enough to know that 'in' means 'in', not comma. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my opinion about subject: 1. article title should use most common name of the territory (WP:COMMONNAME), and according to all these sources that common name is "Serbia". Of course, due to the fact that we have another article named Serbia, title "Serbia under German occupation" would make a needed distinction between the two. Regarding the name which presented source (Serbia: the history behind the name) describes as "official name of the territory", such name is obviously not widely used in English-language sources and therefore it is not in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME as far as article title is in question. 3. I think that we should mention both names (common and official) somewhere in article text or/and in the infobox (and I really do not understand why user DIREKTOR simply deleted from the infobox mention of common name, together with reliable references that mention it). Also, I think that both names should be mentioned in the main body of the infobox (not on the very beginning of it) - otherwise, we would have a dispute which of the two names should we use on the beginning of the infobox - common one or official one? I am simply proposing compromise solution: either we should use neutral title "occupied territory" either we should not use any name at all (or alternatively, current article title could be also used in the beginning of the infobox). 4. We should determine which version of official name of the territory in English language is most accurate. So, far only Pavlowitch says that it was official name and this source mention it as "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia". Other two sources that mention (somewhat different) English versions of this name are not claiming that these are official forms of the name. Source whose authors are Brian Bond and Ian Roy uses form "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", but this source does not states that it is official name or official form of the name. We have also problem with German language sources, since some of them are using form "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" and some other "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien". So, is there an evidence which of those is most correct form and what would be authoritative translation of the name into English? PANONIAN 04:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For god's sake, there is only one unanswered question, and you two (three) are under constant dispute per that.

Was there a puppet state during WWII on the territory of the modern day Serbia?

Can you please answer me? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no. The Tomosevich quote I typed in above makes that clear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, absolutely not. We cleared that up months ago. What we have is the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, administered by the Military Administration in Serbia, which had two very much subordinate civil authorities under its control: the Government of National Salvation, in Serbia proper (plus a tiny bit of northern Kosovo), and the Volksdeutsche government, in Banat. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source say YES: [22]. And the only thing that "we cleared that up months ago" is that you have no sources that supporting your claims. I also see that your behavior did not improved since then at all. Also, north Kosovo was a part of WW2 Serbia proper, while German civil administration of Banat was theoretically subordinated to Serbian puppet government of Milan Nedić. PANONIAN 10:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, a joke? Again? You found some worthless contents entry against explicit contradiction in top-quality scholarly sources? And to say we "have no sources"?! I really hope you are setting me up for some gag, PANONIAN. Do you read talkpage posts?

The exact nature and organization of this territory has been cleared-up months ago. And this is discussion is over. If you do not see any sources in your immediate field of vision as you are reading this post, I recommend you please transfer your field of vision to previous posts and discussions and read the copy-pasted sources therein. If you cannot or will not do so, I'd appreciate it if you would leave these matters to users who have read some of the sources and understand WWII history - and did not just google "Serbia German puppet state". This is the very definition of disruption, and the quality of the article has already suffered greatly. -- Director (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing rhetorical games - where are such "top-quality scholarly sources" that contradicting to source that I presented? You have no such sources - if you have them you would post links to them, but I see no links, I see no proofs. There is only one single thing that comes from you: rhetorics, rhetorics, rhetorics (always unsourced). That apply to your last post, and to your previous posts as well. It is tragic that I have to deal here with "rhetorical warrior" who ignoring sources and who accusing my presentation of sources as a "disruption". This is outrage. PANONIAN 11:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We cleared that up months ago"-No; you didn't. Not to mention that every single thing you have made on here has been distinctly POV. Not to mention you have ignored sources that have contraidcted your views.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? :) Yes we did. Nothing I've done here has been "POV" even in the slightest. And I've not ignored sources, I've ignored PANONIAN's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH from sources (things like map labels and contents entries that apparently carry hidden meaning for the "select few"). But ok, since we're restarting this closed issue again, lets go through the motions:

"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."
Ramet p.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 [the Aćimović Commissary Government], 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 2001, p.182

Of course, you should also definitely read what Peacemaker has brought-up above.

So the Government of National Salvation is in reality a fantasy country, is it? Something like "Gondor" or "Rohan", part of User:PANONIAN's legendarium? Or is the German Administration that country?

Its good to see you again, JWULTRABLIZZARD, but had you really researched this, or even looked-up the sources people like Peacemaker (see just above) have copied-down here for you, you will have noticed that the proposition is utterly ridiculous and contrary to explicit statements from the highest-quality sources - and I mean from the text itself, not the dedication or something of the sort that happens to be accessible for free at Google. But don't take it from us, we're apparently on an "anti-Serbian crusade", which I suppose makes PANONIAN the "defender of Serbia" or something like that. -- Director (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PANONIAN will never agree that his home Vojvodina was not really part of (a) "Serbia" before 1945, but that does not mean the issue of the fantasy "Vichy Serbia" isn't concluded. -- Director (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't concluded until all agree to some version. Did anyone proposed any compromise? --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. what? Interesting views... No, WhiteWriter. That is not how Wikipedia works. We do not "compromise" with sources and facts, and we certainly do not depend on the agreement of all (or even most) talkpage participants. Science is not a democracy, and by extension neither is Wikipedia. Consensus is necessary, of course, but in order to be valid (or even make sense) only consensus based on sources can be contemplated. "Compromise" somewhere between fact and fiction is out of the question. There was no "Vichy Serbia" puppet state, no matter how much PANONIAN (and General Nedic) might wish it - and no amount of talkpage insistence can bring it into being.

WhiteWriter, what puzzles me most (and has puzzled me for quite a while) is that Serbian users, of all people, insist against all sources on representing their country as a Nazi puppet - as if that is some kind of badge of honour. Could it really be just a matter of "see another Serbian user defending himself in an argument - assist Serbian user"? The letters inscribed on your coat of arms certainly do not stand for an empty phrase. But is not possible that the Serbian person in question is not only dead wrong, but also so completely out of touch with the facts that he is dead wrong in defense of a personal fantasy that depicts his own country in a negative light? -- Director (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you suggesting say Serbia was a state? This HAS been dealt with already. The question at hand is whether there is a WP:COMMONNAME which would displace the official name of the German-occupied territory under the control of the Military Commander in Serbia (for which we have a WP:RS - Pawlowitch, who says it was the 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia). There are a couple of variations in that, one of which includes the word 'in' before Serbia. My extracts from various reliable sources above clearly show that there is NOT a common name. There are many names used by reliable sources when they discuss this territory, and I listed some of them in a dot point list somewhere up there, along with the rationale for my conclusion that there is no common name. Therefore, in the absence of a common name, we should either use the official name (in an agreed form, perhaps the best and least controversial is the form from Pavlowitch), or a concoction of our own. For the record, my preference is the official name as per Pavlowitch. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with usage "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia", per Pavlowitch. PANONIAN 05:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien" is best translated as "Territory/Area of the Military Commander of Serbia", but since that term is not used in sources(?), "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is the next best thing (and a tad more "elegant" as well). Also, "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" can potentially be misleading. (In addition punctuation marks are discouraged in titles except when absolutely necessary, e.g. for disambiguation.) -- Director (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the translation, I beg to differ. 'in' is the most correct in the context. Also, the term 'military commander in Serbia' is quite common in sources, and it almost always uses 'in'. But your point about commas being generally avoided is well made, I checked WP:Article titles, and it was pretty clear. PANONIAN, what say you to 'in' Serbia? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I checked with Google Translate and it also gives me "Area of the Military Commander of Serbia". I could well be wrong, mind you, I didn't study German since high school. Its probably dependent on context, as you say, and "of Serbia" ought to be "von Serbien" or something. I'll ask my Austrian cousin :).

But either way, you're right. The point is moot. WP:TITLE disagrees. -- Director (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I've ignored PANONIAN's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH from sources (things like map labels and contents entries that apparently carry hidden meaning for the "select few")". -I wasn't referring to the maps that PANONIAN has shown, or any other sources he has given: the maps are quite obviously not sources.But you do seem to be very opposed to any mention of the word 'Serbia' in the title of this article.

Now; there appears to be two types of entities that existed as regards occupation by Nazi germany: on the one hand, we have occupied territories that already existed as states before the Nazi invasion (Vichy France, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Hungary under Szalasi, Albania 1943-1945, The Italian Social Republic, etc.) and those territories that were especially created by the Nazis (or their collaborators); so in the latter category you have Serbia, Croatia, the Reichskommisarriat Ukraine, the Reichskommisarriat Ostland)

Granted; between 1918 and 1940 there was no entity called 'Serbia' for the 1940-1945 entity to be created from; but was there really any difference to this and a rump Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia 1918-1940 was de facto dominated by the serbs at any rate; just like; for example, formally; the United Kingdom and England are not the same thing, but nevertheless the English always dominated the United Kingdom, and the British Empire; and indeed Britain is often described (inaccurately) by other nationalities as 'England'. (For example, Britain was often referred to-even in formal contexts as 'England' by Nazi Germany.)

Consideration must also be given to the Nazi's plans as regards europe. Of course; they regarded all slavic peoples as untermensch' or 'subhuman'; but nonetheless practical considerations came in to play and many of the nazi puppet states were sops to Slavic nationalities that had allied themselves with germany: for example, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Slovak State, the NDH; not to mention Bulgaria. Yes; it can be argued (although I don't wholly agree) that 'Nedic's Serbia' was merely an occupied territory along the lines of the Reichskommisariats of Ostland and the Ukraine. But if that is the case; what would be the point in that? Both the Reichskommiriats of Ukraine and Ostland (as were the future planned reichskommisariats to the east)were intended as future 'eastern territories'; to be fully incorporated into the German Reich and would be settled by germans and the slavic population annihilated, assimilated, or removed. Was this the case in Serbia?

Why was Serbia singled out, and yet nowhere else in the Balkans was- Croatia for example was allowed to have its own state (albeit a puppet one that was occupied by german and italian troops)? Did it have anything to do with the resisitance of the rulers of Yugolsavia to the Axis' plans in 1941; and the coup d'etat against the regent, Prince Paul, and the support of the Ustashe to Hitler's plans? -and furthermore; if that's the case, why leave a Serbia of any kind, formally or geographically? Was there any strategic, military reason for this? What exactly were the Nazi's plans in this area?

"what puzzles me most (and has puzzled me for quite a while) is that Serbian users, of all people, insist against all sources on representing their country as a Nazi puppet - as if that is some kind of badge of honour."-It is statements like this, DIREKTOR; that make me question your neutrality as regards this and other related articles. Whilst I fully agree that both the Nazis and the Ustashe were some of the most vile, regrettable regimes in human history; but what we cannot do is let these sentiments cloud what was reality. If a Serbian 'state' existed (I'm not saying either way that it did) then that needs to be recognised. If not, a valid, sourced explanation needs to be given to show why this was not the case, to counter any arguments ot the contrary. Yes; the Nazis were bad, but it seems to me DIREKTOR that you are trying very hard to deny any existence or validity to these regimes, however unrecognised they were. This is evident from your comments on the page about the NDH and the page about Aimone, Duke of Spoleto; such as: "this was no more a Croatian state than the general government was a polish national state; which is plainly untrue per all the sources. The general government was just an occupied territory. The NDH was a state-a largely unrecognised and puppet one; but one that existed nonetheless. So was Manchukuo. So was the Slovak State. So was Vichy France, etc. etc. etc.

This is why I think your contributions on these pages are POV: you seem to be very determined to let your own views; however honourable, cloud any neutrality as regards this, which is totally contrary to everything wikipedia stands for.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JWULTRABLIZZARD, I apologize, but I'm not going to respond to your post in full. See WP:TLDR. And there are so many mistakes up there, and bold statements without basis in fact, I don't even know where to start... For example, I fully support a name that includes the term "Serbia", Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941 not 1940, your ideas on the organization of Axis occupation of Europe are very far from the actual history, etc. etc.. This is really not one of those discussions one can simply "parachute" into, it takes a familiarity with the sources and the previous course of the discussion. And imo all your doing thus far is disrupting the discourse. -- Director (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we're just waiting for PANONIAN to respond to the fact that his latest proposed title is strongly discouraged by WP:TITLE due to including a punctuation mark. Imo he probably will not assent to using the word "in", in which case this will all probably end up on some noticeboard. The question is WP:OWN. Either way, we cannot have an article held hostage in this manner any longer. Lets just move to "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". The matter probably wouldn't be over for good, but I think its a step in the right direction everyone can agree upon (it being completely sourced as the name of this thing..). -- Director (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JWULTRABLIZZARD, I concur with Director. You haven't made reference to any aspect of the relevant policies or the sources raised here. @Director, I was quite hopeful that PANONIAN had accepted that the WP:COMMONNAME argument, and I am keen to get everyone on board with the move. Can we leave it another 24hrs and move it then if no other correspondence is entered into? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. -- Director (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must use requested move template, before any unilateral moves.. Move without it on this controversal subject would be violation of wiki rules. -WhiteWriter^speaks 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, not quite. IF we are able to achieve source-based consensus here, it will not be controversial, and we will not be required to take it to 'Requested Moves'. That is in accordance with wiki rules. And if you have a source-based view on the title, please contribute. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, per all those tldr's, all of you are not able to achieve source-based consensus. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let discuss this most recent revert warring where you replaced sentence "was organized as a German-administered occupied territory" with "remained German-administered occupied territory". Word "remained" imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the war and that then these territories "remained within Serbia". It is factually inaccurate description. So, if there is no evidence that phrase "was organized as" is wrong in any way I will revert article to that term. Also, is it a bit hypocritical to tell me in your edit summary that I should not "alter text without consensus" while you exactly altering the text without consensus? You do not own this article, you know. Final thing, please describe here the difference between sources in "Bibliography" and "Further reading" sections. Does the distinction mean that sources in "Further reading" section are less valuable and that Croatian author Tomasevich is more valuable than Serbian authors. Such distinction is absolutely POV and unacceptable. PANONIAN 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this post to the appropriate noticeboard or archive/delete it. I will not be bullied in this manner on an article talkpage. If you do not do so, I'll post it and the previous such thread myself - but in a different context. -- Director (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

try WP:MOS. I was in the middle of improving the way citations and refs are presented in this article, but you know what? My timezone and yours aren't similar, and it was getting late last night when I started. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you refusing to discuss the issue? Fine, I will ask administrators for help again. PANONIAN 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was I that made that edit, and in its context, it is correct. The paragraph is talking about what happened in the carving up of Yugoslavia after it was invaded and occupied by the Axis. It says 'the territory that was not annexed by Germany or given to the surrounding Axis neighbors,...' and then refers to the occupied territory we are referring to in this article. It does NOT imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the war, and that was not my intention and is not consistent with the meaning of the sentence as it stands. It appears that your understanding of English expression is not helping in general in this discussion, and specifically in your understanding of this paragraph. I am happy to discuss wording that you believe will more clearly explain what happened, but my view is that it is now clear. As far as the 'Bibliography' and 'Further Reading' issue is concerned, I suggest you read WP:MOS. It is not my job to reproduce it here, but suffice to say I was in the process of attempting to improve the quality of the layout of this article, and started by moving the sources that are clearly used for inline citations in the article into a Bibliography section with ones that are not cited in Further Reading. I obviously have not finished doing that, and the formatting of the cites are pretty ordinary and need work as well. It has nothing to do with the origin of the sources. You really need to read WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working my way through the citations in the article to identify pages where I can and check (if Google translate allows) that they are properly cited etc. I have a couple of questions about three of them that I was going to move back from 'Further Reading' to 'References' as PANONIAN had expressed concerns that I had moved them to 'Further Reading' on the basis of some perceived bias against Serbian sources. However, it appears they some are primary sources with a high likelihood of bias, or secondary sources written by possible relatives of the primary sources. My concern is that they wouldn't meet WP:RS. Wasn't Boško Kostić the personal secretary of Dimitrije Ljotic? What relation to Boško Kostić is Lazo Kostić? And isn't the book written by Aleksander Nedić actually a collection of Milan Nedić's papers? I assume that the common family names are not coincidences? I am happy for them to stay in 'Further Reading' if this is the case, but if I am right they really have no place in the 'References' section. Can I ask those here who read Cyrillic to confirm one way or the other? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend removing them. Indeed many of the books are written by people within the regime or by people directly related to them: Lazo M. Kostić was the transport commissar and Aleksander Nedić is the grandson of Boško Nedić, brother of Milan Nedić. Wikipedia:Further reading suggests that the books included in the further reading section be topical, reliable and balanced. Given that this is English Wikipedia they should also be in English. As a side note I have noticed that some references used in the article are images and unreliable websites. They should be also removed and, if possible, replaced by reliable sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a read of the guideline, and agree. I've deleted them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let start again. I have one nice source to introduce here: http://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Ogledi07.pdf This is a book about WW2 Serbia and the important thing about this book is that it contains a very large number of primary sources, i.e. quotations from official documents and newspapers from 1941-1944 Serbia. We have no time and space to examine all of these documents, but one very important one is found on page 247 under the title "REGULISANJE DRŽAVNIH DUGOVA BIVŠE KRALJEVINE JUGOSLAVIJE" (or in English: "REGULATION OF PUBLIC DEBT OF THE KINGDOM OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA"). Note that this was originally published in "Službene novine" ("official Gazette" of Serbia) in September 15, 1942. Here is the quotation from the source: "Sva državna imovina bivše Kraljevine Jugoslavije i njenih banovina, koja se na dan 15 aprila 1941 nalazila na području koje je konačno pripalo jednoj od država-sticateljki, postala je od toga dana vlasništvo ove države-sticateljke. Države-sticateljke u smislu ovog Sporazuma su: Nemački Rajh, Italija (uključivo Albanija i Crna Gora), Mađarska, Bugarska, Hrvatska i Srbija." (or in English: "All State property of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and its regional units, which on 15 April 1941 was in area that eventually went to one of the state-successors, became from that day the property of the state-successors. State-successors in terms of this Agreement are: German Reich, Italy (including Albania and Montenegro), Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Serbia.") (Google translate page for users who cannot read Serbian: [23]). What we seen from that? We see that Serbia was seen as a de jure separate country within the Axis Europe (unlike for example Albania and Montenegro, which were Italian protectorates, as it is accuratelly described by this document). We also see that name "Serbia" is also commonly used for the country and not only in this document on page 247, but in other documents that were presented in this book. These are official documents of the Serbian puppet government from 1941 to 1944 and it is fact that these documents are using name "Srbija" ("Serbia") to refer to the territory and that they also using term "država" ("country") to refer to political status of the territory. Furthermore, from all these documents it is evident that Serbian puppet government did not had so small jurisdiction. For example, there is document on page 155 named "UREDBA O PRAVNOM POLOŽAJU NEMAČKE NARODNOSNE GRUPE U SRBIJI" ("DECREE ON THE STATUS OF GERMAN ETHNIC GROUP IN SERBIA"). From that document we see that status of the ethnic Germans in Serbia was regulated by the official decree of the Serbian government (not by the decree of German military administrators) and that territory was here called "Serbia" (and not "Territory of the German Military Commander"). This source is a clear evidence that term "Serbia" was commonly used for the territory in official documents from that time. Note that these documents were monitored by the Germans administrators and there would not be name "Serbia" in these documents if German administrators did not approved usage of the name. PANONIAN 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... not another useless thread, and another block of text full of nonsense WP:OR. Did I not anticipate the response accurately, Peacemaker? As we say in Serbo-Croatian, "someone must be stupid here". And its probably me, since I have a record of dozens of useless head-against-the-wall posts where I explain, time and time again to PANONIAN, that he cannot draw his own conclusions from sources. Period. Now policy strictly prohibits any synthesis of any published material, but the most obvious one would be where some guy (like PANONIAN) actually thinks he should do his own research on primary sources, and present his "conclusions" here for us. And not only are these primary sources, they're primary sources from the Government of National Salvation, which we know was doing everything it can to present itself as a "country" - whereas it functioned as "nothing more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities" (Tomasevich p.182). And I said all this dozens of times before, but here we go, "starting again".. -- Director (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not my own conclusion. Primary text of the mentioned source also using term "Serbia", so usage of that name is choice of the author of that book, which is a secondary source, not primary one. PANONIAN 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes your own conclusion". The source can use any term it wants - its still WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH if you try to "interpret" something from that that (such as "Serbia was a puppet state"). Do you understand? Please say you understand... -- Director (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have need for any original research. Only thing I have to do to counter your words is to present a source that says that Serbia was a puppet state: [24]. PANONIAN 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's right, your googled contents entry from some book. At this point I'm convinced you must be joking... -- Director (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the fifteenth time: enough with the ORIGINAL RESEARCH, PANONIAN: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material". Sources must directly support you, or to put it in simple terms for you: when you have to "explain" what (you think!) sources say or indicate - you shouldn't. Nobody needs you to post your nonsense "interpretations" of the facts and documents. When you get a diploma, and get published - then we'll talk.

The (real) sources are very clear on what exactly was the name of the this territory. I think this would be a good time to put an end to all this damn disruption. You have shown no basis whatsoever on which to disregard them. You have agreed to "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" as an acceptable title, but since WP:TITLE discourages commas - we can use the other version "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" - which is besides that more common anyway. This farce no longer even resembles productive discussion, its WP:DISRUPTION and WP:POV PUSHING - and it needs to stop. This article must no longer be held hostage by one personally-motivated, POV-pushing user without any kind of understanding of the subject matter, or even Wikipedia policy.

Believe it or not, this WP:OWN nonsense you've got going is against policy, and can get you sanctioned. Please STOP ignoring policy (in spite of it being pointed out in every other post) and ignoring sources. You need to stop with this now. Do you, or do you not, finally agree to use the sourced official title for this territory? -- Director (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only bunch of personal insults addressed to me - no source and no evidence for anything stated. PANONIAN 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also name that you proposing is supported only by one google books hit, so it is not quite example of common name: [25]. Article should keep current title, due to prevailing number of sources. PANONIAN 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would however agree with usage of two names ("Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" and "Serbia") within the lead sentence and the infobox. PANONIAN 06:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence" he says.. "Evidence" for what? That you're doing OR? There's a direct quote from the policy, and its just beyond any question. That you're contradicted by (non-"interpreted"!) sources, also presented - and presented numerous times before. You "demand evidence" after anything anyone writes as an excuse for dismissing the post.

I personally would not mind "Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" since I'm pretty sure that's the accurate translation (incidentally my cousin from Graz agrees with Google Translate :)). But that does not matter since its not used in sources, and Peacemaker is right in opposing it on those grounds. We cannot invent titles. -- Director (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to your cousin in Graz AND my former colleague who is a NATI translator who doesn't agree with your cousin ('of' is 'des', 'in' is 'in'), we have a source (Bond and Roy) for 'in Serbia', we don't have one for 'of Serbia' and it doesn't mean the same thing.Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright alright, as we agreed before, it doesn't really matter. Who cares, its not used in sources anyway. Its only important to PANONIAN who is desperately trying to salvage something from the situation and have the version of the title that most suggests there was a puppet state called "Serbia". As strange as it sounds, "commander of Serbia" is (for some weird reason) probably to him more suggestive of a Serbian puppet state than "commander in Serbia" - and therefore the opposition. Whatever the case may be, catering to fanciful demands is simply out of the question. -- Director (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let now examine google books hits:

• Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia - 1 google books hit: [26]
• Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia, 1 google books hit: [27]
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien - 47 google books hits: [28] (in English: Area of the Military Commander of Serbia - [29], no google books hits for English version: [30]
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien - 3 google books hits: [31] - in English: Area of the Military Commander in Serbia - [32], no google books hits for English version: [33]
• Serbia under German occupation - 179 google books hits: [34]
• Serbia under German military administration - 7 google books hits: [35]
• Serbia, 1941-1944 - 24 google books hits: [36]
• German-occupied Serbia - 3,890 google books hits: [37]

So, what is the conclusion? Terms "Serbia under German occupation" or "German-occupied Serbia" are favored by most English-language sources, so current article title should be kept due to WP:COMMONNAME policy. PANONIAN 05:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another thread, moving on to the second nonsense argument: raw Google hits. Following your logic "Serbia" is probably the most common name. Why don't you check how many hits "Serbia" gets? ;)

We've been over this many times as well. "Serbia" is a term used to refer to a geographic region, not as a name for an fantasy science-fiction country that you are relentlessly trying to push unto this project. That is evident from the very phrases you bring up. "Serbia under German occupation" - is this your supposed "country"? A puppet state created by Germany - and then promptly "occupied" by Germany as well? "German-occupied Serbia"? If those terms refer to a military or state entity, how can this "Serbia" be "occupied"?? Those phrases use the term "Serbia" not to refer to a military-political entity, but to refer to the region commonly known as "Serbia" - which was "German-occupied". Much like "Slovenia" was "German-occupied" [38] - but there was no puppet Slovenia. Do you finally understand that your own claims make no sense whatsoever, and are so contradictory they refute themselves? -- Director (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is just getting ridiculous. As I explained a long way above, raw Google hits are of absolutely no use, because, as I explained, they don't capture the way the author describes the geographical area the first time they mention it in a given book. Many of the hits on the first page of those results are used as a descriptive phrase, not as a name for the geographical area. There is a clear distinction in English. We have an official name for this territory. Now we can either use that, or a Wikipedia-invented title that properly describes the territory and the fact that it was not only occupied, but under the direct authority of the German Commander in Serbia. I've made some suggestions above, but no-one seemed interested, so I reverted to the official name. Happy to re-visit the invented title if anyone is interested. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, they were 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', 'Occupied territory of Serbia (under German administration)', or 'German-administered territory of Serbia', and the one that Director suggested and PANONIAN stated was 'not unacceptable' (ie acceptable), 'Serbia (occupied territory)'. For the record, my preference is for 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', because it covers all the bases, but I can live with 'Serbia (occupied territory)' if only we could get consensus on it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, term "Serbia (occupied territory)" is acceptable, but there is a slight problem: term could describe some other time periods in the history of Serbia. Therefore, I would rather support something like "Serbia (World War II occupied territory)". All other proposed titles in last post are acceptable as well. PANONIAN 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that sources are using term "Serbia" to refer to geographical region, I do not see source that can support such claim. I also do not see similarity with term "German-occupied Slovenia" since we all know that political entity named Slovenia did not existed in the time of German occupation, while political entity named Serbia did existed. Therefore term "German-occupied Slovenia" indeed referring to geographic area only, but term "German-occupied Serbia" referring to political entity whose borders were defined by Axis occupational authorities. Otherwise, DIREKTOR would be obligated to define what were borders oh his "geographical area with name Serbia", i.e. he should say is this "geographical area" identical with political borders of Axis Serbia or perhaps with borders of modern Serbia? DIREKTOR should say are Syrmia, Bačka, western Sandžak, southern Kosovo and southern Serbia parts of his "geographical Serbia" or not. DIREKTOR should also provide a source that support view about "geographical Serbia" and sourced evidence that term "Serbia" was used in 1941-1944 to describe areas that were outside of Axis Serbia. For example, we would require source that would say that western Sandžak and eastern Syrmia were parts of "geographic Serbia" in 1941-1944. Finally, if "geographical Serbia" is identical with modern Serbia then sources would not describe it as exclusively "German-occupied", since this area was occupied by other Axis states as well. PANONIAN 14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. All you do is "request evidence" for anything anyone says, regardless of whether that makes sense or not. It appears to be a tactic that you think might allow you to dismiss arguments easily. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that these hits refer to a country, which is your claim, not on others to show they do not. That's your first mistake.

As for you "requesting evidence" that the term is used in a geographic capacity - you provided it yourself. All sources using the phrase "German-occupied Serbia" can only use the phrase in a geographic sense, since there was no country or state called "Serbia" that was occupied by the Germans. Hopefully you are not confusing your own claims, and are aware that you advocate the idea that the Germans created a country called "Serbia" - not occupied a country called "Serbia". And hopefully you are aware of the difference between the verbs "to occupy" and "to create".

The exact territorial extent of a the area a particular source refers to by the term "Serbia", is also completely irrelevant. Even if it would hypothetically correspond perfectly with the Territory of the Military Commander, it still would not support your claim that the thing was a country. So just one nonsensical argument after another... -- Director (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker. Actually I suggested "Serbia (occupation territory)", provided PANONIAN could prove that is the commonname. However, since he cannot show anything of the sort, I am strongly in favor of simply using the official name and getting this over with. I'm against "occupied territory" since it really wouldn't solve anything. Provided PANONIAN could show that "Serbia" is the commonname, it would still be an instrument of occupation, not something that that was "occupied" or "under occupation".

At this point I think we should introduce the official name into the article (with sources), and bring this whole matter up on WP:AE should PANONIAN revert it. I won't pretend I would not like to see him sanctioned for the "sockupuppet" harassment and for all this WP:OWN disruption and nonsense POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Germans created country called Serbia and held that country under occupation. There is nothing contradictory there. In fact, the full description of events would be this one: Germans invaded Yugoslavia, occupied Yugoslavia, created country named Serbia from part of Yugoslav territory and then continued their occupation of the country that they created. Of course, I agree that from the point of view of international law, Axis occupation of Yugoslavia was not legal or recognized, so, according to the International law, Serbia, Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro, did not existed. However, it is only a point a view and it does not mean that these 3 puppet states did not existed at all. They existed de jure according to the point of view of the Axis Powers, and what is more important, they existed the facto. In fact, of these 3 de facto states, Serbia had the largest part of its claimed territory under control of its institutions (Large parts of the Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro were in fact controlled by the partisan resistance movement during most of the war, while this movement was mostly defeated in Serbia in autumn of 1941). We are not here to discuss international legality or to say which of the points of view regarding the jure existence of Serbia is correct, but we are here to determine the subject for an Wikipedia article. De facto states are valid subjects of Wikipedia articles, no matter what anybody thinks about legality of their existence (see: Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria). As for my "request of evidences", it is legal action in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Users are obligated to support their claims with sources. So, I can present sources that saying that Serbia was a puppet state (check this one: [39] - it says "the other puppet state, Serbia". And guess what, that book is written by your favorite author - Jozo Tomasevich. It is clear evidence that Tomasevich does not think that Serbia was only "geographical area". Can you explain why that source says that Serbia was a puppet state? Also you did not answered the crucial question: which territory is included into your fictional "geographical Serbia": the Axis Serbia or modern Serbia? (the question is very relevant). Also, can you quote any sentence from any source that could be seen as a description of "geographical Serbia"? Also, if you claim that sources using term "Serbia" for geographic area only, why you object the usage of that term in article title? If your claim is correct then name "Serbia" in article title would be: 1. completely neutral, 2. would refer to geographic area, and 3. would not imply that subject of the article was a country. It is the exact thing that I am proposing here: usage of neutral title "Serbia". I am not advocating that titles "Country of Serbia" or "Puppet state of Serbia" are used. I am also not advocating that term "under occupation" is used, but unless we find better title, I will support current one, since it is supported by most google books hits. Also, political entity of Serbia is certainly not different subject from the geographic area that it including, so the article title should accurately describe both: the entity and the geographical area of the entity. I am insisting on 3 points: 1. usage of name "Serbia" in some form, 2. accuracy of the title, 3. NPOV title, especially without any kind of anti-Serbian POV (claim that Serbia was an "instrument of occupation" is a bit anti-Serbian, you know). So, what about title "Serbia (1941-1944)"? I say that this one is fully neutral without any implication of the status. PANONIAN 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it like this: I support usage of term "Serbia" in the same way as your favorite author Jozo Tomasevich used it in this map on page 62: [40] - on that map, name is simply "Serbia", nothing more. PANONIAN 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-That book does say on page 64: "Serbia proper, approximately within its pre-1912 frontiers, was the only area of dismembered Yugoslavia in which the Germans established a military government of occupation." What I don't understand is why the names Serbia (1941-1944) or 'German occupied Serbia (1941-1945)' aren't acceptable.Using a term like "Territory of the German Military Commander in/of Serbia" would be far too confusing for a casual reader not immediatly familiar with the topic. It's not clear at all. That doesn't mean we can't put the name 'Territory of the German Military Commander in/of Serbia' in the infobox, but we all have no objections to the word 'Serbia' (as at least a geographical expression) to be used in some form as the tile of the article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about Serbia (occupation territory 1941-1944)? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the Google Scholar search for Hehn that shows the official name. [[41]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, when there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the goals of: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency.

It seems to me that most of the WP:COMMONNAME objectives would be achieved by the use of a title including 'Serbia'. 'Serbia' is recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, and it is also natural because it is a term that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors might naturally use to link from other articles, although I will say a couple of more things about that later.

In terms of precision, 'Serbia' is of course far too imprecise. As almost everyone here as pointed out, 'Serbia' has many meanings over a long period of time. The article title must be sufficiently precise to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. There are Big texttwo things I see as absolutely necessary in this respect. Firstly, we need to clearly show the status of the territory at the time (occupied territory, not a state), secondly when this occurred (1941-1944). Otherwise it may be confused with a different period of occupation of the region, as PANONIAN has pointed out.

The need for precision impacts on the goal of conciseness. We will need to have a longer and less elegant title so that we can be sufficiently precise. There is a very fine line between disambiguating 'Serbia' sufficiently, and using the official name. What I mean is that anyone looking for this territory will probably search for 'Serbia' (as per naturalness), be taken to the current 'Serbia' article, then have to go to the disambiguation page to find the 'Serbia' they are looking for. If we used a title such as 'Serbia (occupation territory 1941-1944)' with 39 characters, we might as well use 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' with 45 characters. It is as precise as it gets, and doesn't require all the disambiguation in parentheses.

Finally, consistency. Titles of articles should follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Unfortunately, due to the rather unique nature of the arrangements in the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', we really have nothing to go on.

Other guidance from WP:COMMONNAME includes that ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. This is, I believe, what is wrong with the current title and many of the alternatives that have been discussed here and the raw Google hits information that has been linked. They are ambiguous and inaccurate because they imply that Serbia was a state occupied by the Germans. It clearly was not, and therefore the current title should not stand.

For the above policy-based reasons, I believe that the official name 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' should be used because whilst it is not exactly the most recognisable or natural title, the reality is that anyone looking for this will look for 'Serbia', then go to the disambiguation page where they will find it, whatever it is called. It is as precise and unambiguous as it gets, and although slightly less concise in terms of the number of characters, it does not require the parentheses and dash. Consistency is not an issue for us here. The comma version is against policy regarding punctuation in titles, and is outnumbered by the ones with 'in'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Agree. @JWULTRABLIZZARD, if you read through this discussion, you'll notice that nobody objects to using the term "Serbia" as long as its used in the proper context that does not suggest Serbia was a Nazi puppet state. And it was NOT. We should not be forced to cater to some guy's weird personal perceptions, along with the convoluted logic and nonsense OR he's invented to support them. Panonian is here for personal reasons, doing nothing more than POV-pushing. Its incredible that he would agree to "Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" but not "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". That example very vividly depicts how this is all about him and his strange ideas rather than any real dispute. So it's not about having Serbia in the title, it's about PANONIAN. -- Director (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let see: if we want to have NPOV and accurate article title then we cannot use one that "does not suggest that Serbia was a Nazi puppet state". Sources are claiming that Serbia was a puppet state: [42], [43], [44] - there are 20 google books hits for "puppet state of Serbia", so we can say that sources are clearly proving that Serbia indeed was a puppet state. Contrary to that, there is no a single source that says that "Serbia was not a puppet state". In fact, we have only personal unsourced statements of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 that "Serbia was not a puppet state". So, regarding the personal POV of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67, I am ready to accept any compromise title that will not imply that "Serbia was a puppet state" (no matter that sources say that it was), but such compromise title should also not imply that "Serbia was not a puppet state". Therefore, compromise title should not imply any status of the territory and should be neutral when status is in question. Also, since we clearly saw in presented sources that Serbia was a puppet state, it would be also disputed which parent term would cover all subjects within that state, i.e. it would be questionable was "puppet state of Serbia" part of the "Territory of the German Military Commander" or the "Territory of the German Military Commander" was part of the "puppet state of Serbia". In fact, military territories are usually areas within countries (check this map of Russian military districts as example: http://nrichards38.free.fr/IMAGES/Russian%20Military%20District-map.gif ). Of course, in the case of WW2 Serbia we have a problem to determine which one of the two terms is subordinated to another one, since here borders of a country and of a military district are same. PANONIAN 18:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just laid out the basis for the naming of the article, based on WP policy, and you have just ignored almost all of my post and focused on the bit you don't like (and a bit of Director's). Out of context Google Books hits of a vague phrase do not replace sources that clearly show that the idea that 'Serbia' was a 'state/puppet state' are at the very least, highly contested. In the interests of completeness, so we can put this 'puppet state' idea in context:

• Milazzo (p. 10). "Probably less than four million Serbs remained in rump Serbia, which for all practical purposes lacked the very rudiments of a political existence."

• Tomasevich (1975) (pp. 98-99). "In the Independent State of Croatia, which was acknowledged by Germany to be a sovereign state, the Germans had no formal power to introduce a military occupation government as in Serbia, but in time they established in an informal way a large degree of control over the government of the puppet state." ie the NDH was a puppet state but 'Serbia' wasn't.

• Tomasevich (2001) (p. 177) After detailing all the orders issued by the Military Commander, covering things like imposing all German laws on the occupied territory, surrender of all arms and radios, establishing the death penalty for acts of violence and sabotage, prohibiting assistance to non-German soldiers or civilians trying to escape to unoccupied territory, communicating to outside the occupied area, and insulting the German army or its commanders or demonstrating against German forces etc etc etc, Tomasevich states, "By these and a multitude of subsequent rulings and orders, the Germans regulated a wide range of administrative, political, economic, cultural, and social matters during their occupation of Serbia. Since it was impossible for them to take on all aspects of the day-to-day operation of the Serbian administration, however, they had to establish some domestic public body that would carry on administrative chores under their direction and supervision. This they quickly did in the form of a puppet government, which could issue orders that came from them or that they had sanctioned in advance." and (p. 182). "Nedic thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor (the Acimovic administration), 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.", and finally (p. 217) "Because the Serbian puppet government was so subservient to the German occupation authorities, it cannot truly be said that it had its own policies in any field of government activity. It was simply an auxiliary organ of the German occupation regime."

• Lemkin 2008 p. 10 [[45]] states that Serbia was a puppet government and the NDH was a puppet state.

So, 'Serbia' had no foreign minister or even minister for the armed forces. It had no ambassadors or envoys, no international standing at all, even within among the Axis powers. It had no sovereign rights whatsoever, and the governments, such as they were, were completely subordinated to the chief of military administration, who was a direct subordinate of the Military Commander in Serbia. The officially recognised German auxiliary forces such as the State Guard and Serbian Volunteers were subordinated to various German functionaries such as the Higher SS and Police Leader in Serbia. This only stopped on 6 October 1944, when for two weeks, a functionary of the puppet government actually had control of the State Guard (and that because the Germans didn't think they could help them anymore, and they were withdrawing). Even down to the district level, German authorities were supervising the Serbian puppet civil authorities. All of this is clearly laid out in Tomasevich's chapter 'The Puppet Government of Serbia".

The sources above clearly show that the idea that Serbia was a 'state/puppet state' is contested in quality academic sources already used in this article (not Google Books hits, some of which are dubious) at the very least. In the face of this, it is inappropriate for the article title to imply that it was a 'state/puppet state'. It appears that almost everyone considers the NDH was a puppet state, and some sources consider that Serbia was, and some consider it wasn't.

One thing that I don't think is properly understood in general about the arrangements in 'Serbia' (as explained in detail by Tomasevich) is that the Military Commander in Serbia had two staff branches, one a military, and one administrative. The generals that performed the role of Military Commander in Serbia included Danckelmann, Bohme, Bader etc. The chief of the administrative staff for the initial year or more of the occupation was Harald Turner. ie Turner was a direct subordinate of the Military Commander in Serbia. The puppet governments of Acimovic and Nedic were directly subordinate to Turner, not even to the supreme authority in the occupied territory, the Military Commander.

Now, can we get back to the policy-based discussion of the article name? I am happy to discuss further a 'Serbia (disambiguation)' approach to the article title. Perhaps Serbia (German occupation territory), only 36 characters, and couldn't be confused with any period of Ottoman or Habsburg occupation. Our issue here appears to revolve around the WP:TITLE goal of Precision. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having waited now for quite a while for PANONIAN to produce any kind of (non-ridiculous and self-contradictory) evidence that "Serbia" alone was the commonname of this territory, a possibility I am completely open to btw, I think it's time to keep to the sources and insist that, at least for now, we move to "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". At the very least it would be a step in the right direction. -- Director (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let see: 1. Sources that I presented are saying that Serbia was a puppet state: [46], 2. I do not see evidence that description used in these sources is a "vague phrase" or "contested" (contested by whom?), 3. Quotation from Tomasevich (1975) does not say that "Serbia wasn't puppet state" and one cannot gain such conclusion from presented quote, 3. Regarding description from Lemkin 2008, I fail to see that Serbia was not an "new organism created by the occupants" and that "Serbia having been in existence before the occupation". So differentiation of this author between puppet states and puppet governments is very problematic if we speak about Serbia (especially because Serbia certainly does not fit into his description of puppet government and because other presented sources are saying that Serbia was a puppet state: [47]) Also, I agree with claim that "some sources consider that Serbia was, and some consider it wasn't a puppet state". That claim, however, would be the main issue here: sources that saying that Serbia was a puppet state cannot be ignored, especially if we speak about article title - the title should be neutral to the question of puppet state and should not imply either that Serbia was either that it was not a puppet state. I do not see why this proposal would not be acceptable? Regarding subordination of Serbian governments to German administrators, I do not see how this situation is different from one in modern Bosnia and Herzegovina. Modern Bosnia and Herzegovina is also occupied by foreign army and there is foreign administration in Bosnia that have ability to impose laws and to replace local politicians or to annul their decisions. Situation is just same, but I do not see that somebody claims that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a coutry. WW2 Serbia was also seen as a de jure country in Axis Europe, and that is the whole point. Regarding term "occupation territory" in article title, after DIREKTOR said that "Serbia was an instrument of occupation", term "occupation territory" would be rather POV (if seen in the light of that statement). I will again propose compromise name "Serbia (Territory of the Military Commander)" or "Serbia - Territory of the Military Commander". Is there a reason why we should not use that version? PANONIAN 18:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing about Lemkin 2008 source: from that source, it is clear that if there is an puppet government then there must be a country that is governed by such government. In fact Lemkin clearly says that Serbian puppet government governed Serbia: [48]. He also mention an puppet government that governed Bohemia and Moravia. Seems that view of this author is that both entities, Serbia and Bohemia-Moravia, were not new entities, but rather entities that represented a continuation of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Authors of other sources that saying that Serbia was a puppet state are obviously supporting the view that Serbia was a new entity and not a continuation of Yugoslavia. It is however undisputed that if there is an puppet government there must be also a country that is governed by such government. PANONIAN 19:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what source to you have that Serbia was a de jure country in Axis Europe? I have already typed in a quote that directly refutes that contention. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? PANONIAN presented tons of sources for that claim! I cannot believe that you two are basically ignoring majority of sources, and obvious common name, and insist on that poor Territory of the Military Commander title, per only several sources... instead of this endless deaf tldr's, i will give you nice solution tommorow... -WhiteWriter^speaks 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker, did you read my post here at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbia_under_German_occupation#Let_start_again I will quote this source to you again - page 247, English translation: "All State property of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and its regional units, which on 15 April 1941 was in area that eventually went to one of the state-successors, became from that day the property of the state-successors. State-successors in terms of this Agreement are: German Reich, Italy (including Albania and Montenegro), Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Serbia." Also the source that you introduced clearly says that the puppet governments are used "for the administration of the country" and that puppet government is created in the case where "the original state having been in existence before the occupation". From that quote, it is quite clear that there must be a country if puppet government is created. So, Peacemaker67 would you read these sources or you will just ignore them? PANONIAN 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, PANONIAN, I read your post. I read all your posts, despite the tortured English, because I really am interested in getting to the root of the problem here. As far as I am concerned, it is the academic nature of this debate that interests me. The problem is, you see, I don't read Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croat, Croato-Serb or any other language from around there. And frankly, after your behaviour here and elsewhere, and stretching my capacity to WP:AGF to the max in the present conditions, why would I take that source on trust? If Director says is says what you say it says, then fine, I'll accept it. But until then, it's just a non-English source on English Wikipedia that I can't read for myself. Lemkin, from p.591 onwards, translates a range of decrees issued by various military commanders regarding occupied Yugoslavia, including the Military Commander in Serbia. They are the basis on which everything was done in 'Serbia' at the beginning, not some law issued by the Nedic government, which Tomasevich (2001, p. 177) says either came from the military administration or were approved in advance by them. And @ WW, he hasn't. De jure means 'at law'. Under what law was 'Serbia' a country in Axis Europe? Tomasevich (2001, p. 182) refutes the claim. If PANONIAN has produced so many sources for 'Serbia' being a legal country under the Axis, link just one, please. Make my day. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am trying to have an academic discussion with you here, but instead to comment quotations from sources that I presented you commenting my personality. As for Serbian-language source, I provided there everything for someone who cannot read Serbian: 1. original source with page number, 2. quotation in Serbian, 3. link to google translate page with translation of original text into English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbia_under_German_occupation#Let_start_again (so there is just everything needed for verification of that source for someone who does not speak Serbian and who have a good faith). Also you did not provided quotations either from Tomasevich or Lemkin. We need original quotations, not your own interpretations of the texts. Also, why you refuse to answer my questions: 1. Is my compromise proposal for the title "Serbia (Territory of the Military Commander)" acceptable? 2. how one puppet government can exist without a country that it govern? (again see quotation from Lemkin: [49]). PANONIAN 10:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal, PANONIAN. Despite the way you carried on when I first showed interest in this article. I've dealt with a lot more in the real world without letting it get personal. I don't know how to say this without you getting offended, but anyone whose native tongue is English would see what I mean about your English. I'm certain you are doing your best, and I expect it is frustrating for you that I complain about your English expression, but English is my first language, and it clearly is not yours. And this is English WP. It's not a personal attack, and it's not about your personality (of which I know nothing but what I have seen here and elsewhere on WP), it's a fact. It's just that what you type is sometimes bloody hard to read and make sense of. Sometimes, I struggle to work out what you are trying to say. But I am in this to improve the article, so I will continue to do my best to work it out.

Frankly, a 'Google translate' of an article really only gives me the vaguest sense of what topic of the source is, not the specifics. I know that from my limited knowledge of German grammar and seeing what Google translate spits out in response. The classic example is what happens when you put 'Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien' into 'Google translate'. But rest assured, I understand that Director can read the relevant lingo and confirm or deny what you say it says. I'll go with that. As far as:

1. the compromise proposal is concerned, I'm actually pretty flexible as long as it doesn't imply the occupied territory 'Serbia' was a country BEFORE it was occupied. So, whilst 'Serbia (Territory of the Military Commander)' is within those parameters, I'm not sure it meets WP:TITLE guidelines, and I really think we can do better than that. But ultimately, if that is what we end up with when we are completely exhausted with this endless circular debate, I'll be able to live with it for a while.

2. When you say 'how one puppet government can exist without a country that it govern?', I assume you mean, 'how can a puppet government exist without a country to govern?' If that is what you mean, then, short of several semesters in international law, I can only give you a summary. Basically, the law of occupation says that an internationally recognised country exists even if its government has had to leave it due to invasion, or even if the government is destroyed. It also says that the occupier does not have the right to create new states from it, transfer population etc. The key legal documents here are the Hague Conventions. Essentially almost everything the Germans did in Yugoslavia (and elsewhere) was completely illegal in international law. The legally existing state in 1941 was Yugoslavia, and after the Axis carved Yugoslavia up, annexed bits etc, there was very little that was left. Let's leave the NDH to one side for now, but essentially its creation was illegal, although it was recognised by other Axis countries. What was left of Yugoslavia was an occupied territory that consisted mainly of an area that had been Serbia before the Balkan wars, plus some areas that the Germans didn't want anyone else to have because there were resources/transport routes there or ethnic Germans lived there (ie what they called the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia). That doesn't mean there was a legally constituted state called Serbia, is just means the Germans used the word Serbia in the name because the part of Yugoslavia that was left after all the puppet states and annexations was basically the part that had been a state called Serbia pre-1912 (plus some other bits they decided to add for their own reasons). The Germans then appointed puppet governments to assist them to administer that occupied territory (ie the Acimovic and Nedić governments). Can I assume you haven't got a copy of Tomasevich 2001? I'm happy to type out the relevant sections if it helps us here, but you could just type "domestic public body" Tomasevich into Google Books and it will take you to p. 177, and if you type in "government whose powers" Tomasevich into Google Books it will take you to p. 182. Have a read and let me know what you think? Sorry about the length of the post. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please say how exactly my proposed title fail to meets WP:TITLE guidelines? Can you quote a sentence from WP:TITLE guidelines that confirms your statement? As for "puppet government" issue, you simply avoided my question - the issue of legality of occupation is completely unrelated. Of course that anything that Germans done in Europe in WW2 was not legal, but, no matter of the legality, they did created de facto puppet countries. So, I will ask you again: how one puppet government can exist without a de facto country that it govern? Please do not avoid my question again. PANONIAN 15:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how exactly is this sentence to which you directed me related to my question? Did I said that powers of that government were not limited? PANONIAN 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we will not achieve anything with repeated discussion about same things, so I am arranging this voting as a best way to gain general consensus among most users about name of this article. I will propose two options: 1. first option would be retaining of current name, as it is supported by these sources: [50], 2. and the second option would be compromise proposal "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)", per sources that using name "Serbia" and source which says that official name of the area was "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia". I will open voting about both these names and other users are free to vote and comment as well as to expand the voting with other proposed names. PANONIAN 10:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really don't think this helps, and it certainly doesn't constitute a method for achieving consensus. If we are unable to achieve consensus through discussion of the sources, I will take this to Requested Moves, and you can do your voting in front of the community. I won't be voting here or abiding by any false 'consensus' such 'voting' might generate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, man, you ignoring sources - how we can reach any consensus when you behave like that? I am trying here to reach consensus with most users (after they read sources that I presented and your rhetorical gaming they will decide by themselves who is right and who is wrong). PANONIAN 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what sources am I ignoring? You aren't even reading the sources I provide, as evidenced by your accusation of WP:OR in your recent edit summary, but there it is, right in the source I originally provided. I fail to see how 'voting' here would help achieve consensus, it's not a democracy, sources are the King. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let not play these rhetorical games any more, OK? If you agreed with usage of compromise title that I proposed we can move forward from that point. PANONIAN 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand what rhetoric is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems very quiet here, I'll move the article on the basis of the existing agreement. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting about name "Serbia under German occupation"

• Support, per my explanation above. PANONIAN 10:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per PANONIAN explanation above. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting about name "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)"

• Support, per my explanation above. PANONIAN 10:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my draft of a new lede that I consider reflects the sources and an overview of the content that is either already in the article or needs to be included. I would like to discuss this as we continue the discussion on a policy-based article title. I believe it covers all the bases detailed in WP:LEDE, and have kept it to four paras IAW that guideline, but am very open minded on the source-based content that might need to be added. I have already included the controversy regarding puppet state versus not puppet state, which we would obviously explore in the body of the article itself.

BTW, 'Commissary' is a really strange translation. We don't use the term 'commissary' here, but in US English, commissary means 'A restaurant in a movie studio, military base, prison, or other institution or a store that sells food and drink to members of an organization, esp. a grocery store on a military base.'. It pretty much doesn't mean anything else. Alternative terms in sources include, but are not limited to 'Commissioner Administration' (Tomasevich), or 'Government of Commissars' (Cohen), although the latter smacks of communists, so I'm guessing it won't be too popular here. Anyway, there are alternatives, but no-one seems to know what the right translation of the term is. Personally, in terms of what makes sense in English, 'Commissioner' is probably better, because it is a term used to indicate that a person has been given a 'commission' to do a certain job (in the same way you 'commission' a painting, or the chief of police is known as the 'Commissioner' because he is 'commissioned' by the government to keep the peace). Interested in any thoughts on this.

Anyway, here's the draft:

Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander), officially the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien)^[1][2] refers to the area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that was placed under military administration by Nazi Germany following the invasion, occupation and dismantling of Yugoslavia in April 1941. The territory included most of Serbia proper, the northern part of Kosovo (around Kosovska Mitrovica), and the Banat.

On 22 April 1941, the territory was placed under the supreme authority of the German military commander in Serbia,^[3] with the day-to-day administration of the territory under the control of the chief of the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; [Војна управа у Србији, Vojna uprava u Srbiji] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)). However, the lines of command and control in the occupied territory were never unified, and were made more complex by the appointment of direct representatives of senior Nazis such as Himmler (forSS and police matters) and Goering (for economic matters). Some sources indicate this territory was a puppet state and others indicate it was German-occupied territory with a 'puppet government'.

The Military Commander in Serbia appointed puppet governments to assist the Military Administration: initially the short-lived Commissary Government (Комесарска влада, Komesarska vlada) established under Milan Aćimović on 30 May 1941, ^[4] and subsequently the Government of National Salvation (Влада Националног Спаса, Vlada Nacionalnog Spasa) under Milan Nedić, ^[5] which replaced the Commissary Government on 29 August 1941. They were authorised to raise paramilitary forces, but these essentially functioned as German auxiliaries until the German withdrawal in October 1944. ^[6] The Government of National Salvation remained in place until the German withdrawal. Throughout the occupation, the Banat was an autonomous region, formally responsible to the puppet governments in Belgrade, but in practice governed by its German minority.^[7]

The puppet governments established by the Germans were little more than subsidiary organs of the German occupation authorities, looking after some of the administration of the territory and sharing the blame for the brutal rule of the Germans. They had no international standing, even within the Axis. Their powers, quite limited from the beginning, were further reduced over time, which was frustrating and difficult for Nedić in particular.^[8] Despite the ambitions of the Nedić government to establish an independent state, the area remained subordinated to the German military authorities until the end of its existence.^[9][10] Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree as lede should follow article title, and per fact that Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is not even near common name. It can and should be mentioned, but not as first word in the lede. Finish one discussion first, and then open second. We have question about article name, and NOT article lede for now. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common name, WW. Also, I beg to differ, see WP:ON [[51]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and last time I looked, no-one owns this article or talk page, I can suggest what I like. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used. Therefor, no, again... --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what it says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, i cite it? Yes, it does! They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used. Did you even read it? --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support your lede and can see no faults in it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree - 1. I oppose removal of name "Serbia" from the sentence, as it is name most widely used in most sources, 2. Name variant "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" have only one google hit in English: [52] and we still did not determined the correct version of official name of German military district. As I already said, "Serbia" (a country) and "Territory of the Military Commander" (German military district) were in fact two political entities that included same territory, therefore both of these entities should be described in the sentence. As for sources about name of German Military District, more sources are favouring version "of Serbia" than "in Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Common_.2F_official_name_issue (phrase "in Serbia" have only 1 google hit in English and only 3 google hits in German, so it is absolutely not an example of prevailing variant and there is no single reason that we use this variant instead, for example one which uses phrase "of Serbia"). Also, Central Serbia officially does not exist any more, so claim that something included "most of present-day Central Serbia" is incorrect. Also, there is absolutely no any controversy about whether this territory was a puppet state or merely had a 'puppet government' - the fact that some Wikipedia users are unable to understand sources they read is certainly not example of an "controversy". PANONIAN 15:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WW, what it says is 'Where an undisputed official name exists:... It should always be given early in the article introduction. It should be bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicised. See Wikipedia:Lead section.'. There is no other official name (give or take a comma etc), and I have not seen anyone produce a quote or point to a source that says that anything other than 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' or a small variation on it, is the official name. I'm relaxed about using the Pavlowitch version rather than the Hehn and Bond & Roy version. The sources for the official name are as above, but I'll add them here for completeness:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going to lead you through this, because it is clear you are not getting what I am saying.

Firstly, there are only three sources that I am aware of that say what the official name of this occupied territory was. If you have another one that actually says something else was the official name of it, please cite it here, otherwise, it is the 'undisputed official name'. They are; Pavlowitch (Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia), UK Naval Intelligence Division (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens) and Hehn (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia)). These three sources are supported by a further two sources, Bond & Roy ('Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia' (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien)) which is identical to Hehn except for the inclusion of 'German', and Kerner (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens) which is identical to UK Naval Intelligence, Hehn and Bond & Roy. Four of the five provide the title in German, and all four are identical in German. I am relaxed about the English translation, so long as it is sourced, and so I am comfortable with 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' or 'Territory of the (German) Military Commander in Serbia'. I will go with the consensus between the two. Either way, its the official name. Undisputed thus far. But I am open to any other sourced official names you produce.

Secondly, and let me step through this. Yugoslavia was invaded and occupied by the Axis. It was dismembered, with various Axis states annexing this bit and that. As part of this, the Germans authorised Kvaternik to announce the formation of a new state called the NDH. Essentially, in international law (ie, de jure) the NDH was a quasi-protectorate of the Italians and Germans. This is all well sourced, not 'rhetorical games'. What was left remained occupied and under the control of the Germans. No-one was authorised by the Germans to announce the formation of a new state called 'Serbia' (unlike what happened in the NDH). The bit that remained occupied coincided with some sort of historical Serbia (let's not get into what year Serbia may or may not have looked like that, or which villages were included, the discussion just goes off on tangents) and there are maps that show where its boundaries lay. We know why the Germans kept this bit to themselves (key resources and transport routes). Again, all solidly sourced.

Now, I have already acknowledged that there are several WP:RS that use the term 'puppet state' to refer to this occupied territory. I think it is sloppy scholarship, but incorporating my personal views in an article would be WP:OR, so I'll leave it at that. Please don't bang on about it being WP:OR, because I AM NOT trying to impose it on this article, I'm just clearly stating my opinion, which is worth nothing (in the article itself) unless I bring sources to back it up. However, there has been some contention that I have failed to produce any sources that make the description of Serbia as a puppet state controversial. That can only be because those editors have failed to read the sources I have provided, or don't understand English composition. Here are the sources I have already provided for this:

• Lemkin p. 11. [[53]] On this page, Lemkin uses Serbia as an example of Serbia as having a puppet government, and NDH as being a puppet state. In particular, Lemkin says "Puppet governments now function in Norway, in the part of Yugoslavia organised by the occupant as Serbia, in Greece..." The implication is that Serbia was not a puppet state, and in fact that it was a 'part of Yugoslavia organised as Serbia'. Note he does not say 'in Serbia'. This is not WP:OR it is a fair reading of the source.
• Lemkin p. 241 [[54]]. 'Of all the countries occupied in this war Yugoslavia has been the most dismembered and has been divided into the greatest number of administrative units. Its territory has been occupied by Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Albania. Parts of its territories were formed into the new puppet state of Croatia.' IF Lemkin thought Serbia was a puppet state, he would have written 'puppet states of Croatia and Serbia'. The clear implication (if you understand how English is composed), is that, by implication, Lemkin considered Serbia was NOT a puppet state. If he thought so, he would have written that it was. This is not WP:OR, it is a fair reading of the source. That is how English works.
• Lemkin p. 248 [[55]]. 'In the process of disintegration, Serbia was left with 4,500,000 inhabitants - 28 per cent of the population of the original Kingdom of Yugoslavia-and was subjected to German military occupation. In this German-controlled territory, a Serbian puppet government was established under General Nedic, who acts through his ministers and local Serbian authorities.' No mention of 'puppet state' or 'country' here, just 'German-controlled territory' and 'puppet government'.
• Tomasevich (1975) pp. 98-99. [[56]] "In the Independent State of Croatia, which was acknowledged by Germany to be a sovereign state, the Germans had no formal power to introduce a military occupation government as in Serbia, but in time they established in an informal way a large degree of control over the government of the puppet state." ie they acknowledged the NDH as a sovereign state where they had no formal power to introduce a military occupation government, but they did introduce a military occupation government in Serbia. So, they treated the NDH differently from Serbia, and the implication is that it was not a sovereign state. That's not WP:OR, is is a fair reading of the source.
• Tomasevich (2001) p. 177. [[57]] "Since it was impossible for them to take on all aspects of the day-to-day operation of the Serbian administration, however, they had to establish some domestic public body that would carry on administrative chores under their direction and supervision. This they quickly did in the form of a puppet government, which could issue orders that came from them or that they had sanctioned in advance."
• Tomasevich (2001) p. 182. [[58]] "Nedic thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor (the Acimovic administration), 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."
• Tomasevich (2001) p. 217. [[59]] "Because the Serbian puppet government was so subservient to the German occupation authorities, it cannot truly be said that it had its own policies in any field of government activity. It was simply an auxiliary organ of the German occupation regime."

But what I really object to is complete WP:OR like this:'As I already said, "Serbia" (a country) and "Territory of the Military Commander" (German military district) were in fact two political entities that included same territory, therefore both of these entities should be described in the sentence.' Where is the source for this? What fact? What source says that 'Serbia' was a country (or a political entity for that matter)? This is a extremely controversial statement. This so-called 'Serbia' had absolutely no international recognition at all. Not even within the Axis (unlike the NDH). None. The German Foreign Office representative in Serbia (Benzler) dealt with all external matters. It wasn't even allowed to have a commissioner/minister for the armed forces. It was just an occupied part of Yugoslavia, or to quote Lemkin, a 'part of Yugoslavia organised as Serbia.', or Tomasevich 'German-controlled territory'.

However, in the interests of achieving consensus and moving on to fixing the article itself, I would accept an article title of 'Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander), which appears to be sufficiently disambiguated to avoid confusion with any other period when Serbia was occupied. ie it was not occupied by the Germans, per se, during WW1, but by the Austrians and Bulgarians. If we leave 'German' out of it, I do not believe it would be sufficiently disambiguated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you long answer to that (many inaccuracies in your post), but since we agree about usage of compromise title "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)", I just want to see what other users would think or say about that title. PANONIAN 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

who exactly? The only editors on here are you, me, Director and occasionally, White Writer. Nevertheless, I will wait with bated breath for someone else to dip their oar in. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I have amended my draft lede to incorporate the proposed title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of this article is completely convoluted. After the history section the sections should be in the order:

1. German military occupation authorities (who appointed the puppet governments and gave them their orders, btw) 2. Puppet governments

Not the current order, which makes no sense whatsoever. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What ever. But, independent section "Administrative divisions" should be after "History". Then we can write about administrations. PANONIAN 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't make any sense. The Germans decided the divisions and told the puppet governments what they were to be. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the idea that the civil administration precedes the military administration in the article is ridiculous, especially when the civil administration was appointed by, and did the bidding of, the military administration. If the civil administration was pre-eminent, why did Nedic submit his resignation (on several occasions) to the chief of the military administration? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposed restructure of this article.

1. Lede

2. Invasion and occupation

• military occupation and administration

3. Creation of puppet governments

• Acimovic
• Nedic

4. Auxiliary armed forces

• State Guard
• Serbian Volunteer Command/Volunteer Corps
• Russian Protective Corps
• Auxiliary Police Troop
• Chetnik detachments of Pecanac
• Legalised Chetniks of Mihailovic

5. Bulgarian occupation of Serbia

6. Special arrangements in the Banat

7. Difficulties of Nedic Government

• Lack of power and control
• Refugees from NDH
• Mihailovic

That does not look encyclopedic at all. We should write this to be similar to other articles about territorial entities, not to be similar to chapters of some history book - this is encyclopedic subject, not a title of a book. PANONIAN 11:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what similar articles are you referring to? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Government?

I have in mind article Serbia where sections about history, politics, economy, culture, etc are very nicely separated. There is simply no valid reason why same principle should not be used here. You created a complete mess by your article "restructuring" and I lost much time in bringing this to proper time-line. In another words, "History" section of this article should only briefly mention general events related to Serbia, while specific issues related to military, resistance movements and other things should be mentioned within specialized article sections (not within "History" section). PANONIAN 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so you say, but Serbia is about a country. Which this is not, so we don't have a strict template to follow, and the unique nature of this territory makes it a special case anyway. Find an occupied territory article that's comparable. I'm happy to negotiate, but I have my doubt about your willingness to compromise given the changes you did of my recent edits. The special nature of this territory is the reason why I suggested General Government might be a possible guide. It's not a perfect fit, but it has some useful ideas that could be used here. And will you PLEASE stop doing inline citations to Google Books links, and cite your sources properly? It's not my job to clean up your 'mess' either. And please stop changing the wording of sentences/paragraphs I have cited. Tomasevich doesn't use the word 'civil'. That's your word, and if you can't source it it doesn't go in (that Tomasevich citation is NOT a source for it). Just stop removing sourced information and do your own citing properly. And removing the expansion tag was inappropriate, I put it there because I am expanding the article, and of course there will be some disruption while I am doing that. Your point about the restructure is accepted, but the tag was also about expansion. I am replacing it because it shows my intent and reflects my actions. That's what it's for. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Fully occupied country" is still a country and please stop this "not a country" trolling. Also, the structure of the article in which various subjects are separated under their own subtitles is a standard Wiki practice for any article about any geographical subject (country, territory, region), see: Bayern, Alberta, Kingdom of Dalmatia, etc. I do not see any basis in Wiki practice for inclusion of info about governments or persecution of Jews under the title "History". Also, I do not see anything "unique" about this territory. What would make it "unique"? As for my "willingness to compromise", I did not changed 90% of "your recent edits" - I only changed order of the sections and made some necessary minor correction in some highly POV and inaccurate sentences (if you would quote sources correctly and if you would not include your own personal interpretations into text, then we would not have problem with that either). By the way, General Government article also have separate subtitles for "administration", "economics", "holocaust", etc, so I do not see how this article could be a basis for your approach. Speaking about "mess", it was you who turned this article into "mess" - you added some sentences that were (and still are) already mentioned in the article, so we have now some repeated statements there, and I still did not entirely corrected that. So, if I can clean "mess" that you make, why you cannot clean "my mess" with references? Anyway, It is much more important to quote sentences from references so that other users could verify presented info - some references that you added could not be verified, and until such verification is provided, please do not remove "dubious" tag from the article. As for the question whether Tomasevich use word "civil" or not, is there a Wiki rule that says that article must be written strictly in accordance with what Tomasevich says? Do you want to say that description "civil" is somehow incorrect? Wiki text is open for editing and anything in that text could be changed. You can quote exact words of the authors in footnotes, but the main body of the text does not serve to that purpose. And I do not see that I "removed sourced information" anywhere - I only removed your personal interpretation and your misuses (and abuses) of the sources, nothing else. PANONIAN 07:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What personal interpretation? If you have evidence that I am misusing or abusing sources, produce it or withdraw the statement. You have wilfully refused to read ref pages I have linked to, continuously edit with very ordinary English, and breach WP policies left, right and centre. But apparently I'm the bad guy here... I have removed the dubious tag, because I had already provided a link to the Pavlowitch page in question on this talk page. Try control f "pavlowitch" and you'll get to it eventually. If you can't click on it, it's not my problem. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with this aggressive behavior already - "ref pages you have linked to" are unavailable and I would love to read them, but I cannot. So, if you say that source does not say that "Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" was an official name, then there is also no source that says that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is official name either - source that you recall (Hehn, Paul N. (1977).) is absolutely unavailable in the page that you linked: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~csparxiv/ToCs/1971_13_4_ToC.php So, how am I supposed to read that? Furthermore, google books are showing only one hit for "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" and guess what? - it is not reference that you recalled. One way or another, your false reference have to go since other users have no way to verify your addition to the article (and since this is very controversial addition, verification of a source is needed). So, we will either remove name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (together with false and abused reference) either we will return version "Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" and both names will be referenced with available and verifiable German and Serbian sources. Speaking about Pavlowitch, it is exactly an evidence that you abused source. Google search engine provides this quotation from that source: "the German military commander appointed a low-grade Serbian Administration often commissioners who were put in charge of the ministries, under the control of Turner and Neuhausen, as a simple instrument of the occupation regime" - So, source says that the "commissioners were a simple instrument of the occupation regime", not "both Serbian governments" as you wrote - this is clear evidence of abused source. As for term "civil administration", try to read this one: [60]. PANONIAN 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stop throwing stones when you live in a glasshouse. Your own behaviour is highly aggressive, you claim I am highly POV with no evidence, and you require every ref you don't like to be available on Google Books preview. All I ask is that you provide inline citations for terms in English on English WP. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that "Serbia was not a country" is example of highly POV statement. Due to the fact that there is no single source that support your POV you twisting info from the sources to create false impression that "Serbia was not a country". And by the way, there are no "refs I don't like" because all presented references are denying your POV, so I like them all (I see nothing that could support your POV in these references: [61], [62]). Also, I ask for google books preview because I want to be sure that you do not twist words from sources (and I proved in my previous post that you doing this). And having this source in mind, it is unacceptable to have sentence that says "Some sources indicate this territory was a puppet state and others indicate it was German-occupied territory with a puppet government" - source clearly says that there must be a country when there is a puppet government, so we should either use correct sentence, either we should not use that sentence at all. PANONIAN 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the sentence regarding puppet government and provided a ref, so the onus is on you to cite 'puppet state'. As far as 'country' is concerned, there are a range of sources which state different things about the 'Territory', including the reference you have tried to use to support Serbia as a puppet state (Lemkin), which refers to it as 'the part of Yugoslavia organised as Serbia'. Lemkin states that 'the part of Yugoslavia organised as Serbia' had a 'puppet government', and it cannot be used to support a contention that it was a 'puppet state'. The problem appears to be that you appear to be trying to equate a legal fiction created by the Germans (ie 'Serbia') that some authors refer to as a 'puppet state', as a real country. It wasn't a real country, had none of the characteristics of one, and its governments were completely subservient to the German occupier. It was an occupied part of Yugoslavia that is called 'Serbia' by some sources, but that had an official name as already described. I am more than happy with the evidence that some refs call it a 'puppet state', and even that some refs even call it a 'country', but that doesn't cancel out the fact that some refs don't call it either of those things, and only refer to it having a 'puppet government' and as an 'occupied territory' etc. One does not cancel out the other, and all of these permutations need to be reflected in the article, not just the ones you like. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah? Please show diff which can prove that "I am trying to equate a legal fiction created by the Germans that some authors refer to as a 'puppet state', as a real country". If you cannot find such diff, these please stop raising false accusations about my intentions. I am only trying to respect sources which saying that Serbia was a country - I am not supporting any view about legality of existence of that country. My only point here is that an "unrecognized country" or "illegally created country" (what ever term you want to use) is an valid subject for Wikipedia article. So, my approach to question of legality of existence of Serbia is completely neutral and I do not support any view about it. Contrary to this, seems that you strongly support view by which Serbia was illegal entity, and by which "territorial integrity of Yugoslavia cannot be questioned in any way". Well, guess what? This is year 2012 and you will not find Yugoslavia in any modern map any more, but you will find Serbia - so you basically trying to "defend territorial integrity" of an non-existing former country and you trying to erase part of the history of an existing country. What goal stands behind this? are you trying to restore Yugoslavia or something like that by such propaganda? This is ridiculous, man. And you again trolling the page with "no country" statements - how you know that Serbia "did not had characteristics of a country"? Which source says that? And to which characteristics you speak about? Do you know at all what are "characteristics of a country"? And by the way, governments of Serbia were not "completely subservient to the German occupier". On the contrary, its ministers had certain autonomy in decision about issues that were not directly decided by the Germans. This especially apply to education, culture, social care (or you want to say that Germans were much interested to educate Serbian children?). It is absolutely not correct that Serbian ministers were "entirely (and exclusively) instruments of the German military commanders" and there is no source that support such view. They did had autonomy of decision under the rules implemented by Germans. Furthermore, there is no source that says that Serbia had puppet government "as an occupied territory" - that is your personal opinion, not supported by the sources. PANONIAN 05:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah? What? I couldn't care less about your Serbian histographical continuum. Or the former Yugoslavia's integrity. All I care about is actual, real, historically accurate scholarly sources being used in articles about this period (ie WW2) which I am interested in. You constantly complain about my intentions, but demand that I never question yours. I notice you rarely cite inline, except with Google Books search strings. Your accusations of trolling are not appreciated. If anyone has been aggressive here it was you with your SPI carryon which has been carried on on this talk page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section should only include sourced names, including German translations provided in English sources. I am not aware of any translations into Serbian, Cyrillic or otherwise, for several of these names. Serbian translations of terms should only be provided if they are sourced. I am also unaware of any sources in English for the names that end with 'of Serbia'. Unsourced names and unsourced translations will be removed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sources are only relevant to a name in the language in which the source renders the name. Creating Serbian translations of your own for names in English or German is WP:OR. We have both English and German versions of names. I have not seen one Serbian verson of these names produced on the talk page. Unless a Serbian version of one of these names is produced from a WP:RS, I will continue to rv these edits. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.. this thing is still going on? Peacemaker, have you thought about inviting some neutral users interested in WWII? This talkpage is in essence degraded by the fact that people have to deal with locals with pre-conceived ideas about their own history. Additional neutral users (like yourself) from places like WikiProject Military History might help with this. I'm arguably also a "local" so me inviting people sounds like trying to get them to take sides in some ethnic squabble. Should you decide to do so, it may help if you start the discussion anew and make it clear you're doing so. People don't like to have to read through vast amounts of text to participate in something.

For my part I am simply buried in serious work and have departed on a long-delayed wikibreak. I probably won't be back for at least several weeks. Good luck -- Director (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding last RW of Peacemaker67, there are two major problems: 1. Following sentence included by Peacemaker67 is incorrect and not supported by the sources: "Some sources indicate this territory was a puppet state and others indicate it was German-occupied territory with a 'puppet government'." Yes, some sources are using term "puppet state" and some other "puppet government", but usage of these two terms is not a contradiction and "puppet government" is not seen by the sources as government of "German-occupied territory", but as the government of "the original state which have been in existence before the occupation": [63]. So, the question is: did the country of Serbia existed before the occupation or not? Obviously it did not, and therefore, it would fit into definition of "puppet state", from this source: [64]. It is true that author of this source did not explained why he classified Serbia differently, but source certainly does not say that puppet governments are governments of "occupied territories", but rather of "countries that already existed before occupation". 2. second problem is the question whether Serbian government was created with sole purpose to "assist the Military Administration". Source that Peacemaker67 allegedly quoted as a support for this claim is "Pavlowitch (2008)", but I do not see that quoted source have a sentence with phrase "to assist the Military Administration": [65] (and the quoted page 51 is not available in google books preview). So, the presented info is not verifiable and is not supported by the presented source. PANONIAN 16:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they are not incorrect, and I will add sources for both later today. You seem to think that I am implying they cannot be mutually exclusive. This aspect needs its own section in this article, which I will start working on. The legal status of this territory needs to made clear once and for all in this article, and that is what I will do. The senetence is there in the lede merely to point to the controversy which will be fleshed out in its own section.

just a brief point on verfiability. Just because a book page may or not be.available in Google Books preview does not mean is is unverifiable. You need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, if info comes from an user which is involved in aggressive revert warring and which have strong personal POV about this subject, then I have every right to question accuracy of that info. I caught you before in twisting the words from the sources, so if you do not provide a source for disputed POV sentence, it must go from the article. It is not only that page 51 is not available in google books preview, but the search engine does not provide phrase "to assist the Military Administration" for this book at all (and if such phrase exists, it would be provided by search engine even if mentioned page is not available as a whole). This is serious case of forging of data from sources, you know. PANONIAN 11:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the disputed sentence could not be found in the entire google books site, except in this Wiki article (where it was added by you: [66]). PANONIAN 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page. It is not my problem if you don't know how to use Google Books. BTW, I have now provided two relevant quotes, one from Tomasevich and one from Pavlowitch. They are both available on Google Books. Here is Pavlowitch [[67]]

I do not see any reason to mention Slovenia in such inaccurate context. Firstly, Slovenia did not existed in 1941, so if we speak about that year we can mention "territory of present-day Slovenia", but not "Slovenia". Second, besides "northern Slovenia" and Serbia, much of Independent State of Croatia was under German occupation as well, so it is simply not accurate to exclude that area from the sentence. Either all German-occupied parts of Yugoslavia should be mentioned, either Serbia only. PANONIAN 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is exactly the same problem as using Serbia. Numerous sources use Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, etc. They are all confusing, poorly defined and relate to regions, countries etc that exist now, did before or whenever. Now, rump Serbia is the same as northern Slovenia in my book, but you can't pick and choose which poorly defined and vague names are used in this article. As far as your reference to occupation is concerned, there is a difference between having occupying forces in a puppet state and having a military occupation administering a territory. The NDH is described by some sources as a puppet state, and by others as a quasi-protectorate, but it was at least theoretically 'independent' and had a legal existence as a nationstate (admittedly only within the Axis). Whether you like it or not, the situation in 'Serbia' was unique in dismembered Yugoslavia. No annexation, no decree creating a new state, no German Gauleiters, no legislature (even a puppet one), no recognition or representation with/by other states, just a brutal German occupation regime and their local helpers with no real power of their own.Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Term "rump Serbia" should not be used as it is controversial and it imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the German occupation. It is completelly unclear to what area are sources referring by term "rump Serbia". PANONIAN 05:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These subsections appear unnecessary now that the puppet governments section has been expanded. Both Acimovic and Nedic are amply mentioned as leading their respective governments and receive detailed coverage in the main articles for each puppet government. If the politicians were truly notable or key players, they should be mentioned in the relevant subsection or the introduction to the section. Personally, I think Ljotic is so significant that he should be in the section intro despite his absence from any of the governments. But I am not convinced Velibor Jonić, who was merely the commissioner then minister for education, rates a mention as a key politician. There are others significantly more important than Jonić. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pretty quiet here, so I will start making these changes. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, the title of the administration was the Military Administration in Serbia. There was another German-run military administration called the Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France from 1940 to 1944 before it became a Reichskommissariat.--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I myself would not mind if the article were moved to that title, that being a very common term. However, Peacemaker has brought forth pretty unambiguous evidence that shows the name of the territory itself, administered by the Military Administration in Serbia, was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". That is the territory this article covers, and that should be the title of the article unless there is a more common name.

The current title is again basically against Wikipedia naming policy. And thus it looks like another compromise with PANONIAN's strange personal views. The article title should not be in the format "Serbia (XY)" unless the name "Serbia" alone is the appropriate title - but just needs disambiguation. To my knowledge, PANONIAN has not shown any reason for calling this German military occupation zone just "Serbia" (Peacemaker, am I missing something?). And even if we were to use the "Serbia (XY)" title format for some reason, the part in the brackets should be the briefest description necessary to disambiguate from other "Serbias", certainly not the full official name. -- Director (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't agree less. The administration might have been called that, this is about a piece of real estate belonging to the German Military Commander in Serbia (for which we have an official name, give or take a comma). I think the above misrepresents WP:TITLE regarding the use of the word 'Serbia' in this context. I am concentrating on improving the pretty ordinary content and have no time or energy to start again the incredibly exhausting and frustrating process that it was to the get title changed to the current one. If you read the incredibly long threads above you will see why that title was chosen, and I will not repeat it again. I'm afraid you will need to read it. And the article you refer to, R-41, is actually named Belgium and Northern France, not Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France. It is also a stub that has been quite controversial in and of itself. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exhaustion is how PANONIAN manages to force people to compromise between sources and Wikipedia policy on the one side, and his own personal perceptions on the other. There is no question he is on a POV "mission" to present this occupation zone as a puppet state of some sort, probably because he held that mistaken belief for a long time. It is because of this that he wants the title to be simply "Serbia", and doesn't really care what it is as long as it is possible to confuse the reader into assuming its a puppet state. He reinforces this confusion with his home-made maps that use the term "Serbia" (even though WP:COMMONNAME has no application to maps), and his own custom infobox that does not treat this area as an occupation zone (this being the example of a standard-issue Wikipedia infobox for this sort of German occupation zone). -- Director (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R-41, yes, the administration was called the Military Administration in Serbia, but the administration was a "group of German officers that governed the territory" and this is article about territory, not about German officers. There is a subsection within this article that is supposed to cover the administration issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Administration As for Belgium and Northern France, similar case was there, but I will elaborate this issue on talk page of that article. There is no evidence that term "Military Administration in Serbia" was used as a name of territory. PANONIAN 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, the "Military Administration in Serbia" was not "a very common term" for territory and there is no a single source that can confirm that this name was used for territory. As for current title, it is very bad, and by my opinion this article should be named "Serbia (1941-1944)", but if I can accept compromise with you about this, why you pushing this to the level when your views will be accepted 100%. No matter of your rhetorics, I can always prove to every good faith user that common name of the territory used by majority of sources was "Serbia" and that name "Territory of the German Military Commander" is supported by very small number of sources and that name "Military Administration in Serbia" was not supported by a single source as a name of territory. For some reason you want to annihilate name "Serbia" and I bet that you would probably wish to delete this whole article. So, what stands behind this? Perhaps you want to push idea of "superiority of Croatian statehood" over Serbian one and you want to present that Independent State of Croatia was a real state, while Serbia was nothing? The fact that one Croat is so fascinated with Serbia is interesting, but I really suggest that you try to do something constructive for Wikipedia instead to only waste time of other users by unproductive "battles". And I certainly do not want to "confuse readers" about anything - I provided sources that saying that Serbia was indeed a puppet state and you have obligation to read and accept these sources per Wiki policies. As for map that I created, I created it in accordance with all other maps from all sources that using name "Serbia". I challenge you to present a source with a map that showing some other name instead "Serbia" for territory. PANONIAN 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few simple questions:

• 1) what excuse is there for not using the official name of this territory in the map and the caption?
• 2) why does the lede not use the official name of this territory? Neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:LEAD in any way mandate that the title must be copied verbatim in the first sentence, or that the most common name must be used there.
• 3) why is this the only article I can find on Wikipedia that has a custom infobox? And why does it not have an infobox of the sort that are used in other articles about a German occupation territory, such as this one and this one? Or this one, this one, this one, etc etc... ?
• 4) finally, there is the unresolved question of the Banat. To my understanding it was only subordinate to the Military Administration, and was not under the authority of the Government of National Salvation of Milan Nedic. Is there a source that states the autonomous Banat entity was under the authority of the Government of National Salvation of Milan Nedic?

-- Director (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:

• 1. There is no "excuse" - all maps from all sources are using name "Serbia" for territory and therefore there is no reason that Wiki maps are using any other name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links I challenge you to show source with map that using any other name.
• 2. It does use it. Anyway, common name Serbia" should be also added to the lead section.
• 3. Because you rejected "former country infobox" and I included this one to make compromise with you. You have very short memory. Do you suggest that "infobox former country" which is used in this article should be returned?
• 4. Banat was also in theory subordinated to Serbian administration - for example, Banat State Guard was part of Serbian State Guard and government of Milan Nedić issued several documents that regulated some administrative issues in Banat. Please read this source before you present your "understanding of situation": http://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Ogledi07.pdf PANONIAN 07:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

despite the source mentioned here by PANONIAN, I believe the Nedic administration had some limited theoretical power over the Banat as least on paper. I will have a look and post a couple of citations. As far as a common name, there isn't one, as I demonstrated in its own section above. Google Books hits are a very blunt instrument, and the policy clearly says the reliable sources used in the article should be taken into account. I will oppose any attempt to introduce Serbia into the lede on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME policy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that Serbian government had very limited control in Banat, since Banat administration had almost full autonomy and Serbian government did not controlled actions of Banat administration, but in theory Banat administration was subordinated to Serbian one. Also, some institutions in Banat (for example Serbian-language educational and cultural institutions) were directly subordinated to Serbian government and not to Banat administration. As for source that I presented, I can quote exact pages from that document - from page 22 we see that government of Milan Nedić signed regulations by which status of German ethnicity in Serbia was regulated or by which city names in Banat were renamed to German names. Another example on page 191 (English translation): "due to the request of the board of municipality of Banatski Karlovac, I decide that name of the place Banatski Karlovac in the district of Bela Crkva in the Danube Banovina is renamed to Karlsdorf. Milan Nedić, November 14, 1941" - this is clear evidence that Banat was under jurisdiction of Serbian government. Same thing on page 269: "due to the request of the administrator of Banat district, I decide that...Tanasije Dinić, minister of internal affairs, March 19, 1943)." - so, local ethnic German administrator of Banat asked from Serbian minister to officially change names of places in Banat from Serbian to German names, which means that he was subordinated to Serbian government. PANONIAN 09:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see no valid reason why name "Serbia" should not be included into lead section. I have in mind something like this: "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander), officially either the Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia[1] or the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia,[2] also known as Serbia". PANONIAN 10:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The valid reason is that it is not the WP:COMMONNAME, as I far demonstrated above. I have seen no policy-based argument against what I said above about there not being a WP:COMMONNAME, so as far as I am concerned, what goes in there is the compromise article title and the official name (both versions) as it is now. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Are you serious? We're in no way obligated to use labels from any other maps. Keep your "challenges" to yourself and please use the official, non-disputed label. If you do not feel obliged to do it yourself, I already have a file ready for inclusion.
• 2. @"Anyway, common name 'Serbia' should be also added to the lead section." Really? Says who? You? First of all it is NOT the "commonname", no matter how many times you say it. Second of all, even if it were, there is no provision anywhere that states the commonname is to be used in the lede. At all. And the disambiguation brackets are never included in the lede. Again, why does the lede not use the official name in front?
• 3. You completely missed the point. I opposed the use of ANY infobox because you previously insisted that this article isn't about a political entity (another one of your many shifting POV-pushing tactics). But this is besides the point now. I shall insert a proper infobox for the German territory (and no, it will not use your supposed "commonname" at all). Please be sure not to attempt to re-insert the insignia of the Government of National Salvation as representative of the entire Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.
• 4. My "understanding" is derived from Tomasevich, namely his quote that was posted on this very talkpage. But since he is not explicit I am not sure.

-- Director (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.. just waiting for another HUMONGOUS, barely intelligible block of text... -- Director (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, the part about formation of Government of National Salvation is written in POV way implying that government was formed with goal to "serve to Germans". I do not dispute the aims of the Germans behind this, but aims of Milan Nedić and ministers that formed government were not elaborated. They formed the government and military units in order to expel communists from Serbia because communist actions caused German retaliations against Serbian civilians and therefore they had aim of saving Serbian nation from total extinction by collaboration with Germans. This should be mentioned as well. PANONIAN 10:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is POV. It reflects the sources. If you have sources that show a significant disagreement with what I have written there then I'd be very comfortable with including differing views. However, they would want to be pretty good sources given the calibre of the scholars already represented. I also think you will struggle to put together WP:RS for the idea that the Serbian nation was faced with total extinction, because the Germans were not massacring Serbs in the occupied territory the way the Ustase were in the NDH, but we'll deal with that when you actually write some sourced content. How about you mention it and source it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PANONIAN. Another confusing post. What "POV" are you talking about? The sources (presented on this very talkpage a few lines above!) state very clearly that the Nedic government was nothing more than a subsidiary organ of the German military administration. So yes, as a German subsidiary organ, it very much did "serve to Germans" (which is logical since it was formed by the Germans). It is nonsense to suggest that fighting anti-German resistance groups was somehow not "serving" the interests of Germany.

If you want to include claims about Nedic's motives, thoughts, and feelings - you'll need a source that explicitly states what they were. Your personal theories, no doubt derived from Nedic propaganda (which you previously tried to use as a "source"), are noone's concern but your own. -- Director (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, PANONIAN, cut it out with the childish overtagging. I can't believe you added another {{Under construction}} template because the previous one had Peacemaker67 listed as having posted it.. no wait, yes I can. -- Director (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its incredibly confusing to use five different translations of Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien. The most common English translation of the official name is "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". We should not use the adjective "German", since its obviously not part of the actual official name. No doubt PANONIAN is behind this mess as well, through insisting on using his favorite version or something. -- Director (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, please refrain yourself from change of infobox without consesus and please refrain yourself from blind reverts of all my edits. Also, usage of German flag and coat of arms in the infobox is unacceptable because of simple reason that Serbia was not part of Germany. PANONIAN 14:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you add new edits without consensus, and I should refrain from "blindly" reverting them? While I am not not to insert new edits "without consensus"? Classic WP:OWN.

• Firstly, I did not revert "all of your edits", I just reverted the absurd WP:OVERTAGGING and your nationalist-POV subsection switch. But shouldn't I be able to revert all of them since they're "without consensus"? Just like you "blindly" reverted all of my edits just now, infobox and everything else besides it? In the same edit. Unbelievable..
• Secondly, you are confused about WP:CONSENSUS. People do NOT have to seek your approval before adding new content to this article, if that's what you think it means. Peacemaker and I do not mind the edit. But we did discuss the addition of the infobox and you did not seem opposed, but even if you are, I don't really care at this point. That horrid custom thing you cooked-up has to go.
• The usage of a country's flag and coa in the infobox is STANDARD for all areas under the direct control of that country. It is also standard for all WWII German occupation zones, military (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers) or civil (Reichskommissariat). Just like this one and this one, this one, and this one, this one, etc etc.. The territory was under the control of the German military commander, who answered directly to Berlin.
  HOWEVER: I now fully expect you will now shift your entire argument yet again and claim this article is "really" about this or that, or whatever nonsense concoction you come-up with so that you can avoid using Nazi German insignia on an article about a Nazi German occupation zone. Frankly I've had it with that. This article is about the Nazi German Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, nothing else, and it should use the appropriate insignia in the infobox. And I must say, the fact that you like to call this Nazi occupation zone "Serbia" is rather disturbing to me.

-- Director (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me for nationalism - I am not Croat who desperately trying to implement POV-ization of article about Serbia. But yes, I am patriot and I want to see good, NPOV and accurate articles about my country. As for "subsection switch", in all parts of the article are Serbian institutions and leaders listed after German ones, and only in that section are Serbian leaders presented as more responsible than German ones - sorry, but that is POV and anti-Serbian. Also the usage of flag of foreign country is not example of any kind of standard here. And Serbia was not "under control of Germany" - it was under control of German military in Serbia, which is very different thing. There is no evidence that flag of Germany was ever used as flag of this territory. And please do not point to some other Wiki articles which are also written incorrectly and which also should be changed. I will try to respect some compromise and I will not insist that Serbian flag is used in the infobox instead German one. I only insist on compromise solution - no flag in the infobox. Otherwise, Serbian flag should be there, not German one. PANONIAN 14:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Patriots" are nationalists by definition, PANONIAN.

Now look, you switched the subsections for no good reason other than some fantasy perceived "insult" to the "honour of Serbia". And there is none. So lets be clear on that. The Serbian section is above the German section since the Serbian defendants were collaborators, the Germans were not - and the post-WWII Yugoslav trials of these persons are thus more notable than the trial of some random German officer. The Serbian section is also correspondingly larger. But I don't really care about these sort of petty details, so if you want to switch them - switch them.

Germany is not a "foreign country" - since the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia is not a country. Its a territory directly controlled by Germany through the institutions of a military occupation. @"it was under control of German military in Serbia" yes, and the German military in Serbia was under the control of - Germany. Absurd. Since this is not a factual dispute but an issue concerning Wikipedia practices, it is perfectly logical to point to the fact that every other article on Wikipedia employs the same practice (and no, you will certainly not change all those articles to push some POV here). You simply don't want a German flag on this article because you consider yourself a Serbian "patriot", that's plain enough. -- Director (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resorting to organized WP:EDIT-WARRING will not help you, PANONIAN. People are not so stupid as to block only myself in the event of excessive revert-warring. You might as well have just continued to edit-war yourself. I was surprised you stopped, though, and I said to myself: "what could PANONIAN be cooking up?". Then I pretty much figured you'd recruit WhiteWriter to try and WP:GAME THE SYSTEM by making sure only I exceed 3RR. A very old "trick". I'm at three reverts now, and I will not edit-war with you or your WP:MEATPUPPET any further. However, I will not allow you to take possession of this article by such means. You've managed to ruin this article and make it impossible for anyone to repair it; this is a veritable "reign of terror" - and it must end. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about. This page is on my watchlist for years. Nobody organised me, i just disagree with this. We didnt agreed on this, and therefor, you cannot just restore it back without agreement. This territory had its own flag, that was used officially, and that was not flag of German reich. --WhiteWriter^speaks

I am not convinced, WhiteWriter. Your behavior smacks strongly of WP:MEATPUPPETRY. In the past year you've made three edits on this article, all three of which have been reverts in a conflict between PANONIAN and myself, in PANONIAN's favor [68][69][70]. Your very limited talkpage involvement is also exclusively in PANONIAN's support (often apparently even without an understanding of what exactly PANONIAN is arguing for). You're being notified by PANONIAN when to participate in organized revert-warring, to game the WP:3RR rule, and provide token support when he feels "outnumbered" by users that actually participate on the talkpage.

And no, Nedic had his flag, of course, but that isn't the flag of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. -- Director (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PANONIAN & Whitewriter address Direktor's arguments and quitting attempting to dictate the what belongs in the article and doesn't. Refrain from edit warring to remove a perfectly valid infobox from the article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK)

What arguments? DIREKTOR did not presented any source. Is there a source that says that flag of Germany was a flag of this territory? Yes or no? - simple question. PANONIAN 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This German military occupation territory did not have a specific flag of its own (none do). Thus, just like in every other German military occupation zone, we use the German flag [71][72][73][74][75][76] [77]. Get it? German occupation - German flag.

In fact, I think you'll find that, as a rule (u pravilu), areas and/or entities on Wikipedia that have their own articles and are under the (direct) control of a country, use the flag of that country by default. Its a more general thing that German WWII occupation zones. -- Director (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wiki articles are unrelated. Usage of German flag could imply that Serbia was part of Germany which would be incorrect. I have a published source that says that Serbian flag was a flag of this territory, but hypothetically assuming that your unsourced claim that "territory had no flag" is correct, then infobox should not use any flag. I still see no valid reason for usage of Nazi German flag. PANONIAN 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nazi Flag that was added to some other articles by an IP user from Australia is certainly not a reason for inclusion of such flag into this article as well (User:Peacemaker67 claims to be from Australia, right?). PANONIAN 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article is rather similar to Vichy France than to German military administration in occupied France during World War II. If we create an separate article about German military administration in Serbia then we can use Nazi flag there. And I am starting to think that creation of a new article would be the only way of solving the dispute. PANONIAN 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But of course! Peacemaker is Australian! And an IP that added a flag on one article (years before Peacemaker joined Wikipedia) is Australian too! Why, it must be Peacemaker! :) So, PANONIAN, you're accusing Peacemaker of sockpuppeteering again..? If it wasn't so offensive, it would be comical. I'd be careful about this sort of stuff. There is a difference between a sensible accusation and trolling. You may not see it, but I assure you its there. I sincerely recommend you remove that quickly, before Peacemaker notices it.

• 1. For the second time. This is not a factual dispute, but a dispute about Wikipedia infobox practice, therefore it is perfectly logical to point to the fact that every other article on Wikipedia employs the same practice. In short, other Wiki articles not only matter, but they are the only thing that matters.
• 2. If you have a source that says "the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia used the Serbian flag" then by all means post it immediately. Just don't think you'll fool anyone with some vague statement where you filled in the blanks. An explicit statement, please, or else don't even bother.
• 3. No when a territory controlled by a country does not have a specific flag, we use the flag of the country. We don't leave the field empty [78][79][80][81][82][83] [84]. If we did leave and empty field, I'd advocate us leaving it empty. We don't.
• 4. No, this article is NOT "rather similar" to Vichy France. Outside your fantasy world, that is. Vichy France was a sovereign state, not even considered a puppet state by many historians. This is the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. -- Director (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source that says that WW2 Serbia used Serbian flag was posted here long time ago: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG (and I took that image from that source, by the way). And I am ready to send scaned page from that source to other users via email for source confirmation. And I also dispute your claim that "when a territory controlled by a country does not have a specific flag, we use the flag of the country" - why Vukovar article does not use flag of Croatia then, for example? Usage of Nazi flag for Serbia is controversial, inaccurate and misleading. Also, what was the difference between Vichy France and Serbia according to you? PANONIAN 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yes, some sources (notably Serbian ones) refer to Nedic's regime as "Serbia" for short. That flag is a flag of the Nedic puppet regime. Not the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia. I'll ask you again: do you or do you not have a source that states "the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia used the Serbian flag". If not - you do not have a source.

As for Vichy France being similar to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, its the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The NDH isn't even similar to Vichy France. The latter is not even considered a proper "puppet state" by many (if not most) historians. It was a sovereign state, the continuation of the French Third Republic, recognized by the US and the Soviet Union, and practically the whole world, almost until the end of the War. A part of it was placed under German military administration, but the vast majority of its territory was not. And germany was bound by treaty to return the occupied territory to Vichy France as soon as peace is concluded with the UK. It was a country, the Nedic puppet regime - was a puppet regime. With a flag. Does the flag confuse you? HNK Hajduk has a flag too you know.

Asking a question like what was the difference between Vichy France and this occupation zone really makes your lack of knowledge about WWII stand out sharply. In fact, as was quoted to you several times (only for you to forget again), Tomasevich explicitly states that Nedic aspired to a status similar to Vichy France - but never even came close. And you yourself denied vehemently several times that you're not trying to portray this territory as a "Vichy Serbia". Remember?

I won't even answer the Vukovar thing. You do know the difference between a city and a territory don't you? And even if you did actually find a (real) exception to the rule, it would only prove it. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, speaking about "a territory controlled by a country" issue, I also do not see evidence that "Serbia was controlled by Germany" and source says that Serbia was country too: [85]. Also, most of the English sources are referring to this country with name "Serbia" as well: [86]. Also source that I used says that Serbian flag was flag of Serbia, not flag of regime (do you have a source that says that it was a flag of regime?). Also, why you constantly using term "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia" when such name is supported by no more than a single google hit: [87] (Perhaps you love that hit very much, but you confusing readers with such terminology). And you playing game with me: I am aware that source that I used for the flag cannot be verified online and that is why I am not insisting on usage of this flag in the infobox. I insist on infobox without flag because: 1. there is no source that says that flag of Nazi Germany was a flag of Serbia, 2. there is no source that says that Serbia was part of the country of Germany, and 3. there is no Wikipedia rule that says that flag must be used in the infobox - all of this is question of compromise and agreement between users and usage of infobox without flag is my compromise proposal, nothing else. Also, Vichy France was fully occupied by German troops by the end of the war, so it was not so different from Serbia in the later stages of its existence. PANONIAN 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this can probably branch off and go on forever. I'm using the term Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia because that's the actual official name of the territory. You are using the word "Serbia" because you're trying to confuse people into imagining that the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was a puppet state. And you're also confusing the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia with the Government of National Salvation of Milan Nedic. And the term "Serbia" has been shown as being usable to refer to the latter, or collectively to both. You're a POV-pusher in the process of shifting your argument (again) to push the same POV. As such, you thrive on the complexity and obscurity of this issue, and change your position every couple months so as to maintain your (unsourced) POV as much as possible: the idea that Serbia was a WWII German puppet state. It was not. Its just impossible to have a coherent conversation under these circumstances.

The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was a territory under German military administration (among many such occupation zones). Such territories use the German flag in the infobox, and that is standard Wikipedia practice. There is no reason to make an exception for you and your "patriotic" sentiments. There will be no "compromises" between Wikipedia practice and your POV, not anymore. -- Director (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is only one source that using name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia - by all means, it is not commonly known or used name (and other source says that official name was "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia". Also, please quote Wiki rule which says that usage of Nazi flags in the infoboxes of some articles is a standard Wikipedia practice"? And if you do not want to achieve compromise with other users what you doing in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is supposed to be written by cooperation and compromise not by 100% imposition of POV of one user. I am ready to accept that article should not use anything that you consider POV, so why cannot do same thing? Is it so important thing to you to prove that "there was no Serbia"? I really cannot understand this. PANONIAN 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you say that "Serbia was not puppet state", why this source say that it was: [88]? Source using name "Serbia" and saying that it was a puppet state. Why you ignoring this source? PANONIAN 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many sources that use different translations of Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien. Must I use the German original name? Peacemaker has established conclusively what the official name of this territory was. Or did you forget that too? And since hundreds of sources cover this issue, and dozens are quoted here - and only one states it was a "puppet state", that falls very nicely under WP:FRINGE.

@"please quote Wiki rule which says that usage of Nazi flags in the infoboxes of some articles is a standard Wikipedia practice." Lol.. You want me to quote you the policy that mandates we must use the flags of a country in an infobox about a country or a territory under its control? There isn't even a rule that mandates we use infoboxes at all. But we do. We do use the flag of the country which controls the territory [89][90][91][92][93][94] [95]. Bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind that this is a free encyclopedia: please quote the Wiki rule which says that we can't use flag of the country which controls the territory. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you speak about "Wikipedia practice" you should quote Wiki rule or guideline that confirms that it is Wikipedia practice - links to few Wiki articles that were written by who knows whom are not evidence for anything. Also, there are otther versions of German name too, for example this one: [96] (so, variant "in Serbia" is certainly not proven to be the most correct version of the name - and especially not common name in English). Regarding your claim about "country which controls the territory", presented sources are saying that Serbia itself was a country/state (see: [97], [98]), so your claim about "country which controls the territory" does not stand. Please declare yourself about these two presented sources, do not ignore them. Why Serbia is described as country/state in these two books and why these books are using name "Serbia" for it? PANONIAN 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference between general practice and a guideline or policy. But I see no reason to ignore any because of you and your WP:DISRUPTION on this article. Do you have a policy or guideline that prohibits me from following the general practice? And as I recall Peacemaker researched the matter and did show conclusively that "in Serbia" is more common. -- Director (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore sources that I presented and you accusing me for WP:DISRUPTION? Would you say why these two sources are saying that Serbia was country/state or you will not say? And where exactly "Peacemaker showed conclusively that variant "in Serbia" is more common? It is more common because it have 1 google hit in English, while variant "of Serbia" have 0? PANONIAN 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)font color="blue">PANONIAN[reply]

Oh yes, textbook WP:DISRUPTION.. As I said, the vast majority of sources do not call this territory a "country". You found two among hundreds. Yes, I said two, because you misunderstood a source again. The second link (that's because understanding professional scholarly literature requires a C1 level at least). There are literally hundreds of sources that do not call the territory a country - which includes the dozens of sources quoted here, and also the best sources (like Pavlowitch and Tomasevich), who cover the matter in great detail and never mention the term "puppet state" or "country" in relation to this territory. Read WP:FRINGE. We are, in fact, mandated by policy to ignore the "puppet state" nonsense. -- Director (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I exactly used quotation from Jozo Tomasevich (whom you described as "best source"). Is that mean that your "best source" is "fringe"? PANONIAN 21:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was Tomasevich? Oh that's good, because Tomasevich is very clear on what exactly the organization of this territory was. Do you remember? So that's a cherry picked, out-of-context comment that does not portray the position of the author. Since the author very clearly does not even remotely entertain the notion that there was a puppet state here. Scratch one source for puppet state - and we're down to zero. -- Director (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but position of the author is obvious from the presented quotation: "Serbia was a puppet state". You are free to quote other part of the book from which we can see that author had some other position (without such quotation, we do not have evidence that author had "other position"). PANONIAN 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but no it isn't (and the source does not say "Serbia was a puppet state", do not misquote references). You see, there's a difference between doing research and using Google. -- Director (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume II, Chapter 5, pp.175-186:

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

"The Acimovic administration was in an extremely difficult position because it lacked any semblance of power. It was nothing more than an instrument of the German occupation regime. It performed administrative chores in Serbia, now constituted as a seperate German-occupied area."

"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."

"Nedic soon lost authority over the government as well. The German military administration, the [German] plenipotentiary for economic affairs, and the higher SS leader took over all fundamnetal decision making and all functions of the government and even intervened in small decisions supposedly still left to the Nedic administration. (...) Periodically, apparently as a way of trying to force the Germans to grant concsessions, Nedic handed in his resignation. Each time it was he, not the Germans, who backed down.

"As time went on and it became clear that Germany was going to lose the war and that the days of the Nedic regime were numbered, the cabinet became almost meaningless."

Tomasevich continues on and on like this. Notably he also makes it clear the Nedic Government of National Salvation after a brief while even lost control of its own troops, the Serbian State Guard (p.210).

Now, I know you will not change your position - you'll probably just wait a while and ignore this post - but I'm sure anyone of sound mind (including you), can see that the author does certainly not entertain your fanciful notions of a Serbian "puppet state". That which he calls "Serbia" is a "German occupation area". Among paragraphs and paragraphs he devotes to illustrating in great detail just how far the Nedic government was from a puppet state - he says that explicitly ("Serbia, now constituted as a seperate German-occupied area"). Your googled quote is a cherry picked, out-of-context comment that does NOT portray the position of the author. Not even close. You have no real sources for "puppet state". And even if you actually did find one - it would be a WP:FRINGE VIEW contradicted by virtually all other sources that do not use that term (and take great pains to illustrate the complete lack of power, status, and recognition of the puppet regime(s) in this military occupation zone). -- Director (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that anything from quoted text says that Serbia was not a country. Text only shows that it was occupied country, but does not show that it was not a country. Also used term "German occupation area" is also not evidence that occupied area was not a country. PANONIAN 05:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision this article is now subject to 1RR restrictions. Tiptoety ^talk 01:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it appears the claim that this area was under the control of some "puppet state" is completely without scholarly support, and does, in fact, go against several high-quality sources which not only explicitly refer to the territory as an occupation area or zone, but also describe in detail the complete irrelevance, and lack of status and power, on the part of any Serbian puppet authority. The vast majority (if not all) of the hundreds of available sources make no claim whatsoever of there having existed a country or "puppet state" here. Compare that with the numerous sources describing the NDH [99] or Vichy France [100] as puppet states, and one can easily see the difference between a WP:FRINGE VIEW, founded on a googled out-of-context excerpt, and a legitimate scholarly position.

PANONIAN may or may not explicitly "agree" (in fact I know that will never happen), but the matter is obviously closed as far as sources are concerned. I say this because at this point it would take nothing short of a sudden discovery of at least a half-dozen sources, all unambiguously proclaiming the existence of some "puppet state", to constitute anything other than a WP:FRINGE VIEW in contradiction with all other available references.

This territory was under the direct control of Germany, even to the extent that the local German military commander had no real power, but his officials reported directly to Nazi bigwigs in Berlin and got their orders from there:

"At the head of the occupation regime was the military commander in Serbia. The economic and police chiefs of the occupation regime, though theoretically subordinate to the military commander, reported on their specific functions directly to their higher authorities in Berlin, so that in fact the military commander had jurisdiction over little more than disciplinary matters." (Tomasevich II, p.74)

What possible reason is there to make this article a notable exception ([101][102][103][104][105][106] [107]) and not use the German flag in the infobox of an article about the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia, a German occupation zone ? -- Director (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, DIREKTOR this is end of your rhetorical game (you just repeating statements from your older posts, which not helping to anybody here) - article was placed under 1RR restrictions, so I hope that you will not try again to impose your view by force. I will now open new section as a fresh start, where we can discuss look of the infobox. PANONIAN 06:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, positions of some users about some issues are clear, so I want to see here what most users would think about infobox. I will ask a simple question and open voting. Do you agree with inclusion of Flag of Nazi Germany into infobox of this article? (please vote with simple "Support" and "Oppose" and with brief elaboration of the reasons for such vote). PANONIAN 06:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per following reason: it was not flag of the territory and therefore there is no reason for it to be used in the infobox. Also, Serbia was not part of Nazi Germany or colony of Nazi Germany and so usage of that flag is misleading and inaccurate. Case of German-occupied Serbia was similar to Iraq under U.S. Military Occupation (and Iraqi flag is used there in the infobox, not American one). PANONIAN 06:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your premise. I suggest that like most of the articles listed at German-occupied Europe, this article should have no infobox. If it were to have a flag it should be a 'Militärbefehlshaber Flag'

, as shown at right. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have no infobox? Because of which reason? I think that infobox is useful for readers since they can find there some basic info about the subject (otherwise, they would be obligated to read whole article in search for that info and that would not be helpful to them at all). Is there any problem with the current free-form infobox? PANONIAN 07:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily useful or helpful. See WP:DISINFO. To quote: 'Not every Wikipedia article requires an infobox. In fact, most articles don't. Yes, an infobox can be useful in certain articles, but many of them are just unnecessary repetitions of facts already presented in the article's lead—or worse, an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance. The result: A Wikipedia infested with disinfoboxes that waste space and result in miscommunication, ambiguity, inaccuracy and redundancy.' I tend to think that given the highly contentious nature of this article, all facts should be presented in their context and with the appropriate amount of nuance, rather than repeated in an infobox where they can be misunderstood and taken out of context. I think the infobox is just adding to the ambiguity in relation to this article, and is not helping at all. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is significant subject that require infobox. Also, which info from the current infobox can be "misunderstood and taken out of context"? Please elaborate this further. PANONIAN 10:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't get it, Peacemaker, PANONIAN wants an infobox so he can pretend this is a country. But I've had it. Rhetorical game? PANONIAN just completely ignored all the discussion and sources in the above two sections, closed them and went on to try his luck with a ridiculous WP:VOTE. because he thinks that is "consensus". And Peacemaker, I really think you should reconsider the no infobox position. Its better than the silly thing that's in the article right now, to be sure, but there should be an infobox here, and it should have the German flag. Its true most articles do not require an infobox, but if this article is about the Territrory of teh Military Commander in Serbia, it should have one, just like all the other articles of its sort do. -- Director (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, not really. I mean I get what you mean, but I'm not so sure about the infobox thingo. I looked at the other German-occupied Europe articles, and they were a mixed bag. I just cxan't see how having one takes us forward, and I have already spent a lot of time talking about stuff that isn't really content. I'd rather get on expanding the article with sourced material rather than arguing the toss about infoboxes. However, if it has to have an infobox, we have a flag for the German Military Commander, it was his territory, and it seems to me that is the one we should use. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not all articles on German-occupied Europe are articles of this sort simply because they fall in that category. As you say, they're a mixed bag with of several types of articles. These sort of articles do in 99% of cases have an infobox. There is no reason whatever to accord this article any special status. Btw, @PANONIAN, I oppose your starting a new thread. Its a pretty obvious "ploy" to ignore the course of the previous discussion. I suggest you not restore it, because well, two can play at that game, and the result is usually a huge number of nonsense sections like this one. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I think its important to note that PANONIAN at this point basically does not really care about sources, or what the two of us have to say. He can summarily dismiss them both because he knows he (or WihiteWriter) will always revert the edit that introduces improvements he doesn't like, and anyone who restores it - will get blocked. And its very hard to really have an unambiguous "consensus" with three users participating, so he can always claim there isn't one. Worst case scenario, he calls-up WhiteWriter and tells him to "vote" in one of his nonsense "polls".

This article has been taken hostage. And I think I've demonstrated quite vividly in the section above that we will not secure its release through negotiation and sources. -- Director (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]