Talk:Sandžak Muslim militia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

The title of this article needs to be expanded and/or disambiguated. The term is so generic as to not be useful at all. The translation from Serbian appears to be "Muslim Ustaše militia". Other descriptive alternatives might be "Sandžak Muslim militia (World War II)" or something like that. As it is, this title is virtually useless for WP users, it tells you almost nothing about where or when it operated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Tomasevich says Moslem Militia. There are no other articles with the same name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Sandžak Muslim militia. Consensus favours some variant using "Sandžak", though I am unsure whether there is a preference for "Sandžak Muslim militia" or "Muslim militia (Sandžak)". So per WP:NATURALDIS, I am count this as a consensus in favour of the naturally-disambiguated form. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Moslem Militia → Muslim Ustaša militia – The title of this article is so generic as to be completely useless to anyone attempting to find an article about this unit. How many Moslem militias have there been in history? Thousands? Per WP:TITLE, the current title is insufficiently WP:PRECISE to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, and given its highly generic name needs to at least define the area and war in which it operated. Also, per the English source, Tomasevich 1975 p. 400, militia does not have initial caps. The first page of the Google Books results for the current title come up with various Lebanese and other Moslem militia, including in Iraq etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support "Muslim Ustaša militia" That's what the article says its name is in Serbian (Муслиманска Усташка Милиција), and it's what gets the most hits by far[1] of the different "muslim", "moslem", "Sandzak" and "Ustasha" combinations. It also shows clearly what side of which war they fought on. If Croatia raised muslim militias in other regions, then it could become an article about all of them, or be split into Muslim Ustaša militia (Sandžak) and other(s) "Muslim Ustaša militia ([region])". walk victor falk talk 01:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would do for now. Not sure that there weren't other Moslem Ustase militias in different areas of the NDH, but at least we would then know it existed during WWII (thanks to adding "Ustasa"). Good point re: any other units. Yours is a better alternative, I have amended my proposal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support in principle Red Slash 05:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To summarize:
  1. The most important reason is that this militia was Ustasha militia only in period April - September 1941, when Ustashas had certain control over Sandzak. During most of the war this militia was either under Italian or German control, not Ustasha.
  2. Yugoslavia was specific in many aspects when it comes to ethnicity. One of them were Moslems. Term Moslem in case of Moslems from Yugoslavia, designates membership not only to religious group, but also to an ethnic group. That is why Moslem in the title of this unit designates belonging not only to religious but also to an ethnic group. Many people in Yugoslavia were communists and atheists, but still declared their ethnicity as being Moslem. How many militias have there been in history of Moslems as ethnic group? A couple and all of them had different names (Hadžiefendić Legion, Black Legion (Ustaše militia)...) so the proposed disambiguation is not justified, at least not in the proposed form.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is not what Moslem means to everybody else, and that is a problem with the current title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that you will grasp to this before I posted my last comment. You are again wrong. In case of Moslems from Yugoslavia, it is exactly what it meant to everybody. Take for example Resolution of Sarajevo Muslims. You yourself reverted one editor (diff) when they attempted to change Muslim to Muslim/Bosniak.
  • You did not address the first and most important point of my comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first point is completely irrelevant, as with my "Muslim/Bosniak" reverts I was referring to the changing of terminology used by the source to one that suits people's POV today. It is ahistorical. It is also completely unrelated to this discussion, as you would know if you had read my edit summaries on the many occasions I have reverted edits of that type. Re: your first point, it's just that I am very familiar with WP:MILMOS. Which says "When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names". But of course, you would "no doubt" already know that this unit, the Italians' "Moslem militia/legion" led by Sulejman Pačariz was reformed in early 1944 as the "Moslem Legion" under the direction of Karl von Krempler, per Tomasevich 1975 pp 328 and 331, Abbott's Partisan Warfare p.23, Ford 1992 p. 55, and Thomas and Mikulan p. 23, etc. So the appropriate title would most likely be "Moslem Legion", as that was the "the last name used", although that too would need to be disambiguated as there have been plenty of them too, including the one from the Caucasus in WWII. I have seen the title "Moslem Legion of the Sandjak", so perhaps that would be appropriate. I fail to understand why you would resist bringing this title into line with WP title policy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to address my first and most important point. On the contrary, like many times before, you again refuted your position yourself and actually provided additional explanation why would it be wrong to rename this unit to Muslim Ustaša militia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting conclusion to draw from my comments. Clearly, having looked closer at the issue, I am now suggesting that "Moslem Legion" (with some sort of disambiguation) is actually the most appropriate title. Can I assume you still consider "Moslem Militia" is a title in accordance with WP:TITLE? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that conclusion was wrong, why did you change your move proposal to Moslem Legion?
  • Your proposal is again wrong. Moslem militia ≠ Muselmanengruppe von Krempler (or SS und Polizei Selbschutz Regiment) so multiple names part of WP:MILMOS
  • The burden is on you to prove that name you proposed is better than existing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Muslim Militia (Sandžak) makes the most sense, in my opinion. The current title is vague. 23 editor (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ad. The purpose of this discussion is to establish what the best title would be, not to blindly defend the current one or attack my suggestion. We don't need to discuss only the ones I've suggested, in fact that would be absurd. My suggestions are just that, I don't consider my suggestions better than anyone else's, we discuss it until we get some consensus on what is best. Not sure why you don't understand that, and want clarification on what is being proposed. We are working towards consensus based on policy and sources, and a general appreciation that the current title is almost completely useless as a title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand, it was a Croatian unit, under Croatian operational control in April-September 1941 and German/Italian operational control for the duration of conflict. Correct? walk victor falk talk 19:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was first Croatian unit (April - September 1941), then Italian (September 1941 - September 1943) and at last German (september 1943 - end of war). It seems that in 1944 some of its units were merged with some Albanian batallions into SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak, while some of its units remained as separate units. I don't think that anybody here understands the full story about this unit. That is why I politely asked nominator not to continue with his delete/remain campaign of articles I recently created and tagged with "under construction" tag. The full story, including the most appropriate name, would be much clearer after the article is expanded.
  • Addition of Ustaša would be wrong because this unit belonged to Ustaša forces for only five months.
  • addition of the Sandžak would might be also wrong because, according to some sources, it seems that under Italian control some units of Moslem Militia were established in Herzegovina too.
If the energy spent to discuss unclear renaming proposals was spent to expand the article, the situation would be much clearer until now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise I didn't formulate my statement clearly enough, sorry for that. What I meant is that it was a Croatian unit under Italian/German operational control, similar to how the Division Azul was a Spanish unit under German operational control between June 41 and October 43. walk victor falk talk 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? Are you referring to that the militia was an irregular unit? walk victor falk talk 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Because this unit was not "Croatian unit", at least not after September 1943. Depending on the period, this unit was Croatian/Italian/German unit composed of local Muslim men, under Croatian/Italian/German operational control.
  2. This unit was not irregular, although it was militia. It was regularly established by governing authorities in Sandžak and probably parts of Herzegovina (Čajniče, Foča). Initially, this governing authority (that had operational control over this unit) was Croatia, then Italy and finally Germany. According to some sources, at the end of the war, some detachments of this militia put themselves under Communist control, but I am uncertain about the reliability of those sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just did little google book seach to see where "Moslem Militia" is generally used in reliable sources, seems like it most commonly refers actually to militias in Lebanon: "Moslem Militia" Lebanon = 516 results, "Moslem Militia" Yugoslavia = 71 results. Some kind of disambiguation is clearly needed.--Staberinde (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that (Yugoslavia) disambiguation might be a good idea.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Sandžak Moslem militia? walk victor falk talk 11:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to some sources, detachments of this unit were established in Eastern Herzegovina too, which is not in Sandžak.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes Victor, that's essentially what my first suggestion was. I think either that or Muslim militia (Sandžak). Including "Sandžak" (either in the title or disambiguation) conforms to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the militia appears to have been originally raised and primarily engaged in fighting and other activities in the Sandžak. The eastern Herzegovina aspect (apparently only mentioned in some sources) can be easily dealt with a reference to it in the lead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

        • Maybe not. As far as I learned about this unit, militia detachements from eastern Herzegovina had significant role in massacres of civilian population there and in battles with Chetniks. On the other hand, their probably most significant engagement was Durmitor operation. Durmitor is not in Sandzak. That is probably the reason why sources do not use Sandzak as part of this unit's name.
        • Taking in consideration that this is your fifth proposal, don't you think it would be better to stop with presenting your additional proposals until this article is further expanded or its topic better researched, which is essentially what my first suggestion was. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regarding Texas example, if Texas National Guard:
              1. would not be a military of the U.S. state of Texas and
              2. would also be engaged out of Texas
              3. would not be mentioned in sources as Texas National Guard
            • its name would probably not be the Texas national guard.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The name implies nothing about the relation between the unit and the region, merely about its origin.
  2. If some outfit of Texans after a global thermonuclear World War III who styled themselves "the Christian militia", we would call them the Texas Christian militia to distinguish them from other bands of Mad-Max-esque marauders roaming and pillaging all across post-apocalyptic North America of the same name. Even if there were no others, we would still call them that because "Christian militia" is thoroughly ambiguous.
  3. Certainly after the nuclear holocaust, the supply of wp:rs and wp:v sources would be dire, to say the least. However there is no need for sources saying in one breath they had an official "Texas Christian Militia" name (though that would be needed for an article titled Texas Christian Militia), merely sources that referred that they were a militia, were from Texas, and were referred to and/or called themselves "Christians". walk victor falk talk 14:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After further research of this subject I concluded that this militia was predominatly based in Sandžak so Muslim Militia (Sandžak) might be a good solution for now.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "Moslem" better to make clearer it's about the ethnic group and not about religion? walk victor falk talk 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point and basically the main reason why I hesitated to add Sandžak to the title of this unit whose name is predominantly related to ethnic group, rather than to religion, territory or country. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one option would be to follow the pattern sources use with the "Bosnian Muslims" (as a ethnic grouping, now generally known as Bosniaks), and call it "Sandžak Muslim militia". Given the guidance at WP:MILMOS, we should probably avoid incorporating Ustase as it was not an Ustase militia at the end of its existence (the preference being for the last name used). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67, you proposed renaming Moslem militia to:

  1. Sandžak Muslim militia (World War II) (diff)
  2. Sandžak Moslem militia (World War II) (diff)
  3. Muslim Ustaša militia (diff)
  4. "Moslem Legion" (with some sort of disambiguation) (diff)
  5. "Sandžak Muslim militia" diff
  6. and finally (?) in a related discussion you stated that you should "should be RfCing it to be split up" (diff)

Will you please be so kind to clarify what is your proposal here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get how we develop a consensus, do you? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By clarifying our the current positions?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, by discussion, it is not about positions, and attacking and defending them. But the discussion so far has been between the other editors here and me, as you have not actually engaged in the consensus-building, you have merely attacked our suggestions and defended the current title. I think the consensus is developing nicely, we'll get there eventually. The closing admin should be able to see what has developed, or perhaps they'll extend the RM for a bit longer for some more discussion to occur. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you refuse to discuss your statement that you should be RfCing this article to be split up? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided yet. In any case, you haven't produced any evidence to inform the decision. I've said I can't find any evidence that this unit had any central control or existed as a homogeneous entity. You haven't produced anything to support your position, I'm waiting till you (or someone else) either produces such evidence or sufficient time elapses for it to be a reasonable assumption. At which point I consider RfCing it. This is an RM, not a RfC, and I'll see what happens here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either variant with Sandžak, or either variant with Ustaša. Obviously cannot stay at current title which should redirect to a disambiguation page listing the various related articles in the muslim militias categories: Muslim militia. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, if both of you guys weren't happy with my moves that made the titles of the former {{Yugoslav Front}} templates a bit more generic, I can't fathom how any of you could support a title as generic as "Moslem Militia". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bosniaks[edit]

The term "Muslims" as an ethnicity hasn't been used since Yugoslavia. The term used today is Bosniak(s)... Whether they are from Bosnia or the Sandžak. This needs to be reflected in this wiki.--46.163.63.73 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up before elsewhere, they are referred to by what the sources call them, which is overwhelmingly Bosnian Muslim (in Bosnia). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Muslim and Bosniak are the same thing. Consider the fact that the wiki about "Bosnian Muslims" is titled Bosniaks. Some find the term "Muslims" as an ethnicity offensive.--46.163.63.73 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to initiate RM procedure and propose renaming to "Bosniak militia", though I doubt your idea will gain consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images used in this article[edit]

All of the images currently used in this article appear to have been merely downloaded from some website and uploaded to Commons with a PD-Yugoslavia licence. But the image information does not specify: a) a work of known authorship and the author died before January 1, 1941 (in this case the name of the author and the date of death of the author would be required) b) an anonymous work and it was published before January 1, 1941 (this would need evidence of when it was published) c) a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1966 (would need evidence of publishing).

Consequently I have tagged them all for deletion as they all appear to be copyright violations. If interested editors have more verifiable information on the images that meet the licence requirements, I suggest they add that to the images concerned. If nothing is available, the headshots could be used on the basis of "fair use" to identify the subjects of the respective biographical articles, but other use would be a copyright violation based on the information currently included with each file. Please be careful in uploading images with a PD licence when the evidence for that licence is lacking, repeated uploads of this nature could result in serious sanctions by WP. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with source-text agreement[edit]

There are a number of issues with source-text agreement in this article, which are exacerbated by the fact most of the citations are supported by out-of-context snippets from non-English sources that don't appear to be verifiable online. I encourage interested editors to provide better verification of these citations by providing their own translations of the source material and ensuring that all of the material associated with each citation actually includes all of the information included in the article. Rather than tagging each citation, I propose going through it citation by citation here to ensure the verifiability policy is being complied with, and that there is agreement between the sources and the text of the article.

Establishment[edit]

  1. "Between April and August 1941 they established detachments of the Moslem militia all over Sandžak, with particularly strong detachments in Brodarevo, Komaran, Hisardžik and parts of Novi Pazar, Tutin and Sjenica" is supported by two citations:
  • GledovićDrulović1970, for which the following quote (translated using Google Translate) is provided "in the period June - August. The 1941 formed the Muslim quisling police, with a strong foothold in Brodarevu, Komarane"
  • Politika NIN, for which the following quote (translated using Google Translate) is provided "In the period from April to August, there 1941st formed Muslim Ustasha militia and Albanian quisling"
  • Now, these two snippets of quotes vary about when this formation began (April or June), one calls them "Muslim quisling police", the other calls them "Muslim Ustase militia". Neither of them mentions the "strength" of the detachments, merely referring to there being a "strong foothold" in two locations, or "Hisardžik and parts of Novi Pazar, Tutin and Sjenica". There is no mention of "police" in this section, despite the clear reference to police in the first citation. Only the first quote mentions any locations, and it only mentions two, Brodarevu and Komarane. Yet the article states unequivocally that the formation began in April (thereby ignoring one of the sources used), and adds several additional locations that are not included in the quote provided, and does not mention "police". The second citation doesn't mention anything that would lead us to believe it is referring to this militia being in the Sandzak, the two locations in the other source are both clearly in the Sandzak. More information is definitely needed here to support the text currently used, or the text needs to be modified to reflect the quotes currently provided, quotes should include English translations from the original Serbo-Croat so that there is no confusion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Militia/Police - Both Gledović/Drulović and Politika NIN refer to this miltary units as "милиција", so your remark about not mentioning of "police" is not correct.
  2. April/June - Gledović/Drulović did not refer to the whole Sandžak when they presented June as the beginning of this period. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that is what Google Translate does, and that is why English translations are needed for verification. Your reference to what Gledović/Drulović say clearly isn't included in the quote snippet you have provided, all the more reason why more context is needed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Template:Cite check this tag should be used only if the text of the article "misstated or misconstrued the original source's content" after:
  1. making "a good faith attempt to verify the citations in question before adding this template"
  2. discussion of "the matter on the talk page"
You tagged this article and accused me for source misinterpretation here ("a number of issues with source-text agreement in this article") before discussion on the talkpage (posting your comment is not discussion) and before I could explain that there is no misinterpretation here (which I did). That was wrong. Per Template:Cite check you should first request translation and discuss, then tag the article with Template:Cite check.
This is not the first time you accused me for using "out-of-context snippets from non-English sources that don't appear to be verifiable online". That is not true. Most of the sources I use are available online. Take for example Đurović, Milinko (1964). Ustanak naroda Jugolavije, 1941: zbornik. Pišu učesnici. Vojno delo. p. 14.. It is available online at this link. The reference shows GB snippet because I use Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books recommended at WP:CITE to make references faster and easier. That is why your "out-of-context snippets" accusation is unjustified. Please be so kind not to repeat it in future. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, you clearly don't understand that the source needs to be consistent with the text, and this is just one more in a long list of examples of this behaviour. Did I ask about Đurović here? No. I asked about GledovićDrulović1970 and Politika NIN. Bringing up Đurović is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are the one that provided the quotes in Cyrillic, not me. I just put them into Google Translate and pasted the results and pointed out how the text of the article doesn't match the quotes. Your response to my query is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. You haven't addressed the fact that the quote didn't explain the difference in start month, you haven't explained why the quote didn't nominate the other locations, you haven't addressed the fact that the second quote doesn't even mention the Sandzak. You have completely failed to address the issues raised, instead you have tried to blame me for your actions playing fast and loose with sources. You are sailing very close to the wind here. I suggest you change the article to reflect the quotes, or provide expanded quotes that support the text. The tagging is completely justified, and even more so given your response to it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect and straw man fallacy.
  1. It is obvious I brought Đurović to explain that your "out-of-context snippets" accusation is unjustified,
  2. not to discuss your source misinterpretation accusation, which I already prove to be unjustified
  3. and that you misused Template:Cite check.
Like in almost all our discussions when I refute your position, you to continue to write huge walls of text to complain about my conduct, ignoring my position grounded in the sources and cited policies. You are, of course, free to disagree with me here, but you can't expect me to be somehow obliged to keep discussing here with you as long as you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the discussion. If yo want you can have the last word here. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterisation of our interactions is actually the polar opposite of what actually occurs. Anyone who looks at the Djurisic article talk page can see that for themselves. Your definition of what refutes my position is highly dubious. I have now edited that paragraph and the lead to reflect what the expanded quotes actually say, and brought the citations closer to the actual information drawn from them. Given the fact that the original untranslated quotes did not support the whole text in this case, and I had to point that out and ask for an expanded quote that did (in most respects) support the text in the article, I will continue to work through the article checking the source-text agreement. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of lead vs RM[edit]

WP:LEAD says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Zoupan is claiming the article title is merely descriptive, and that this is the English translation of Муслиманска Усташка Милиција. The article title underwent some significant discussion as part of an RM when the article was created, and the article title was decided by consensus. Zoupan is now changing the first line of the article to read "Muslim Ustaše Militia" rather than "Sandžak Muslim militia". This is clearly not useful, as the Ustase obviously had Muslim militias other than this one, which was in the Sandžak. The edit to the first sentence is an apparent work-around on the result of the RM, and raises the question of whether it is in good faith. I believe any change to the first sentence (to this effect) should be RfC'd. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name in intro[edit]

@Peacemaker67: As per MOS/Lead section/First sentence, the term "Sandžak Muslim militia" is not required to be part of the first sentence, as it is descriptive. The Serbian names in the intro are Muslim Ustaše Militia (Serbian: муслиманска усташка милиција) and Muslim Militia (муслиманска милиција), which do not pertain to "Sandžak Muslim militia" (bolded). I insisted on this (diff) but was reverted. Why the inconsistency? Remove "муслиманска усташка милиција" if it is unappropriate, or clarify the nomenclature with an annotation. --Zoupan 06:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start at the beginning. The article lead as it was, was clearly a consensus position. You have changed it, and have been reverted. Instead of BRD, you continued to revert. You should restore it while it is being discussed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the article name was accepted, but not through concensus (note that "Muslim Militia (Sandžak)" was favoured) and it says nothing about the lead section, which you claim was a clear concensus position. "муслиманска милиција/muslimanska milicija" = "Muslim Militia (Sandžak)" rather than "Sandžak Muslim militia". You failed to explain why it wasn't an improvement, but commented "Please have a look at the RM and WP:LEAD.", when those had nothing to say regarding this lead section, to which I commented "Read MOS/Lead section/First sentence; the title is descriptive, and not official (the cyrillic names do not correspond to "Sandžak Muslim militia")". Now, wouldn't a move to "Muslim Militia (Sandžak)" be the best, retaining only "муслиманска милиција/muslimanska milicija" in the intro? --Zoupan 07:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why it would, as you haven't produced any reason why we would choose to do that. This article is another of our friend's bizarre concoctions. I have no idea where the Cyrillic comes from, if the source if reliable, or if it is accurately translated. It was almost impossible to get any information out of him in answer to such questions, which is one of the myriad of reasons he doesn't edit here any more. Perhaps the most appropriate start point would be to re-visit the source of the Cyrillic, in context, if it can be located. I am not even convinced this "militia" is a discrete single organisation. I suspect it is a conglomeration of a number of locally-raised village militias that some, for their own purposes, present as being "organised together". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandžak_Muslim_militia&oldid=1216366427"