Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 11

Title discussions, second try
Is there a reason not to ignore the flamewar that had metastasized on my earlier question? Other than sheer masochism and excess free time, that is. :<

The last move discussion seemed to have come to a reasonable consensual compromise title that garnered no significant opposition: German military administration in Serbia. Is this true or not?

--Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sans "German", and capitalized ("Military Administration in Serbia"). And no, that's not true. While I myself do not oppose that title, others, like Peacemaker, do. The local Serbian Society for Mutual Assistance, unless I'm mistaken, opposes any title that doesn't refer to this as "Serbia", as opposed to something "in Serbia". I naturally prefer the current full official name over anything like that, etc..
 * I don't know about masochists, but you certainly seem to have been reading the Marquis, Joy. Why poke this again? --  Director  ( talk )  18:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The current title remains extremely problematic on several levels both as a page title and as terminology used in running text on other pages, for reasons set out by many, many editors – not all of whom are part of some Serbian nationalist plot. There is also, as noted previously, very little evidence that it is a formal or official title (and even if it was of course, that isn't how we name things here). It needs to be changed, by any objective standard; the only question is to what. "German military administration in Serbia" is, surely, better than "Military Administration in Serbia" as it is clearer what we are talking about. Also without capitalisation, we are clearer that this page is about a broader concept than simply the administrative body in charge of the area. (I'd still of course prefer the term that is most commonly used in serious sources, including the most cited book on the page – ie "German-occupied Serbia" – but we know that one gets vetoed, albeit on the basis of some very odd reasoning that has long been refuted but is constantly repeated).  N-HH   talk / edits  20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ps: no one of course, AFAICT is suggesting calling the page "Serbia". Given the above it's a slightly academic issue, but the point of qualifying adjectives such as "German-occupied" is that they describe and define, and in some cases limit, the scope of the "Serbia" under discussion. Just like when people refer to "occupied France" they do not necessarily mean all of France. The phrase can easily mean "that part of France which is occupied".  N-HH   talk / edits  21:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the only thing you've "refuted" is my perceptions on your understanding of this region's history. Ignoring a point isn't "refuting". Maybe you just don't care to understand? I, however, do care whether we invent countries that did not exist, or imply their existence, in user-invented cockamamie titles that have nothing to do with this article's precise subject or scope. Perhaps if you didn't veto moves towards more elegant titles, that still however represent the subject matter, we wouldn't have any problem to discuss.
 * I wouldn't bother posting on this subject until you figure out that #1 there was no "Serbia" since 1918, and that #2 this article is about a historical military-political entity, not a period of history. I sincerely hope you will finally understand the distinction between the two, and propose titles (if any) that describe the subject. As I said, ignoring the points of other users isn't "refuting", its disruption. -- Director  ( talk )  23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Direktor, the current title as much implies that Serbia existed at the time as the title proposed by N-HH. So if there was no Serbia in 1941 then what is this thing "in" which there was supposedly a (Territory of the) Military Commander? Srnec (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to thank Joy for reopening this discussion. German military administration in Serbia seems quite an accurate title and by itself the title is recognisable about the entity we are talking about. Its near a translation of the official name "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" in German, plus the adjective "German" so one knows which military administration we are talking about. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Srnec. Quite simply, no - that is not the case. The current title does not necessarily imply there was a country called "Serbia" (nor does the "Military Administration in Serbia" variant), at least not in the same measure. These titles indicate that the article is about an entity that was located "in Serbia", which may or may not be a country ("Serbia", that is). In contrast, "German-occupied Serbia" states this article is about - " Serbia ", that was under "German occupation". It can only be taken as a title for a period article discussing the 1941-45 German occupation of what is today Serbia. And that's the most important point: "German-occupied Serbia" isn't another name for the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.


 * @FkpCascais, for the record, I would oppose "German military administration in Serbia", unless it is capitalized and without the word "German" ("Military Administration in Serbia"). Again the issue is that the title must denote this entity, or else its not a title. Without these changes the title does not qualify in that respect, and instead appears as a name for an article dealing with the fine points of how the German military administered this or that...


 * In short, any proposed names must be names for this military-political entity. Not historical periods, not the "administration" as such - this entity. In that respect the current title certainly qualifies, and its only problem is that its too long. Sure, I grant that latter point, and have proposed my idea of a solution - a term which is also used for this entity, but is significantly shorter (and, so far as I can tell, more common in sources). Going so short as to miss the mark entirely with title proposals that do not even represent this specific subject - that's worse than a long title. -- Director  ( talk )  02:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But Direktor, it has to include the adjective "German". It was not a Serbian neither Yugoslav military administration, so we need to be specific. That is not unusual in Wikipedia article titles, for instance, in Yugoslavia we had the currency "Dinar", but the article title is "Yugoslav dinar". Or even more drectly related, the German army in that period was officially known sinply as "Heer" (English: Army) but the article title here on en.wiki obviusly isn´t just "Army" but its German Army (1935–45) - "German" Army.  We need the disambiguating factor of "German" in our title here in same way. FkpCascais (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For article titles we have two options here: either use the original name, which would be "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" (ouch!) or a translated one. Original name was used in Abwehr for exemple, where the German name was prefered oved an option of "German military intelligence". However, a translated name, needs to have the adjective of the country, for instance Belgian State Security Service. Same happends here, we need to specify which "Military administration" was, and it was German, no doubts about that. FkpCascais (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Direktor, you're wrong. The current title does not imply that Serbia was a country, but neither does the proposed title. Russian occupation of Eastern Galicia, 1914–15 does not imply that Eastern Galicia was a country, nor does German-occupied Europe imply that Europe was a country. You are right that it is would be a period article, just like Occupation of the Ruhr is about a period when the Ruhr was under occupation and British occupation of Manila is about a period when Manila was under occupation. You seem to be conceding that Serbia existed, but wasn't a country. Fine. It doesn't matter: it is not the case that only countries can be occupied.
 * As for your point about scope, it is true that changing the title would necessarily involve a modification of scope. There is no reason that N-HH and Joy cannot propose an expanded scope for this article (as opposed to some other structure of articles), but we can certainly oppose it on the grounds that the current title is precise in a way that "German-occupied Serbia" (e.g.) cannot be. In light of the highly contested nature of the topic, the excessive title is a small price to pay for the precision. Srnec (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well we haven't had hundreds of people commenting, but of those that have, most seem to be OK with "German military administration in Serbia" as a replacement for the current title (assuming I understand Srnec's position correctly?) It works as the clearest descriptive option for the broad topic and the objections all seem to be a bit esoteric and overly analytical as to what various titles purportedly mean, imply or refer to. Language and phrases simply don't divide up as easily and with such rigid boundaries of meaning as Director keeps telling everyone they do. Finally, here, for example, is a book using the term to refer to/describe the territory; here is one using it to refer to the authority in that territory. The fact that it has that flexibility – and therefore covers all aspects of the "entity", such as it is – is surely a benefit.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am completely opposed to "German military administration in Serbia" as a replacement article title for the current one. IMO that would mean reducing the article scope so that it was only about part of the German military occupation apparatus that was subordinate to the territorial military commander, and not the subject of this article, which is the territory itself. We should maintain the current scope and use a descriptive title to avoid the issues Director has identified. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see no such problem with "German occupation territory of Serbia" as a descriptive title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That formulation reads a bit clumsily to me and is entirely unseen in any written sources, books or otherwise, as far as Google can tell. As for the "scope" objection to "German military administration in Serbia", fair enough everyone reads things differently, but I thought I had only just pointed out, with reference to actual sources, how that is a broad descriptive title that can surely be read as covering the wider topic, not just the administrative apparatus?  N-HH   talk / edits  10:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: the point is that the phrase refers, simply, to the broad fact that the German military occupied and administered Serbia, or an area geographically approximate to it as was. It is not meant to be read as "The [German] Military Administration in Serbia".  N-HH   talk / edits  11:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Options and WP:TITLE
Per the above, we should not get too bogged down in whether a title might imply Serbian statehood, whether it is supposedly "POV" or whether it falls the wrong side of some rigidly defined and artificial "period" vs "entity "distinction. Even if any of those were an issue in some intellectual sense – which I'm not sure they are anyway – they have nothing to do with WP title rules. Analysing the three main options against those rules, as far as I see it, offers the following results:

Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia
 * Recognizability: No
 * Naturalness: No
 * Precision: No
 * Conciseness: No (7 words)
 * Consistency: No
 * WP:COMMONNAME: No (1 G-book hit)

German military administration in Serbia
 * Recognizability: Yes
 * Naturalness: Yes
 * Precision: Up to a point
 * Conciseness: More or less (5 words)
 * Consistency: Some
 * WP:COMMONNAME: Not really (8 G-book hits)

German-occupied Serbia
 * Recognizability: Yes
 * Naturalness: Yes
 * Precision: Yes, although arguably it focuses more on geography than the political administration
 * Conciseness: Yes (2-3 words)
 * Consistency: Yes
 * WP:COMMONNAME: Yes (2,670 G-book hits)

I accept the last one is never going to fly, however daft that is, but that leaves us with the second as a vast improvement on the first, current title. Removing "German" from that option fairly obviously loses precision and recognisability, while capitalisation in a way makes it too precise by appearing to focus on the German administration bureaucracy rather than on, at the same time, the fact of administration/occupation of a defined area.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are again ignoring the fact that both the second and third phrases do not refer to the military-political entity this article is about. They do not refer to this article's topic. At best this is a serious flaw in the "Precision" criteria, but really its just absurd to even look at them considering they're about something else. Its sort of like proposing "Modern-day America" as a replacement for the "United States" title. Please try to finally take into consideration what this article is about in proposing titles.


 * Regarding "German military administration in Serbia", I believe that's just "Military Administration in Serbia" written with a few grammar errors (Serbo-Croatian, which is the mother tongue of most participants here, capitalizes only the first word in a name; e.g. "Hrvatske željeznice"). Written properly and capitalized, the phrase will denote the military-political entity, as opposed to really nothing at all, and will be fine by me.
 * The adjective "German" is just not part of the name of this entity, and is unnecessary in terms of any disambiguation (the phrase being a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If any disambiguation is judged to be necessary after all, then the standard brackets at the end of the name will more than suffice in my view (e.g. "...(World War II)" or "...(Germany)").


 * P.s. I believe Peacemaker67 is opposed to the "Military Administration in Serbia" title. -- Director  ( talk )  04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * N-HH. The above "menu" is completely pointless (dare I say daft) and an obvious attempt to place your preferred title in pole position by using yes/no responses when a much more nuanced approach is needed. It is good to be the asker and answerer of questions, isn't it? It is simplistic and fails to address the real and substantive concerns that Director and I have. I am happy to discuss a descriptive title, but essentially believe that your preferred options abjectly fail the "PRECISION" test. The current title might be overly precise, but that is better than too vague, or worse, one that effectively changes the scope of the article. I disagree with Director about the value of "Military Administration in Serbia" as a title for this article, because that denotes only one arm of the military government of this territory, it does not denote that this article is about an occupation territory. That is why I have suggested "German occupation territory of Serbia", which is sufficiently precise because it clearly shows it was a territory under occupation by the Germans, not a country/state or whatever. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do accept your arguments in regards that "Military Administration in Serbia" is a less precise title, but the reason I support it is that, in exchange, we get more "Naturalness", "Conciseness", and "Consistency" with other articles of this type ('German-occupied Serbia' is of course no more "consistent" than "precise", whatever N-HH might claim in his tables). As I said, sources do use "MAS" to refer to the whole entity as such.. And frankly, I think "Military Administration in Serbia" might just finally bury this thing (what is it now? three years? four?), whereas TMCS will always be unstable. -- Director  ( talk )  04:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The adjective "German" is absolutelly necesary, and sorry Direktor, but as far as I see you oppose including it because... it is not part of the original name (you mean, in German?). Also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn´t say anything about that. I already pointed out exemples where the national adjective is added to the article title despite not being found in the original title, and there are houndreds of exemples. When you have a multi-natinational option for a subject (Army, Administration, Occupation, Defense Ministry, whatever) we allways add the national adjective. FkpCascais (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not support "Military Administration in Serbia", and ask that you produce reliable sources that use that term to refer to the territory in question if you want it to be discussed any further. It is not only much less precise, it is actually a sub-set of the current scope of this article. And, almost unbelievably, I agree with Fkp (on the "German" issue only). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, I believe that Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories is a good non-POV model for article titles covering the occupied Yugoslavian territories during WWII. I believe "German military occupation of Yugoslav territory" would also be a suitable descriptive title for this article, especially as the Yugoslavian territory under German military occupation was extended to include Montenegro when the Italians capitulated in 1943. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @FkP. Both the German and most common English names of the subject do not include the word "German". It is completely and entirely unnecessary, and I shan't accommodate this sort of petty conflict-seeking Fkp. Its up to you to properly justify the (pointless) addition of the word "German", not me to justify its exclusion. As one might expect, the phrase is much less common in sources with it.


 * @Peacemaker. As I said, I am entirely aware of the fact that MAS is technically the name of the "government" organization of this entity, whose proper name is TMCS. However, as I said, I think you'll find that the term is also used to refer to the whole thing (it is not uncommon for states to be referred to by the name of their government). Its a bit difficult to find instances of the phrase being unambiguously used to denote the whole entity, but here's one example I found in a quick search (I found a lot of specific refs earlier). For example, Sörensen 2011 on p.83 states that Yugoslavia was divided in 1941 into the NDH, the various Italian, Bulgarian and Hungarian zones, and the military administration in Serbia. Commanders are usually referred to as chiefs of the 'Military Administration in Serbia', not as commanders of the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', etc. In general, when a source needs to refer to this entity, they practically never use the current title, but usually 'Military Administration in Serbia'.


 * "German military occupation of Yugoslav territory" fails on multiple grounds of course, being completely uncommon in sources and practically as long as this title etc. But I'm glad you brought up the Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories article, as its a good illustration of how this article is not organized. That is to say it illustrates the difference between what is and is not an article about a historical entity; a "historical country" article, as opposed to a "period" article. I say again that we are not in a situation where we need to, or can, seek for "descriptive titles". -- Director  ( talk )  06:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have to say this again, or at all for that matter, but if we want a shorter (more Natural and Concise) name for the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia - then we need to look for shorter names for the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Not something else. -- Director  ( talk )  06:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can say it again and again, but it has no basis on policy. There is no commonname, so we CAN, and I say we SHOULD use a descriptive title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it has a basis in policy. I already explained that. See WP:PRECISE for just one example: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article ".


 * The governance of a territory ("German occupation of XY"), is not the same thing as the entity that governed it. These are different, albeit overlapping, topics. They boil down to how we want to organize this article: as a "country" article, or a "period" article. Because we can't have a title for one topic, and an article organized to cover a different one. And, for the record, "country articles" are usually the far better and more common choice for covering history on Wikipedia than "period articles". -- Director  ( talk )  06:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is complete gobbledygook as far as I am concerned. These are your opinions. I don't share them. This article is about what happened in the only areas of Yugoslavia that were under German military government between April 1941 and October 1944 when the Germans were basically kicked out. If you want to change the scope of the article, that is a separate issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Direktor, correct me if I am wrong, but seems to me that we have here a major consensus about this minor issue of including the word "German", and you are the only one opposing it, with not much convincing arguments. I honestly can´t see what´s your point about this enormous desire of yours to exclude the word "German". FkpCascais (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However, I agree with you, Direktor, about the topic this article should deal with. FkpCascais (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And what is that, exactly? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The German military entity known as the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Its full official name may be unwieldy and is less common, sure, so we might consider a more concise name, but a name for that entity nonetheless.


 * Peacemaker, I and others have been confronted with this issue before on several occasions (I do have some experience 'round these parts). I'll try to explain, pls bear with me. How do you cover the history of a country or region? Do you go period by period, or entity by entity? Or both? Its a common quandary. To give an example: do you create a "Napoleonic France" article (with a descriptive title), which might include the late First Republic, or do you create the First Republic and First French Empire articles, etc. The 'Napoleonic France' article would ofc be a "period article", whereas the latter two would be "country articles". The question is naturally viewed on a case-to-case basis, and most times its pretty obvious which organization to choose. But, in the vast majority of cases, the logical choice is a series of "country articles". This is essentially to avoid overlap, since country articles are usually necessary either way, and have a wider scope. For example: you rename this article into some title like "German military occupation of Yugoslav territory", but then - what's stopping someone from creating a Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article? Its harder to argue against an article about a real historical country (or entity) than it is about an arbitrary user-defined article, not least because the former's scope is inherently wider, and its a realistic argument that the latter organization inherently omits some content. A historical "country article" naturally covers details about the country besides the historical narrative (such as demographics, government structure, etc). I hope I'm making myself clear enough..


 * So again, not to ramble overmuch, we can't have a title for a period article, and an article like this one the scope and organization of which is focused on a historical "country". Such a title would not correspond with the article's current scope, and that is against policy recommendations. Were we to change the article's scope into that of a period article, then we can all take sleeping pills and dream up fascinating new descriptive titles that correspond to our new arbitrary period scope. I would of course oppose such a change, as I support using the "country article sequence" format wherever possible. As things are, though, it doesn't make sense to discuss names that do not denote the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. -- Director  ( talk )  10:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously the table is a bit simplistic and polemical, and only represents my own opinion; the point was as much to try to focus attention on actual WP titling policy rather than our own analysis, as I said, of what things supposedly mean or don't mean. I agree too with what this page is about and what the topic is – it is about an area that comprised an entity that was ruled under an administrative system for a period of time; "overlapping" slightly understates that and, as I keep trying to say, we really need to back away from getting too bogged down in discussing any supposed discrete boxes of meaning and claiming that any of the obviously broader, non-capitalised title options somehow excludes this or that aspect. The common name is German-occupied Serbia. If that's not going to fly, we need, as noted, a descriptive name – that does not have to be common as such, although it should presumably have some basis in sources. "German" is fairly obviously going to have to part of any such descriptive title. And, as I posted in the previous sub-section, the non-capitalised phrase "military administration in Serbia" surely does the rest of the job? I could take "German occupation of Yugoslav territories" too as an alternative descriptive title. And please let's not get bogged down either in what Serbo-Croatian grammar or capitalisation might mean.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "German-occupied Serbia", and the other "descriptive names" you fellas thought of, are all wide the mark - they do not represent the article's scope, as they are not names that denote the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Your proposal doesn't correspond with the article's scope and organization as an article about a historical military-political entity. I can repeat this as many times as you can ignore it, N-HH.


 * And p.s. "German occupation of Yugoslav territories", as I already said, is really a bad idea in more than one way. I already said its non-sourced for one thing, and is more-or-less as long as this title. For another thing, such a phrase includes German-occupied Slovenia as well, and arguably also the NDH north of the demarcation line. After 1943 it pretty much includes the whole of Yugoslavia: certainly Montenegro and Kosovo, the whole of Slovenia, and (arguably) the whole of the NDH... -- Director  ( talk )  10:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I can repeat as many times as you like that you are simply mistaken – as a matter of the conceptual meaning of English-language phrases – about "scope" and the rigid distinctions and limitations you are trying to impose on what broad titles supposedly cover or do not cover. You can keep ignoring that too, if you wish. An article entitled "German military administration in Serbia" would cover the area the German military administered, how that area was administered and how long it was administered for. You know, what the page does currently. I accept possible flaws in the second option of "German occupation of Yugoslav territories" on the basis of the points about Slovenia et al.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Slovenia? The German occupied bits of what is now Slovenia were integrated into existing Reichsgau. They were under civilian administration, all that is needed is to add "military" in front of "occupation". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's some potential confusion surely over Slovenia and other parts of Yugoslavia that were occupied or increasingly lost what little autonomy they might have had. I think there is greater clarity in using Serbia in the title as, more or less, that is what the area in question geographically was. More links in this old edit of mine (please, this is not a cue for more existential digression about what "Serbia" "is" ...)  N-HH   talk / edits  11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see what the "potential confusion" might be. The part of Slovenia in question would be "German civilian government of Yugoslav territories". "German military occupation of Yugoslav territories" applies to one area only, and the German presence in the NDH was not occupation. The Italian presence in the NDH might be construed as such for a time, as they actually controlled parts of the NDH directly and expelled NDH forces from some areas for a period. The Germans did not do that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This article should deal exclusively with the country Germans established under their military administration and named it "Serbia". They indeed used the name "Serbia", so there is no much confusion about it, neither should be changed with "Yugoslavia" and thus completely change the scope of this article. That is what I said earlier that I agree with Direktor. I also agree to be precise and use the official name in abscence of a commonname in English, I just think that would be logical to translate "Militärbefehlshabers" into "German military". FkpCascais (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure they established a country as such. But they did indeed establish a military occupation and administration over an area usually referred to, with some qualification and additional description, as a variant of Serbia. The sources are happy to use that terminology and so should we be – for too long this discussion has been stymied and derailed by idiosyncratic and convoluted objections to that and to what preposition might or might not be allowed before "Serbia" (and by bizarre "entity" vs "period" debates, as if entities do not exist in periods). Being more specific on the area is also surely better than talking more widely about Yugoslavia and expecting people to guess through the references to "civilian" or "military" administrations whether that is a reference to Serbia, Slovenia or whatever. As for the "official name", first we have no idea what the official name is, or if there even was one, and WP title policy does not rely on official names anyway. If we're going to block the obvious common name, we need a clear descriptive name, per policy. Can we focus on what that might be, so that it is recognisable, clear, concise, consistent etc?  N-HH   talk / edits  15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They did formed two governaments, issued currency, had their own stamps, etc. it was kind of an attempt at some point to make it look like a country, despite not having any independence at all. That "country" and all related to it is what I beleave should be the primary topic here.
 * Regarding the name, yes, I think German military commander in Serbia would work just fine. My point of debate was with Direktor and his wish to exclude the word "German" from the title, however I can´t see by now a viable title without the term "German" in it. FkpCascais (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * a) it wasn't a country. b) the Germans appointed the two governments, "they" didn't form them. c) we are finally back to Fkp's "country", stamps etc, which is where this all began. Militärbefehlshabers means "military commander", and cannot possibly be translated as "German military". N-HH - There is no common name, how many times does that have to be proved? There are literally more than a dozen names for this territory, all used by reliable sources, most are already listed in the article. Try Googling them all, using the full recommended search string for Google Books, then actually look at the first three pages of those hits and tell me that any conclusion at all can be drawn from the Google search at all. Please drop the common name stick, the horse was fertiliser long ago. In any case, dropping the common name stick will allow us to get on with looking at a descriptive name. I am happy to discuss a descriptive name (although I fear Director is not), and disagree that it necessarily needs to include the word Serbia. I am open to including "Serbia", but must note that Fkp has finally dropped the pretence, and acknowledged that it is really about the "country" for him, which is what I and Director have always known, because we have been here a lot longer than you dealing with his (and others) "eternal Serbia" rot. I think it is unlikely we will get Director on board for a descriptive title, so if we are going ahead with that we will need to accept he will be against it. To achieve a working consensus on which we can move the article, we will need Srnec and Fkp, as well as you and me (ie at least 4 to 1). I believe, given the problematic nature of this article title, that our decision to go with a descriptive title would stand up to wider community scrutiny, despite Director's protestations that it will not. More than likely, once we are close to getting a solution, others will chime in as wreckers, and we will be back where we started. The problem with RMs is that few editors have a clue about this topic, and we have to explain it all over and over again. There are reasons some of us are exhausted with dealing with this. But, I am willing to try, if we (less Director) can agree a descriptive title is best in this situation, and can settle on one we can all live with. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure Peacemaker read correctly my post. I never said it was a country, I was clear in my previus short comment. Also, yes, I was not sure what befehlshabers exactly meant, but I do beleave in this context for title purposes "Militärbefehlshabers" can be translated into "German military commander". I also think you are mixing up the position of some other editors on this issue, with mine. However, yes, I do defend that this article should deal with the governaments and everything that was related exclusively to this German-created political entity. FkpCascais (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But it isn't a political entity, it is a time-limited geo-political one. It has a defined territorial area and was administered by various different organisations. It was not a German created "political entity", it was a German occupation zone in which various organisations operated or were allowed to operate. I really do not understand where you stand on this at all, Fkp. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was time-limited because Germans lost the war, but one can only speculate how long this would have lasted if some other outcome had come up. At some point Germans did allow it to take a form of quasi nation by providing it with governament, own security forces, and some other elements such as currency or stamps. It was more for interim digestion, of course, but anyway. I am not sure what made you talk about "eternal Serbia rot" and relate it to me and to this article. I am just saying that everything related to, what Germans called, the "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" should be in one article, this one, and we just need to find a good English language title for it. FkpCascais (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we're on the same page about the scope then. Happy with that. What about "German occupation territory of Serbia"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted in the link a bit further up, various names and terms are used to describe the thing by different authors at different points in narrative prose, as often happens. That doesn't mean there's no common name. Indeed, the WP policy of that name specifically applies in cases where "topics have multiple names" and then says (my emphasis) that, of those, WP "prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." It's fairly clear that the most common name or description, if not the universal one, is some variation that includes "Serbia" and "occupied/occupation". Hence I'm kind of OK with the latest suggested alternative – my slight problem is that the precise formulation reads slightly oddly and is not found verbatim anywhere.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * then "German-occupied territory of Serbia". The issue about it being found verbatim anywhere is a canard, it is a descriptive title. Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories doesn't appear anywhere verbatim either, it's an irrelevant consideration. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal seems fine to me. FkpCascais (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well of course it does. You think its a country, and want to call it "Serbia"... Participants should be aware by this point that any titles that refer to this thing as "Serbia", in any formulation, will invariably have the support of WhiteWriter, Antidiskriminator, and FkpCascais. Because Srbija do Tokija apparently also has a temporal dimension. My hopes that Fkp, being an FK Partizan fan, might have a different view :) were not founded on solid grounds it seems...


 * Opposed to "German-occupied territory of Serbia". In fact, strongly opposed to any and all user-invented descriptive titles, which are being pushed without any proper justification. That latest proposal seems to refer to the "Serbia" that was a "German-occupied territory". Whereas the German territory of the military commander was "in Serbia", and was not "Serbia". Even were that corrected, I would still oppose it, since we have proper sourced names for this entity, which are historical as well, and we do not need unsourced, user-invented (pardon me) - bullshit. We need it no more than N-HH excavating various terms like "German-occupied Serbia" that are general terms for the area - and not for the German occupation entity at all. And I'm terribly sorry, N-HH, if you are unable to see the difference between the two. -- Director  ( talk )  22:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as side-note: By now its usual, and disruptive, that whenever Direktor is not getting his way along with Serbian editors, he starts with accusations of nationalism. From my past experience that says that the time has come that he run out of aguments. Now, regarding "Serbian nationalism", Direktor seems to be unaware that the entity here is the least one Serbs are fun off, however one cannot escape the fact that the name "Serbia" is in the official German name of the territory, and appears in all names for this territory in English and other language sources.
 * @Direktor, don´t you understand that even normal Serbs (something you seem to find hard to beleave that exist) look to this "fake" Serbia just as probably communist Croats looked towards fascist Ustashe Croatia? Try to understand that first, please, but anyway, avoid bringing any unrelated matter to this discussion. Please. FkpCascais (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Peacemaker: I think it does matter if it is not found verbatim anywhere. If it's a reasonable and accurate descriptive term, it's likely someone else will have already used it in this context. Also, as I said, the formulation simply reads a bit oddly (which in turn may be why it is not found anywhere).

@Director: I'm sorry if you're going to keep bringing up all this absolute nonsense about what prepositions we are allowed to use and make specious distinctions between the "entity" and the area or the period it existed in. You used the word "bullshit", so I will too, and call you on yours. On every page where we've crossed paths recently you seen engaged in a project to redefine the English language and political concepts according to your own, utterly idiosyncratic analysis, regardless of the terminology used by every serious historian or political writer. We currently have a name that is not common, not clearly descriptive and not even necessarily the official name (whether it might be one term applied in some official context is another matter). One thing we as WP editors are allowed to work on or select ourselves is a general descriptive title, per WP:NDESC. This seems an obvious case of where we need to do that, with reference to how sources commonly approach the topic, regardless of whether you insist on claiming that we should not be doing it.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC) given we are referring to excrement, N-HH, do you have a reliable source that says that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is NOT the official name of this territory? No? Well, Hehn says it is, and Pavlowitch uses an almost identical wording. Trying to puff up your argument with fallacies does you no credit. Let's just stick to what the guidelines say. In a nutshell, I say there is no common name for this territory, and that frees us to use a descriptive title. I also say this is a perfect situation to consider WP:IAR. Now, are you saying that there is a common name, or are you saying the "guideline" doesn't permit us to create one that is based on several of the names used in reliable sources. Just so we are clear. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @N-HH. Its all about what a man can or can not do, N-HH. You can accept that this article is about a historical military-administered territory officially named "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", or you can not. Me, I can ignore your PA comments, but I can't agree that the title should be changed to any phrase that doesn't refer in some way to this said entity, which is the subject of the article. Savvy?
 * As for your grammar concerns, you should probably make it clear which classes of words you consider too irrelevant to enter our considerations. Though I certainly hope you are clear on the difference between the words "of" and "in", and how they may alter a sentence. As in "I was sick of this one year ago", and "I was sick in this one year ago".


 * @FkpCascais. Oh please, Fkp. Its me. The "I'm insulted he hinted I'm a nationalist" thing is so old it "has a beard" as we say 'round these parts. I know you so long I can produce a half-dozen diffs at any time to show an editing pattern as the one I hinted at. And no, this isn't a "fake Serbia" like the NDH was a fake Croatia, it was a military occupation zone " in Serbia ", the "Serbia" referred to there is just a geographic qualification indicating where this entity is located in. You need to clear from your head all that "Nedićeva Srbija" nonsense that they teach us in grade school. The Serbian article actually has a flag and coat of arms under an infobox title that says "Serbia", and you just called this a "country". I'll say it again: this is an occupation zone created by Hitler, where his army picked some willing stooges to run the police and collect taxes/steal food. Hitler hated Serbs with a passion and didn't give them anything even closely resembling a country. It takes a special kind of crazy to go around fighting for recognition screaming "hey, don't you go denigrating Serbia! we were just as much Nazi puppets as you were!". Yet that is exactly what I've been reading here for years on end. So forgive me if I'm a little sick of it.


 * @Peacemaker, I challenge your assertion that there is no WP:COMMONNAME for this territory, and claim 'Military Administration in Serbia' is a name used on a wide-enough basis to qualify as such. The name of the government of this territory is often used as a name for the territory as a whole (as is explicit in sources such as e.g. Sörensen 2011, p.83). Believe it or not, folks, historians did need some way to refer to this occupation entity. Unfortunately, with N-HH around, we can't seem to bring up the topic of actual names for the military territory, as he seems to be looking for the title of a general history article.


 * @Joy, I hope you're happy :). -- Director  ( talk )  02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Director, there are so many holes in your argument, I am at a loss as to which one to drive the mining truck through first. What's the common name, I ask. Your response, apparently, is a name no-one uses to refer to this territory. The name you cling to so tenaciously is not used to refer to this territory. I asked you to provide sources, but none have so far been produced. Your suggestion that Sörensen uses your preferred title to refer to this territory on p. 83 is clearly wrong, he is obviously referring to whose rule the territories were divided between, and is not referring to the territory itself. On top of that, he uses "German" in front of it, something you will not countenance. Even worse, there are only 33 Google Books hits for your preferred title, and none of them used it to refer to the territory itself. So, to quote you yourself, this "will not fly". Your suggestion has no basis, well, in anything at all. I see you as an intentional spoiler in this discussion, and am quite happy to form a consensus with others around a WP:NDESC title if you are not willing to. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And even worserer, there was a "Turkish Military Administration in Serbia" which appears several times in the 33 Google Books hits I mentioned above, so your suggestion would also be insufficiently precise. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Director, why do we have to go trough all this each time we encounter ourselfs at some discussion? Why? I never say anything about your ethnicity or your POV or your past and I could make here a huge wall saying so many thinks about you, but I dont, I don´t care, I want to focus on content. You know nothing about me. I am so nationalist that I even have a Kosovar flag at mu user-page, duhhh... Also, you intentionally speak about some diffs you could present, what for? To discredit me? Please present them, or otherwise focus strictly on content.
 * Regarding the missunderstanding here. You missed the point of the few things I said here, you´re just making silly assumptions. I know very well this was no sovereign country, I already mentined its total lack of independence earlier. Also, I know too well Hitler hated Serbs just after Jews, and the hateriot was mutual. However, Germans, because of their own necessity, did allow it to have certain "country-like" aspects such as governament with ministries, currency, stamps, gendarmerie, etc. and even created some national symbols. So much that Nedić went enthusiastically to meat Hitler and propose him many things such as territorial expansion, creation of an army and strenghtening of his governament, which obviusly Hitler didn´t even wanted to listen. Now, me personally, I wish this article is well surced and written in a NPOV way. Quite simple. The issue here is the title, and I will be strictly focused on that. I already said what I beleave would be helpfull to have in the title, which will have to be descriptive. I don´t have a prefered title, and I am willing to hear anyone´s proposals. FkpCascais (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Direktor: "we can't seem to bring up the topic of actual names for the military territory, as he seems to be looking for the title of a general history article" — you seem to have a conception that there is a clearcut difference between the two, and base your arguments on that. I question that; when we discuss a historical polity, we naturally focus on its history throughout the time period it existed. Actually, whenever we need to describe a part of history of an area, we need to make a decision which period we shall cover, and which area we shall include; some choices lend themselves more naturally, as when a polity existed during a time period, and some less, as when the territory in question was occupied or divided. If you take a look at e.g. History of Serbia, you will find a mixture of "territory" and "general history" articles, some of them in rapid historical succession, e.g. Habsburg-occupied Serbia and Kingdom of Serbia (1718–1739). Whether we stick an Infobox former country to the article is completely irrelevant to its contents, which is universally a sequence of events; it's not as if we extensively describe geography, economy or culture of former polities. No such user (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok Peacemaker, keeping in mind consistency is a fundamental criterion defined in WP:NAME, lets talk about how authors refer to this type of German WWII military entity (and there were a half dozen of them). According to your research, what is the English-language term for this specific type of German occupation zone? Because even if we went for some daffy desc title - that would be our primary concern. p.s. Disregard the Turkish nonsense. This is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Director  ( talk )  08:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Director, you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. let's just get something sorted out before we move on. Do you agree that your suggested title can in no way be the common name? It has even less Google Books hits than the current title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd know wouldn't you? (obviously this is how I perceive you ;)). It would be hard to find a less common title than the current one (of your own design). Seeing as how, in this formulation at least, it has only one hit on Books, and that seems to be an accident ("territory of the 'Military Commander in Serbia'" is how the source uses it). This current title can only be perceived as maybe about as common as "Military Administration in Serbia" through demanding that sources, when they use the much more common term, be explicit in referring to the whole territory - and disregarding all who are not.


 * I appear to be the only user here concerned with keeping the series of articles on the German occupation of Europe at least borderline uniform and non-confusing to the reader. To keep the same damn thing, the Militärverwaltung, from being referred to by a different random phrase in every article where it is covered. This is an issue I've been pointing to literally for years, but in this place its hard for everything not to turn into a pissing contest.
 * So if you'll pardon my impatience, would you answer the question at hand? Are these German entities referred to through a translation of "Militärverwaltung in XY" or "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in XY"? Or perhaps something else? -- Director  ( talk )  20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @No such user; "you seem to have a conception that there is a clearcut difference between the two" - oh for heaven's sake, certainly. The historical narrative of a country's existence is just one part of a historical country article. See Nazi Germany for one pertinent example. There, besides the actual "History", you'll find "Geography", "Politics", "Economy", "Racial policy", etc. etc. I mean you could of course write all that in a generic "History of Germany 1933-45" article (or however you wanna call it), but it would be strange to discuss "Geography" in an article about a period of history. It makes much more sense to cover all that in an article about a country and that's how its usually done. More importantly - that's what we have here. Historical country articles have a wider scope and are generally more useful. Naturally "period articles" are everywhere as well and can be inserted into successions, but in my opinion, unless its unavoidable - that's a bad idea. -- Director  ( talk )  20:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This article should not be a periodical article, but rather an article which will deal with everything regarding this German occupied territory and the local governaments which were pointed out by them. So, as far as I understand, Direktor, you and me agree on this, am I right? Basically the only thing we disagree is in the use of "German" in a new title for this article. I do think that for proper descriptive reasons, the German term "Militärbefehlshabers" should be translated to "German military administration" rather than simply "Military administration".
 * So can we archive consensus on the following first:
 * 1- The article will focus on the German administration and the governaments they appointed, rather than being a periodical article.
 * 2- The title will have to be descriptive. What options do we have by now?
 * 3- The title will have to contain the words "German" and "Serbia".
 * I am aware the last one may not have the approval of all, any thoughts? FkpCascais (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Director, I am no Mick Dundee. But then again, neither is he. No self-respecting crocodile hunter would have plastic surgery. Anyway, back to the issue. Your claim about your formulation being as common as the current title is utter nonsense. It can't be, because the current title is sourced, and your suggested title has ZERO hits (in context) on Google Books. Hehn uses this exact title in an academic journal and says it was the official name. Pavlowitch uses "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia". The official German history of the war (in English translation) uses "Territory of the Commander Serbia". On the other hand, none of the hits on Google Books for your entirely made up title are actually about the territory in question, they are about one branch of the military government. You can leave your holier than thou attitude at the door, because it is not even clear to me that you understand that the military commander controlled two (later three) branches, one operational, one administrative and (later) one SS & police. Your "administration" (headed for much of the time by Harald Turner) was just one of the three branches. I am interested in resolving what has been a long-running dispute about a highly controversial titling issue, you appear to care only about consistency with other article titles (almost all of which are sparsely referenced Stub/Start articles at best), when the situation in German occupied territories varied significantly across Europe. I say your fixation on consistency is an impediment to getting a solution here, and is wrong-headed. Militärverwaltung means military administration, not "occupation territory", so your question does not make any sense in the context of this article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fkp. Militärbefehlshabers means military commander, not military administration. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several instances in scholarly publications of formulations identical to the current article title for other German occupation territories, including France, Belgium and Northern France , and Greece. Part of the problem we are dealing with is the way different authors translate German grammar. Sometimes Gebiet is translated as "territory", sometimes as "area", sometimes "in" is left out or replaced with a comma, sometimes it is left "in", sometimes it is abbreviated in the classic German/military way, such as "area of military commander Greece", "command area of Military Commander Greece", etc etc. None of that means that they don't mean the same thing, an occupied territory (or area) subordinated to a German military commander. The telling fact is that many of the links above come from the Nuremberg trial documents or the Waldheim Commission report, which of course both referred to legal translations of primary evidence written in German. On a couple of occasions you can see, even in snippet view, that these are mentioned alongside the occupied territories under civilian government, the Reichskommissariaten. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely the point is that there were a range of areas across Europe that Nazi Germany occupied and imposed a military administration on, either entire former countries, parts of them or amalgamations of those parts. I am not sure we can always talk about a formal, official name for each such entity during that period as opposed to a range of semi-formal descriptive terminology sometimes used in each case in some official contexts at the time (and often rarely found in secondary sources further down the line, especially not as capitalised names or proper noun phrases). With, say, the contemporary UK, we can say definitively that its official name is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" but I'm not sure that kind of thing applies here. I agree we should try to be consistent and it seems to me that some variation for each of these along the lines of "German occupation of/military administration in XX" would work. These are reasonable WP:NDESC titles and are formulations found in sources. Such articles would cover the fact of invasion and occupation, its territorial scope in each case, the nature and apparatus of the administration and any subordinate local civilian authorities, how long it lasted, and what happened in the area during that period. These are discrete topics with a broad but clear focus and, as I keep saying, we really don't need to get bogged down in esoteric and futile meta-debate about prepositions (the sick in/of comparison really doesn't work btw), what constitutes a country, or the difference between a period and an entity. If necessary we can have non-forking sub-articles, such as Commissioner Government etc that focus on specific aspects of the broader topic.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * N-HH, your whole approach is incredibly transparent. You want the article titled "German-occupied Serbia" or "German administration in Serbia". The first is far from NPOV, and the second doesn't cover the scope. I am amazed at your ability to completely ignore questions that are asked in good faith and just crack on with your agenda. You are the one banging on about how you understand the guidelines. Either you understand them or you do not. Either you believe we should IAR or you do not. Is there a common name? Or not? Don't expect people to stay in the discussion if you won't answer queries that are drawn directly from your argumentation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I have repeatedly tried to explain, including just above, how I think the second does cover the scope and I still don't see how the former is POV (that's one of the other things we get too bogged down in). The guidelines ask us to use the common name and/or some accurate and clear, lower case descriptive title, not necessarily some formal title or obscure capitalised term. Are you saying that terms such as "occupation", "administration" and "Serbia" are neither accurately descriptive nor commonly found in sources referring to this topic? That's surely where any problem lies, if that is the belief. And can you clarify what questions I am not answering?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, administration. It is a subset of the whole, and is not relevant in the least. "German", "occupation" and "Serbia" should all be included in a descriptive title. But you are misreading the guideline if you think the descriptive title we use has to actually exist in sources verbatim. It can include terms from sources without being wholly verbatim in sources. See WP:NDESC. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "German occupation/occupied territory of Serbia". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes. Is there a common name in your opinion, and what evidence do you rely on for that if that is the case? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But I'm not suggesting naming this after or limiting its scope to the specific bureaucratic thing arguably known as "The German Administration" - it's the generic descriptor "German administration", which covers all aspects of the wider topic. I know I'm complaining about nitpicking on other points, but there is a difference there. And no a descriptive title does not have to be verbatim, but as I explained way back it's always going to be slightly odd if that phrasing doesn't appear at all, not least because it suggests it doesn't read as very good English. Which "German occupation territory of Serbia" doesn't. We have phrases that appear as descriptive terms in serious books about Yugoslavia and WW2, some in vast numbers, and which also describe the topic clearly and concisely – and yet random WP editors are vetoing them with arcane reasoning. These things are much, much simpler than everyone is making them. As for the common name, the thing is most often referred to as simply Serbia or German-occupied Serbia, or some variation thereof (as I have said many times and as any Google Book search and perusal of the text and maps found in specific books, such as Tomasevich's, will reveal). The former has obvious problems, due to lack of clarity, and I have also acknowledged that the former will not run.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop misquoting Tomasevich, and come to terms with this article's scope. -- Director  ( talk )  18:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I "misquoting" Tomasevich and in what way am I not coming to terms with this article's scope? He clearly talks about the Germans establishing a military occupation in Serbia, "approximately within its pre-1912 frontiers" and "the military administration of the occupation regime". If you actually read anything I've posted, you'll see how I see the scope of the article. I know some posts in this endless discussion are inordinately long but that is just pithy and unhelpful.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets all finally cut the empty talk and try to come to terms regarding the naming of the entire series of military occupation zones of this type. Then we can cook up some kind of title for this thing that apparently has no name in the sources. You can call it "holier than thou" Peacemaker, but I think its obvious that consistency in naming was one of my primary goals here from the start. Mostly because I said so. Frequently.

So maybe I am "holier than thou", if that's your definition, because I'm looking at the big picture. What other motivation might I have to change this title? Financial gain? What I'd like to see is a nice pretty summary article, and a nice tidy template where people can find links to read about these occupation entities and their sinister functionings. I'd like these articles to have titles that are similar, that denote the fact that their subject are military-administrative entities, and I'd like this particular thing not to be called "Serbia" in some way. I wouldn't even mind if its a long and unwieldy title like this one, as long as its consistent.

Again - how are these zones called in English-language literature? That's the crucial question, and I think we need to think about the larger picture here. Because at least "Territory of the Military Commander in XY" certainly isn't it. I'll be much more inclined towards some kind of user-invented title if its consistent with other such articles. -- Director  ( talk )  18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "German military administration in X" seems to be the best formula for all the entries under the "Military administration" section of this template. PS: I´m being concise, I can´t really support anymore the long circuling discussion here. FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. Do you even understand that the Military Administration was only one of three branches of the military occupation command structure in the territory the Military Commander was responsible for? The Military Commander was at the top, then under him the chief of Military Administration (responsible for civil affairs), the chief of the Kommandostab (military operations staff, responsible for military affairs and security), and (later) the Higher SS and Police Leader (responsible for security). Director, just because those other WP articles use the term Military Administration (some of which you have moved to that title yourself), that doesn't mean they are right. Today I looked at a book called "The German occupation of Belgium 1940-1944" by Peter Lang. On page 70-71, he refers to the territorial military commander for Belgium and Northern France. The Nuremberg trial documents refer to the "area of the Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France". These were occupation zones allocated to a military commander, not administrations. "German occupation zone of Serbia" would be fine with me, as would similar combinations, so long as "area", "territory" or "zone" or some geographic term is used in the title to reflect that we are talking about a geographical area, not the subset of the military bureaucracy that was responsible for civil affairs. Sheesh. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. Your proposed title would include a wider scope than the one I asked for, so for me works even better (thanks for your explanation). German occupation zone of Serbia would include the German military commander, the German military administration, the local governaments appointed by them, and everything that happend in that "zone" during that period. Seems fine. FkpCascais (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd explained about five times now how a lower case reference to "military administration in ..", with those words referring to the overall process of administration in an area rather than the specific bureaucratic structure of an Administration, has that broader effect and scope too, which matches the current page, as well as having the advantage of being a phrase actually found in sources and being better English phrasing? Is anyone going to try to rebut that? I don't see the need to necessarily say "zone" or "area". It's implicit in other possible titles that we are talking about an area (and, yes, the period in which that defined area and entity existed).  N-HH   talk / edits  09:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: the other problem with "German occupation zone of Serbia" is that it reads more like an attempt to create a formal title for the thing, rather than being a broad description of the topic, which is surely what we are looking for.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fkp. I'm glad we at least can agree. Utter rubbish, N-HH. This article refers to a zone of occupation and all that happened in it, not just the administration of an entity called "Serbia". Your repeated "explanations" explain nothing except that you blindly continue to insist on the title you want, and will not budge one iota from your object. It needs a term that makes it clear it is a geographical area. Without it, the title insufficiently clear, and the fact that we are talking about an occupation zone is not implicit in your preferred title. The phrase is in sources, I agree, but when it is examined in context, it is not referring to this geographical entity, in virtually all cases it is referring to the branch of the military commander's staff that looked after civil affairs (Harald Turner's bit). What it reads like doesn't really matter so long as it is in reasonable English grammar and accurately conveys what the article is about, which German occupation zone of Serbia achieves. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If yet another detailed and reasonable attempt to explain what a basic English language term means, and how it does indeed cover the broad scope of the topic, is going to be dismissed as "utter rubbish" then there is even less point to this than I thought. Occupation and/or administration by definition take place in or over an area or zone (and, for Director's benefit, for a period of time). You know, like the way that the government/administration of the UK is currently carried out in the UK by the Government/Administration, the latter being different from the former as a concept, and very definitely – as I keep explaining – not being what I or the proposed term would limit the article to. Again can you actually, finally, respond to and/or refute that precise point? Here, again, is a source that uses the term precisely in a generalist (and geographic) context. Here is a second one, that I did not point to previously.


 * And I supposedly won't budge? Previously I was skeptical about "German military administration in Serbia", preferring "German occupation of Serbia" or "German-occupied Serbia". However, I accepted it, as did several others, as a best compromise. Then, having blindly vetoed all but the current title for ages, suddenly you start bringing in this fourth option, and have since rigidly stuck to that while rejecting all alternatives. Motes and eyes and all that.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm signing off for now. My recommendation (which has been voiced in the past on more than one occasion), is that a thread should be posted on the milhist talkpage on the specific subject of determining a standardized, consistent wording for the titles dealing with this type of German WWII occupation zone (I think I even posted such a thing years ago). I know I for one will be much more inclined towards any descriptive title that has achieved consensus for general use on these articles. -- Director  ( talk )  19:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

German-occupied Serbia
Can I, please, get a reminder why "German-occupied Serbia" will 'not fly'? As much as I remember, Direktor was very strongly opposed to it, under the pretense that it was ahistorical, since a) Serbia did not exist as an entity in 1941 so it could not be occupied and b) Serb nationalists would use that title as a proof that Nedić's Serbia was a historical continuation and a legitimate country. I think the concern b) could easily be dismissed, because hundreds of respectable sources do not have a problem naming it like that, and we are not here to spite "Serb nationalists" (or to please them, for that matter). As for concern a), it has certain merit, but 1) Serbia was still the name of that informal region in 1941, (compare Occupation of the Ruhr) 2) Germans named that area 'Serbia' and 3) like N-HH, I find Direktor's readings idiosyncratic and overly picky. Tomasevich alone uses the term 19 times ; sorry, but we aren't supposed to be greater Catholics than Pope. No such user (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been asking for a legitimate explanation for this too, although I am more or less happy to move on and try other titles that people have suggested, given that I don't think it's ever going to appear and people are never going to back down over it. This kind of thing, where we reject what the rest of the world does and try to reinvent the wheel through our own convoluted – and often quite specious – justifications, is far too common on WP and just makes everything needlessly complex. Kind of like the interminable discussions I recall being involved in as to why we can't call Taiwan, er, Taiwan or The Independent a "compact" newspaper.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really sick of these straw men and what really appears to be WP:ICANTHEARYOU-style disruption. Others and myself have explained on numerous, numerous occasions why even talking about such a title is absurd. First and foremost, its the simple fact that this is not an article about "German-occupied Serbia" (whatever "Serbia" may mean therein), its an article about a German military-administered entity . That's not all of course. An entire point-by-point study and essay can be (and has been) written about all the separate, independent, policy-relevant reasons why that title is inappropriate for this article. And a WP:AE/ARBMAC report of similar detail could be compiled on the subject of the relevant POV-pushing, that has already done significant damage to this article through necessitating the imposition of long-term protection.


 * No offense intended, Nsu, honestly, but please keep in mind the sheer length of the discussion on that subject, and please simply re-read the discussion if you really need a reminder on such questions. -- Director  ( talk )  19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with most of your points, Direktor (and a good deal of Peacemaker's), but I'm not ready to beat this particular dead ill horse one more time. With all actors entrenched more or less in their starting positions, I'm inclined to call this a stalemate. Since it all started as a good-faith effort by Joy to try to achieve a consensus, and contrary to the moratorium, I guess we should accept that it failed. At least, I'm satisfied that we stayed reasonably within bounds of WP:CIVIL.
 * I have an idea to resolve this situation, but I think it takes some time and rebuilding of mutual trust, so let's leave the issue for a while.
 * Is everybody OK with hatting this section? We wasted too much time on it yet again. I'll be bold and hat it; I won't bother being reverted, but I honestly don't see much point continuing the debate, as we will not going to convince each other for sure. No such user (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing
This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 14:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Judenfrei
Luxembourg and Estonia were declared Judenfrei before Belgrade. --N Jordan (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that. The whole Serbien ist Judenfrei thing was a self-serving ploy by Turner to make himself look good. I'll make sure it's clear when I get to that section. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation
I see my Serbian translation was merely based on Serbian Wikipedia's article. The only thing is that now this is the only article of its type not to have a local language translation:
 * Government of National Salvation (related)
 * Independent State of Croatia
 * Albanian Kingdom (1939–43)
 * Slovak Republic (1939–45)
 * Hellenic State (1941–44)
 * Lokot Autonomy

As the subject is a collaborationist state and there are named heads of state and government who are Serbian, and as Serbian is also listed as a language next to German, I cannot see what makes this article different from those listed. --OJ (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the German name for an occupied territory, not a state. Surely the title would need to exist in Serbian outside of WP (ie in sources, like the German name, from which this title originated) in order to be translated in WP? The other articles you list (except the GNS article) are WP:OTHERSTUFF, and that is not a reason to do it here. The GNS article has a title that exists (in fact originated, in Serbian), so it is natural that it is translated in that article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not that worried if this is only about occupied territory but in this case, I fail to see why there is this infobox which projects the entity to be similar to the others when we already have the Government of National Salvation. Conerning the rest of the reply, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a weak argument. Had there been something of a 50/50 split, the site not being robotic, then naturally that guideline is valid, but at the moment this looks to me similar to not having a capital city within a sovereign state article, and then claiming OTHERSTUFF when someone cites the other articles which contain them. Essentially this article is other to any of those listed, but my question was what made the remainder so different.--OJ (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the infobox projects the entity to be similar to the others? The GNS was the main puppet government installed by the Germans on this occupied territory, but the other three Balkan ones and the Slovak Republic were all puppet states, while this was not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case there is no requirement for a host of the details contained in the infobox, such as Serbian and German being joint official languages and the Serbian Dinar being the currency. Those are properties of a state (or a client state, regardless). --OJ (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if all of the information there and on Government of National Salvation is correct then it is illogical that this entity should have the Reichsmark as a currency while the other only lists Dinar. --OJ (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An occupied territory still has to have a currency or currencies and official languages for edicts to be issued. The GNS article is in a poor state and needs a lot of work, whereas this one is in relatively good shape. I wouldn't be using it as a comparison. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. Both articles are relatively poor in my opinion but I wasn't focusing on this. This particular article with its infobox and the details you mentioned, coupled with its status as German-occupied land makes sovereign status unclear. The missing Serbian translation (or even attempt to translate) suggests a German property while the infobox largely projects the entity as Serbian. --OJ (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, and find it difficult to believe that anyone would read the infobox or lead and think that its status was unclear. Its sovereign status is entirely clear (it was an occupied territory, not a puppet state) and the infobox could be any clearer about that, the Nazi flag and eagle and list of German commander names being major giveaways. Puppet states have their own flag and coat of arms etc, and a list of local leaders. The fact that the Germans allowed that the Serbian language and a local currency could also be used (in addition to German and the Reichsmark are the add-ons to the German-centric content in the infobox, not the other way around. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, information regarding an occupied territory requires only its outline and the dynamics. Many lands across the world have been and still are occupied; German insignia suggests that Germany annexed the territory and if this is so, either it is wrong to continue calling it an occupation or it is wrong to present it as de jure German, take your pick. Obviously if it was merely an occupation even from the German point of view then the continuation of Serbian being the language and the dinar being the currency would go without saying, needless to say, I fail to see the relevance for a population statistic. It is one thing to say that 4.5 million lived under occupation, but another thing entirely to state: the occupied territory had a population of 4.5 million, particularly as this was an arbitrary outline in the first place, inconsistent with any pre-German presence classification. Those details generally belong to the Commissioner Government and Government of National Salvation articles. The very establishment of those two named entities further confuses the sovereign issue, since in order to be a "puppet state" it would have to be sovereign, or at least declared as independent. If not, it is not a "puppet state" but an internal territory run by local functionaries as Algeria had been in the Fourth French Republic. In addition, Government of National Salvation appears to have an infobox on local data but its predecessor Commissioner Government doesn't, and from its history I even see that you once vehemently opposed that article's existence and pushed to have everything (of what was formally the same thing as the Govt of National Salvation) included in this article. Now if that isn't creating confusion, then I don't know what is. --OJ (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are looking at this with a very peculiar perspective, and all I see is a lot of rambling wikilawyering without anything substantive being advanced. Something which is very common around here. The situation of this territory, and the Germans that ran it as a remaining fragment of Yugoslavia, is entirely clear to any reasonable reader who doesn't have a particular POV to push. Unless you have a reliable source that used the Serbian translation, that's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Germans that ran it as a remaining fragment of Yugoslavia" at most introduces a third area of confusion since you don't appear to know whether this was Germany, Serbia or Yugoslavia. All that is known (by everybody) is the structure. As for POV, I don't know what you are getting at. I sought to have the name written in Serbian, which is not the same thing as adding comments to suggest that the Military Commander was good or bad, so only you can elaborate here. Obviously you failed to answer a single point I made on the note of confusion in the earlier post, but then it is not entirely for you to answer those things because most of the information in the infobox was added before you made your first edit to the page. However what I have noticed with regards this article is this: it wasn't originally called Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, and the article has gone through transformation several times and this has been characterised by editors not able to agree with each other whether this was a country or subdivision. We do however know that it began life in 2006 as Nedić Serbia and it rightfully contained a translation. Even now it doesn't have the current English title on all other Wikipedia articles. In Russian for instance, it is plainly Serbia 1941-1944. Nedić Serbia now redirects here and is acknowledged in the opening lines, and we know this translation. I note also that the Serbo-Croat article is at Vojna uprava u Srbiji (Military Administration in Serbia), and this term is used in Politika Online in naming form (see capital V, all remaining title letters are not capitalised in Serbian/Croatian), just as it had been on this article at one time in 2011. Amid disagreement over just what this article represents it eventually became plain 'Serbia' until you removed the final reference. I'm not a detective and I'm not about to waste time searching for the conversation to which the summary referred, my point is you hit the nail on the head with your very comment, "Unless you have a reliable source that used the Serbian translation, that's me done". This is completely different from arguing that a Serbian translation should not feature for some reason; one had done for six years. It just means you're not sure what should go in its place, whereas I on the other hand don't mind what does so long as there is something if indeed this is a Serbia-related article, no Wikilawyering, no POV pushing. --OJ (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Cohen
Philip J. Cohen was a dermatologist, not a historian. It's questionable who actually wrote "his" books. Excessive referenced here (17 times). I've removed him for all things he claimed are already and more accurately covered by professional historians and academics. He acted actually as a propagandist "In 1998, he received an award from the President of Croatia for his "contribution in spreading the truth about the aggression against Croatia" and "exposing Great Serb and anti-Croat propaganda" through his books." from the Philip J. Cohen article

Also, from Raphael Israeli, Albert Benabou: Savagery in the Heart of Europe: The Bosnian War (1992-1995) Context, Perspectives, Personal Experiences, and Memoirs Strategic Book Publishing, 2013, ISBN 9781628570151 pages 427-428
 * "Dennis Reinhartz, an American Historian, said in his review of Philip Cohen's Serbia's Secret War that it belonged to the "current popular-historical and journalist literature that seeks to demonize and condemn more than to chronicle and elucidate fairly". He added that the book was in danger of degenerating itself into an irrational conspiracy history by belonging to those histories of the Balkans that contribute little to understanding the past and its impact on the present and future."

then from Raphael Israeli: The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945, Transaction Publishers, 2013 ISBN 9781412849753 page 83.
 * "Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?"

--178.221.137.49 (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cohen is under discussion at Talk:Banjica concentration camp, and the positive and negative reviews of his book are well sourced at his bio article. I suggest you let the RfC there run its course before making such wholesale deletions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that another editor has reverted your deletions of Cohen, so you obviously have no consensus for those deletions. Please stop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Culture
The last paragraph: "The German occupation authorities issued special orders regulating the opening of theatres and other places of entertainment which excluded Jews.[40] The Serbian National Theatre in Belgrade remained open during this time. Works performed during this period included La bohème, The Marriage of Figaro, Der Freischütz, Tosca, Dva cvancika and Nesuđeni zetovi." is out of context (first sentence) or not sourced (other two sentences).--178.221.134.79 (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

178.221.134.79, I've added an inline tag noting that those last two sentences need a source. DirectAttrition (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Appeal to the Serbian Nation
This section is written ignoring the facts and based on un-academic (Cohen) or un-reliable sources (Ramet). Here we can see the facts (use the google translate,it's fair enough to help you to underestand the Serbian text, I do not have time now to translate the quotes)

Borković, Milan (1979): Kontrarevolucija u Srbiji: Kvislinška uprava : 1941 - 1944, Volume 1 - publisher: Sloboda Beograd, pages 75-76


 * Policijski organi vršili su svakodnevno pritisak na veliki broj naučnih, kulturnih, političkih i javnih radnika u Beogradu da potpišu ovaj apel, koji je bio zaključen 10. VIII, a objavljen u Novom vremenu 13. avgusta 1941. I pored drastičnih pretnji, izvestan broj uglednih kulturnih i javnih radnika i rodoljuba odbio je da potpiše ovaj apel, među njima književnici Ivo Andrić i Isidora Sekulić; zatim, profesori univerziteta Miloš Đurić, Milivoje Kostić i mnogi drugi.[144] Koliko je slabo bilo dejstvo takozvanog Apela srpskom narodu, govori, pored ostalog, i izveštaj tadašnjeg v.d. komandanta kvislinške Srpske žandarmerije, od 15. avgusta 1941: „Apel bivših ministara i viđenijih ličnosti, objavljen preko Novog vremena u odjeku, imao je slabo dejstvo, skoro nikakvo, a možda čak i štetno, jer, koliko sam obavešten, komunisti baš tim apelom utiču na narod, navodeći kako su apel potpisali sve sami ministri, generali, direktori banaka, okupacionih društava i slično i kako su se ti ljudi prodali Nemcima da bi sačuvali svoja bogatstva. ... "[145]

Marjanović, Jovan (1964): Srbija u Narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi, publisher: Nolit/Prosveta Beograd, page 144


 * U težnji da stvori utisak kako je srpska inteligencija na strani okupatora, komesarsko Ministarstvo prosvete, po nalogu Gestapoa, početkom avgusta sastavilo je jedan apel srpskom narodu, u kome se narod poziva na umirenje i poštovanje okupatorskog reda i mira. Policijski organi vršili su svakovrsni pritisak na veliki broj naučnih, kulturnih, političkih i javnih radnika u Beogradu da potpišu ovaj apel. Predviđene potpisnike sazvao je u zgradi Opštine upravnik grada Beograda Dragi Jovanović i održao im je jedan govor pun pretnji. Ne nalazeći u tom trenutku drugog izlaza, a u težnji da se spase zatvora i logora, većina pozvanih potpisala je ovaj apel, koji je list „Novo Vreme" objavio 13. avgusta 1941. godine. Bilo je, međutim, istaknutih kulturnih i javnih radnika koji su tada smogli hrabrosti i odbili sve pretnje i pritisak policije i okupatora.

''Jovanović, Dragoljub (2005): Ljudi, ljudi... medaljoni 94 političkih, javnih, naučnih i drugih savremenika, publisher: Filip Višnjić Beograd, page 240 ISBN 9788673634265''


 * Ima indicija da nisu svi navedeni u spisku potpisnika "Apela" zaista ga i potpisali (npr. Viktor Novak).

Petranović, Branko (1992): Srbija u drugom svetskom ratu 1939-1945 publisher: Vojnoizdavacki i novinski centar Beograd, page 215


 * Apel nisu potpisali Ivo Andrić, Isidora Sekulić, Miloš Đurić, Milivoje Kostić i drugi. Potpisivalo se pod psihološkim pritiskom,strahom od posledica, direktnom prinudom. Bilo je i onih koji nisu mogli da demantuju da nisu stavili potpis na ovaj iznuđeni dokument.

The references and quoted text are showing a few crucial things about this pamphlet
 * 1) there is no document bearing the signatures of the names found in the „Novo Vreme" published Apel
 * 2) there were people who refused to sign the Apel despite the pressures and threats (writers Ivo Andrić i Isidora Sekulić; the Belgrade University professors Miloš Đurić, Milivoje Kostić)
 * 3) a number of people signed the Apel under the pressures and threats
 * 4) there were people who did not sign the Apel and their names were listed in the Apel (Prof. Viktor Novak)
 * 5) the Apel had a weak, or no influence, or even harmful influence according to a German collaborator report ("komandant kvislinške Srpske žandarmerije")

This sentence is placed in the section out of the historical context
 * Aćimović also gave orders that the wives of communists and their sons older than 16 years of age be arrested and held, and the Germans burned their houses and imposed curfews

Proposal: Delete the whole section or rewrite in the line of credible and documented sources--178.221.134.79 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ramet is completely reliable and corroborates aspects of Cohen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Geography
This section is pointless in its entirety since the geography of that region is the same for centuries and possibly for millenia. There is nothing specific in the region geography particular to that time and not existing way before the German occupation nor after the liberation of Yugoslavia.

Proposal: Remove the whole section.--178.221.134.79 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * this comment is pointless in its entirety. The geographical limits of this occupied territory were unique and need to be defined clearly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peacemaker67, the Geography section is not pointless. It is an important aspect in understanding the history and development of the organization. DirectAttrition (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead Clean
The lead needs to be revised to follow Wikipedias guidelines (MOS:LEAD). I will post the appropriate template at the top of the page. DirectAttrition (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what it is about the lead that doesn't follow WP:LEAD? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead of article goes into too much detail on some specific aspects. Some of the information in the lead is not included in the body of the article. I feel the information included in the lead could be summarized better. DirectAttrition (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kosovo
Definition of territory in first paragraph is false. Kosovo was part of Serbia, back then. Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.85.94 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all of it was included in the German occupied territory, only the northern part. See the Geography section for details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Undue
How in the world do you think that this addition is not WP:UNDUE? That's general history of occupied Yugoslavia during the WW2, at best.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It is directly related to Nedic's idea of an expansion of this territory to include eastern Bosnia, which is covered in Hoare and other sources, and is also covered in Jezdimir Dangić.
 * Do read WP:UNDUE. So you are saying to me that the part about the Chetniks is not undue? Good one. What's next, anything will be good to go?
 * Once again - but with diplomatic activity of the NDH authorities toward Berlin attempt to change state borders of the NDH were prevented 23:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mate, I am entirely familiar with UNDUE. This is about the possible expansion of the borders of this territory, it is completely relevant. It could be written better, but the basic thrust of it is entirely within the scope of the article. If you disagree, try dispute resolution. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

questionable source As far as edit summary of editor Sadko, it is a scientific article from 2004, Dr. sc. Mihael Sobolevski (Sobolewski) was graduated history in January 1963 at the Philosophical Faculty in Zagreb. He worked at the Institute for the History of the Croatian Workers' Movement (1962-1966), his positions ranging from archival assistant to research assistant in the Department People's Liberation War (NOR); In late 1989, he was working on jobs senior research associate at the Institute for the History of the Croatian Workers' Movement in Zagreb, soon renamed the Institute for Contemporary History, and then to today's Croatian Institute of History. The topics of M. Sobolevski's research are certain aspects of contemporary Croatian history with special emphasis on the activities of political parties, prominent politicians, the history of Croatian emigration, the anti-fascist struggle and especially the research of Croatia's human losses in the Second World War (1941-1945), which he published in his books and brochures, and in papers in various journals and anthologies. He is one of the top experts for Croatian history between the two world wars and during the Second World War, about which he made a significant contribution to Croatian historiography...etc Mikola22 (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)