Talk:Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia/Archives 1

Rename

The current title is confusing as there is no indication that Serbia was occupied by a foreign power. It is too long per WP:CONCISE and it should match Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I) which took place at the same time in the other half of the country. I suggest to rename it: Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia during WWI or for short Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia, just like there are articles for German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Norway, Albania, Belgium, Estonia..etc per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME Aeengath (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Imperial and Royal Military Administration in Serbia → Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia – current title does not mention that another country occupied Serbia, it should match Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I) which took place at the same time in the other half of the country. Aeengath (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support current title is obscure, lacks naturalness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It clearly is a more suitable name, since it is more correct and informative. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support That would be reasonable.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, military administration is that what it is, expressis verbis, officially k. u. k. Militärverwaltung in Serbien in German, the events are described in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC))
  • @KIENGIR: Yes I don’t think anybody is denying that it was a military administration, the german name is clear but a literal translation gets confusing and obscure like Peacemaker67 says. The confusion starts with Imperial and Royal since it does not indicate the country. The proper name should be Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian which is how for example the embassies were called per WP:CONCISE Austro-Hungarian is a better choice than Imperial and Royal since it is the most commonly recognizable name per WP:UCRN and most sources on the subject use it Austro-Hungarian War Aims in the Balkans during World War I or The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918 or Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War. Military Administration is correct but again Austro-Hungarian Military Administration in Serbia could be shorten since we haven’t even added the dates yet and since a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of an hostile army (according to Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. Art 42) it seems like a better choice per WP:CONCISE again to use Occupation and match the article about Serbia Under Bulgarian Occupation. Finally since territories of Serbia had been occupied before by the Habsburg Empire, not to get it mixed up with Habsburg-occupied Serbia (1788–1792) or Habsburg-occupied Serbia (1686–91) we should indicate the time period with during the First World War or (World War I) per MOS:ABBR.Aeengath (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion, it is unique and clear what it refers to. Here there is not such like proper name else then what it is officially (zero connection to how an embassy would be called), the rest are your opinions and considerations. You put too much effort to emphasize occupation, although nobody denied it (it is astonishing you even cite law for that...). Some of your points are considerable, but I wanted to express if something has an official name, that holds and should not be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

• Support Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia during World War I per WP:NATURALNESS 69.119.156.1 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Imperial and Royal Military Administration in Serbia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thallóczy

Moved to Talk:Lajos Thallóczy § Thallóczy

 – more appropriate location to continue the conversation about name variants. Aeengath (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:,

Just because some Austrian documents reguraly written some foreign names in a Germanized form, that does not mean the subject's name was German. He was a Hungarian citizen, and his main page is alsó following his official Hungarian name, so there is no problem just to refer to that.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC))

It is not uncommon, this is how his name was spelled according to official documents therefore how he was known, it is clearly visible at the bottom of this article. As civilian commissar he must have approved it. His page actually mentions the different spellings that he used but forgets to mention that he was born into a German-speaking Hungarian family. Aeengath (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not say it was uncommon and I did not deny anything about military documents, what I said that Austrian issued documents reguraly Germanized names even if the family did not have any German background, and and alternate spelling does not imply necessarily that the main spelling should be ignored.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

We have to follow the reference WP:CITE, both sources I use have that spelling including Prit Buttar who is British and even Mitrović. For the sake of WP:VER the spelling should not be changed, adding to it between parentheses is fine. It would be interesting to find out why he used that many names.Aeengath (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, this is just overreacted, the cited policies does not exclude what I say, we may safely link people to the names they are identified in WP, since it is the most relevant. I am not interested to add it parenthesis, it would be a bit strained, since it is not a common practise. Having more names has nothing special, since Austrian military used Germanized names, and while was active in the Balkans, no surpise he was called in a Slavic orthography, but it does not change his original, official name. I just want to indicate I won't accept the recent case necessarily as general and common, because of the earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC))

I suggest you look him up, he was from a German-speaking Hungarian family, his real surname was Strommer, he changed his surname after a Croatian noble family called Talovci. This is the way his name is spelled in the bibliography mentioning him as civilian commissar of Serbia. It's all in the sources. Aeengath (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, you argumentation is circular, the family's origin is irrelevant, also what is the name's origin. It's officially Lajos Thallóczy. Some bibliographies or Austrian military papers or other stuff are a thing, but does not his official name. I just wanted indicate I won't argue more, accept like this now, but this is not a general practise, don't take it as automatical.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC))

Right there is nothing to argue about, on last circular time his name was not Germanized he was born Ludwig, the article shows both spellings anyway, sources are reliable information can be verified. case closed.

@Aeengath:, nope, he was born Lajos Benedek Strommer.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:, here are my sources:

In 1877 he changed his name from Ludwig Strommer to Lajos (Ludwig) Thallóczy for reasons of his career, after a Hungarian-Croatian noble family.

Born Ludwig Strommer of Hungarian-German origin, Thallóczy changed his name to Lajos Thallóczy in 1877 for career reasons

Lajos Thallóczy was born as Ludwig Strommer in Buda on December 8, 1857. In his hometown he studied Slavic languages, philosophy and law

Yes, foreign sources are usually inaccurate on this, not knowing exactly how Hungarian baptism papers (both religious and administered) were managed in some periods. The most authentic.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

The most authentic foreign sources are usually inaccurate on this . I am happy to discuss possible changes about the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia but this is clearly going off-topic. I use Dr. Ludwig (Lajos) von Thallóczy to show both spellings of his name since he clearly used both languages as can be seen here and here. He also used many more variations see Library of Congress. This talk should be moved to Talk:Lajos Thallóczy as it will be more appropriate and may be of interest to other editors. Aeengath (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Conversation has been moved to Talk:Lajos_Thallóczy#Thallóczy. Aeengath (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Images

@WEBDuB: The images currently on the page are all related to the section next to them, can you please only replace them if you can improve them or best add content to the article to provide room for more images. Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE Thank you! Aeengath (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Zemun vs. Semlin

I have made a change to use Zemun vs. Semlin in the text of the article, and user User:Aeengath reverted citing WP:MODERNPLACENAME policy. However, policy clearly states "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same". I am not aware of modern sources using the name Semlin, and vast majority of inhabitants in that time period called it Zemun anyway.

I would like to revert the reversal, but I do not want to descend into edit war. Thoughts?

Ђидо (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ђидо, No risks of edit war over here, I chose the format: "historical name (modern name)" in this article to make the historical context as clear as possible. For reliable modern sources there are quite a few such as Spencer C. Tucker 2013, Sean McMeekin 2013, Hew Strachan 2014, Manfried Rauchensteiner 2014, Christopher Clark 2014, Vojislav G. Pavlović 2019. Regards Aeengath (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: Shotgunscoop (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Shotgunscoop - many thanks for taking this on! Aeengath (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article criteria:

• 1. In general, well written and covered, reads with relative ease. Grammar and style could be improved. (No for now)
• 2. Images have been checked for copyright, doesn't seem to have plagiarism or original research, citations good. (Yes)
• 3. Appropriately covers and stays on the main topic (Yes)
• 4. Contains charged language. (No)
• 5. Doesn't seem to be an edit war. (Yes)
• 6. Media are appropriate for the article and licensed. (Yes)

Comments (Round 1)

Grammar/Style: The article has many instances of charged language that need to be removed (ex. "harshest measures" in 5th paragraph of lede. Many paragraphs are run-on sentences and neverending clauses. Confusion with periods and commas can easily be misinterpreted in some sentences in the article.

Removed charged words and rephrased lead for clarity. Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In "The campaign of the central powers", what is meant by a "military convention" being signed? Does it mean a treaty?

Rephrased section for clarity with new elements Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good.

In "Occupation forces", were the garrison forces Austro-Hungarian or drafted from the local populace? Also, do the numbers 70,000 and 50,000 refer to the number of Austro-Hungarian soldiers?

Reorganised section, removed potentially confusing sentences. Is that better? Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely better. Only thing I changed is the semicolon to a comma. Although it's still technically gramatically incorrect, I think it makes more sense from a grammatical point of view.

The last paragraph of "Denationalisation and depoliticisation" and the first paragraph of "Repression" contain duplicate information. Also, "Repression" could be renamed to "Repression of Serbs" to be more precise, perhaps?

Well done spotting that duplicate! removed! I don't think adding Repression "of Serbs" for that section is necessary as, apart from the minority mentioned previously in the article, the country was pretty much ethnically homogeneous. Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense.

General Conrad should be switched to General von Hötzendorf by default, is there a special reason for the use of the first name Conrad?

Conrad was actually his last name, he used both long and shortened versions of his name as mentioned on his article. Since in most sources used for this article, he is just referred as Conrad example, I have switched them all to General Conrad for consistency.Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense.

The article doesn't elaborate on what Serbian chetniks are and the article supposedly dedicated to them is not very informative. Could you clarify what these people are?

Added some info about Chetniks and re-organised that section with a bit more content. Yes you are right that Chetnik article is not very informative, it's next on my list! Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice!

Overall, the article can be taken to good article status after clarifying a few minor points and a general copyedit, which I can do if you don't want to. Thanks!

---

Comments (Round 2, Final) @Aeengath:, just in case you didn't notice

Paragraph 2 of the lede mentions how there were three failed Austro-Hungarian offensives but there are only mentions of 2 failed offensives in the article.

reworked that part to bring the content back Aeengath (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good.

The section "Punitive expedition and first occupation contains the word Balkanstreitkräfte. Could this word be clarified/translated?

added the translation and the source Aeengath (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good.

In "Tensions with Bulgaria regarding south Serbia", is the "Albanian-inhabited Serbian territory" in the second paragraph referring to "greater part of Kosovo", "Metohija", south Serbia as a whole, or "a smaller part of Kosovo"?

I decided to re-write to the whole paragraph to make it clearer, what do you think? Aeengath (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, I changed some grammar but tried not to mess with the content.

Another word to clarify - "Etappenzone" in the first paragraph of "Economic exploitation and famine".

added explanation Aeengath (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks great.

Finished my copyedit. I'm going to pass this review now, unless you have any other questions. Thanks! Shotgunscoop (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Shotgunscoop: for your review and comments, Best, Aeengath (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantasy Picture about István Tisza on the Serbian front

There were no Serbian Front when the picture was shot. It is a photograph about István Tisza on the Italian front. István Tisza was not soldier until 1917. Please remove it--Szudar (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Szudar: Serbia was under Austro-Hungarian military occupation from late 1915 to 1918, Tisza toured Belgrade and northern Serbia in May 1916 this is sourced in the article. That image comes from the Austrian National Library which does not mention where it was taken. If the image was indeed taken in Italy I’ll update the caption accordingly. Best Aeengath (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, Tisza was not soldier until 1917. He served only on the ITalian front. Italian front existed, but the Serbian front did not exist since February of 1916. Check mate.--Szudar (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Szudar: Not sure what you mean by “Serbian front” there is not mention of that anywhere in the article or even on wikipedia, the caption says: "The Prime Minister of Hungary, Count István Tisza, toured Belgrade and northern Serbia in May 1916” Serbia was under military occupation for most of the war it’s all explained in the Annexation section of the article. To avoid getting blocked in the future please follow WP:BRDD instead of reverting and re-reverting which constitutes WP:EW, concerning edit summaries like this one please read WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:ESDONTS especially if English is not your first language, it will help other editors to better understand you. Best. Aeengath (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Dd you see the military uniform? Tisza was not soldier until 1917. So what are you taling about?--Szudar (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)