Talk:Axis occupation of Serbia
Latest comment: 12 years ago by WhiteWriter in topic Split of Yugoslavia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Axis occupation of Serbia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Split of Yugoslavia
editHmm. We should actually create article that will deal with entire axis split and section of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That would be quite useful article, and we dont have it now. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, this article is ahistorical. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ahistorical? How? --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because the "Serbia" that was occupied by the Axis in 1941 did not include all the territory that is now part of modern Serbia. This article relates something that happened in 1941-44 to the boundaries of an entity that exists now. That's ahistorical and creates a false sense of continuity. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- And country Australia was in existence when Aborigines were living there? [1] If this is not ahistorical for other countries then it is not for Serbia. Nemambrata (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Nemam. We are obviously talking about different Serbia's... --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course you agree with each other. The example is not valid. That is the history of Australia article, not the "Aboriginal occupation of Australia" article. I have no issue with a section in the History of Serbia article, just a separate article with this scope. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- But it is not about title here, but the usage of word "Serbia". Nemam said that Australia didnt existed at the time, but we still use the word "Australia" to explain the geographical territory. Same should be used for Serbia, and it is used here in the same way. You can see a lot of articles that uses terms like that in historical articles. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course you agree with each other. The example is not valid. That is the history of Australia article, not the "Aboriginal occupation of Australia" article. I have no issue with a section in the History of Serbia article, just a separate article with this scope. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Nemam. We are obviously talking about different Serbia's... --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- And country Australia was in existence when Aborigines were living there? [1] If this is not ahistorical for other countries then it is not for Serbia. Nemambrata (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because the "Serbia" that was occupied by the Axis in 1941 did not include all the territory that is now part of modern Serbia. This article relates something that happened in 1941-44 to the boundaries of an entity that exists now. That's ahistorical and creates a false sense of continuity. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ahistorical? How? --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)