Talk:Axis occupation of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:POVFORK

I prodded this article on the basis that it is a WP:POVFORK of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia that should just be a redirect. The prod has been removed, and I will therefore reprod it at WP:AfD, with full justification, including diffs to similar edit-warring regarding this issue on other articles by the same apparently (new) editor and other editors recently blocked for edit-warring on the same issue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Look Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany. This have nothing with your strange article with name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. And you should realy try to behave friendly and to assume good faith about other users. Nemambrata (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

you would be surprised how friendly I can be when you actually engage on the talkpage and don't editwar without understanding that you are using non-WP:RS. The two sources you are using are clearly not WP:RS. Please read the policy, which you clearly haven't, or you wouldn't keep re-instating the non-WP:RS references. And your Norway example is just not relevant here, because Norway was a sovereign state before it was occupied. Serbia wasn't and hadn't even been a division of Yugoslavia since 1929. The territory of the former Kingdom of Serbia had been divided between several banovina, none of which was called Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For info, the MILHIST discussion on the official name which was sorted out by an experienced admin is here Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How official stamps and money from that time are not WP:RS? And it is not important was Serbia in that time country or province or not. Name Serbia had geographical meaning and geographical area can be under occupation, no? We have articles about occupation of Vojvodina, Bačka and Baranja, no? And what is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prehistoric_Serbia There was Serbia in prehistory but not in 1941? Nemambrata (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is about making the effort to use the appropriate contemporary name for the period. I have sought advice from the MILHIST team, and so far they are unanimous that is the way articles should be titled. In fact, there has been the suggestion that we would be rewriting history if we used the names of the current territories or states. Given that it was the whole of Yugoslavia that was occupied (not Serbia, which did not exist at the time as I have pointed out already), I am beginning to think that this article should be moved to Occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII with sections for each territory that was divided up amongst the Axis, one of which would relate to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, another to the NDH, and also one for each distinct area that was occupied or annexed. Each of these sections would summarise a separate article on the subject of that section, which could go into more detail. Many such articles already exist, although, as you have pointed out, they may not use the appropriate contemporary name Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941–1944 for example, uses a contemporary name which combines three divisions that were made by the Axis, Banat, Bačka and the NDH. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides MILHIST (a project where you are very active with 58 contributions) you forgot to mention that you started RSN and raised this issue on WikiProjectYugoslavia page (where you are one of main contributors, together with some other editors who frequently coordinate their actions). Many editors there don't support your point but you somehow forgot to mention that bringing only MILHIST which is result of your claim that Serbia did not exist at that. Somebody who don't AGF could see it as tendentious editing.

The appropriate contemporary name of the occupied territory was in fact Serbia. Your claim that Serbia did not exist at that time is incorrect. That territory was referred to as Serbia for centuries. In fact it is the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia that did not exist until Serbia was occupied.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, I have absolutely no idea where you are going with the references to my activity levels at MILHIST or your apparent and inexplicable disapproval for me raising this issue on WikiProject Yugoslavia (which is of course the most logical place to raise it). Not sure how you know about the many editors there that don't support my point, as they haven't been posting on the talkpage, but no matter. I also cannot understand the sentence that starts with 'Many editors...' With respect it doesn't make sense (ie there are words missing or something). What actually does matter is sources, reliable secondary ones. Which I have repeatedly asked you for, but so far only links to images of stamps have been cited. I have provided two for the official name, along with a link to the extended discussion of the official name on WT:MILHIST. I have many more, but one I find compelling is from Pavlowitch's 2002 'Serbia: the history behind the name', p. 133

"Serbs generally considered that the 'Serbian question' - the question of their community's integration - had been solved by the mere fact that they were all gathered in Yugoslavia (with the exception of a few in Romania and Hungary). 'Serbs' figured until 1929 in the official designation of the state, and the tripartite Yugoslav coat-of-arms and national anthem continued until the end to have a Serbian component, but otherwise there was no 'Serbia' (my emphasis). It was not even clear any longer in people's minds what Serbia was, regionally or historically. Was it the pre- or post-1912 kingdom, or even the Serbia of November 1918."

That is the sort of source I am talking about, a professor of history who wrote a book about the history of Serbia. Not a picture of a stamp. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Article should not be moved to Occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII. If Serbia did not exist in this time then Yugoslavia did not exist too because it was destroyed and divided by Axis. There was no Yugoslavia in 1941-1944. But, we can maybe use title "Occupation of Serbian lands in World War II" or "History of Serbia during World War II" proposed by user DIREKTOR here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yugoslavia#Occupation_of_Yugoslavia_in_WWII Nemambrata (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

the point is that all occupied countries still exist when occupied, even of the occupiers 'split them up' or whatever. That is well established international law. The state was called Yugoslavia when it was invaded and occupied. During the war the Acis called different areas different things, and even helped establish what they treated as an independent country (the NDH), but the rest of the world considered the Yugoslav government in exile was the government, it had just lost its sovereignty while occupied. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Antidiskriminator. Serbia geographicaly exist for centuries and article with name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” is about illegal Nazi entity that was not recognized by anybody. it look that Peacemaker67 want to promote this ilegal Nazi entity in wikipedia. is this place where nazism should be promoted? I think no. Serbia is name for old historical country and it was occupied by Nazis. we should not promote Nazi entities. and Peacemaker67 realy promote this because this user placed this Nazi name into many articles. is there some policy in Wikipedia against promotion of nazism? this is also my opinion about proposed rename to “Occupation of Yugoslavia”: I think that this page is part of the series “history of serbia” and should have focus on that. Peacemaker67 can create other article about occupation of yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGMOSQUITO (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: you said:"What actually does matter is sources, reliable secondary ones. Which I have repeatedly asked you for, but so far only links to images of stamps have been cited....That is the sort of source I am talking about, a professor of history who wrote a book about the history of Serbia."

Please find below two secondary sources you extensively use in some other articles:

• Jozo Tomasevich: War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration extensively uses term "occupied Serbia". He mentions Serbia more than 100 times and the whole chapter (page 64) is titled "The German system of occupation in Serbia"
• Jozo Tomasevich:The Chetniks: page 96 says: Stambolic, "The Occupation of Serbia in 1941," p. 50. This article (1953) is the earliest systematic Yugoslav study of the German occupation of Serbia. See also ViSnjic, "The German Occupation System in Serbia in 1941."

There are, of course, many other secondary sources (1,090 GBS hits for "occupied serbia" 1941, )

Conclusion: There are plenty of secondary sources which support the assertion that Nazi Germany occupied Serbia during WWII.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm picking up on an earlier thread here, but if what you want is an article about the history of Serbia during WW2, then why not 'History of Serbia during World War II'? It has been suggested before. It doesn't imply anything about a state being occupied in my view, as it doesn't mention occupation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The thopic of this article is occupation. Occupation of Serbia. It is notable thopic which is covered by thousands of sources. Current name satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.

I am against the misleading title you proposed. Modern day Serbia did not exist during WWII. Also, WWII started in 1939. Serbia was occupied in 1941.

I think that this debate has come to a natural end.

Don't rename this article unless you gain consensus first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:POVFORK. Only small areas of the territory of what is modern-day Serbia were part of anything other than the Wehrmacht occupation territory. They hardly warrant a seperate article. Additionally, there is already a separate article on the main non-German occupied territory, Baranja and Backa [1]. This article retroactively applies modern-day terms to a historic period. One might as well create the "Roman occupation of France" article.

The matter should be reported and an AfD filed. -- Director (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect.

1. The thopic of this article is much broader than the thopic of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The thopic of this article is not only the territory of Serbia occupied by Nazi Germany. It was only a part of Serbia. There were parts of the territory of Serbia occupied by Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary.
2. Geographical region which was referred to as Serbia is not modern-day term.
3. The thopic is notable and covered by thousands of sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

director, look that you do not know geography. occupy parts of serbia that were not under military administration were big and big serbian cities were there. bačka with big cities novi sad and subotica, srem with big cities sremska mitrovica and zemun, south serbia with big cities pirot and vranje, kosovo with several big cities (or you say that kosovo is not part of serbia?). most countries recognize that kosovo is part of serbia. BIGMOSQUITO (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Its redundant, BIGMOSQUITO. Redundant. We already have an article about the military administration and Bačka. And you can't write an article about the occupation of Sremska Mitrovica or the two villages in the south. Besides which, what little there is to say on the occupation of SM should be covered in the NDH article, while Kosovo has the Albanian Kingdom article (btw I'm actually a supporter of Serbia's claim on Kosovo myself, so don't get any wrong ideas there).

But what bothers me most is the retroactive application of modern-day borders. Its a-historical and misleading. -- Director (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What would really be wrong is to use borders of the region of Serbia in 1913 or some archaic alternatives.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I said I was done, but can't help myself. Can I confirm what boundaries are within the scope of this article? Which Serbia exactly? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is explained in the article. You can also check the sources. Please don't suggest to use archaic language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The borders of modern-day Serbia? I think that is where MILHIST indicated this could be construed as re-writing history. And what sources? There aren't any except Hehn, and I don't think you mean him. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't mean Hehn. He is the only source for another article's title which has serious problem with its topic and name because it is not WP:COMMONNAME. That is not the case with this article. The topic of this article is covered with thousands of sources. I doubt that any of them uses archaic language, but you can easily google it and check yourself.

Although you said you are done, you are of course free to ask for clarification of any other part of the title. Serbia, world, war, occupation... You are also, of course, free to disagree with other editors, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.

The problem with discussions like that is that a few people end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. In order to prevent that, I propose to all editors to refrain from further discussion, unless it is really necessary. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The territory of puppet state of Serbia established by Nazi Germany

was divided into 14 counties on 23 December 1941 (Srbija je podeljena na 14 okruga: Banatski okrug (sedište u Petrovgradu); Beogradski (Beograd); Valjevski (Valjevo); Zaječarski (Zaječar); Kragujevački (Kragujevac); Kraljevački (Kraljevo); Kruševački (Kruševac); Leskovački (Leskovac); Mitrovački (Kosovska Mitrovica); Moravski (Ćuprija); Niški (Niš); Požarevački (Požarevac); Užički (Užice); Šabački (Šabac). Uvedena je i nova podela na srezove, kojih je sada bilo 93.) says contemporary historian here. I think this is valuable information which should be added into administrative division subsection of German occupation section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source which could be probably used in section about the education. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review the actual criteria for reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is work of Jozo Tomasevich: War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. In this work (p.74) he confirmes that:"prewar administrative (banovinal) division of Serbia was no longer suitable.... The country was divided into forteen districts (okruga)."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Supposed single source/misrepresentation of sources to support Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

Now that the Pavlowitch 2002 citation has been edit-warred off every Serbia-related article and I have been accused of wilfully misrepresenting sources and using two references to strengthen the citation (both of which are unsubstantiated rot), I will lay this all out for you (again, as it is all in the talk page archives of the article)

There are five sources that support this as the official name of the territory. They are:

1. Pavlowitch 2002, 'Serbia: the History behind the Name', p. 141. "What was left of Yugoslavia, roughly pre-1912 Serbia, was placed under direct German military rule (along with rich grain-producing Banat just north of it, controlled through its sizeable ethnic German population). It was officially called the 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia'."
2. UK Naval Intelligence Division 1944, 'Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration', p. 380. "But the central government of Serbia is not that of an independent state. The country is officially the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens and the supreme authority is the GOC for the whole area of Serbia."
3. Paul N Hehn 1971, 'Serbia, Croatia and Germany 1941-1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans', in 'Canadian Slavonic Papers', Vol 13 No 4, pp. 344-373. "Officially labelled the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), it comprised some 4 million inhabitants, 28% of the original population of Yugoslavia."
4. Bond and Roy 1975, 'War and Society: a yearbook of military history', Vol 1. p. 230. "The most important took place in the 'Independent State of Croatia' and in the 'Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia' (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien)."
5. Kerner 1949, 'Yugoslavia', p. 358. "The full title is Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens."

Now, three of these state that the official title of the territory was a minor variation on 'Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens', and two of the same refs provide the name translated into English. A further ref gives an identical name and provides the German translation. Another one states that was the 'full title' of the territory. Of the sources that provide a translation, one says 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' and two render it as 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'.

On top of that, I got a randomly selected WP de-5 translator User:De728631 to have a look at the slight differences in the German terms to get an opinion. Here it is: "In this case both names and both translations are correct, depending on context. Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien is the military, i.e. the shortened, title while Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien was the slightly more prosaic form for administrative use. Tberefore we can either use 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' in the article. A third version Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens is a form using the genitive which was, as far as I can tell, not an official designation."

Now, the use of commas in article titles is a no-no, and so we went with the prosaic form that is now the article title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem. You show several sources and they use different names in different languages (you call this a minor variation). Thing is that no one of them is established name in English language. It is very obvious that you try to promote this name in Wikipedia and that you include this name into dozen of articles, including this page about small village in Serbia with only 226 people: [2] You want to say that name that you promote is very important for history of this village? I say that it is not. I agree that name of occupied territory should be described in some articles that speak about that territory, but it should not be described and promoted in every article about every town, village and region of Serbia. It was already pointed that name was illegally invented by German occupators and it was “official” only in minds of occupators. Name was not recognized as “official” by most countries in the World and that mean that you also should not promote this name all over Wikipedia. Besides not been recognized by most World countries, name is barely sourced, not established in English and fully not important for histories of these towns and villages. History of these towns should only mention that they were under German occupation or under Military Administration in Serbia (that term is established in English language and much less controversial). Nemambrata (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cites for stamps and coins

I am reinstating the primary source tagging per the consensus of several uninvolved editors here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

PM if you think that the article is a fork, then take it to AfD and let the issue be sorted there.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I will monitor it and decide when I have a sense of where it is going. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Move

There is no need for 'in WWII' in this article title, the Axis only existed in WWII. I have other reservations about this ahistorical title, but this much is clear.Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

True, you can move it.--Zoupan 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried, but a redirect must be in the way. Unfortunately I'm on my phone, which makes it all a bit hard. Feel free if you are happy to do it, otherwise I won't get to it for a day or so. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Joy to move it.--Zoupan 00:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unclear notability

Could the editors responsible for the creation of this article show that the Axis occupation of the territory of the current state of Serbia has significant coverage in WP:RS per WP:WHYN? I believe the notability of this article's subject is unclear at best, as all texts regarding the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia that I am possession of provide coverage of a. the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia or b. the military occupation of the clearly defined Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, not the current state of Serbia. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect.

1. The thopic of this article is much broader than the thopic of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The thopic of this article is not only the territory of Serbia occupied by Nazi Germany. It was only a part of Serbia. There were parts of the territory of Serbia occupied by Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary.
2. Geographical region which was referred to as Serbia is not modern-day term.
3. The thopic is notable and covered by thousands of sources.

Enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues so I will remove tag.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not incorrect. You are conflating sources about the occupation of Yugoslavia with sources about the occupation of Serbia. The subject of the article is ahistorical and of questionable notability. The tag is entirely justified. Do not remove it without providing sources in the article that meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. Provide sources in the article for the subject, which is the Axis occupation of the territory of current day Serbia. That is what is required unless you change the scope of the article. There are no sources at all in the article to support it now. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You neglect to thread your posts on talk pages. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I already provided explanation that this topic is notable and presented link to secondary sources (1,090 GBS hits for "occupied serbia" 1941, ) including Jozo Tomasevich whose works you extensively use.

I will AGF and assume you forgot about it. Please remove Notability tag you added.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I just noticed the following:

1. you are the major contributor to this article with 13 edits. Before you started to expand this article the only thing it had was lede (link).
2. you added important informations to this article about Bulgarian and German occupation of the territory of Serbia
3. it was you who did not add sources to support the text you added to the body of the article (except for the name used by Hehn, which you disseminate all over wikipedia despite the consensus here that Hehn's name is not appropriate for the territory of Serbia occupied by Nazi Germany).
4. then you tagged this article because "There are no sources at all in the article to support it"
5. and at the end it is you who request me to "Provide sources in the article"

I added reliable source to support your text about Bulgarian and German occupation of Serbia you added to this article. Although I could use many different sources I chose to use the work of Tomasevich because I assume you used it while writing the text of the article since you extensively use it in other articles like Chetniks. Please have in mind this before you demand from other editors to find sources for your own statements.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'll just revert it to what was created in the beginning and then nominate it for speedy deletion due to lack of sources and notability. The source you have used is about the part of Serbia that was occupied by the Germans, not all the other bits and pieces of the current stste of Serbia that were occupied or annexed by the Hungarians, Albanians, Croats and Bulgarians. And will you PLEASE stop with the wikilawyering rot about 'tendentious editing'? Nearly everything you post is tendentious, and you almost never edit article space, only talk space. You are way past incivility here, you have accused me of dishonesty on at least two occasions, and blatantly refuse to answer questions you don't like. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's your problem with this article as I see it. I looked through the first three pages (about 30 hits) of your Google Books link. NONE of them relates to the German occupation of the territory of modern day Serbia. Who knew? Some of the hits actually are about the subject of the Axis occupation territory called 'Serbia' by some sources, the boundaries of which correspond exactly with the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. If your article is supposed to be about the Axis occupation of the parts of Yugoslavia that lay within the boundaries of the aforementioned Territory, it is a straight-out POV fork. If it is about the Axis occupation of all the parts of WWII Yugoslavia that are now within the boundaries of the current Republic of Serbia, not only is it ahistorical, but it is completely unsourced. If I do a search for "Republic of Serbia" +German +occupation, strangely enough I get nothing. At all. How much clearer do I have to be? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And my 'dissemination' of Hehn and the name of the article in links in around 18 articles on English WP is because when I did so there was 'consensus for the article title at the time. Check the talkpage if you like. If you and your mates later decide that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I'm supposed to rip around every article and change it? Get real. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that you really think that Serbia was not occupied by Axis countries during WWII. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I REALLY do. It was Yugoslavia that was occupied by the Axis in 1941, not 'Serbia'. There was no 'Serbia' on 5 April 1941, except as a vaguely defined geographical region or as the boundaries of former states with that name. Some sources refer to an Axis occupied territory called 'Serbia', but we already have an article for them. The whole scope of this article is ahistorical. And your 'sourced' text just added says nothing about of which Serbia it speaks. Assuming the author is neutral enough to be considered reliable. Let me remind you that the subject of this article is the occupation of the territory of modern-day Serbia by the Axis. Modern-day Serbia, not just any Serbia. That is a very specific scope and needs very specific sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Some really strange misconceptions, Antidiskriminator. -- Director (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)