Talk:Capture of Banja Koviljača

verifiability

I tried to google this and came up with very little - only this old book chapter: http://www.znaci.net/00001/37_11_9.htm ... which tells a different story - that the involvement of the Partisans was critical...?! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I will add it to the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

sources

I believe Založba Obzorja is a school textbook publisher? Tell me I'm imagining that any experienced WP editor would attempt to use a book by a publishing house such as this? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Založba Obzorja publishes school textbooks too, like many other publishers. Its not only school textbook publisher. I don't think it is less reliable publisher than Centre for Albanian Studies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No its not. I replied to your question and explained that Založba Obzorja is not only a school textbook publisher. It published testimony of communist officer and member of academy in communist Yugoslavia. It can only give additional weight to his source which confirms that Chetniks fought in this battle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the requirements of a reliable publisher. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to say that the source I presented is not reliable to support cited assertions because of your opinion about the publisher?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, but because the publisher is a school textbook publisher, that doesn't meet the reliability requirements. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I already explained to you that this publisher publishes other books as well. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Dedijer also appears to be primary in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The assertion cited with his work is carefully attributed and actually corresponds with several other sources. His works are extensively used on wikipedia. Is there anything particular that concerns you in case of assertion cited with Dedijer's work?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Role of the Partisans

The actions of the Partisans appear to be almost completely absent from this article. They are listed as combatants, but not mentioned in the body of the article. Can anyone shed light on what the Partisan companies did? And perhaps on why this is described as a Chetnik victory when Partisans were also apparently involved? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I have already added information about participation of Partisans to the infobox and to the lede. When I investigate this event more I will elaborate about what Partisan companies did.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of Chetnik flag

Unresolved

I have a query about the use of the Chetnik flag icon in the infobox. Given this was very early on, are there any sources that indicate the Chetnik flag depicted was in use by the Chetniks at this time? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I will try to investigate this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An editor has restored the Chetniks flags to the infobox, but there still is no evidence the flags were in use at the time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gee, why does it matter? Why don't you go back in time and find out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjeliRabac (talk • contribs) 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Use a bolded heading. And don't edit war over this stuff. It's basically about verifiability. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bolded heading? And don't start an edit war and later complain when you should be getting reported for getting away with your acts.

Who gave you the right how an infobox should be set up? Answer the question: How are readers going to distinguise which guerilla group the commanders and units belonged to? Also why does use of the Chetnik flag matter as if it never flew before at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjeliRabac (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The commanders are all non-notable people so it doesn't really matter. Also, if the flags didn't exist at the time, then they should not be used. IJA (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move to Capture of Banja Koviljača

I propose moving this article to the above title. The current title is not used in any reliable source. "Capture" is a more specific and accurate descriptive term than "Battle" for this engagement, after all it resulted in the capture of the town. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The current title is descriptive title per WP:NDESC because it is description of the topic per WP:AT. The capture happened at 6 September, while the topic of this article is the battle which lasted for 6 days and resulted in capture of Koviljača.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. Obviously NDESC is the way to go here because there is no commonname (or any name for that matter) in English, as evidenced by the Google Books result. But capture is no less or more neutral than battle. The six days fighting were aimed at (and resulted in) the capture of the town. I think that is self-evident from the text of the article. It is not about merely having a neutral description, it is about having an precise descriptive title that unambiguously identifies the article's subject. Most people would see the current title and wonder what a "Banja Koviljača" is, but if they see the proposed title, they will immediately realise the subject of the article is the capture of something (most likely a settlement of some size). If the fighting took place in a fictional "Koviljača Polje" then Battle of Koviljača Polje would be the most accurate descriptive title we could use (as fields are rarely described as being captured). In this case, the fighting took place around and in the town and resulted in its capture. I believe "Capture" is superior to "Battle" from the perspective of all WP:CRITERIA, including being consistent with the approach to the titles of Capture of Rome, Capture of Quebec and Capture of New Orleans, among many others. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• What about Battle of Quebec? Capture of Quebec is not article title. There is an essay WP:CHERRYPICKING which says "Do not cherrypick." No doubt that you noticed numerous articles titled with "Battle of" (Berlin, Moscow, Stalingrad....). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop quoting essays. Even if I was inadvertently cherrypicking, you haven't addressed the other criteria. What you are missing here is that there is no commonname in English. The Battles of Berlin, Moscow and Stalingrad are all the commonnames in English, not descriptive titles. We are talking about a descriptive title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed the criteria you emphasized (consistency). The topic of this article is battle. The capture is its result and, afaik, not so precise, recognizable and natural term for the topic of this article. Therefore I don't think that capture meets other criteria better than battle. Just click wikilinks to battle and to capture and see yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the move. By AD's absurd logic if renaming it to capture disqualifies the article from discussing the battle that preceded it then the article with its present naming should only discuss the battle and not the capture. It's absolutely utter nonsense. The closest thing we have to a title in English is "Capture of Banja Koviljača" from The Četniks: a survey of Četnik activity in Yugoslavia, April 1941-July 1944 ("Cetniks under Miseta captured Loznica on 31 August, and the mining town of Zajaca the following day. Banja Koviljaca also fell to them.") which you yourself cited in the article AD. Also please stop citing user essays as if they are scriptures. It really is getting ridiculous. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Again me and my conduct. My logic is absurd and utter nonsense while my actions are getting ridiculous. No counter argument about my position grounded in wikipedia rules (WP:CRITERIA). Same story as at Talk:Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo. If you have objection to my conduct, please use appropriate noticeboard (you know how to do it), not articles' talkpage. Regarding renaming, start WP:RM procedure if you insist on your position.
• Regarding essays, Peacemaker67 and PRODUCER please be so kind to stop forbidding me to quote essays. I never quote essayss as they are policy and I always explain it is an essay in question. WP:ESSAYDEL says "If someone has cited an essay (or part of) as a reason for their cause, someone else might state that what they cited was "just an essay" and therefore is meaningless in the discussion. Truth is, essays are not meaningless and will be factored into the outcome if expressed well. If you want to counter an essay cited by someone else, the best way to do so is to cite another policy, guideline, or essay along with an explanation as to why your opinion is more worthy." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• You've cherrypicked text from WP:ESSAYDEL but that is an essay too. "I always explain it is an essay in question" is, clearly, false. Stop this tendentious editing. bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It is tagged as information page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the victimization and distractions. Pointing out the absurdity in the logic behind your argument is indeed relevant to the debate. Pointing out the repetitive citing of user essays like they are scriptures (read authoritative) is indeed relevant to the debate. Why not address why your logic still stands? Why not address the fact that the closest thing to an English title stems from a source that you yourself cited? In one perspective it's indeed the "same story": a discussion gets going on the naming of the article, it doesn't go in your favour, and you insist on a formal move since it happens your preferred title is already in use. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding addressing, it is the other way round. You haven't addressed my explanation that current title better meets WP:CRITERIA ("I have addressed the criteria you emphasized (consistency). The topic of this article is [[battle]]. The [[capture]] is its result and, afaik, not so precise, recognizable and natural term for the topic of this article. Therefore I don't think that capture meets other criteria better than battle. Just click wikilinks to battle and to capture and see yourself").
• I think I gave fairly clear reason for my position here and I don't have anything else to add to it now. You are, of course, free to disagree, but you can not expect me to be somehow obliged to discuss it here with you as long as you are dissatisfied with my position. Start WP:RM procedure if you insist on your position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So no. Got it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Battle of Banja Koviljača → Capture of Banja Koviljača – There is no common name in English for this engagement, in fact the current title is not used by any reliable source [1]. Therefore a WP:NDESC title is the way to go. The closest thing we have to a title in English is Capture of Banja Koviljača derived from The Četniks: a survey of Četnik activity in Yugoslavia, April 1941-July 1944 ("Cetniks under Miseta captured Loznica on 31 August, and the mining town of Zajaca the following day. Banja Koviljaca also fell to them."). The engagement concerned involving fighting aimed at, and which resulted in, the capture of the town of Banja Koviljača. A "Battle" could happen anywhere, but "Capture" is more specific, denoting an engagement resulted in one side possessing a particular bit of real estate (a town, a mountain etc). "Capture" is therefore more precise/specific, recognizable and natural as a description of this engagement than "Battle", per WP:CRITERIA. The talk page discussion has not resulted in a consensus, so I have lodged this RM to resolve the issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The topic of this article is battle. That is the most frequently used term in English language sources in case of this kind of events. By clicking to battle and to capture is easy to see the usage of those terms. In case of this event it was already agreed that there is no commonname for it. That is why descriptive title has been used. Most frequently used term for this kind of events is battle. That is why the current title better meets consistency criteria. It also better meets other criteria per WP:CRITERIA because it is more precise, recognizable and natural term for this event.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Per nominator and my responses above: The closest thing we have to a title in English is "Capture of Banja Koviljača" derived from The Četniks: a survey of Četnik activity in Yugoslavia, April 1941-July 1944 ("Cetniks under Miseta captured Loznica on 31 August, and the mining town of Zajaca the following day. Banja Koviljaca also fell to them."). Per WP:CRITERIA, "Capture" is more precise, recognizable, and natural than "Battle". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No. The quote you presented use term capture for Loznica. You should not put "Capture of Banja Koviljača" under quotation marks because no source uses it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support; the proposed title is closer in line with what the sources say. bobrayner (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concerns about new name

One editor expressed their concerns about the new name. Their comment was inappropriatelly placed within RM discussion. Per this explanation, I will present their comment within this newly created section:

• Oppose - The name of this article is ridiculous to say the least. One, the town was captured in 6 days in heavy fighting. The Chetniks and Partisans did not simply walk into the town without encountering opposition from the occupation authorities as was the case in other incidents Capture of Egersund and Capture of Arendal. The town was not captured in a few hours - much less without the Germans backing down without a shot being fired. June 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjeliRabac (talk • contribs) 08:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that this user might have a point here. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it. It is pretty clear from your opposition to the RM above. If the user believes there is justification for a move on the basis of WP:TITLE they can always initiate a RM. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am glad we agreed that it was wrong to remove comment with legitimate concerns about the new article title. Only three editors !voted in RM discussion, with support position of at least one editor (PRODUCER/Potočnik) was based on source misinterpretation. Additionally, this editor (banned for tendentious editing and tag teaming) frequently interacted with editor who proposed this renaming. Instead of new RM it is maybe also appropriate to initiate review of the move discussion? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not agree it was wrong, the editor concerned is surely capable to acting for themselves, it is curious that you are so supportive of them, and your allegations are tendentious, unsupported, and superfluous. I do not intend to continue this thread. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)