This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Axis occupation of Serbia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to
Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Hmm. 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. --WhiteWriterspeaks13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. --WhiteWriterspeaks10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Axis occupation of Serbia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to
Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Hmm. 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. --WhiteWriterspeaks13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. --WhiteWriterspeaks10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply