This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am reinstating the primary source tagging per the consensus of several uninvolved editors here. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am reinstating the primary source tagging per the consensus of several uninvolved editors here. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)