This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Why is there need to qualify the name of this article at all? There are no other pages about occupations of Norway. Also, the name of this page does not conform with almost every other non WW2 occupation page I can find. Moreover, are we to believe that it is necessary to find every instance of the word "Germany" in every article on WW2 so that we might replace it with "Nazi Germany?" I propose that the name be changed to "Occupation of Norway." Saji Loupgarou (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Norway has been occupied and/or administered by a foreign power many times before (e.g. by Denmark and Sweden). Thus I guess it is fairly justified to specify in the title what occupation the article refers to. However I wonder if "occupation" really is the right term at all. I have a feeling that most other articles have a title along the lines of "Country X during World War II" (e.g. Sweden during World War II). The thing is, many articles deal specifically with the period that a country was occupied (which may have been brief or long) while others deal with the whole 1939-1945 period. Which leads to a whole myriad of different titles. Tricky issue. --m3taphysical (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you'll scroll back, you'll see that a consensus was already reached on this matter. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I read the whole discussion. But conformity matters more than consensus. There is always room for change. Anyway, if this page were to be flooded by POV editors (not saying that it is) the "consensus" would likely be unacceptable. I agree that it is a tricky issue. I think the way the Occupation of Poland article has dealt with its name might be appropriate here... though this really needs to be discussed at a level where all military contributors can come to a legitimate consensus on the naming standards of all occupation articles. How could we go about doing such a thing? Saji Loupgarou (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
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: Moved.EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Support first version per nom, more concise. No other German occupations to consider. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Complete change of mind. In fact the occupation of..articles are a complete mess. The regime that is doing the "occupying" can be a benign democracy or a neo pagan monstrosity like nazi Germany. I would expect that the name of the regime that is most generally accpted by reliable authoritative sources MUST be used. In this case the correct title should be Occupation of Norway by the Third Reich. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Support first version per reasons above. More succinct, big improvement.LM2000 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose It's extremely important to keep Nazi in the title. National Socialism's crimes cannot be swept under the rug.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Support This would be in line with existing article titles such as German occupation of Czechoslovakia. The argument above, about the need to emphasize Nazi crimes, is POV and is actually an argument AGAINST the current title; Wikipedia titles should not be used to make a point, however justified we may believe that point to be. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's extremely important to keep the Nazi out of the title. Germany's crimes cannot be swept under the Nazi rug, as if all Germans were Nazis and only Nazis committed crimes. Srnec (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose If only because there is an aritcle titled Nazi Germany. I don't see this as disambiguation but moreso about being precise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (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.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Strike that, unless rewitten to fit "Military history of X" format. walkvictor falktalk 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Norway was under military occupation, if civilian administration. The whole system of articles (on countries and WWII) is a mess I have wanted to fix for a long time. If this article is moved, should the title redirect to Reichskommissariat Norwegen? If not, why not? And shouldn't there be a merge? This move discussion seems premature so long as we have no article on Norway in WWII to occupy that articlespace. Srnec (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The distinction between civilian and military occupation is an issue that came up at the Hostage case at the Nuremberg trials see the section Clarification of military occupation — The ruling was that effective military occupation continues even if a civilian government is placed in administrative control, if the military power can intervene at will. This has since been codified in Geneva IV and later conventions. So Norway was under German occupation during the Second World what ever Quislings did. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"German occupation of Norway" should redirect to "Norway in WWII", a plain swap-around. Damn right it's a mess (blame the typically chaotic nazis for that, so contrary to the stereotype of the "ordnung must sein" German), though things have improved over the few years, like for instance this more or less consistent way of reserving "German occupation" for military administrations. walkvictor falktalk 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Norway in WWII" involves much more than the occupation of its territory. For example elements of the the Norwegian navy was involved in Operation Neptune in 1944 and its merchant fleet not captured by the Germans was on the allied side throughout the war. The scope of this article is fine for what it covers. An article on "Norway in WWII" can have a section summering this article and cover other aspects of "Norway in WWII" which are outside the scope of this article. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is in keeping with similar articles titled "German occupation of ____". Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
May I point out that those that are not about areas directly under military German occupation generally are redirects. walkvictor falktalk 15:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is the most concise and best description of the summary article scope, which should include everything relating to the German occupation of Norway in WWII, including the Reichskommissariat, and its subordinate functions of military operations, security and civil affairs, as well as the Quisling regime, the resistance etc, which should all have more detailed fork articles. The boundaries of Norway were used as the boundaries of the corresponding German zone of occupation, so there is no more appropriate term to define the area that was occupied. "Belgium and Northern France" is not a good comparison because it was a uniquely defined zone of occupation that did not follow the boundaries of the occupied countries. The Netherlands had a much more similar arrangement to that in place in Norway. The Reichskommissar in Norway was the Reichskommissar für die besetzten norwegischen Gebiete (the Reichskommissar for the occupied Norwegian territories). BTW, Militärverwaltung does not mean military occupation, it means military administration. Military occupation is "militärische Besetzung", usually just "Besetzung" or "Besetzen" depending on the context and grammatical construction. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. User:Peacemaker67 makes a compelling argument. I myself believe that the present naming well suits the breadth of the present article scope. The military v "civil" administration argument is a weak one, IMO. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Peacemaker67 puts it well. And of course Norway was under military occupation, there were close to 400,000 German troops in the country, and those troops were not there as part of any agreement or something like that. A military occupation, plain and simple. Manxruler (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Peacemaker67 sums up a lot of my thoughts. The current title is more accurate than the proposed title. Arsenikk(talk) 12:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose' per Peacemaker67, and my comments above in this section. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.