Talk:Sandžak Muslim militia

Title

The title of this article needs to be expanded and/or disambiguated. The term is so generic as to not be useful at all. The translation from Serbian appears to be "Muslim Ustaše militia". Other descriptive alternatives might be "Sandžak Muslim militia (World War II)" or something like that. As it is, this title is virtually useless for WP users, it tells you almost nothing about where or when it operated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Tomasevich says Moslem Militia. There are no other articles with the same name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Moslem Militia → Muslim Ustaša militia – The title of this article is so generic as to be completely useless to anyone attempting to find an article about this unit. How many Moslem militias have there been in history? Thousands? Per WP:TITLE, the current title is insufficiently WP:PRECISE to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, and given its highly generic name needs to at least define the area and war in which it operated. Also, per the English source, Tomasevich 1975 p. 400, militia does not have initial caps. The first page of the Google Books results for the current title come up with various Lebanese and other Moslem militia, including in Iraq etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Muslim Ustaša militia" That's what the article says its name is in Serbian (Муслиманска Усташка Милиција), and it's what gets the most hits by far[1] of the different "muslim", "moslem", "Sandzak" and "Ustasha" combinations. It also shows clearly what side of which war they fought on. If Croatia raised muslim militias in other regions, then it could become an article about all of them, or be split into Muslim Ustaša militia (Sandžak) and other(s) "Muslim Ustaša militia ([region])". ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That would do for now. Not sure that there weren't other Moslem Ustase militias in different areas of the NDH, but at least we would then know it existed during WWII (thanks to adding "Ustasa"). Good point re: any other units. Yours is a better alternative, I have amended my proposal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Sandžak Moslem militia" Sandžak has more precision and is less ambiguous than Ustasha. Moslem to make clearer it's about the ethnic group and not religion. Per discussion below. (Avoid parenthesis per wp:naturaldis). ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Sandžak Moslem militia, which should be sufficiently clear for now at least. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support in principle Red Slash 05:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose To summarize:

1. The most important reason is that this militia was Ustasha militia only in period April - September 1941, when Ustashas had certain control over Sandzak. During most of the war this militia was either under Italian or German control, not Ustasha.
2. Yugoslavia was specific in many aspects when it comes to ethnicity. One of them were Moslems. Term Moslem in case of Moslems from Yugoslavia, designates membership not only to religious group, but also to an ethnic group. That is why Moslem in the title of this unit designates belonging not only to religious but also to an ethnic group. Many people in Yugoslavia were communists and atheists, but still declared their ethnicity as being Moslem. How many militias have there been in history of Moslems as ethnic group? A couple and all of them had different names (Hadžiefendić Legion, Black Legion (Ustaše militia)...) so the proposed disambiguation is not justified, at least not in the proposed form.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• But that is not what Moslem means to everybody else, and that is a problem with the current title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I knew that you will grasp to this before I posted my last comment. You are again wrong. In case of Moslems from Yugoslavia, it is exactly what it meant to everybody. Take for example Resolution of Sarajevo Muslims. You yourself reverted one editor (diff) when they attempted to change Muslim to Muslim/Bosniak.
• You did not address the first and most important point of my comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your first point is completely irrelevant, as with my "Muslim/Bosniak" reverts I was referring to the changing of terminology used by the source to one that suits people's POV today. It is ahistorical. It is also completely unrelated to this discussion, as you would know if you had read my edit summaries on the many occasions I have reverted edits of that type. Re: your first point, it's just that I am very familiar with WP:MILMOS. Which says "When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names". But of course, you would "no doubt" already know that this unit, the Italians' "Moslem militia/legion" led by Sulejman Pačariz was reformed in early 1944 as the "Moslem Legion" under the direction of Karl von Krempler, per Tomasevich 1975 pp 328 and 331, Abbott's Partisan Warfare p.23, Ford 1992 p. 55, and Thomas and Mikulan p. 23, etc. So the appropriate title would most likely be "Moslem Legion", as that was the "the last name used", although that too would need to be disambiguated as there have been plenty of them too, including the one from the Caucasus in WWII. I have seen the title "Moslem Legion of the Sandjak", so perhaps that would be appropriate. I fail to understand why you would resist bringing this title into line with WP title policy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You failed to address my first and most important point. On the contrary, like many times before, you again refuted your position yourself and actually provided additional explanation why would it be wrong to rename this unit to Muslim Ustaša militia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting conclusion to draw from my comments. Clearly, having looked closer at the issue, I am now suggesting that "Moslem Legion" (with some sort of disambiguation) is actually the most appropriate title. Can I assume you still consider "Moslem Militia" is a title in accordance with WP:TITLE? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• If that conclusion was wrong, why did you change your move proposal to Moslem Legion?
• Your proposal is again wrong. Moslem militia ≠ Muselmanengruppe von Krempler (or SS und Polizei Selbschutz Regiment) so multiple names part of WP:MILMOS
• The burden is on you to prove that name you proposed is better than existing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There was another "Muslim Militia" in existence during this time (that of Husein Miljković in north-western Bosnia). Having said that, perhaps its best this title be moved to Muslim Militia (Sandžak). 23 editor (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 first proposed Sandžak Muslim militia (World War II) (diff)
  2. Then he proposed Sandžak Moslem militia (World War II) (diff)
  3. Then he proposed Muslim Ustaša militia (diff)
  4. His last (for now) proposal is "Moslem Legion" (with some sort of disambiguation) (diff)
  5. 23 editor proposed Muslim Militia (Sandžak).
• It is necessary to clarify what is move proposal here before this discussion is continued.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Muslim Militia (Sandžak) makes the most sense, in my opinion. The current title is vague. 23 editor (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ad. The purpose of this discussion is to establish what the best title would be, not to blindly defend the current one or attack my suggestion. We don't need to discuss only the ones I've suggested, in fact that would be absurd. My suggestions are just that, I don't consider my suggestions better than anyone else's, we discuss it until we get some consensus on what is best. Not sure why you don't understand that, and want clarification on what is being proposed. We are working towards consensus based on policy and sources, and a general appreciation that the current title is almost completely useless as a title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I understand, it was a Croatian unit, under Croatian operational control in April-September 1941 and German/Italian operational control for the duration of conflict. Correct? ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was first Croatian unit (April - September 1941), then Italian (September 1941 - September 1943) and at last German (september 1943 - end of war). It seems that in 1944 some of its units were merged with some Albanian batallions into SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak, while some of its units remained as separate units. I don't think that anybody here understands the full story about this unit. That is why I politely asked nominator not to continue with his delete/remain campaign of articles I recently created and tagged with "under construction" tag. The full story, including the most appropriate name, would be much clearer after the article is expanded.

• Addition of Ustaša would be wrong because this unit belonged to Ustaša forces for only five months.
• addition of the Sandžak would might be also wrong because, according to some sources, it seems that under Italian control some units of Moslem Militia were established in Herzegovina too.

If the energy spent to discuss unclear renaming proposals was spent to expand the article, the situation would be much clearer until now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I realise I didn't formulate my statement clearly enough, sorry for that. What I meant is that it was a Croatian unit under Italian/German operational control, similar to how the Division Azul was a Spanish unit under German operational control between June 41 and October 43. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, why? Are you referring to that the militia was an irregular unit? ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Because this unit was not "Croatian unit", at least not after September 1943. Depending on the period, this unit was Croatian/Italian/German unit composed of local Muslim men, under Croatian/Italian/German operational control.
2. This unit was not irregular, although it was militia. It was regularly established by governing authorities in Sandžak and probably parts of Herzegovina (Čajniče, Foča). Initially, this governing authority (that had operational control over this unit) was Croatia, then Italy and finally Germany. According to some sources, at the end of the war, some detachments of this militia put themselves under Communist control, but I am uncertain about the reliability of those sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Muslim Ustaša militia" or alternatively "Muslim Militia (Sandžak)". Current title is meaningless, there have been countless "Muslim Militias", they are even operating at this moment in Central African Republic.--Staberinde (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just did little google book seach to see where "Moslem Militia" is generally used in reliable sources, seems like it most commonly refers actually to militias in Lebanon: "Moslem Militia" Lebanon = 516 results, "Moslem Militia" Yugoslavia = 71 results. Some kind of disambiguation is clearly needed.--Staberinde (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that (Yugoslavia) disambiguation might be a good idea.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• What about Sandžak Moslem militia? ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • According to some sources, detachments of this unit were established in Eastern Herzegovina too, which is not in Sandžak.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes Victor, that's essentially what my first suggestion was. I think either that or Muslim militia (Sandžak). Including "Sandžak" (either in the title or disambiguation) conforms to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the militia appears to have been originally raised and primarily engaged in fighting and other activities in the Sandžak. The eastern Herzegovina aspect (apparently only mentioned in some sources) can be easily dealt with a reference to it in the lead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing says the Texas national guard can only fight in Texas. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • • • Maybe not. As far as I learned about this unit, militia detachements from eastern Herzegovina had significant role in massacres of civilian population there and in battles with Chetniks. On the other hand, their probably most significant engagement was Durmitor operation. Durmitor is not in Sandzak. That is probably the reason why sources do not use Sandzak as part of this unit's name.
      • Taking in consideration that this is your fifth proposal, don't you think it would be better to stop with presenting your additional proposals until this article is further expanded or its topic better researched, which is essentially what my first suggestion was. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
        • • Regarding Texas example, if Texas National Guard:
            1. would not be a military of the U.S. state of Texas and
            2. would also be engaged out of Texas
            3. would not be mentioned in sources as Texas National Guard
          • its name would probably not be the Texas national guard.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The name implies nothing about the relation between the unit and the region, merely about its origin.
2. If some outfit of Texans after a global thermonuclear World War III who styled themselves "the Christian militia", we would call them the Texas Christian militia to distinguish them from other bands of Mad-Max-esque marauders roaming and pillaging all across post-apocalyptic North America of the same name. Even if there were no others, we would still call them that because "Christian militia" is thoroughly ambiguous.
3. Certainly after the nuclear holocaust, the supply of wp:rs and wp:v sources would be dire, to say the least. However there is no need for sources saying in one breath they had an official "Texas Christian Militia" name (though that would be needed for an article titled Texas Christian Militia), merely sources that referred that they were a militia, were from Texas, and were referred to and/or called themselves "Christians". ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to Muslim Militia (Sandžak) since it is less confusing, and neutral on moving to Muslim Ustaša militia, since I do not know the details in this topic. - Anonimski (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Muslim Militia (Sandžak), for now, as it is the most appropriate title.--Zoupan 15:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

After further research of this subject I concluded that this militia was predominatly based in Sandžak so Muslim Militia (Sandžak) might be a good solution for now.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "Moslem" better to make clearer it's about the ethnic group and not about religion? ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, one option would be to follow the pattern sources use with the "Bosnian Muslims" (as a ethnic grouping, now generally known as Bosniaks), and call it "Sandžak Muslim militia". Given the guidance at WP:MILMOS, we should probably avoid incorporating Ustase as it was not an Ustase militia at the end of its existence (the preference being for the last name used). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A very good point and basically the main reason why I hesitated to add Sandžak to the title of this unit whose name is predominantly related to ethnic group, rather than to religion, territory or country. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support either variant with Sandžak, or either variant with Ustaša. Obviously cannot stay at current title which should redirect to a disambiguation page listing the various related articles in the muslim militias categories: Muslim militia. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)