Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Yugoslav Front → National Liberation War (Yugoslavia) — Requesting move to the most common name in English-language sources (per WP:NAME). Extensive Google testing shows that "Yugoslav Front" (351 hits) is almost completely without sources usage (most of those few 340 or so hits do not actually refer to this conflict [1]). "National Liberation War" (5,960 hits) is the most common term in use, followed by "People's Liberation War" (1,900 hits). It should also be noted that the two terms ("People's Liberation War" and "National Liberation War") are interchangeable, being the two (equally valid) translations of the Serbo-Croatian adjective "narodno" in the Yugoslav term for the war, "Narodnooslobodilački rat". As such their hits could probably be combined (some 7,800 Books hits, approximately) when considered against the current title (354 Books hits) and any suggested "generic", user-invented titles (cca. 200-350 Books hits on average, e.g. [2]).

The proposed term is in extensive use in high-quality professional publications [3][4], and, in all sources, refers to the entirety of this conflict. It is, in fact, the only name I could find for the war in anything like significant usage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an open-and-shut case of "overwhelmingly more common name" vs. "completely unused, user-invented name". This is not just me saying so, Google test are available. It is simply Balkans politics that interferes once again to cloud the issue. And unless an (agenda-driven!) user is to be taken seriously when he simply arrives and "declares" that the term "National Liberation War" somehow does not apply to some imaginary unspecified aspect of the conflict, based purely on him saying so over and over and over again, then the article should be moved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll/discussion

• Support, as nominator. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Again??? - Aren´t RM´s limited in the number of SAME renaming attempts? FkpCascais (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No. And how is this the "SAME", exactly? The previous move was for "People's Liberation War". This one is for "National Liberation War (Yugoslavia)", which is three times more common (18 times vs. the current title) and is in much more widespread use in high-quality sources. Please read the RM more carefully, and limit your posts to more constructive comments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This is just a word game People´s/National to what actually is the translation from the Titoist autonominated Narodnooslobodilacki Rat. Many western bibliography followed the trend, but time has indicated that it was wrong, and that the autoproclamed sole liberation of Yugoslavia by the Partisans was just an illusion. That title would be for an article dealing with Partisans and their actions during the WWII period, and this article is not limited to them. Why don´t you write that article, instead of trying to rename this one and limit the content in it? That would certainly be more constructive from you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      And stop missinforming: in Yugoslavia and in none of its languages the war is NOT named Narodnooslobodilacki Rat, only former Partisans name the war that way, and they refer to "their" war when mentioning it. FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The two terms are interchangeable, I agree, and together yield some 8,700 hits in Google Books. I say so in the propsal. Your point?
        The idea that the term "National Liberation War" does not refer to the whole War is your own personal claim. Not a single solitary source uses it "only to deal with the Partisans". In fact the very idea of a name for a war that "only deals with one side of the war" is utterly ridiculous - a POV construct of your own. The actual case is simply that the most common name in English language sources originated as a wartime Partisan term. That does not mean it "only deals with one side of the war". I would really appreciate it if you supported that claim with some kind of reliable source that says so (as opposed to you saying it over and over and over again), because I cannot not find one.
        For the record, I will not repeat the mistake of muddying the issue by replying to your every personal concept and "communist conspiracy". The move is proposed per WP:NAME, and is required by policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. What precisely is this article about? I mean - in the UK it's just called World War II. In Yugoslavia it is like several conflicts in one. Axis invasion/occupation. Chetniks pursuing Greater Serbia. Partisans pursuing social revolution and communist dominance after the war. If this article is dealing with all three, then something like Yugoslavia in World War II might be more appropriate.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly Fainites, but because of it, the current title is more acurate and NPOV than the proposed by direktor. I wouldn´t mind at all having an article named as direktpr proposes, it will be more precise on the specific conflict and could deal with the Partisan situation during WWII. It´s just that this one, Yugoslav Front, is a different article, dealing with all that happend in Yugoslavia in this period. Basically, direktor wants to make this move so he could start: "People´s (or whatever) Liberation War, waged by the Y.Partisans against Germans, Chetniks and all enemies (then infobox with Partisans on one side, all others together on the other),..." I think the point is clear, and all this direktors action here is pure forging of POV. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • (The Axis Invasion of Yugoslavia is a separate conflict, a part of the Balkans Campaign. It is not part of the scope of this article. "World War II in Yugoslavia" has some 250 hits on Google sources search. We, Wikipedia users, would be inventing a name - in spite of literally thousands of published professional historians that use another. That is blatantly against Wikipedia policy.)
      This is a sub-conflict of World War II, like many others, and its called the National Liberation War (Yugoslavia). I don't understand how listing all the very different individual goals (and non-combat activities) of the warring parties proves the idea that this conflict is "several in one". If someone wanted one could easily write something like this for WWII on the whole:
      "It is like several conflicts in one. The Allies trying to defend themselves against aggression and maintain economic dominance The Axis pursuing the establishment of a New Order. The Soviets pursuing social revolution and communist dominance after the war."
      It seems World War II itself, by your line of reasoning, is also "three conflicts in one". :) I mean sure, you can look at any war from the perspective of an individual warring party, that does not somehow mean that each perspective is a "different war". This is in essence a completely bogus line of reasoning, and I will not waste much more effort refuting it, since that is unnecessary. Not a single available source, not a single one, uses the term "National Liberation War" to refer to something other than this conflict. Even if an exception is hypothetically presented, something I'm still waiting for, it would be just that - an exception. And any Wikipedian worth his salt should not present such personal ideas and conceptions without supporting sources. If you're saying that the term in question is the name for this war that "only deals with one side of the war", or if you are claiming that there is some imaginary new "sub-conflict of a sub-conflict" the term refers to, please present a source that says so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment why is the nominator using NON-ENGLISH Google? When I click on those links Google isn't in English; "Povijest | Opcije pretraživanja | Prijavite se" most definitely not English. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Its the language settings on Google Books. I did not bother to change them, apologies. It makes no difference, though. If you want to verify the search results, please do copy-paste the search parameters (and of course set the search for English language results only in the advanced options). I assure you the search is in order. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I found, at Google Books that "Yugoslav Front" has 357 results, while "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" has 69 results. Also, "People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia" has 120 results; "People's Liberation War in Yugoslavia" has 59 results. If we would follow results of Google Books, then the most optimal solution would be "Yugoslavia in World War II", because under such title, it has 411 results.--Wustenfuchs 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is essentially a straw man. Thank you for you comment, but: what's your point? The proposed move is not for "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" or "People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia" or any of the titles you searched. I researched them all and they are indeed not very common. The most common name with 6,500 hits is simply "National Liberation War", without any other adjectives (though of course it is necessary on Wikipedia to disambiguate between other national liberation wars by adding "(Yugoslavia)"). The 6,500 sources hits all refer to this war.
  • "Generic" titles such as "Yugoslavia in World War II" or "World War II in Yugoslavia" are virtually without sources usage altogether. The few hundred hits they render are, upon inspection, owed entirely to sentence fragments, not alternative names for this war used in sources. Which is obvious upon even a superficial glance (e.g. "Military Units and Formations of Yugoslavia in World War II"). That is irrelevant though, since, even if they were not fragments, they are vastly outnumbered in usage by the 6,500 hits for "National Liberation War", or especially by the combined 8,700 for "National" and "People's Liberation War". As I said before by using such "titles", we, Wikipedia users, would be inventing a name in spite of literally thousands of published professional historians that use another, perfectly normal name. As I'm sure most of us know, that would be blatantly against Wikipedia naming policy.
  • P.S. You get 357 hits, slightly more than I, because you did not refine the search to include only English language publications (as I did in all searches). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, DIREKTOR, I'd say you searched wrongly. It should be "Yugoslav National Liberation War" because this "Yugoslavia" is, often, writen in other context. Not valid.--Wustenfuchs 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Quite simply: no, I did not. And the search is clearly valid. You are demonstrably wrong in your assertion, and obviously did not even bother to check the search out. The search is refined for Yugoslavia-related subjects:
        "National Liberation War" Yugoslavia (6,500 hits)
        Virtually every single hit there refers to this particular conflict. I myself tried to find some that do not and was not successful. There could be a few false hits, theoretically, but it is obvious that the vast majority are spot on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
        • "Every"? Not every, I founded a number of unrelated cases in just a couple of pages I looked, as expected anyway in any sort of google search. Don´t be too pretentious in saying "every". FkpCascais (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
          • You could count them on the fingers of one hand. And, again, we are talking about several thousand hits vs a few hundred - even if only 30% of those hits were valid (and virtually all are spot on), "National Liberation War" would still be far more common than any other proposed title. This is a very standard, very reliable search method. There is really no contest, and once more I do not see your point.
            Post the wrong hits (you claim to have found) on my talkpage if you want. We can refine the search. The goal here is to find the most common English name, Wustenfuchs, not to oppose for opposition's sake. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Let me just say that, so far at least, this RM sounds like a "How Can We Avoid Following Naming Policy?" contest. I must say I'm almost looking forward to hearing what other fascinating theories might be out there to justify opposition to what is clearly by far the most common name for this article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment to comment, no, this is actually how can you turn this article by any mean to be renamed by the name Partisans gave to it, thus making the article more adequate for having pro-Partisan content and to be concentrated around them. Pure and simple POV forging. FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh nice to see you again, Fkp. More evil communist conspiracies I see. Those damn communist sources flooding Google Books, eh? In English no less.. xD
      Anyway, have you found your sources? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Do I need a source that says that the Partisans used the People´s Liberation War naming their struggle to "liberate" Yugoslavia? I think we all agree on that. P.S.: Your "communist conspiracy" critique has no argument whatsoever. It´s like some regime naming its country "People´s Socialist Wikidonia" and then saying "Oh, no, Wikidonia is not socialist. That is anti-Socialist conspiracy talking!" No point... FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • You know exactly what I mean, cut the wordplay. You need a source for all your "only deals with one side" "theories" above. The term "National liberation War" originated as a wartime Partisan term, yes, and by all appearances it is now the most common name in English language sources, and seems to have been accepted by the scientific community far more than any other term. Should we ignore that fact because you personally "dislike" the name on the count of its origin? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - How other articles deal with similar cases: I decided to see this, and I found the Eastern Front (World War II) article. The case is pretty much the same since different intervenients named differently the same conflict, Russians named it "Great Patriotic War". Is that the name of the article? No. And we need to have in mind that in this Yugoslav case, the naming "People´s liberation War" was not even accepted by all Yugoslav intervenients, only the Partisans (1 of at least 5 important intervenients). So, by seing this exemple, the title "Yugoslav Front" is actually good, and the "People´s Liberation War" is just part of it. Renaming the "People´s" into "National" would be even further irrational and wrong. "People´s Liberation War" existed within the WWII Yugoslav Front, and it was a conflict among others in the Yugoslav Front. Many has been written on the Partisans struggle to liberate Yugoslavia, so obviously has many Google hits. Renaming the entire conflict in Yugoslavia by the name Partisan struggle had is something the winning side (Partisans and Tito Yugoslavia) tryied to do by ignoring the other intervenients. Yugoslav historians and Yugoslav education after the war had to name the conflict that way. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia the name was abandoned, and currently is properly used for what really was, the name the Partisans gave to their struggle, just a part of the entire conflict in Yugoslavia, important yes, but just a part. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes its true, "Eastern Front" is on because it is the most common name in English. If "Great Patriotic War" was more common it would be on. That is Wikipedia policy, Fkp. With Yugoslavia "National Liberation War" is the most common name. Alternative names virtually do not even exist as far as English language sources are concerned.
    Yes, the most common name in English language sources originated as a wartime Partisan term, that is correct. So what? You dislike the Partisans and we should therefore ignore the fact that it is in use with professional historians, what? And don't give me that completely invented "only deals with one side" "theory" of yours without sources that support it (those are the sources I asked you for above). Or better yet, don't bother. Since even if you did find such an exception it would still be just that - an exception, with some 7,000 sources that disagree in usage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I "dislike Partisans"? Are you joking? Did you checked all my edits all around? I usually describe Partisans very positively, after all, my grand-father was a Partisan. But there are limits, and when someone goes too far, as much as I like them I can´t stand by it. Regarding the name, yes, sources do sometimes (not allways) describe the entire conflict in Yugoslavia in that period by that name, but nowadays we simply know it isn´t apropriate. And I honestly doubt any historian uses the sentence "...and the Chetniks in their actions in the "People´s Liberation War" while decapitating German soldiers..." Find recent sources and renamed historians, not Yugoslav sources, or sources that just followed the naming tendency. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Lets just say you are looking out for the Chetniks' interests here. That is what I meant. That is what you said. And that is why you invented the bogus theory above. As for the sources that use the term "National Liberation War" in describing Chetnik actions, how about I just Google "National Liberation War" Chetniks and let you take your pick of any of those few hundred sources? (rhetorical question) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As User:Wustenfuchs was saying [6], even if the title were somehow "not neutral" (and it most certainly is), it is important to note the following about Wikipedia naming policy:

“ When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment. This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgemental. ”

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the point people are trying to raise is, what is the PLW? World War II doesn't have a separate name in the vast majority of countries though specific battles might. Why did the Russians call it the Great Patriotic War? Bet you the Ukranians don't call it that. Why did the Partisans call it the Peoples Liberation War? Because to them it wasn't just about WWII and defending their country from the nazis. It was a social revolution against the forces of reaction. Being the ultimate winners and having consolidated their position after the war in classic communist fashion they got to write the history. I'm not saying it isn't called the PWL or NWL but if this article covers the whole of WWII in yugoslavia we need to be clear about this. We can't not name it the NLW just because people may not like the ideological implications of that - but are we clear that that is the name for the whole of WWII in yugoslavia rather than one aspect of it? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We are clear. The National Liberation War is a conflict in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II. The term encompasses the entirety of the conflict and its every aspect.

Yes, the most common name in English language sources originated as a wartime Partisan term, that is correct. Yes, the reason why it is in use is that the Partisans won the war. Yes, one of the aspects of this war is the social revolution one side carried out throughout the war in the areas that they held. Ok, so now we know where the term originates, we know why its in use, and we know that a social revolution was taking place as an important aspect of the war. Excellent. So what? The point is that it is in use. Overwhelmingly. In fact it is the only significant term out there.

As for the completely invented claim that the term does not cover some imaginary aspect of the war, I reject it utterly and challenge you to provide evidence. Sigh... Fainites please see how the term is used. It does not exclude anything. That is a completely fake argument Fkp invented due to his personal dislike for the origins of the term. It is his own perspective, his own idea, no sources in evidence, all sources against it - I still can't believe you took it seriously. One thing is for certain: the term most certainly does not cover only the social revolution, I can assure you of that. In fact it can be debatable whether the social revolution is included in the term at all when compared to the warfare. The social revolution mainly took place AFTER the war.

And if the fact that it uses the word "war", and is still a part of another "war" confuses you somehow, then you should realize that this is primarily because the conflict was nearly completely isolated from the rest of the war, and that it is certainly not alone. In fact similar examples of relatively isolated conflicts abound: e.g. Second Sino-Japanese War (1939-45), Great Patriotic War, Chinese Civil War, Winter War - and that's off the top of my head, and just for World War II. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not confused DIREKTOR. I would like editors to be able to define the ambit of the disagreement so that it can be resolved without another 6 feet of wrangling. This argument has taken place more than once before. No doubt it will come up again. What is needed is a clear statement, with reference to sources if possible, of the various viewpoints, in the hope that consensus can be reached or the case put fairly for the consideration of others.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You know I meant no offence :). The argument will likely not come-up again unless Fkp brings it up. It is entirely his own idea, and so far you're the only one who gave it credence. The first RM was rejected because "People's Liberation War" did not seem to be in use among reputable sources (my mistake for not checking "National Liberation War"), not because Fkp personally believes this term is limited in some mysterious, unprovable way.

The ambit of the disagreement is clear enough. Fkp personally believes the aspects of the war concerning the Chetniks are not covered with the term "National Liberation War". Actual Chetnik conflicts that had nothing to do with the Partisans are rare and meagre in scope, as Draža Mihailović made no secret of his policy of avoiding conflict against the Axis at all costs (so as not to get wiped-out by the time the British land). And indeed, the Partisans (and later the Yugoslav authorities) that coined the term tended to de-emphasize the Chetniks' conflicts with the Axis (an easy task). This much I grant. However, what Fkp fails to realize is that the term itself has nothing to do with all this, it covers-up nothing. He fails to realize that, due to its widespread use in Yugoslavia, "National Liberation War" has caught on with international, world-class scholars who have absolutely nothing to do with what he considers communist propaganda in Yugoslavia. Therefore I ask him for sources where this neglect for the Chetniks may be seen in some way, and provide 200 sources that deal with the Chetniks and use the term [7] (including the most comprehensive work available on the subject, Tomasevich's The Chetniks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By watching the almost 6.000 results direktor found on the google books research, all I see is that most really refer to the Partisans part of the war and many even go further analising the social revolution and the communism and socialism, etc. I think direktor should create an article named as Yugoslav People´s Liberation War and write in it what that subject really is about, and stop trying to rename this one which is a wider and more objective article. I think we really can´t say more about this. The two concepts are different and this entire debate is somehow pointless, like trying to rename the Solar system by Mars only because Mars has more google entries... The Yugoslav Front (or WWII in Yugoslavia) and PLW are two separate things, and the sources that deal the subject differently, as direktor claims that authors name the entire war as PLW, are simply wrong and not contemporary. Much new information has been discouvered recently, and many miths and beleaves have been destroyed in the last 25 years, so we can´t continue ignoring these new facts. Direktor also knows this but is trying to find any way to turn this around, futher making us loose time on crystal clear issues. By "crystal clear" I mean that is crystal clear that PLW isn´t adequate name for this article and it would eventually be an article that would deal with different contnt fom this one. FkpCascais (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Then all you have to do is show me a source that proves Mars and the Solar System are two different things. Sounds incredibly easy.

You read 6,000 sources? :) Well, while you finish off the remaining 1,800, please be sure not to miss any of these sources again. And yes, any publication about this war is bound to be more about the Partisans than the Chetniks, since the Partisans did ninety percent of the actual war-fighting.

Be sure that your word or "solemn oath" will not suffice to present an argument here. Your personal impressions and subjective interpretations would be rejected even if they were not based on an entirely unlikely premise of you researching 6,000 sources in detail within the space of two days. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the earlier change of name discussion. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@direktor, it´s not personal impression, look at the sources yourself. And, it is obvious that Chetniks are mentioned in (Partisans) "People´s Liberation War", what´s the point of that? My point is that Chetnik actions against Ustasa, Germans or any other forces are not part of the People´s LW, just as the war actions between any intervenients other than the Partisans, and unfortunatelly for your case, we had many intervenients in WWII Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Have I not just demonstrated that it is indeed your personal impression? And that its flawed to boot?

"Fkp personally believes the aspects of the war concerning the Chetniks are not covered with the term "National Liberation War". Actual Chetnik conflicts that had nothing to do with the Partisans are rare and meagre in scope, as Draža Mihailović made no secret of his policy of avoiding conflict against the Axis at all costs (so as not to get wiped-out by the time the British land). And indeed, the Partisans (and later the Yugoslav authorities) that coined the term tended to de-emphasize the Chetniks' conflicts with the Axis (an easy task). This much I grant. However, what Fkp fails to realize is that the term itself has nothing to do with all this, it covers-up nothing. He fails to realize that, due to its widespread use in Yugoslavia, "National Liberation War" has caught on with international, world-class scholars who have absolutely nothing to do with what he considers communist propaganda in Yugoslavia. Therefore I ask him for sources where this neglect for the Chetniks may be seen in some way, and provide 200 sources that deal with the Chetniks and use the term [8] (including the most comprehensive work available on the subject, Tomasevich's The Chetniks."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, let´s name the things as they really are: direktor, stop lying, "widespread use in Yugoslavia", you mean, the already 20 years non-existing SFR Yugoslavia, right? And stop your lies about Chetniks, enough of disrespect from you. Every sentence of yours is manipulated and close to 100% LIE. I´m done with this POV circus. FkpCascais (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, you should be banned from this topics. You are not even capable of leaving out your prejudice even in discussions. And btw, I am not talking about Chetniks, I only gave them as exemple of non-Partisan combatants, you have many other... And forget Tomašević (and not Tomashevictch, or whatever), he wrote his work long time ago while still in SFR Yugoslavia, so he is no contemporary by any mean... And another thing, if we are naming the article by what is the original naming you pretend to insert as title, it is People´s, so forget forging all alternatives each time one MR of yours fails. The Solar system/Mars exemple is just perfect for this, so you can either write your People´s article, or accept things. FkpCascais (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're going there again? Did I say "ex-Yugoslavia" or did I say "Yugoslavia"? What can I possibly mean when I say "use in Yugoslavia'"? The same Yugoslavia that is "already 20 years non-existing". I'll give you some more time to think about it.

User:FkpCascais is never going to accept the more common title is one that he does not prefer. In fact he never ever budges or accepts he may be wrong on.. any issue whatsoever really. He will continue to simply ignore (such as ignoring the other 240 sources on the Chetniks), or raise the bar on sources and evidence regardless of what someone might find. Notice: he does not specify which other factions or conflicts are supposedly "not included" in the term, so that his claims may never be verified. He made the mistake of being specific with the Chetniks, but now he yet again floats safely in the airs of vague (and violent) opposition.

He is not here to help determine the most common English term, but to continue inventing new reasons why the title is "wrong". His political views demand it. He might suddenly raise the bar and say "only sources from the last 20 years count", upon which I might post some 50 or 60 sources from the last twenty years that discuss the Chetnik movement as a part of the National Liberation War [9] - but then he would surely find another issue. :) I probably should not indulge him with his theories, but as nominator I felt I should respond. Even though the user did no more than simply "declare" the term invalid based on his own personal views - and so vague are his claims that they are as unassailable as they are imaginary. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Anyway the sources are there, the Google tests are there, and the policy is clear. I am confident the closing admin will notice that the opposition, such as it was, has generally failed to produce even a moderately convincing excuse to blatantly ignore Wikipedia naming policy, and keep the current non-scholarly, non-used title. Least of all the utterly vague, completely invented and non-supported personal musings of User:FkpCascais, who, paradoxically, is never satisfied by any amount of contradicting sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Regardless of the outcome, I am confident the closing admin will regard comments by heavily involved editors like the one above as exactly what they are, namely comments by heavily involved editors. I am also confident that he or she will, upon reading the discussion, recognize the false dichotomy in framing this as merely a scholarly vs. non-scholarly issue and act accordingly. Regards. Timbouctou 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Tim here bears a personal grudge against me from Talk:Croats, he is not involved on this article and is here merely to try to "get under my skin", as it were. While his denouncement is indeed characteristically "eloquent", it really makes no sense. Almost as if he did not read the discussion at all. What false dichotomy is he talking about? I fear we shall never know. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary - we reached a satisfactory consensus on Croats. No need to get personal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, its a personal grudge. There may be no need for it, but there it is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I said here has anything to do with the discussion at Talk:Croats. The false dilemma presented by Direktor here has been pointed out by other editors as well and whoever closes this poll should take that into account. I for one do not think that merely invoking WP:COMMONNAME here will solve the issue. Timbouctou (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We are not here to solve any "issue", we are here to find which name is more in accordance with Wikipedia naming policy. As I said, we shall probably never know what this false dichotomy is that you found here. I mean that comment just plain makes no sense. As for you just "accidentally" arriving here to oppose my move proposal at the same time we started an argument on Talk:Croats, well.. if you say so. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, you don´t need to be so egocentred over this issue. Timbouctou has usually been involved in many articles regarding Yugoslavia or Croatia. Btw, it was not nice at all to say that he is revengfull towards you, so that is why he voted that way. I know Timbouctou as an excellent editor with a very apurate sense of NPOV, and from what I know he wouldn´t ever say something he doesn´t beleave. FkpCascais (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its "not nice at all" to be vengeful like User:Timbouctou. And I'm sure you, as usual, absolutely love everyone who happens to agree with you, but loathe and attack anyone who disagrees. And again, as usual, all you have for your wild claims and "theories" is your own amazing ability to write them many, many times in different ways. A very typical discussion this. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR this is absurd. There is nothing remotely unusual in editors being involved over a range of yugoslav articles - you yourself being a prime example. In fact it is difficult for any editors to discuss any topic in this area without the page being filled by aggressive and insulting posts by you. This must stop now. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is an open-and-shut case of "overwhelmingly more common name" vs. "completely unused, user invented name". This is not just me saying so, Google test are available for all to see. And unless an (agenda-driven!) user may simply arrive and "declare" that the term does not apply to some imaginary unspecified aspect of the war, based purely on him saying so, then the article should be moved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Direktor should stop addressing the closing admin as if he owns the article. It is no secret that the proposed article title was and is ideologically motivated and that it considerably fell out of use in this part of the world since the early 1990s. Several editors have voiced concerns over this in the past discussion in January. It is clearly not an open-and-shut case of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME. Direktor is neither as knowledgeable nor methodical as he presents himself to be and any admin closing this discussion should take that into account. Timbouctou (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an open-and-shut case of WP:COMMONNAME. "National Liberation War" is the most common name used in all publications, including modern scholatly publications. The past discussion was for a different name, only the three times lower (yet still more common) usage of the term "People's Liberation War" was considered, while "National Liberation War" was disregarded.

In reposnse to yet another inventive "theory", this time seasoned with political slander, I can only once more post sources. "National Liberation War" renders 650 English language sources from 1992 up to this date. This is still double the hits of any other proposed name - without any time or language restrictions. If we add "Peolple's Liberation War" that's another 130 hits. User:Timbouctou is here WP:STALKing my contribs because of the conflict at Talk:Croats. He, once again, has not even bothered to check the sources, or the proposed name in teh previous RM, before posting his copy-pasted claims here.

I can only wonder which other name User:Timbouctou has in mind, when attacing the proposed one. I would like to see you find more than 650 (or 780) sources for any other specific name. Indeed, even fake searches with generic names such as "Yugoslavia in World War II" render incomparably smaller results even though they are virtually all sentence fragments and not actual names for this conflict. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look more closely at the results you came up with? The majority of the results you got are either direct translations of documents and quotes circulated in the Yugoslav media before the 1990s, when the term was in wide use, OR direct quotes from speeches and letters produced by Josip Broz Tito in the 1940s, when the phrase was invented in the first place. Furthermore, some of them are in direct contradiction with what you are saying here:

• Jozo Tomasevich's book War and revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945 uses the term once in the form of "National Liberation War (the Partisans)", thus indicating that the phrase does indeed represent a side in the conflict, not the conflict itself.
• Bernd Jürgen Fischer's book Balkan strongmen uses the term once and only as a direct quote from a letter written by Josip Broz Tito in 1942.
• John Phillips' book Macedonia: warlords and rebels in the Balkans uses the term once, again, as the translated title of a "widely published article" written by Tito.
• Branka Magaš's book The destruction of Yugoslavia uses the term once and not even the body of the book but in a footnote in which she cites an article published by the official Communist Party newspaper Borba in 1945.
• Christopher Bennet's book Yugoslavia's bloody collapse uses the term once, in a paragraph which describes indoctrination in former Yugoslavia.
• Dunne and Fraser's Europe and Ethnicity mentions the phrase once, and again, in a footnote which directly translates the title of a Yugoslav book published in 1985 which they used as a source.
• The book State-society relations in Yugoslavia 1945-1992 uses the term once, and it even puts it in quotation marks - again, indicating that the very term was an ideological construct.
• Redžić's book Bosnia and Herzegovina in Second World War uses the term once and even explains it further by adding the following: "The socialist propaganda machine developed a series of acronyms with meanings that are almost universally understood in the former Yugoslav lands: NOB (the National Liberation War) and NOP (the National Liberation Movement) being the most commonly used."
• Stojanović's book The Fall of Yugoslavia uses the term twice, both times in reference to the ruling regime in communist Yugoslavia.
• The book Yugoslavia, former and future uses the term once, in an article written by Vojin Dimitrijević which mentions it only in a section which is a translation of the opening paragraphs of the Yugoslav constitution, along with the phrase "Socialist Revolution." In fact many hits you came up with use the exact same phrase "National Liberation War and Socialist Revolution" for exactly the same reason.

I could go on. But seriously - do I need to? I can only repeat that this has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, scholarly publications clearly print the term, but- as evidenced above - they use it in a very specific context exclusively. Unlike what Direktor would have us believe this is clearly not a term merely used for World War II in Yugoslavia in English-language publications. It was an ideologically motivated and state-sponsored phrase invented by the communists in the 1940s and inscribed in the Yugoslav constitution. It seems to appear in books only when discussing the post-war ruling regime and its ideological foundations. It is clearly not used by scholars when merely referring to the war itself - so we shouldn't use it either. Timbouctou (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You could go on? Well coming from you I believe that. Then please do. :) Because there are still some 641 hits and some 7,700 altogether. So carefully cherry-picking half a dozen only proves you probably have experience in cherry-picking. Nice try. I would not advise getting into all that though, since even if you did actually write all that up here, there are the other three problems you face:

• 1) Where exactly in WP:NAME does it state there is a time limit for notability research? Or are we just supposed to accept your "demands" and ignore 90% of the published sources on this subject because you claim they are "communist"?
• 2) Even if they were communist (and they most certainly are not) WP does not really care. WP:NAME:

When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title. Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment. This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgemental.

• and 3) Even if I were to go insane and pretend all of the above isn't there O_o, "Yugoslav front" is still virtually without any usage at all, let alone after 1992. The same goes for any other generic, user-invented name that I researched and that were suggested here. The few hits they reneder are simply sentnece fragments, the vast majority of them, very far indeed from being used as an actual scholarly term for this war. (And for us Wikipedia users to invent a name with another, perfectly normal name in widespread use with over 7,500 published sources, would of course be entirely unacceptable and a blatant breach of naming policy.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Examples I listed are not cherry-picked - far from it. They all come from a random sample taken from the first four pages of the search link you provided. I'm sure hundreds more could be found if one was insane enough to believe that constructive discussion is what you are after here. However, I will leave further research to naive editors like Fainites who seem to have an endless capacity for putting up with your bullshit.
• 2. Your "argument" about a "time limit" and the phrase being "communist" makes absolutely no sense. The phrase "National Liberation War" is simply not a common name for the conflict this Wikipedia article is talking about, as evidenced above. There are enormous books written by scholars out there about Yugoslavia in World War II who mention the phrase only once or twice - and even then, they do not use it for what this article is talking about. They use it only as direct translations of the term when discussing the post-war political system in Yugoslavia. Claiming otherwise is misleading. You are outright lying to us all, Direktor.
• 3. The idea that I used the adjective "communist" as a derogatory term exists in your head only. I happen to actually know a number of people who call themselves "communist" and/or "Marxist" and most of them happen to be perfectly reasonable people - unlike yourself. But if you want to debate the origin of the term then yes - it was coined by communists, it was used by communist, it was literally inscribed in the constitution of a communist country, it was promoted by the communist party's newspaper, there are whole volumes written on its origins and how it fitted into the post-war supra-national communist ideology. Claiming otherwise means that you either have no idea what you are talking about or that you know perfectly well but choose to behave disruptively on purpose. And I don't know which is worse. In any case, saying that a duck is a duck is not "passing judgment" - it is a statement of fact.
• 4. The poll you started is about the move to "National Liberation War", just like it states in the header. It is not about debating the merits of the article's current title. Personally, I'd rather have this article exactly where it is as it seems scholars have never agreed on a specific term for it - nor do I see why they should. Do all wars in a specific geographic area have their names or nicknames? In this poll you have purposefully wasted a huge amount of time on what turns out to be your failure to present any reason to move it away from the current title - other than insisting on your own misplaced ideological inclinations by pretending to follow wiki policies. I couldn't care less about your political views but it seems that you yourself care about them far too much. Timbouctou (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, Timmy, I know you're angry with me, and I'm real sorry for hurting your feelings, but the above just makes no sense at all. :) 1) You did not "evidence" anything, and you do not get to discredit 7,500 sources by posting 9 books you (in your own words) cherry picked from the first forty, and then also invented all sorts of (in your words) "bullshit" theories how they all somehow "do not count". For example who the hell cares if the source quoted another source, the scholar still used the term!? And for every one source you try to twist up there, one can read another 30. 2) You're the one who demanded the time limit, and I agree that is "bullshit" too. Your "bullshit" ("It is no secret that the proposed article title was and is ideologically motivated and that it considerably fell out of use in this part of the world since the early 1990s"). No it didn't, and who the hell cares even if it did? 3) Again, your idea - your "bullshit". 4) This poll is about debating the merits of the current title - as opposed to the proposed one, and vice versa. We are comparing them to see which is more in accordance with WP:NAME. But the funniest bit of all is where you actually admit you are supporting an invented, unused name, essentially so you can mess with me. Should we ignore 7,500 sources, Timmy? Do tell. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your accolade Timbouctou. I cannot see any prospect of this name change succeeding because as usual the page has descended into a TLDR series of rants. No outside editors have commented. Why should they? Who would want to read this lot? Anyway - it's not my decision. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, Fainites, I know. Its a fact of life. When I oppose a move I must remeber to simply post a lot of huge chunks of text to discourage any closing admins. Its far easier to simply write "no consensus" and move on with your day.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It was obvious that this discussion will not end up Direktor's way before I joined the discussion. Regarding your question "Should we ignore 7,500 sources, Timmy?" - the answer is "I don't see 7,500 sources. I see 7,500 Google hits." Not quite the same thing, is it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion will end up the way Wikipedia naming policy requires. Eventually. Though you yourself are indeed just a troll that wants to make sure the people you WP:STALK and insult all over Wikipedia don't "have their way". That's your goal here, you've made that clear enough.

The Google test is a well established (and alomost exclusively used) method of determing English language usage on Wikipedia. Shall we ignore 7,500 Google hits then? Surely not because you posted those 9 books alongside altogether fake theories on how they "don't matter" to you? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are personalising the discussion per usual. What you call "theories" are actually facts. Not quite the same thing. And the examples I listed above show that at least a quarter of the first 40 results are unacceptable. In fact I challenge you to list any 10 quotes in which authors used the term as a synonym for what we currently call "Yugoslav Front" in their own words, without quotation marks or without additional explanations in parenthesis. Find me any 10 examples in which authors did not print the term as a direct translation from the Yugoslav constitution or a quote from Tito, Borba or some such source. Hell, find five. And btw yes - we are allowed to analyze hits more closely precisely because they are not sources. Btw do you not find it strange that there is not a single book dealing with this topic which uses the allegedly common term in its title? Surely you must have some theory as to how historians managed to avoid titling their book by the most commonly used phrase for the topic they are writing about :-) Timbouctou (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translation

Based on the name discussion in January the following is what the agreed lede should look like. I took the time to find missing translations from Slovene and Macedonian and if nobody objects I plan to add it in this form:

• The Yugoslav Front, ([Jugoslavenski front] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) or [Jugoslavensko bojište] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Југословенски фронт; Macedonian: Југословенски фронт; Slovene: Jugoslovanska fronta), also known as the National Liberation War (Serbo-Croatian: Narodnooslobodilački rat, Народноослободилачки рат; Macedonian: Народноослободителна борба; Slovene: Narodnoosvobodilna borba), was fought in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II (1941–1945) between the Yugoslav resistance forces, primarily the Partisans, and the Axis Powers.

Timbouctou (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Timbou, Fainites wanted us to complete it. However, are you sure the NLW should be included like that? I mean, more than "also know as" I really think is what I stood at the discussion, the name of the Partisan actions within the war. FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I should think "also known as" is pretty accurate as that was what it was called in Tito's Yugoslavia for decades.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I just touth perhaps being even more precise just to avoid further misunderstandings in future("named NLW during SFR Yugoslavia", or "or named NLW by Partisans", or "Partisans begin with the auto-proclaimed NLW", just examples, we could find better wording obviously...) ... FkpCascais (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with Fainites on this one. This is just an opening sentence of a rather lengthy article. No need to get into those details in the very first sentence. It used to be widely called that way and a small number of people still call it that. That's all the reader needs to know at this point. Timbouctou (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ok... :) I think it´s ready to go into the article. FkpCascais (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Timbouctou (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

significant mistake

There is this rule that one should take into consideration that people have good intention. However, with this topic I am certain that a particular user is pushing his agenda. The issue I bring up is strictly about a date.

The issue at hand is that there seem to be these claims that the Chetniks lost allied support in 1943. That is very wrong. In fact, 1943 is the year when the allies decided that the Partizans will be the supported army. That said, the Chetniks continued to be supported, though they did not get the bulk of the military aid and supplies.

So, I bring up this issue because it should be corrected. The Chetniks lost support in 1944, not 1943.

Here are numerous citations. The date should be changed.

• Their role is still discussed in Western historiography, es- pecially because the Serb Chetniks retained contacts with the Allies and saved the lives of hundreds of Allied pilots by allowing them to bail out of their planes over Mihajlovic-controlled territory.

[10]

• By 1943 allied support was swung behind Tito; and by 1944, the partisans were the only recognized Allied-backed force fighting in Yugoslavia.

[11]

• Allies withdrew support in 1944.

[12]

• In February 1944 the British order their liaison officers to withdraw from the Chetniks

[13]

• Allied support to the Chetniks vanished in 1944.

[14]

• In 1944, Allied support was officially withdrawn from Mihajlovic's cause

[15]

• Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1986, Micropedia, Vol 3, Page 182 Entry: CHETNIK

(Quote:) Cetnik, member of the Serbian nationalist guerrilla force that formed during WW II to resist Axis invaders and Croatian collaborators but that primarily fought Tito's Communist guerrillas, the Partisans. The chetniks were first organized in Bosnia. Other bands developed in Montenegro, Herzegovina and Dalmatia, but the most important was the one based in Serbia, LED BY DRAZA MIHAILOVIC. He directed his forces to avoid large-scale fighting with the Axis occupation and wait for an Allied invasion that would liberate Yugoslavia and restore the monarchy... By 1944 the Allies, which have provided Mihailovic with the military aid... withdrew their support. At the end of war, Chetniks were... forced from their headquarters at Ravna Gora. Mihailovic and his few remaining followers were captured by Tito's Partisans (March 1946) and brought to Belgrade, where they were tried and executed. (end quote)

My intentions are not to debate or to discuss this. The facts are clear, that the date is wrong, and here are numerous sources that show this. However, traditional communist rhetoric in yugoslavia has been that the partizans have been the only force supporting the allies. I fear that this is why we see a continual revision of chetnik dates - sometimes it's 1942, sometimes 1943, then 1944, and it goes back and forth. What is needed here is a comprehensive mediation, in order for there to be no longer issues such as these. I hope that someone can start it. As for me - my only goal with this post is to point that the date in question should be 1944, which is a significant difference from 1943. I have provided plenty of information which clearly shows this. My post in no way discusses ethnic issues or mapping issues - for which I have a topic ban - I am too lazy to appeal it, and thus do not edit much anymore. But, this is of no harm, to simply bring to light a mistake in the article. People, please go for mediation, because this rollercoaster ride of changing material on the page has gone on for too long. I know, it's easier for me to say hey mediate this, and then take a back seat and go off and do my own business not related to this. But, it is necessary. With this post I plead that the controversy regarding this issue gets resolved - and it's only possible to do so via mediation, as the talk page is clearly extremely limited. (LAz17 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).

You´re right. Walter Roberts, and even Tomasevic! confirm it. In early 1944 Mihailovic and Soviets were in talks, and as strange as may seem, Soviets via radio made insistent requsts to Partisans to join Mihailovic! Basically all Allies allways treated Mihailovic as allied. And, the only ones to consider them enemies were the Partisans... All this needs to be clarified. FkpCascais (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Allied support for the Chetniks was officially lost at the Tehran Conference in 1943:

"At the Tehran Conference in November 1943 the decision was taken to cease all aid to Mihailovich and instead to fully support Tito." [16]

"the Allied forces no longer supported him [Mihailovic] after the Conference in Teheran (December 1943)." [17]

"at the Tehran Conference the formal recognition of the Partisans as an Allied force and the withdrawal of Allied military missions and aid from the Chetniks." [18]

"For in late November and early December 1943 in Tehran, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met to decide, among other things, that military and political support for Mihailović was to come to an immediate end and that all supply deliveries to the Chetniks would stop." [19] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

[20] talks how they switched "aid" and right afterwords talks how improtant Chetniks were in rescuing pilots troughout 1944.

You second source, same as Laz17, doesn´t mention anything, did you checked the page of your link producer? FkpCascais (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fkp you admitted this yourself in an earlier discussion. [21] :) Allied support for the Chetniks was officially lost at the Tehran Conference in 1943. What do the pilots have to do with this? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Because in meantime I have been gathering more info, and despite having the Allies switched "aid" (and that is the real word for it), they never stoped working with Chetniks. And beside the Brittish and American, even the Soviets! which came to be a surprise for me. PS: your third link links me to Chetnik attacks to German forces... was that your intention? FkpCascais (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I just gave you quotes of sources that state that allied support for the Chetniks was officially lost in 1943 at the Tehran Conference. Why are you ignoring that? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I was refering to the top of the page, now I see where it is. Sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Producer, I have given you a number of source that say 1944. They are good sources. So clearly we have a situation where you in an arrogant manner do not even want to seem to bother to look at them whatsoever?

One thing is for a decision to be made for support to go away. The only thing that happened in 1943 is a switch of support. It did not vanish overnight as you try to imply. Come on now, think logically and look at the supporting evidence. I gave a number of good links that specifically state 1944. You can either respond to those saying why they are wrong - that would be better than simply using selective sources to try to disprove something that is factual. What's wrong with the list of sources? (LAz17 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).

Once again it is labeled that the Chetniks were nazis since 1942. What can be done about this? I suggest mediation - perhaps we should first wait for the draza mihajlovic mediation to finish? (LAz17 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

Perhaps once the Mihailovic mediation is finished (and the mediator is suggesting it should quite soon) then the editors involved will be able to help tackle the Chetniks article and this one too. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I'm not willing to wait forever, but I am lazy and so heck, hopefully they finish by the end of summer. (LAz17 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)).

From reading the mediation pages I believe they are proposing to post a draft article quite soon and then continue working on it outside mediation as normal. There is however nothing to stop editors attempting to improve these articles in the meantime.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give some time for someone else to look into this. I provided the sources, so I was hoping that my work would be done. :/ If nothing happens in a while I'll probably take a stab at it. (LAz17 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)).

Volksdeutscher is not a word

I think the non-word Volksdeutscher should be chnaged to. Danube Swabians. First, this is not an English word. Second the German word is Volksdeutsche, without the "r". It is currently only disambiguated as Ethnic Germans, but this phrase disregards the common practice of the inhabitans as calling themselves "Schwove", not "Deitsche". Even the Germans called them "Donauschwaben". Plese make this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to change it yourself, I´m not sure where it is... FkpCascais (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a rather detailed article on Volksdeutsche which you can consult on the meaning and origin of the term. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that this was and still is the term used for them by other groups in ex-Yugoslavia (they are universally called "volksdeutchers" in Croatia and I assume "folksdojčers" in Serbia). Thirdly, as evidenced by the Volksdeutsche article, this was apparently the term used by these Germans themselves at the time. I'm aware that it may carry some ideological connotations but if this is the term which is used by most scholarly sources (and I assume it is) then there's no reason to change it, regardless of the fact that it may have fell out of use in Germany after WWII. Timbouctou (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Volksdeutscher is a good German word,and since there is a strong contribution of Danube Swabians to Croatian culture, I am not surprised that it is still in use in Croatia. However, this is English Wikipedia, and if there is a good English word, it should be used, not a German word of unknown meaning. In any case, no German would use the word 'Volksdeutscher" or "'Volksdeutschers" to describe Danube Swabians as a group. "'Volksdeutscher" might conceivably be used to describe one Danube Swabian. 'Volksdeutschers" would never be uttered by a German. Furthermore, the Nazis popularized the term Volksdeutsche, and exploited such peoples for their own purposes. As a result, the term is not much used today. Imersion (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New changes by User:FkpCascais

[copied-over from User talk:Fainites]Hello Fainites, I haven´t been much around lately cause I had some off-wiki matters and I was also a bit of nostalgic about my football stuff. However, I was bold at Yugoslav Front article and after checking all sources I gathered by now I think it is easily conclusible that some things seemed just out of place. I didn´t wanted to go into details because that would obviously mean going into text and adding all what sources say, most of what would mean some major changes in what the current text looks like now, and I simply wanted to postpone it for some other time in future... However some facts are very clear and easily and logically fixable: the fact that Chetniks can´t ever possibly be added to the Axis column, and that simply can´t happend because they were never Axis. The entire words game cleaverly invented by some of the "officially" and "de facto" is just an excuse for not having anything official to use. Also, if there is the addition of the mentioning of collaboration for them, then obviously that the mentioning of resistance is fair for having an POV view on the matter (the previous version uses the already known strategy of saying, in other words, how they were initially resistance however soon they became Axis. Well, wrong, they actually never became part of Axis, and also they never stoped being Allies). But actually, I am not doing anything more than leaving the Chetniks as third party side, even thus possibly failing because they were obviously Allies until 12/1943 ("officially" and "de facto"). We can discuss nuances, but removing everything without explanation seems precipitated and wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

[copied-over from User talk:Fainites] The Chetniks are listed in that column because that is the side they fought on (for the perid described). I'm assuming your claim that "they were never Axis" is based on the fact that the Chetnik Movement, as a movement, did not actually enter into the Tripartite Pact? However that is not necessary, their placement in the infobox is done in accordance with their role in the conflict, not their on-paper statements. Also, even if we were to follow your definition (and we should by no means do so), there are numerous accounts of formal signed Chetnik-German, Chetnik-Italian, and Chetnik-NDH agreements.

While fighting for the Axis (under Axis command and with Axis supplies) the Chetnik leadership consistently claimed their alliegance was to the Allies. However, once again, their placement in the conflict infobox should be done in accordance with their actual role in the conflict, not whatever side they claimed to be on. "De facto" is not a word game. Their false allegiance was indeed the primary reason why Churchill and the Allies stopped supporting them. The fact that Prime Minister Winston Churchill was forced, forced mind you, to shift support to a communist movement, is another testament to the extent of the pro-Axis Chetnik activities.

Please list your sources, with page numbers, so that your statements may be verifiable (WP:V). Based on past experience I must express my doubts as to whether you've actually researched the matter. However, if you finally did do some research, I look forward to a proper debate on the issue and feel I can more than adequately oppose your edits with sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox was decided upon after much discussion and provision of sources only a few months ago - as FkpCascais is very well aware having been part of those discussions. If you think the infobox requires adjustment FkpCascais, please make your case here with sources for all your changes. Unilateral changes are merely disruptive in these circumstances.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues: the infobox sides presentation and the short explanation regarding Chetniks. To start with, I really think it would be usefull for all of us to simplify the infobox. The only reason why the infobox was divided into time periods was for the reason some users could see their wish satisfied to somehow include Chetniks in the Axis side (to be NPOV, we should separate then periods for all resistance activities, as well, what a mess would that be?). All sources agree that this was a three sides situation, and it should be presented as such. The fact that ocasionaly two sides agreed to set their differences aside for a while and concentrate in the third one is usual in three-side situations, and doesn´t provide sufficient reason for us to enter into POV and focus on one side disregarding the others. The fact that both (Chetniks and Axis) were Partisan enemies does not provide enough reason to name the two as same. Beside, as already conclused, the collaboration between Chetniks and Axis forces was entirely based in one only purpouse, fighting Partisans, and including that fact is crutial. Conveniently this fact is "forgoten" leaving the wrong impression of ones "loving" eachother, something that never happend as excellently described in p.274 (Chetnik official words towards Germans: "You are our enemy"). Also, and here we enter into the next part of what I wish to discuss, is that Chetniks, very opositely how some other editors claim and wish to present, never give up their resistance struggle. They fought Germans troughout the war (independently if attacked, or initiated attacks) and they continued porsuing a resistance squedule even after the loss of official support. Fighting against Axis forces took place even in days before the end of the war, as rescued pilots could testify, so what we have is basically: Oportunistic and ocasional collaboration in between continuos resistance efforts. What is disputed in my words and edits? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Fainites, the discussion ended with the infobox direktor pretended (with all oposing view being disregarded, from resistance periods, to flags, names, etc.) and with direktor making fun and trolling the last user in the last comment, so that seems an "undecided decition"... FkpCascais (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether it needs changing or not. Just that - as it took hours of discussion last time to achieve the current version, you are not going to be able to change it by unilateral fiat. This will simply result in edit wars and so on. It will need careful attention to sources, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I am pleased to see you using a good secondary source like Roberts though rather than just arguing as just arguing never gets us anywhere. I suggest you post your proposals here briefly with relevent sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're really going to re-start this issue, I'll have to repeat once more that there is no "Axis column" or an "Allied column" in the revised, consensus infobox. Chetnik placement is done, as in all infoboxes, solely based on their role in the conflict, i.e. their de facto actions, not what their war propaganda may have been trumpeting at one time or another - which is what you are quoting above. As explained earlier, the sources clearly explain and list numerous Chetnik-Italian and Chetnik-NDH agreements in early 1942, joint Chetnik-Axis operations in Dalmatia and Lika started by mid-1942. Mihailović's rather famous "waiting policy" (politika čekanja) was implemented by the end of 1941 and strongly advocated complete inaction against the occupation, in anticipation of a, in the words of Prof. Pavlowitch, "Allied deus ex machina".

In resoponse to your quoting wartime Chetnik propaganda proclamations as a source(??!), I must point out that there is a mountain of evidence that the Chetnik leadership was ever willing to join with the Axis in pursuit of a common goal. For the earliest example one need look no further than late 1941. At the very start of the conflict, while still in negotiations with Tito, Mihailović "dispatched Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović to meet with the Wehrmacht authorities in Belgrade, offering to place himself at their disposal for fighting communism" (as reported by German military intelligence, the Abwehr, 28 October 1941, the conservative Wehrmacht itself was willing to accept, but Hitler overruled them.)

In fact, this offer and all its circumstances have been well documented by the Wehrmacht, are described in sources, and should be included in the article. I however, am essentially forced to refrain from any such edits for fear of being once again labeled a "communist propaganda-pusher". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets not get into controversial details. After all - the Partisans also approached the germans for much the same purpose - both unsuccessfully as it happened. The info-box can't deal with all these complexities - only a broad brush summary.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It can easily be noted, even upon a superficial study of the details, that the two cannot really be compared.

"..the record of German-Partisan relations from 1941 to 1945 taken as a whole proves that the Partisans could never have reached with the Germans an arrangement going much beyond the exchange of priosners. It ought therefore to be evident that the attempt of March 11 1943 (if not the one of November 17 1942), to reach some agreement, was made under extreme circumstances when the Partisan main focres, their leadership, and some 4,000 sick and wounded, were facing almost certain and complete destruction, and that it cannot be put in the same category as the systematic and enduring Chetnik collaboration described in this study, although that collaboration was not based on ideological affinity and was not without reservations either."

This summation comes at the end of a very detailed and objective study of Partisan-Axis contacts, presented below for your consideration.

The "systematic and enduring collaboration" of the Chetnik movement cannot be easily brushed-over, being a major factor in the battles of this conflict. See below some excerpts on their involvement in Fall Weiss, one of the three major battles of the war in Yugoslavia.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the early days. The germans also refused to supply arms and ammunition to the Chetniks - just as they refused to supply it to the Partisans so they could fight the Chetniks (Zagreb negotiations). Also - at the time when they fell out with the Partisans and attacked their headquarters at Uzice, the Chetniks were the official Yugoslav Army and the Partisans had declared a communist rebublic in part of Yugoslavia - and they were expecting an Allied invasion. Also - the USSR had until recently (June 1941) been in an alliance with the nazis for well over a year, dividing up chunks of Europe between them. I'm not suggesting that the Partisans were collaborators, simply that its not as simple as "collaborated=bad=Axis troops".Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Chetnik-German relations specifically, we have two distinct periods: the pre-Italian surrender, and post-Italian surrender (there are entire chapters on the subject in several sources).

• Before the Italian surrender the Germans consistently refused repeated Chetnik proposals of cooperation, which started with the one I described above of 28 September 1941. The sources point out several times, however, that during this period the Chetniks were receiving supplies from the quisling NDH government, and thus "indirectly from the Germans". The latter poihnt is stressed numerous times: large amounts of German supplies were (either with German knowledge or no) being channeled to the Chetniks through the NDH military. This is in addition to the highly organized and sistematic cooperation with the Italian occupation authorities in their zones.
• After the Italian surrender the Germans were not in a position to refuse Chetnik aid, and essentially inherited the military infrastructure of the Italian zone, which included tens of thousands of Chetnik troops (three full Corps, if I'm not mistaken). With the cooperation established, Chetnik-German relations were warmed-up and a proper, direct relationship formed.
• Re Zagreb talks. All information available to scholars regarding the incident is presented in the above excerpt. 1) There is no indication that the Partisans requested supplies or military cooperation with the Axis. The known points negotiated were: prisoner exchange, an armistice, and POW status for prisoners. 2) This is a single incident, "not to be compared" in any context with numerous (successful!) Chetnik-Axis meetings and agreements. 3) It was under "extreme circumstances when the Partisan main forces, their leadership, and some 4,000 sick and wounded, were facing almost certain and complete destruction" in the final phases of the combined Axis offensive (Operation White), in which some 15,000 Chetniks fought alongside German, Italian, and NDH forces.
  It is natural to try and find some sort of "balance" or at least to equate the two sides in some way, but in this case it is simply illogical.

P.S. Re the "Užice Republic". As you say, up until the Tehran Conference (November 1943) the Partisans were essentially communist rebels. But it must be pointed out that the Chetnik attack on Užice was done after they (the Yugoslav military at the time) had joined the Partisan rebellion in the area and taken up positions alongside the Partisans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone make a resume of direktors, not sure what to call it, please. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're asking people to make a resume for you, and you're "not sure what to call" my post?

Please note Fkp is herewith starting to post in a hostile tone, and making snide comments completely detached from the subject of discussion. This sort of behavior is essentially how these objective discussions are degraded. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Info-box proposals

The current infobox very accurately describes the wartime allegiances. It does NOT list the Chetniks as Axis members, or even as an Axis faction for that matter. The sides of the conflict have been accurately displayed in accordance with Chetnik agreements with the Axis, and their 1942 shift towards solely combatting the Partisans.

A three-sided infobox proposed by User:FkpCascais implies that the Chetniks and the Axis were in conflict for the latter half of the war. On the contrary: it can be easily shown that, not only did the Chetnik leadership pursue a well-publicized policy of inaction towards the Axis (the "Waiting Policy"), but that the Chetniks themselves functioned as Axis auxilliary troops in their strugle against the Partisans (who by late 1943 were the Yugoslav military). The Chetnik leadership, willing to achieve an understanding with the Axis, condoned and even ordered, not only the inaction, but also the Chetnik cooperation with the occupation. All this has been sourced thoroughly, and if need be, the excerpts can be copy-pasted here once more. To quote isolated acts of anti-Axis Chetnik diversion would be highly misleading, as small-sacle these incidents, in direct contradiction with publicized Chetnik policy, cannot be compared to military deployments of tens of thousands of Chetniks under Axis command and fighting alongside the Axis in the battles and operations of this conflict. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

...and remove, or merge, this unecessary new post that basically doubles the conversation. Please. FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, regarding the "waiting policy" it was followed by other resistance movements as well, so? Beside, we have fighting going on between Chetniks and Axis forces in all years of then war, just as rushed exemples:

• 1941: Roberts, p.26
• 1942: Roberts, p.37-44 with Soviets (!) praising Partisans to join the official resistance, the Mihailovic Chetniks!
• 1943: Christoff p.99 "in late summer and early autumn of 1943, one of the most agressive periods of activity on the part of the Chetniks against the Axis force." ... "The Chetniks were involved in a half-dozen major attacks on those forces, and each time the enemy death tole was around 200 to 300. At Mučanj, to the south of Uzice, on July 31the Chetniks engageed a Bulgarian force, inflicting several casualties. On August 29 they derailed two troop trains and killed 200, while at Prijepolje on Spetember 11 they attacked a German garrison 1,000 strong, killing another 200. The next day at Priboj, a town that lay at the strategic crossoads between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, they forced the surrender of an Italian garrison of 1,800 man".

1944: Galbreith [22] p.268, clears out how Chetniks lost British support, but not American. Operation Halyard goes way into 1944, until December, to be more precise.

1945: Knowing that Allies were much closer to victory, Chetniks intensifiyed (continued) their resistance activities. They even collaborated with Soviets in several combats, but I still haven´t transponded that into my sources page.

So not as much passivity as it wants us direktor to have the impression of. This I did just now in a rush cause I´m travelling right now. I forgot what I wanted more to say, but this by now.

@Fainites, could you please indicate me what should I precisely do (or source). You know what I pretend (my edit). I think that is clear about the 3 side situation and I´m not sure how to further demonstrate that the infobox deserves to be simplified :) . About the sentence, well, it´s strange how some simply deny and ignore all resistance efforts and concentrate in some meatings that btw even show the complexity of the situation, and completely fails to demonstrate anything but dislike between Chetniks and Germans. Let´s also not forget that troughout the war Mihailovic executed Pecanac for treason (the Pecanac Chetniks, collaborators)... Here are those pages I talk, and there is more that explains all this. I´ll be back soon. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and direktor, the column that has Nazi Germany on top is the one showing the Axis side (saying Axis, or not in top), just in case you didn´t knew that, or if you want to further make word games... FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Another hostile comment by FkpCascais. Please note the user is this time suggesting I am so ignorant of this issue I am unaware of which side Nazi Germany belonged to.

No, Fkp, there are no "Axis" or "Allied" columns in this infobox, unlike in most WWII infoboxes. The columns merely describe the conflicting sides. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy direktor that you finally ackolledged some policies usefull for discussions, however, your posts are somehow inconsistent. You say I am "hostile", however, it was basically you that insulted all our intelligence by saying, in other words, "no, the movements listed in same column that Nazi Germany, Mussolini Italy and Pavelic Croatia, are not Axis." Oh no? Secondly, you allways complain about the lenght of the posts when something is explained to you in detail, but now you suddenly flood the discussion even opening further threads (?). And third, what are this "Red attack" notes? Should I do it as well? Can I use red, or should I choose another color? PS: I wan´t answer to you any further until Fainites returns. I read all that you (direktor) wrote, and I don´t see anyhow how anything of what you wrote changes the fact that the infobox should be simplified into 3 party side, and that the short resume about Chetniks should fairly present the situation. PS2: You complicated (purpously?) this thread so much that I don´t know where to answer, so I just hope Fainites finds this... FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, sporadic Chetnik diversion DID occur. It occured almost exclusively in southern Serbia and involved a total of twelve small-scale raids and diversions. This I am fully aware of and stated myself numerous times. I did not doubt that that is what you would post. And as I said above, cherry-picking these events and presenting them here out of context and all gathered together is highly misleading as to the role of the Chetnik movement as a whole. The entire excercise is futile: were I to write all the incidents in which Chetnik troops fought side-by-side with the Axis in the same way as you did - I would be up all night. In the one instance I presented above (Fall Weiss) the number of Chetnik troops fighting within the Axis command structure far exceeds all the above raids put together (cca. 16,000). And that is just one battle.

Some few other resistance movements adopted waiting policies, true, but that was mostly due to the complete military impossibility of any open action or rebellion (such as in northen France or the Netherlands). The Chetniks controlled huge chunks of Yugoslav territory. I do not see what that has to do with anything, though, the Chetniks were generally inactive towards the Axis as per their own policy. This is not just a policy. Chetnik general inactivity against the Axis is exceedingly well documented, and was in fact the main reason for the withdrawal of Allied support, once the SOE got wind of it.

As opposed to cherry-picking and bunching together the Chetnik raids in a misleading fashion, here are sources describing Chetnik activities overall, and the contemporary intelligence reports on Chetnik activity in general.

• Pavlowitch describes the Chetniks' policy as "forever waiting for the right moment" (Pavlowitch p.276)
• Johnson, p.164

"He [Mihailović] decided against further action, in favour of a policy of 'waiting in preparation' for an Allied counterinvasion of Yugoslavia.."

• Tomasevich, Volume II, p.446

"British Special Operations Executive (SOE) missions into Yugoslavia [of April and May 1943]...initiated a complete about-face in British policy toward the competing forces in Yugoslavia. The British were able to confirm that the Chetniks and and the Slovene anti-Partisan forces were not fighting the occupation forces, but were collaborating with them against the Partisans."

• Jozo Tomasevich, Wayne S. Vucinich, Contemporary Yugoslavia, p.92

"..those among the Serbs and Montenegrins who inclined towards "waiting for the opportune moment" tended to go with the Chetniks"

Re the sources. Your sources are all books focusing on Operation Halyard, for some strange reason. You're extracting generalized out-of-context statements from (mostly non-scholarly) books dealing with an insignificant detail of the war.

• Marcia Kurapovna is a Balkans correspondent who wrote what appears to a rather biased book. What happened to Pavlowitch? Tomasevich? Ramet? Dickson? Is there a reason to look to less prominent non-profesionals?
  Has her book "Shadows on the Mountain" received any peer reviews? I.e. is it a sholarly peer review publication? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Galbreith and Lindsay do not say that the Chetniks had American support. The Americans did not supply the Chetniks in any significant way, and publicly shifted all support to teh Partisans. The source merely explained that the Americans were interested in covertly cooperating with the Chetniks to get their pilots out.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

All sides (Germany, Italy, NDH, Chetniks, Partisans...) during WW2 in Yugoslav Front commited war crimes. Yet in the article there were only two images of this, and both by Ustaše. I removed one of them, and replaced it with some other image. I left the one in the Infobox - Ustaše guard stands among the bodies of prisoners killed in the Jasenovac concentration camp.--Kebeta (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)