Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Sources for mister DIRECTOR

Here is a notable list of sources which disapprove claim of user:DIREKTOR that "this political entity is almost never referred to as simply Serbia alone, but is called Nedić's Serbia or the Nedić regime":

In All these sources, name is simply Serbia and I did not found a single map describing this territory as Nedić regime.

Furthermore, articles about all other territories of occupied Europe are named by the name of territory, not by the name of regime:

It is simply unacceptable that word "Serbia" is excluded from the title. Such exclusion is obviously not supported by the sources and it is nothing but personal view of user DIREKTOR. In Serbian Wikipedia there are separate articles about Serbia as political entity and regime that ruled over it. So, if user DIREKTOR want to write separate article about government of Milan Nedić he is free to do it, but one article that mostly speaks about political entity and that contains "Infobox Former Country" and that is located in categories "Short-lived states of World War II", "Former countries in the Balkans", "States and territories established in 1941", etc, simply need to have name of that political entity (i.e. Serbia) in its title. PANONIAN 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Published, professional English sources use the term "Nedić regime" to refer to the territory controlled by the WWII government [1]. The idea that this entity is "Serbia", is User:PANNONIAN's own interpretation. The googled forums or websites listed are all virtually completely useless as sources, as are the links to Wikipedia's own articles on puppet states. As User:Jean Jacques Georges has pointed out: one of the few WWII occupied countries with a status comparable to the Nedić regime was occupied Norway - hence the Quisling regime article.
Regardless, please STOP your move-war. Unless you can find more than 150 sources that use some other title, "Nedić regime" stays. And please do not impose some new ideas and interpretations as to the scope of the this article. Please note that no state or entity known as "Serbia" was created by the Nazis, nor did any state other than the Federal State of Serbia exist during WWII under that name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but sources that you presented here are simply not referring to territory - they only refering to regime, but not to territory. If you use keywords "Serbia 1941" in the same search, you will find plenty of sources that are using name Serbia. So, it is your personal POV that this territory was not Serbia (despite numerous sources that I presented). I have no time to waste in pointless discussion with you here. I will report this thing to the administrators and they will deal with your POV. PANONIAN 11:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And please, do not try to provide false comparison with Norway since we have this article about Norway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Norwegen Serbia is only WW2 territory about which we do not have an article and only because YOU insisting that word "Serbia" should not be in the title of this article. PANONIAN 12:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
PANONIAN, I beg you, please do not complicate matters with nitpicking on "territory", "government", the "Nazi military commissariat", etc. We would need 3 or 4 articles to cover this one subject under your personal interpretations of article scope. This article is on a STATE, a political entity, referred to in sources as the Nedić regime (NOT Serbia). The "regime", and naturally the "territory" it controlled, is referred to as the "Nedić regime" in quite a lot of reliable sources (many of which are high-quality, like Tomasevich). You won't be able to dismiss all those sources because YOU yourself make the artificial distinction between the bare "territory" and the state (which is referred to as "Nedić regime").
I don't know what your motivation is here, but do you seriously want "[[Serbia during WWII|Serbia]]" to be listed alongside "[[Independent State of Croatia|Croatia]]" in WWII infoboxes? What you are suggesting here, whether that is your intent or no, is that "Serbia" was an Axis puppet state during WWII - that is not accurate, and I would say its even Croatian nationalist POV :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
My personal interpretation? Do you have a single evidence that WW2 political entity with name Serbia did not existed? How one regime can exist without a country or territory which it govern? Sources that you presented are speaking about this regime, but no single source are claiming that this regime ruled over fictional non-existing territory and no single source are claiming that it speak about territory when it mention this regime. I cannot believe that somebody is trying to impose so ridiculous historical interpretations here. Please quote one single source that claims that "Nedić regime" was a designation for territory itself if you can. PANONIAN 17:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
First I would like to clear up in light of your above posts, the fact that the scope of an article about a political entity certainly includes the "territory" it encompasses.
This same political entity we are talking about is referred to as the "Nedić regime" or "Nedić's Serbia". Of the two common names, "Nedić regime" is more commonly used in English language scholarly publications. What I am saying is that officially the name was not "Serbia" (and frankly such a mangled rump entity should hardly be called "Serbia"). "Nedić"
Frankly I'm getting quite tired of this article. First Serbian nationalists protested at the name "Nedić's Serbia" so it was changed to "Serbia (1941-1944)", then nationalists protested that "Serbia was not an Axis puppet!" and should not be listed as such as a combatant in WWII (on articles that people actually read). I agreed with that, "Serbia" (1941-1944) seemed to suggest that this was a puppet state along the lines of the Nazi Independent State of Croatia(!). Now this title is not "acceptable" to Serbian users because it "denies the existence of Serbia" or whatever... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Came here from the geopolitical conflict noticeboard. Without commenting on content, to avoid an edit war and be procedurally perfect DIREKTOR, maybe it is better to just go with an RM and present arguments there, after which an uninvolved admin can evaluate the arguments for the title. If moves continue, then most likely you'll both be summarily blocked by a passing admin. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to be involved in edit war with this user and that is exactly why I mentioned this issue on appropriate administrator's noticeboard. I will not revert title any more, but administrators should hear my arguments and this article should not have title desired by user DIREKTOR only because he behave more aggressively and because he cannot stop himself from edit warring. I presented sources that are using name "Serbia" for this territory and I presented links to other Wikipedia articles about similar WW2 territories, so validity of such sources should be examined by administrators, not by user DIREKTOR who clearly have strong personal POV in relation to this question. If user DIREKTOR want to have article about Nedić regime so much, then I could accept compromise in which this article could speak about regime and I can create another one that would speak about WW2 political entity named Serbia (Serbian Wikipedia have articles about both, political entity of Serbia and government of Milan Nedić). PANONIAN 17:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
PANONIAN, this title remains because its been on for months, not because you or I are "aggressive". Unlike the previous move, your move is opposed. Propose an RM. Even if you were correct in your assertions (which you are not), still the title you have been pushing would be against naming conventions.
Further, I would like to point out that any attempts to create a WP:POVFORK will be met with a deletion proposal on those grounds.
That said, please read my above post. Apart from the Federal State of Serbia (which is quite separate and already has an article), there was NO other political entity with the name "Serbia" during World War II. None. How the Serbian Wikipedia wishes to cover Serbian history should not be our concern in the least. This article is on a political entity, referred to in sources as the "Nedić regime" (NOT "Serbia"). The entity, and naturally the territory it controlled, is referred to as the "Nedić regime" in the majority of reliable sources (many of which are high-quality, like Tomasevich). You won't be able to dismiss all those sources because YOU yourself make the artificial distinction between the bare "territory" and the state (which is referred to as "Nedić regime"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
First I would like to clear up in light of your above posts, the fact that the scope of an article about a political entity certainly includes the "territory" it encompasses.
This same political entity we are talking about is referred to as the "Nedić regime" or "Nedić's Serbia". Of the two common names, "Nedić regime" is more commonly used in English language scholarly publications. What I am saying is that officially the name was not "Serbia" (and frankly such a mangled rump entity should hardly be called "Serbia"). "Nedić"
Frankly I'm getting quite tired of this article. First Serbian nationalists protested at the name "Nedić's Serbia" so it was changed to "Serbia (1941-1944)", then nationalists protested that "Serbia was not an Axis puppet!" and should not be listed as such as a combatant in WWII (on articles that people actually read). I agreed with that, "Serbia" (1941-1944) seemed to suggest that this was a puppet state along the lines of the Nazi Independent State of Croatia(!). Now this title is not "acceptable" to Serbian users because it "denies the existence of Serbia" or whatever... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I already asked you to present a single source that claiming that "Nedić regime" is a designation for territory? Where is your source? We need sources, not your rhetorics, you know. As for title move, original title of this article had name "Serbia" in it and it was YOU who moved that original title to "Nedić regime" and I am the one who opposing your move (the fact that I was not active in English Wikipedia does not deny my right to oppose your actions even if few months passed from it). What you trying to do here would be same if we would try to use title Government of Serbia for article about Serbia. PANONIAN 17:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I can only repeat: "Nedić regime" is the most common English name for this state. This is an article on a political state, not its "territory" alone. The scope of an article on any state naturally includes its territory (as is the case in every single other political entity article). You are inventing an artificial separation between the bare "territory" of a state and the state itself. Next you are going to ask me to prove that Nedić regime is a "designation for buildings" within it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


I support Panonian's opinion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Amusing. I'm sure you do. Permit me however to advise users not to place much stock in your opinion here since (in spite of your previous engagement here months ago) you are currently merely "retaliating" for my efforts at Template:WW2InfoBox. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not concerned by your opinion. I am merely observing that you never seem to tire of engaging in relentless pov-pushing campaign, ignoring sources, or despising other users's remarks. Panonian is entirely right in pointing out that your main weapon for imposing your own POV is agressive behaviour. The result is simply disastrous as far as the quality of wikipedia articles is concerned. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't despise you JJG :), even though you yourself despise me so much that you followed me here after all this time. Please rest assured that my command of the sources related to the subject matter is still far better than yours. E.g. note that insofar the English sources far more commonly use "Nedić regime" as the name for this state than any other name you've cared to invent here. "Nedić's Serbia" is a close runner-up. I can't imagine your imagined generic names will be used when real specific names from actual professional sources are available. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No names have been invented to my knowledge. If any official name was used by the Nedic regime, and is mentioned in any sources, then it should be used as a title. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
While I do find you new approach interesting, I think we shall stick with the most common name after all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - New voting

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: Speedy close. There is already a move discussion in progress. As a purely technical point we can't have more than one RM on a page at a time as RM bot can't cope with it and having only one is likely to cause confusion - what if two discussions end up with consensus to move to different names. Let the above discussion close and go from there. Dpmuk (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)



Nedić regimeto any title with name "Serbia" in it — Well, since the previous voting was an obvious failure where most users neither supported my proposal neither the current name of the article (even some users that voted against my proposal were not supportive for current name of the article - they rather proposed some alternative options for name change). Due to that, I am now proposing an different kind of voting where several names would be proposed and users should add "Support" vote for one or more names that are acceptable for them (I will support all titles with name "Serbia" in them). The name that gain largest number of "Support" votes should be a winner.--PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support current name "Nedić regime"

Users who support name "Nedić's Serbia"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "Serbia (World War II political entity)"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "Serbia (1941–1944)"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "Serbia during World War II"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "Serbia under German occupation"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "German-occupied Serbia"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "Military Administration in Serbia"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "German occupation of Serbia during World War II"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who support name "Axis occupation of Serbia during World War II"

  • Support PANONIAN 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Military Administration in Serbia is a definite non-starter, as it does not in any way describe what is on this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an RM? :) Ok this is just getting silly. There is no way I'm accepting a move weaseled-out this way. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the user should spend more time researching actual sources usage than thinking-up his own opinion polls. What would be the point of wasting time with this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_censored An democratic consensus is certainly better solution than personal terror and censorship performed by a single user. PANONIAN 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
By "personal terror and censorship" you must mean "strict adherence to sources and wiki policy". I'm sure you do feel "terrorized" for having trouble pushing your own unfounded ideas through. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:58, 14 February 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.

History of Serbia in the 20th century

Ok, for users who are interested in this, I opened new discussion about coverage of 20th century history of Serbia, so please post your opinions there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Serbia#Coverage_of_20th_century_history_of_Serbia PANONIAN 16:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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: Proposal effectively withdrawn by the nominator --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)



Nedić regimeSerbia (World War II political entity) — Ok, I am now officially requesting that title of this article is moved to more suitable title. Since reasonable discussion about this with user:DIREKTOR is not possible, I will state my arguments here and I will propose voting where other users would have chance to say their opinion as well. I provided several sources that showing that name "Serbia" is used as designation for this territory (see these sources here). Furthermore, this article has an "Former Country Infobox" in it and it is located in categories "Short-lived states of World War II", "Former countries in the Balkans", "States and territories established in 1941", "Puppet states", "World War II occupied territories", etc. Note that territory/country and regime that ruled over it are very different subjects and that an article that speaks about one regime simply cannot be located in categories "countries", "states" or "territories" - regime is simply not an country or territory. It is obvious that this article mostly speaks about territory (not about regime) and there is no single evidence that term "Nedić regime" is used in any source as a designation for territory (All sources that using term "Nedić regime" are speaking only about regime, not about territory, and most common name of that territoty was "Serbia" - this could be also proven by some official documents from that time which could be seen here: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). If we do not move this to suitable title, Serbia would be the only WW2 territory that does not have its article in English Wikipedia and it will certainly undermine the quality of this project. --PANONIAN 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the article was stable for several years at Serbia (1941–1944) and was at Nedić's Serbia for a while before that. — AjaxSmack 03:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It was arbitrarily moved from its original title "Nedić's Serbia" to "Serbia (1941–1944)" by User:PANONIAN without an RM (or even a discussion). The thing is, "Nedić's Serbia" signifies the puppet regime of the Nedić government, while "Serbia" does not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - per my explanation above. PANONIAN 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Why are you listing yourself? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Why should I not? PANONIAN 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not unsual for some editors to !vote on their own proposal "as nomimator". I think it's ok, as long as it is clear. walk victor falk talk 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Last time I did so I got booed. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I think !voting in your own nomination is OK. It helps clarify your position. (I have nominated article's to be moved where I didn't support the move on behalf of someone else or to gain consensus for a stable title.) — AjaxSmack 03:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Tomasevich.--Presbite (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • [Having a look at the link] Um... Presbite... the Nedić regime certainly was in Serbia if you thought that was the issue :). The puppet government was certainly "in Serbia", but he does not call the state itself "Serbia", however. A closer look at the grammar? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm wrong, but also the article in the Croatian wiki is "Nedićeva Srbija".--Presbite (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, "Nedić's Serbia" is another term for this state, and the original title of this article. A quick sources search however shows that "Nedić regime" is more common in English. The full official name of the political entity that is the topic of this article is "Government of National Salvation". The link you provided shows, in fact, the separation between the "government" and "Serbia". Note how the author does not refer to the "Government" as "Serbia", but merely calls it "the government" (i.e. "regime"), adding that its "in Serbia". The author also proceeds to use the term "Serbia" throughout the book without any association to the Government of National Salvation.
          Furthermore, I'll add that this title is on, not because of Tomasevich alone, but because it is generally the most common name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - per good explanation by PANONIAN and per common sense. This is article about Serbia during world war II. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No its not, its about a puppet government established within Serbia during World War II. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • But where is then article about Serbia during during World War II? Also, i striked my approval, as proposed title is not improvement. Maybe Serbia (1941-1944)? After all propositions, this may be the most neutral name, even despite DIREKTOR's attitude toward COMMONNAME. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Neutral? Certainly not, as the regime did not represent Serbia, but the Military Administration (Nazi Germany), the name "Serbia (1941-1944)" is highly controversial and should by no means be the name of the article. --Zoupan (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are right. This name is not good. I strike it for final. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support some title with "Serbia" in it. The article is a "state" article and should carry its name. I also like the former title Serbia (1941–1944) or maybe Serbia during World War II. — AjaxSmack 03:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Noone cares about WP:COMMONNAME? I really should stop bothering with those silly tests. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support some title with "Serbia" in it. Pretty much any will do (see Srnec's post below). The article should be first and foremost about the territory (the puppet state), and the puppet government is just one aspect of it. I suggest Serbia (1941–1944) just for simplicity (the article used to be there before), but won't object to any other choice (Panonian's proposal is a bit unwieldy). No such user (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. The "Nedić government" is not "Serbia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Why not? Over what state did the Nedić government claim to rule? Serbia. If this article were only about the government, like the corresponding Quisling regime, I would support its current name. But it's not. It is about (a) the territory called Serbia and its people, (b) the civil government of that territory and (c) the military administration of that territory by Germany. There is one thing they all have in common: they all claimed to be or to rule over Serbia, and their claims were not empty. Srnec (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and frankly because the request makes little sense. I am still struggling to understand the logic of creating separate articles for the state and its "territory". This article is on a WWII political entity, and "Nedić regime" is its most common name in English sources [7] (including high-quality sources like Tomasevich [8]). At no point during its existence was it ever called "Serbia". Not much more to say.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I highly disagree with this claim. No single source from this list is claiming that "Nedić regime" is a name for territory instead just for regime that ruled over it and even this source clearly use term the "puppet government of Serbia". I cannot believe that somebody is presenting a source and lying about its content. PANONIAN 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • PANONIAN, for the absolute last time: the scope of a state's article includes its "territory". We don't need separate WP:POVFORKs or article moves for its territory because you think "Serbia's existence is being denied" or whatever. The name of this WWII political entity was simply NOT "Serbia", nor is it usually called "Serbia" in English sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The high-quality source (Tomasevich) you cite has a chapter title of "The Puppet Government of Serbia". The map on the following page reads "Occupied Serbia". Certainly, "Nedić regime" is used as a descriptive in the text just as "Serbian government"[9] is. The most common terms used in that chapter are Serbia/Serbian. The title here should reflect that while including disambiguating information. — AjaxSmack 04:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • A very superficial assessment, Ajax, please read my responses in the above section. Tomasevich is an excellent example of the separation between the "government" and "Serbia" I've found in every single source. Note how the author does not refer to the "Government" as "Serbia", but merely calls it "the government" (i.e. "regime"), adding that its "in Serbia" - which is of course quite accurate and undisputed. The author also proceeds to use the term "Serbia" throughout the book without any association to the Government of National Salvation. I've read the book several times. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, DIREKTOR, I still cannot understand your completely irrational and illogical behavior. You agree that there was entity Serbia, but you insist that there should not be article about that entity, only about one of its governments. As was already pointed out, WW2 Serbia had two governments (the first one was lead by Milan Aćimović) and title Nedić regime simply cannot cover all things related to WW2 Serbia. This article had name Serbia in its original title and it should have this name again. If you think that there should be separate article about government of Milan Nedić, you are free to create one. PANONIAN 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a collaborationist government within a German Militärverwaltung, one of the few comparable cases in occupied Europe is Norway, who's counterpart article is named "Quisling regime". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Indeed, I am fully aware of them, but those two articles are not about the collaborationist government within a German Militärverwaltung like this article, are they? (note above: "counterpart article") Would you call Quisling's government under the military occupation "Norway"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I am fine with dividing our coverage of WWII Serbia into three articles comparable to the Norwegian case: Serbia during World War II (territory and people), Military Administration in Serbia (German occupiers), and Nedić regime (civil government/puppet state). But the current situation is a combination of all these topics into one article. (The demographics and culture sections are not about the Nedić regime per se, and they have no counterparts in the Quisling regime article.) Also, the cases are not comparable at the level of the terms "Serbia"/"Norway", since there was a Norwegian government-in-exile, but no Serbian one. "Norway" is ambiguous in a way that "Serbia" is not. But in any case it's a matter of context. Srnec (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support Nedić Serbia. It has Nedić (the puppet government) & Serbia (location), and it is not complicated like proposed new title - 'Serbia (World War II political entity)'. I know it isn't the best solution, but a compromise. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support Nedić regime, German occupation of Serbia during World War II, Military Administration in Serbia (Militärverwaltung in Serbien, the correct German term), although the best solution would be Axis occupation of Serbia during World War II, the 'Serbia (World War II political entity)'-idea is just funny. See Military Administration (Nazi Germany). --Zoupan (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I support Serbia under German occupation, as that was Serbia, with their people and in that historical situation, that was Serbia, as none other legal, official Serbia did not existed. That regime was international representation of Serbia in that moment, as it is unquestionable that people didn't support it, but it was like that, as that Serbia was under German occupation. After this requested move, new one should start, with, (if you ask me) Serbia under German occupation --WhiteWriter speaks 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The phrase "Nedić regime" is attested by a significant number of hits on Google books. I don't think many readers type in "Serbia" and expect material on this regime to pop up -- and the title "Serbia (World War II political entity)" makes sense only if you believe there are such readers. The regime's currency said "Serbian National Bank" (Србија Народне банке) and "Serbian dinars" -- no "republic", "state", "royal" or "kingdom", although there is a watermark of King Peter II.[10] The postage said just "Serbia" (Србија), so that would seem to be the most official version of the name. "Nedić Serbia" gets somewhat fewer hits than "Nedić regime", but it is certainly attested as well. Tomasevich uses the phrase "Serbian authorities" to refer to this regime. So I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that this was a Serbian state. I certainly wouldn't object to Nedić regime (Serbia). Kauffner (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, suffice it to say that the original move request is not particularly likely to succeed because it's pretty awkward, but the gist of it stands - the current title is a fair bit inconsistent because it uses a general historical term, whereas the article is formatted with Infobox Former Country and has many of the other characteristics of a country article. For example, "Administrative divisions", "Demographics", "Culture" are not section titles applicable to a regime, rather to a country. It should be either one or the other, or a much more subtle combination of both. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The gist of it does not stand. The fact is that the sources use the term "regime", i.e. "Nedić regime", to refer to the country controlled by Nedić's Government of National Salvation. It, however, was not named "Serbia" at the time, and is (as a rule) not called "Serbia" in sources. The term "Nedić regime" is used in sources because the political entity in question did not even have an official name of its own.
      On the contrary, it has been shown that "Serbia" is used predominantly in WWII history sources as a term for the geographic region corresponding with the full extent of modern Serbia (that term covers an area almost twice the size of the Nedić regime). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:46, 17 February 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.

Third opinion request

I am requesting third opinion about these sources. User:DIREKTOR is claiming that these sources are using term "Nedic regime" as a name of WW2 puppet state. I claim that name of that state was "Serbia" and I collected sources that confirming this. Third opinion is needed about correct interpretation of info in these sources. My own examination of these sources does not confirm that term "Nedic regime" is used there as "a name of a state". In fact, the only thing that I can conclude from these sources is that term "Nedic regime" is used for regime only, but it is not used as "country name". Someone neutral should examine these sources and should say is term "Nedic regime" used there as designation for regime or for country. PANONIAN 15:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire :)
  • 1) PANONIAN's sources are googled nonsense (that includes various Serbian nationalist forums and such). 2) The majority of the nonsense sources merely show that "Serbia" is used as a geographical term for the region in the context of the WWII period. I have displayed sources and attempted to explain numerous, numerous times that the word "Serbia" in that context, as used by professional sources, DOES NOT refer to this puppet state. Experts on WWII Yugoslavia like Tomasevich use the term many times, but never as another term for the puppet state that is the subject of this article. 3) Even if all of the above is disregarded, PANONIAN's "sources" are still decidedly outnumbered by the dozens upon dozens of sources which simply and unambiguously use "Nedić regime".
  • The attempt to dismiss the publications in question is based entirely on User:PANONIAN's personal subjective views. No offence intended, but his English is not exactly top-notch, and he perceives that the word regime "can not be used for state". He also accordingly demands the creation of a FORK that would separately cover the "territory" of this same puppet state.
I tried my best to explain all of the above to him, to no avail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that usage of term "Nedic regime" by the sources is not disputed. The only disputed thing is whether this term is used as a name of regime or as a name of a country. No single one of these sources presented by DIREKTOR is claiming that term is used as a name of a country, and due to that, this is clear example of DIREKTOR's original research and fringe theory, which should be examined by administrators. Due to the fact that this user is also very aggressive in his POV pushing, I believe that he should be banned from edits related to this article. PANONIAN 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
A "fringe theory" of my own, how wonderful. Not bad for an undergraduate. Did you find out about WP:OR from my above post? I'm glad to be of service :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

-I'd regard it as a colloquial term used post-WWII. It was not used by either contemporary sources or officially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly not used during WWII, but it is used now. In scholarly, published sources. That's what matters, fyi --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

-Granted, but it should be noted at least somewhere in the article that 'Serbia' was the state's official name, even if the title of the article remains 'Nedic's Serbia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a published source that states the official name of this state was "Serbia"?
On an unrelated note, please sign your posts with four tilde "~~~~", and if you wish to use bullet points ("-") an asterisk ("*") placed at the start of the row will provide the desired result. Regards. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, Can you please provide any source that states that "Nedic regime" was a name of a country? We both know that answer is no. PANONIAN 19:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
LoL. There are cca. 160 sources which use "Nedić regime" to refer to this state. Try as you might, your creative thinking and word games will not make them disappear. I would be pretty stupid if I started to cater to your absurd demands. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
For admins: This is exactly what I spoke about user DIREKTOR: he constantly claiming that "there are sources" for his original research and fringe theory, but he did not presented a single source that confirming this claim. PANONIAN 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
For my imaginary friends: PANONIAN sure does have it rough with me around. You should block me, accept srpskamreza.com as a "source", and move the page in spite of no consensus. Then you should create two.. wait, three articles on the same state - one for its "territory", one for the "regime", one just for kicks, and they should all be named "Serbia". :)
On a related note, User:PANONIAN, are you serious with that stuff? Please learn what "fringe theory" and "original research" means. It gets annoying when you just repeat the same misconceptions over and over and over again. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Nedić regime and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

It seems clear to me from PANONIAN's sources (which are academic books, mind you, not partisan messageboards) that the Nedic regime was a government operating in Serbia - in fact, most of the sources say something to the effect of 'the Nedic regime in Serbia'. There's no indication that 'Nedic regime' is the name of a state or country. In fact, the lowercase 'r' in 'regime' seems to explicitly indicate that the term is not a proper noun (and thus not the name of a country) but simply what it says - a regime. Even the current article says clearly in the infobox that the Nedic regime was a government, not a country.

If reliable sources are available that state that the Nedic regime was a country, these need to be provided. This needs to be said explicitly, omission cannot infer anything. As it stands, the sources are clear and consistent with PANONIAN's interpretation.

In any case, both of you should remember to assume good faith, remain civil and avoid personal attacks.

Hopefully this helps you resolve your dispute. If you'd like further opinion from me on this issue, please let me know on my talk page. Alternatively, if you'd prefer a broader range of input on the issue, feel free to make use of WP:RfC.—TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

-at any rate, however, no State, puppet or otherwise; or indeed sub-national entity is without a descriptive noun. Even the Reichkommisariat Ukraine still had the word 'Ukraine' in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So can we conclude the move to Nedic's Serbia then? FkpCascais (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The expanded debate on this page feels odd to me. The article begins as that of a government regime, comparable to any other government articles. Midway through it forgets what it's talking about and starts talking about the Serbian state during the war. A government is not a state - a government controls a state. By all accounts, the government of the Nedic regime controlled the state of Serbia.
It seems that the article could survive quite well as a government. That said, if the intention is to transform the subject of the article from the government to the state, Nedic's Serbia feels like a weak name to choose. While other countries have well-accepted names for their unusual status during WW2, such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, I suppose the problem here is that the sources don't offer such an easy title to use? The phrasing "Serbia under the Nedic regime", while presumably accurate, is a bit long for an article title. What about a descriptive title instead of a name? Something like 'German-occupied Serbia' or 'Serbia (19xx-xx)'? I realise that's been discussed above; I'm not well enough versed on the subject to offer anything beyond simple suggestions. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I want to emphasise that my name suggestions immediately above are only applicable if the subject of the article is to become the Serbian state during Nedic's control. If the article is intended to stay as the government itself, the current title is appropriate, based on the sources. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
TechnoSymbiosis, thank you for your comments. I also proposed two possible solutions for this problem: 1. renaming this article to any title with name "Serbia" (this should be done in the case that article speaks about WW2 country and all proposed article names with name "Serbia" are acceptable for me); 2. creation of new article about WW2 Serbia, in which case this article would stay under name "Nedic regime" and it would speak about that regime or government only. Seems that most other users involved in this discussion are supporting this view, but main problem here is that user DIREKTOR does not behave reasonable and trying to push his view that "Nedic regime" is a name of a country (He claims that he will not allow either name change either creation of another article about country). He also reverting all edits of other users that are not in accordance with his POV and therefore an admin intervention is needed in this case. I do not want to be involved in revert warring with DIREKTOR, but if one article is named like this only because one aggressive user thinks that he owns it, no matter what sources and other users would say about that, then Wikipedia simply does not work. If this kind of behavior is allowed then anybody can write any personal POV in any article, no matter of the sources and no matter of what other people would say (Seems that you just have to be aggressive enough and you can do what ever you want in Wikipedia). PANONIAN 10:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Very well, let us then revet to the original title "Nedić's Serbia" and end this nonsensical exchange. (It may be interesting to note that User:PANONIAN was the guy who actually moved the article from it, mow to morph into its greatest advocate.)
Also, the IP user's take on the matter is also interesting. Was this state officially a "kingdom"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, as best as I understand it, the plan was for it to be a kingdom, but nobody wanted the crown, so they just kept their lips tight about it. Now I wonder where I read that. It must have been an earlier version? That's certainly something I didn't knew a week or so ago. I think I remember two other guys turned it down beside king Peter. walk victor falk talk 11:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Please check this link in wiki about the term Sovereign state [[11]], regards --MODERN.TALK (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So is everyone agreed then? Nedic's Serbia? Fainites barleyscribs 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Just a last-minute suggestion: "nedich's" is barely pronounceable, how about "Nedić Serbia"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • DIREKTOR, it was very hard to achieve this compromise, so please let not start again with this. You was the one who was saying that name should be supported by Google Books hits, and if we use "Nedić Serbia" or "Nedic Serbia" keywords in that search, we got mostly results with name "Nedic's Serbia" and it is name supported by several users who voted here. For name "Nedić Serbia" we would have to open new discussion and new voting. So, DIREKTOR, since majority of users supported name "Nedić's Serbia" in that voting, and since you said that it is acceptable for you, can we ask some administrator to rename article to that title and that we finish with this? PANONIAN 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Don't blow the fuse... :) The difference between these two versions is largely inconsequential. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • So, what you proposing Joy? It is clear that most users are not supporting current title. What should be done about this? PANONIAN 15:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by No such user

First and foremost, I must say that Direktor and Panonian blew this issue out of any reasonable proportion. Nobody can reasonably put forward an opinion on this page without receiving an edit conflict with one of you two. While the good faith of both of you is out of question, I think you are trying too hard and earned a trout whack each.

Having said that, let me refute one point persistently made by Direktor (as far as I came to read the TLDR above). He claims that having any title other than "Nedić's regime" is WP:OR, because that title is (most) frequently used in WP:RS. Even if it were true (which is disputed), the response to that claim is Mu: WP:NOR applies only to the article contents, broadly construed. Instead, when we approach a complex topic such as this one (which is part of several greater topics), we (as Wikipedia editors) are at liberty to choose its scope as we see fit, by means of WP:CONSENSUS.

For some topics, the scope is clear by the very nature. For others, editors are the ones to pick the scope, and they have a great amount of leeway, as long as it satisfies common sense and WP:NPOV (it's not generally OK if you pick the scope so that you include only opinions of one side). Here's a random selection of topics which were apparently created as offshoots WP:SUMMARY of greater topics, with varying amount of detail: Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution, Satanic ritual abuse, Jewish reactions to intelligent design, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus,... Even if no WP:RS have used the title in that exact phrasing, those articles are perfectly fine and do not violate WP:NOR. We usually call these descriptive titles. So please spare me Google searches on this one, because they cannot give you an answer by definition.

That being said, I believe that we have a clear consensus, in the first poll, that the scope of this article should be the entire territory of German-administered Serbia in WWII, and not only the Nedić's puppet government. If the article were titled "Nedić's regime", I would expect it to be focused on Nedić and his men. However, it is not.

Just browsing through the article's "See also" section, I find Hungary during World War II, Military history of Bulgaria during World War II and Albanian Resistance of World War II. They have similar, yet subtly different scopes. So, what's wrong with one of Serbia during World War II, Nazi occupation of Serbia in World War II, etc? No such user (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That is out of context, No such user. This is article that speaks about WW2 puppet state and the dispute was how we would name that article. Topics related to territory of present-day Serbia during WW2 are already covered with this article, so what would be a point of duplicating its content? The issue how "history of the present-day territory of Serbia in WW2" would be covered in other articles is not related to the question of whether we would have an article about puppet state of Serbia. PANONIAN 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, seems that somebody deleted much of the content of "History of modern Serbia" article since last time that I saw it, so it now strangely ends in year 1918. Restoring this article to its original version where it would speak about post-1918 period as well would solve your problem. PANONIAN 11:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, this article in fact did not included post-1918 history (I have no idea why I thought that it did). However, since title "History of modern Serbia" does not refer to "pre-1918 modern Serbia", you can expand it to include post-1918 history as well. PANONIAN 11:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? History of modern Serbia is fairly bad title, because "modern Serbia" is ill-defined term. Without looking at the article contents, I cannot foresee about which period will that be. Since 1815? 1945? 1990? 2007? But that's another issue.
And I do not understand to which "my problem" you refer to. I don't have any problem. Even if we had an article about longer history of Serbia, a separate article about Serbia in WWII is perfectly acceptable as its child, per WP:SUMMARY. No such user (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi NSU :) just to simplify, from what I saw the intention here is to make an article about a country that existed in that area and that was created by the Germans and ruled mostly by Nedić. Resumingly, this article should be made like all other country articles are, with country infobox and such things, leaving out (probably for another article, a much wider "Serbia in WWII") all unrelated to this regime. The point PANONIAN wants to emphasize is that this should be a country-like article (former country, obviously). FkpCascais (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that an article about "Serbia in WWII" (which, by the way, we don't have) would be much wider; however, we have most of the events it covered in the Yugoslav Front article. But I don't insist on that approach, since the current scope is just the part under Military administration/Puppet government (and we have the "Former country" infogox). Then, one of Nazi occupation of Serbia, Serbia (1941-1944), Serbia under German occupation, Serbia under Nazi occupation, would fit, pretty much anything along these lines. So, like most people around, I disagree with Direktor on this issue, and I think that the current title is inadequate; the Panonian first proposal, above, just was not well thought-out in advance, because the proposed title was unwieldy. No such user (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As FkpCascais explained, this is article about an former country that existed from 1941 to 1944. All other topics related to history of present-day territory of Serbia in WW2 should be explained in other articles. Perhaps article with name History of Serbia in the 20th century (or anything similar) could be created to cover such topics? As for my first name proposed for this article, it is obvious that most users voted against it, so there is no reason to discuss it any more. And, No such user, speaking about title of this article about WW2 former country, do you agree with last consensus made by several users here that article is renamed from "Nedić regime" to "Nedić's Serbia"? PANONIAN 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand the opposition to having an article on Serbia in WWII. Such an article could cover the whole of Nedics regime and everything else relating to Serbia in WWII. Or it could cover it briefly with a link to an article on just Nedics regime. The alternative to that is to have the one article about the period 1941 to 45, for which the title "Nedics regime" is not adequate.Fainites barleyscribs 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, Fainites, seems that several users involved in this discussion reached an agreement that article "Nedić regime" is renamed to "Nedić's Serbia" and that this article should speak about WW2 puppet state. So, since you are an administrator, you should now close this failed voting about my first renaming proposal and decline this renaming due to the fact that majority of users voted against this proposed new name, and then you should rename this article to "Nedić's Serbia" due to the fact that consensus was reached about this name (including statements of DIREKTOR and No such user, who also agreed with this title) and due to third opinion response made by user TechnoSymbiosis, who nicely elaborated why this title is not good for country article. As for idea about creation of other article about WW2 history of Serbia, due to the fact that entire 20th century history of Serbia is not covered well in English Wikipedia, I will open new discussion about that on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Serbia Whether we should expand current article named "History of modern Serbia" or create new article named "History of Serbia in the 20th century" or create several articles about shorter time periods is an issue not related to "Nedić regime"/"Nedić's Serbia" article and should not be discussed here by my opinion. PANONIAN 15:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
"Nedić's Serbia" would not be my first choice, but it is still better than the current title. As for delineation of the {{History of Serbia}} series, it is probably better discussed elsewhere; we're not too efficient in solving even one issue on this talk page. No such user (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with that. The coverage of entire 20th century history of Serbia is not adequate, so this issue should be indeed further discussed, but the question of how we will present that history is not a proper subject of this talk page. I will start discussion about that question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Serbia Seems that we have consensus about renaming this article to "Nedić's Serbia", so some administrator shloud do it. PANONIAN 15:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment About the word "regime". I suspect some of this controversy is caused by loss in translation. It is cognate with Latin regnus, German reich, French règne, English rich, reign. It has not exactly identical connotations in different language. For example, in French you could say "sous le régime du nouveau P-DG, l'entreprise revint à flot", "under the new CEO's leadership, the company got back in the black." Whereas, in Scandinavian for instance, "regim" means more strictly a national government, and a strong negative view of it as authoritatarian or dictatorial. English is closer to French in this case (my OCD has "prevailing system of things" as one definition). I think some the opposition is based upon the fact that "regime" is much more npov when taken as a literal translations from other (Slavic?) languages. walk victor falk talk 15:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree. Serbian and English words for "regime", "government", "state/country", etc are speaking about exactly same things. Therefore Serbian name for country "Nedićeva Srbija" would become "Nedić's Serbia" in English, while "Nedićev režim" would become "Nedić regime". It is quite clear which name refer to what in both languages. Word "režim" ("regime") is never used in Serbian as a description for country itself and, as far as I know, it is also not used in English. PANONIAN 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree not. The words "regime", "régime", "regim", "režim" have differences. Subtle but crucial. See Ancien Régime, describes France before the revolution. walk victor falk talk 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That article is named Ancien Régime in France, clearly referring to one regime (Ancien Régime) in one country (France). PANONIAN 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There's Ancien_Régime_of_Switzerland too. walk victor falk talk 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Victor, but I do not understand what is your point? Me and several other users already concluded on this talk page that this article speaks about country and that, it therefore, should have name of that country in its title (and these examples that you presented are also including names of countries in titles). Do you have something against name "Nedić's Serbia" about which consensus was reached? PANONIAN 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
"Nedic Serbia" can work as a compromise. walk victor falk talk 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But name "Nedić's Serbia" itself is a compromise solution agreed by all users here. Why you think that we should use name "Nedic Serbia" instead? I do not think that such name would be in accordance with English grammatic. "Nedić's Serbia" is a proper English variant of Serbian name "Nedićeva Srbija" (form "Nedić Srbija" would be grammatical nonsense in Serbian). Clear meaning of term "Nedićeva Srbija" is "Serbia of Nedić", "Nedić's Serbia" or "Serbia that belong to Nedić" and google books are confirming that it is used mostly in this form in English sources too: [12] [13]. PANONIAN 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This is one of the rare occasions where I allowed myself to be bullied into agreeing. PANONIAN, for the third time: your knowledge of English is less than perfect and you do not understand the meaning of the word "regime". It is not, repeat, NOT the same as in Serbo-Croatian ("režim"). It can be used in this capacity. I had already explained that numerous times. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That is why I asked for third opinion and conclusion of it was that "Nedic regime" is not a proper name for country. We agreed on compromise name "Nedić's Serbia", so what is problem again? PANONIAN 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am also unsure about Viktor's point. The word "regime", I have already argued, is unfit for this article title because it is not in the same category as "country", "kingdom" or "state" in the sense of sovereign state. It certainly can refer to a system (like "regimen"), a government, leadership. The problem as I see it is that Direktor has not grasped the two distinct meanings of "state": one more or less synonymous with "country" and another more or less synonymous with "government", and thus "regime". This difference is more subtle than even our dictinoaries seems to grasp, but it can be seen easily in that something that occurred in Belgrade in 1943 did occur in Serbia, but not in the Nedic regime. Compare the 8 hits for "in Quisling Norway" with the 4 hits for "in the Quisling regime" at GoogleBooks. Note how the phrases are used. —Srnec (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But whatever interpretation you give to the word regime in this title it´s inapropriate for this article, so we could/should simplify and see the existing possibilities: Nedić's Serbia or Nedić Serbia. Any more options? FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many options, as I showed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić_regime#Requested_move_-_New_voting However, several users supported option "Nedić's Serbia" and that is, for now, an option most acceptable for most users. I do not support option "Nedić Serbia" because it is grammatically and factually incorrect and not supported by sources. PANONIAN 22:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

page moved again

PANONIAN alerted me once again that we were stuck, so I facilitated the move based on my reading of consensus. The commit log may have been truncated, so here goes: recent discussion on the talk page clearly indicates that this title [Nedić's Serbia] is preferred by most and acceptable to all, and was previously used from article creation on 2006-05-02 up to 2007-08-30 and then moved away without apparent consensus at the time, so let's make it the baseline once again. (Please direct further replies to old issues here, so that the archiving is able to kick in for older sections, it's getting really unwieldy.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing. All users accepted that the previous title was not adequate. We still had some minor technicalities to solve (Nedic´s Serbia or Nedic Serbia), but we were also been loosing much time for no reason, and there is always room for a new MR if needed. FkpCascais (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This discussion Talk:Ustaše#Invasion_of_SFR_Yugoslavia_in_1941_.28.3F.3F.3F.29 may be of interess of editors of this article. All inputs are welcome. FkpCascais (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Name discussion

I think its time we cut the PANONIAN nonsense and start a real discussion. What is the subject of this article? The subject of this article is the Nazi puppet government of Milan Nedić, the "Government of National Salvation", i.e. the puppet entity under its control. That means teh article corresponds with the Vlada narodnog spasa Milana Nedića article on the Serbian Wiki, and NOT the Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu ("Serbia during WWII") article. What are the ONLY three possible titles:

  • "Nedić's Serbia", which is a direct (and rather clumsy) translation of the most common local Serbo-Croatian term "Nedićeva Srbija". It is NOT, repeat, NOT used in English sources. Like, at all [14]. It also needlessly insinuates that Serbia was a Nazi puppet during WWII, which is no more true than listing Norway as an "Axis puppet" because of the Quisling regime under the silly title "Quisling's Norway" (Norway's WWII situation corresponds perfectly with that of Serbia).
  • "Nedić regime". This title is relatively common in English sources [15], fits the English language, is a lot clearer, AND does not list "Serbia" as a Nazi puppet.
  • "Government of National Salvation" is only the name for the government of the entity, not the entity itself. It is misleading as such, would require disambiguation with other "Governments of National Salvation", and is of course less common than Nedić regime in English language sources.

A lot of dust was raised over absolutely nothing. This is the correct title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on such claims of yours, do you then suggest that we remove from this article "former country infobox" and that we remove this article from all "states/countries/territories" categories in which it dwell? According to you, it was not state/country/territory, so why you insisting on this infobox and categories? PANONIAN 16:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop talking nonsense. It was a political entity and I said so numerous, numerous times. Its just non synonymous with "Serbia" in sources usage. I cannot believe you are still having trouble understanding this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"The subject of this article is the Nazi puppet government of Milan Nedić." It doesn't seem that the article is actually restricted to that. If it were, I would suggest that we should expand it until we have enough information for other articles on the German military administration or on the region and the people (Serbs) in general during the war. Although I don't see why it should be such a big deal to acknowledge that there was one entity called Serbia at the time and that its government was collaborationist. Further, your statement that "Norway's WWII situation corresponds perfectly with that of Serbia" is false. Where was the Serb government-in-exile? In fact, where was Serbia at the time of the invasion in 1941? Norway was a sovereign state, a kingdom, before the Germans invaded. Serbia was a region inhabited predominantly by Serbs, or perhaps the region that had once been the kingdom of Serbia. But there was no kingdom of Serbia nor any other Serb government (that is, no body governing an entity called "Serbia") before the Germans set one up. Saying "Serbia was a Nazi puppet during WWII" seems no more false than saying "Croatia was a Nazi puppet during WWII". In fact, Croatia's case seems more like Norway's in that there was a Croatia at the time of the invasion in 1941 and its ruler was a member of the Yugoslav government-in-exile. (Correct me if I've made any errors. This is not my chief area of interest.)
Is there really another "Government of National Salvation"? Would you support moving Independent State of Croatia to Ustaše state? (I wouldn't.) Let me be clear that your comparison with Norway is off-base. It is exactly because "Serbia" is not ambiguous (to me) for the period 1941–45 that I support a move to have an article explicitly about Serbia during that period. "Norway" is ambiguous during the same period.
Panonian's second move request/straw poll should be closed. There are better ways to settle this. —Srnec (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Which ways? How can I deal with user that is aggressive and totally nonconstructive? To report him to administrators or what? PANONIAN 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
To be as precise as I can possibly be, the subject and scope of this article is the "political entity of the Government of National Salvation" (just as in any country article, that of course includes its territory :P). It is NOT the history of the territory of Serbia during WWII. The political entity in question is most commonly known as the "Nedić regime" in English sources, NOT "Serbia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Totally false. As was pointed out, original title of this article was "Serbia (1941–1944)", so this article was and is about territory named Serbia that existed during WWII. It is you who changed name of this article without consensus and without serious discussion with other users. PANONIAN 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm still not getting it, Direktor. My own research does not suggest that "the political entity in question is most commonly known as the 'Nedić regime' in English". That aside, if the time period of the Government of National Salvation (Nedić regime) coincides with WWII, and "just as in any country article" this one should "of course include its territory", why wouldn't this article be about the territory under the rule of the Government of National Salvation (Nedić regime) during WWII, that is, in part, a "history of the territory of Serbia during WWII"? What I derive from your precise statements is precisely what you deny. Srnec (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said. "The political entity in question is most commonly known as the 'Nedić regime' in English". Here's my research, bringing up some 160 published English-language sources [16] (many of which are high-quality), and an additional two-dozen published papers [17]. Can we see your research, please? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in those results to even suggest that "the political entity in question is most commonly known as the 'Nedić regime' in English". A search for "Serbia" and "World War II" without the phrase "Nedić regime" gives 62,500 results at GoogleBooks. I get 15,000 results at GoogleScholar for the same thing restricted to publications since 1999. If you think these results tell us nothing—and you'd be right—then you can understand why your results tell us nothing either. But you ignore my real argument anyway. The one that began "That aside..." I don't care if an article about the Nedić regime is titled "Nedić regime" (or "Government of National Salvation"). I care that an articled titled "Nedić regime" be only about the Nedić regime. This article isn't nor should be (yet). I could accept it if we had a setup like we have for Norway, but we don't. There is no harm in combining the topics of military occupation, collaborationist government, and the history of the entity called Serbia (whatever that is) during WWII (as we now do). Such an article best have "Serbia" in its title. Srnec (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ramet calls it "Occupied Serbia" as her subtitle as one of 5 occupied zones carved out of Yugoslavia. She also refer's to "Nedic's Serbia" and a "rump Serbian state". Also - as noted above - there are two main articles on Norway in WWII. One called Quisling regime and one called Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany. Fainites barleyscribs 22:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can even support solution where this article will be written in the line of Quisling regime article and where we would create another article about Serbia, rather similar to Reichskommissariat Norwegen than to Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany because Norway was a pre-war country occupied by Germany while Serbia was an entity created by Germans during occupation of Yugoslavia. However, that solution require that some things from "Nedić regime" article (including infobox and country/territory categories) are moved to new article about Serbia as a territory. I would also suggest creation of a third article about first government of WW2 Serbia, led by Milan Aćimović. That government was certainly not covered by term "Nedić regime" because it was another government or, if you want, another regime. PANONIAN 09:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The article is already basically written as the Quisling regime article. I do hope you shall not burden us once again with your own perceptions regarding article scope: any (relevant) history on the Nedić government's puppet state is within the scope of this article. It is a former "country" (or "former entity" if you will) article. That said, I don't know what you have in mind so I'll try not to form an opinion prematurely.
Further note: the original title of this article was not "Serbia (XY)", as you claim User:PANONIAN, but "Nedić's Serbia". "Nedić's Serbia" ("Nedićeva Srbija") is a term used exclusively for this political entity, i.e. the political entity under the control of Nedić's puppet government. That entity was, and still is, the topic and scope of this article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, if this is "basically written as the Quisling regime article" as you claim, then you will not object that I create two new articles, one about political entity of Serbia and another one about government of Milan Aćimović? PANONIAN 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, what is the name of "the Nedić government's puppet state"? Does it have a name? Srnec (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
*sarcastic* Why yes, I just like to write huge sentences to describe it in a roundabout way. :)
Alas no, Srnec, that's the whole problem. Thats why I went out and researched sources usage to find that - "Nedić regime" is the most common term in use for this state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
On this coin I can read "1942" just fine, but my Cyrillic isn't very good. That does say "Serbia", does it not? The same word appears on the stamps in our article, and the German form of it in the official name of the Nazi military administration (or the territory it administered). Srnec (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, coin say "Serbia - 1 dinar - 1942". PANONIAN 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Again: the entity had no official name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You claim that based on what evidence? And you did not answered do you accept my 3 articles solution compromise proposal? PANONIAN 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not need to show evidence that it did not have an official name - you have to show evidence that it did have an official name. The burden of evidence is on you (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The money is of no significance whatsoever. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You started to talk past each other. The point of view that Serbia under German occupation is not synonymous with Nedić's regime is entirely valid. The point of view that an article that talks of all aspects of a country in a historical period should be titled after the said country is entirely valid, too. Given the reasonably closely related article of Independent State of Croatia, that concentrates on the fascist puppet regime, has the characteristics of a country article, and walks the fine line of covering the specific regime vs. the entire time period, I think the reasonable course of action is to name this article after the country, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"I do not need to show evidence that it did not have an official name - you have to show evidence that it did have an official name." -Hold on a cotton-pickin' second; WHY don't you have to give evidence that it categorically "did not have an offcial name"? and yet, he DOES have to give evidence to show it was?!? Of course it had an official name! Whether it was 'Republic of Serbia'; 'Kingdom of Serbia' 'Puppet-German-Backed-up-not-really-a-state-at-all-but-we-like-to pretend-it-is-to-placate-serb-national-sentiment-in order to get more collaborators of Serbia'; even if it was just 'Serbia'; every State(puppet or otherwise); or administrative division or whatever has and OFFCIAL NAME. I think, with all due respect, DIREKTOR, your attitude is completely POV. You just seem driven to not have this state be called 'Serbia' in any way, for whatever politcal reason. But this is an encyclopedia and you have to be 100% neutral. Yes; we get it; the Nazis were bad, Nedic's Serbia was a Puppet regime with no real power and things went on under its auspices that were morally reprehensible by anyone's standards, but this is all immaterial: if the state had an official name (which it obviously did) and existed, then it deserves to be included as such, even if just as a footnote. I refer to your comment regarding Duke Aimone of Savoy/Tomislav II of Croatia; you stated that 'calling him King of Croatia is like calling Hans Frank a Polish head-of-state'; well I'm sorry, but the Government General was never intended to be a 'Polish National state' in any way' the NDH was very different. Puppet government it may be, but on paper at least, it was a Croatian National State, and thus comparing these two is ridiculous and clearly clouded by both moral and political sentiment, however noble both of these maybe.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources and evidences

Ok, DIREKTOR, I just collected a list of sources that mentioning WW2 political entity under name "Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Would you be so kind to present sources and evidences that show that it was not called "Serbia", since, so far, you presented nothing. PANONIAN 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, I refuse to believe you are this obtuse. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME: the name "Serbia" was used as a geographic term, encompassing the Nedić regime and more - hence the seperate "Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu" ("Servbia in World War II") article on the Serbian Wiki. Why do they not merge it with their Nedić regime article??
As Joy said, the Nedić regime is not synonymous with Serbia as a whole under German occupation. Virtually all of the frankly ridiculous sources (which include absurd sites like "srpskamreza.whatever") simply use the term in a geographic capacity, just like Tomasevich. Tomasevich, for example, uses the name "Serbia" about a thousand times in his studies of WWII Yugoslavia, BUT NEVER as a term for the Nedić regime. You are actually providing evidence against yourself because you STILL do not understand. (I cannot believe I actually went through all of that nonsense over there.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR - please don't call other editors names however irritated you might be. Is there a problem with having an article on Serbia in WWII? Are such an article and this article on Nedic's regime mutually exclusive? It seems to me that either we have two articles - one specifically on Nedics regime and one on Serbia in WWII, or one article which covers both topics which could not then simply be named Nedic's regime. Fainites barleyscribs 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well yes, certainly, but there is some question as to how the 1941-45 period of Serbian history should be covered. I myself suggested for some time now that we create a Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article which would cover Serbian history from 1918-1943, while the 1943-1990 period is already covered in the Socialist Republic of Serbia article. When we weed-out the history of the Nedić government territory, there imho isn't really that much content to warrant a separate article for the few years of the 1941-43 period on enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that for most people Serbia during WWII is very much one topic they would want to read about rather than subsuming it into different time periods with different political entities. The Nedic regime doesn't cover either the whole period from invasion to the end, nor it's whole geography, nor the Serbian people as such. Such an article would cover the Nedic regime in broad terms. Fainites barleyscribs 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Serbia during World War II" would not cover the entirety of the Serbian people in any case, since many live outside Serbia.
  • The Nedić regime (1941-44) does not cover the whole period end to end, but it does overlap SR Serbia (1943-45).
  • The vast majority of Serbia was liberated in 1944, so there is a distinct difference between the 1941-43, and the 1944-45 periods. During the latter the Federal State of Serbia was in de facto and de jure existence (with the government in Belgrade), hence the period should be logically covered in the corresponding former state article. Why cover the same stuff twice?
  • Serbia does not have an article that covers its history during the period of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, an article filling that role is logical and necessary. When we remember that once the Nedić regime information is subtracted there really isn't that much content on the 1941-43 period, it seems an elegant solution to simply include it as a large section of the Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article. We must also remember that de jure, Serbia was still a part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and with Chetniks controlling its southern areas, it can easily be argued that a large portion of it remained withing the Kingdom even in the de facto sense.
Just tossing out the arguments that led me to suggest what I do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, your arguments are becoming more and more unreasonable: first you insisting that there was no Serbia under German occupation from 1941 to 1944 and now you claiming that there was Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after 1918. For your information, there was no Serbia between 1918 and 1941 because administrative divisions of Yugoslavia included counties/districts, oblasts and banovinas, but not a single territorial unit with name Serbia. These things are historical material from elementary school, you know... PANONIAN 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I hope that everybody now can see that DIREKTOR is an example of someone who twisting basic historical facts. That is simply not an acceptable behavior. PANONIAN 20:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN please keep your remarks within the bounds of common civility. "Abusive internet troll" is no more acceptable than "obtuse".Fainites barleyscribs 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for that. I changed my post now. By the way, I also collected links to authentic historical movies made in Serbia from 1941 to 1944, in which name "Serbia" is used in both, Serbian and German: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Historical_movies PANONIAN 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, sources that Serbia did not existed from 1941 to 1944 are clearly not provided, so in next few days I will create new article about Serbia. I just regret that my voting proposal about most acceptable name for that article was closed, so I suppose the best possible title for new article would be "Serbia (1941-1944)". PANONIAN 20:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Atlantic Serbia.jpg
Serbia's location in the Atlantic Ocean, 5000 B.C. Please provide sources to disprove it.
PANONIAN, I can't help you. You just cannot understand that, in the period of 1918-1943 there was no country called Serbia, but that Serbia was, and is used in sources, as a geographic term that encompasses (roughly) the territory of Serbia. The same was the case with "Croatia", "Bosnia", etc. for the period of the unitarianist Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which abolished and merged all the small South Slavic states. You miss the mark and just keep missing it over and over again for days. Fainites, who isn't from around here, got the gist of it immediately - so it can't be me.
P.S. If you copy this article's content into some new article of your own making I shall instantly AfD it as a no-consensus WP:POVFORK.
P.P.S. Nobody is required to prove something does not exist. That's a logical fallacy called an argumentum ad ignorantiam, as is essentially explained in WP:BURDEN. The burden of evidence for proving your Nazi-puppet "Serbia" is upon you, not me. By your logic I could prove the existence of Serbia in the middle of the Atlantic: "sources that Serbia did not exist at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in 5000 B.C. are clearly not provided"... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You fail to see one difference: the only "evidence" for you "Atlantic Serbia" is your hand-made map, while I collected numerous sources that showing that WW2 entity in question was named "Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Due to these sources, the article that I will create will not be example of POVFORK. Contrary to this, I just wonder how you will prove that Serbia existed during Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1919 to 1941. PANONIAN 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nono, that's your logic. Can you show me the sources that Serbia was NOT at the bottom of the Atlantic. By your own argument and your own logic - that Serbia existed. :)
Oh for goodness's sake, PANONIAN you're missing the point again. Of course the map is not "evidence". Read argumentum ad ignorantiam. The point is that nobody can prove a negative. I cannot prove the Nedić regime was NOT Serbia, you have to prove it WAS Serbia.
The "sources" you provided DO NOT show that the territory of Nedić's Government of National Salvation was called Serbia. What they show is quite the opposite: that the term "Serbia" was used completely independently from Nedić's state - as a geographic term (NOT as an actually country). Did I thank you for your efforts in providing the sources that defeat your own argument? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The state Nedić ruled need not have an official name to have a name. That name, official or not, is Serbia. We can see it on coins, stamps and in the name of the German military administration. I suspect there are many other places. One of the main sources used in this article is titled Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. I've never read it, but GoogleBooks gives me enough of a peek to know that he calls Nedić's state "Serbia" and the "Serbian State". The latter reminds me of Francoist Spain (the Spanish State) and Vichy France (the French State). Sources do show "that the territory of Nedić's Government of National Salvation was called Serbia". You say that "the money is of no significance whatsoever", but that's a mere assertion. Tell me why Serbia's Secret War, a coin, a couple of stamps, and the name the Germans used for their military administration there are not sufficient evidence that the name used by the state and of the state at the time was Serbia? (Forget "official name", as many state don't really have one: they just call themselves whatever they want. See Canada's New Government.)
That the term "Serbia" was used independently from that has no bearing on whether or not it was used for that. The Vichy government governed France whether there was an opposing government-in-exile of sorts or not. And ever heard of Greater Albania? Greater Germany? Greater _______? Serbia was a Nazi puppet state, just like Croatia. Both names had been in use long before the creation of puppet states with limited recognition and continued in use after. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is going in circles. Seriously. Of course Nedić's state did not have to have an official name to have a name. We should check if the sources use some (unofficial) name for it? ... Well, whaddayknow - its Nedić regime. Ingenious.
I'm just stating the fact that there was no official name as a side-note denoting the root cause of all our problems here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR wrote: "the term Serbia was used completely independently from Nedić's state - as a geographic term (NOT as an actually country)". - I am so glad that you finally admitted that term Serbia was used. Whether it was country, entity or "geographical term" is completely irrelevant. What ever it was, it deserve to have its own article in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 19:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I "admitted" that it was used some 5 days ago and probably about 6 times so far. It depresses me that only now has this relevant information on WWII terminology reached you. I will also note that "Serbia" was NOT used as a (geographic!) term only during WWII, but during the ENTIRE period of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Also, you can keep satisfying your own "criteria" for new articles all day if you like, it makes no difference to me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There is difference of course. In the early days of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, term "Serbia" was perhaps used as a historical geographical term, but later it lost every meaning - it neither had defined territory neither political status inside Yugoslavia. Contrary to this, Serbia was clearly an official administrative division of Axis Europe, as many sources are confirming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links PANONIAN 07:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that would be same as "Nedić regime". I already pointed out that Nedić regime is only second government of WW2 Serbia and that any reference to Nedić regime only would neither cover territory with name Serbia neither its first government led by Aćimović. PANONIAN 19:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Nedić regime" is the most common name (in English language sources) for a Nazi puppet state established within a part of Serbia. The new entity was not granted any official name by its masters, and was headed by the Government of National Salvation of General Milan Nedić. This article is about that state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Part" of Serbia? Excuse me, but Serbia in present-day borders was established in 1945. From 1941 to 1944, the whole territory with name Serbia was ruled by government of Milan Nedić. Also, you probably believe that if you repeat a lie 1000 times it will become a truth. You can repeat that how many times you want, but I will repeat this: you did not presented a single evidence that "Nedić regime" is the most common name for state or territory. It is also not a proper name of regime itself, because official name of that regime was Government of national salvation, so it is not only that I will create new article about Serbia, but I will propose another renaming voting so that "Nedić regime" is renamed into "Government of national salvation". PANONIAN 07:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@panonian: "Nedic regime" is the designator for the state entity X in Serbia, where "X" could refer to "Grand Poobahdom", "Gangsta rulerz", or anything; it just happens that "Nedic regime" is the term most commonly used in English.
@direktor: "in" does not imply in all of Serbia, on the contrary. walk victor falk talk 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Viktor, where is evidence that term "Nedic regime" is the designator for the state entity? Please show me a single source that claim that. We cannot claim something like that without sources. All presented sources that using term "Nedic regime" are speaking about regime itself, not about territory. PANONIAN 07:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I know, such was not my meaning Victor. My post was in response to panonian. (I would recommend BigKahoonacracy :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for being lazzy and not having patience to read all back but, following the exemples of Vichy France and Francoist Spain why can´t we settle on Nedic's Serbia? FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not mind that title except that it is not used in any English language sources at all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
What about the very first hit I get at Google Books? Is that not an English-language source? Srnec (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, term "Nedić's Serbia" is acceptable for me too because it is commonly used in literature as a designation for that territory. Of course, the term is somewhat incorrect because it also ignore the first government of Serbia led by Aćimović. So, should I create new article named "Nedić's Serbia" or we should rename this one to that title and create another one about Government of national salvation? PANONIAN 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Term is also widely used in English-language sources: [18] I have no idea how DIREKTOR came to conclusion that it is "not used in any English language sources at all". PANONIAN 07:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, kindly stop embarassing yourself with these vote sections of yours, and please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

Well it looks like I made a mistake in conducting Google tests, I assumed Google would not make a difference between "c" and "ć". Seems I underestimated the obscurity of our language. It makes no difference, however, since "Nedić regime" is still significantly more common. Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) certainly supersedes any "opinions" we may express here. I cannot imagine policy will be disregarded for the sake of "appeasing" a few editors. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: you did not presented a single evidence that "Nedić regime" was ever and anywhere used as a designation for territory. It was used as designation for regime and regime only. So, it is not only that term "Nedić regime" is not a common name of a territory, but IT IS NOT USED AS A NAME OF TERRITORY BY ONE SINGLE SOURCE!!!. If this is not truth, PLEASE PRESENT ONE SINGLE SOURCE that use term "Nedić regime" as a designation for territory. As for voting, I am trying to find an consensus acceptable for most users before proceeding with any action and I do not see how this could be a bad thing? PANONIAN 11:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The borders of the WWII geographic term "Serbia" (as used in sources) roughly correspond with Serbia's modern, post-war borders
WWII partition of Yugoslavia. Notice that respecive portions of Serbia's territory were occupied by Hungarians, Bulgarians, Italians, Germans, Montenegrins, and the Croatian NDH, while the rump was handed to the Government of National Salivation of Milan Nedić --DIREKTOR (TALK)
Hang on a minute guys. Didn't the Germans hive off chunks of Serbia so Nedics regime didn't cover all of it anyway? Also it doesn't cover the whole time period? As for google searches - "Quisling" became the generic term for all such regimes in the English speaking world. As famous as Captain Boycott. Nedic has not reached such heights of recognition as a name. Let's sort out precisely what is being talked about here before getting into votes. Fainites barleyscribs 11:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)




<clearall> Fake post, like everything else, DIREKTOR. First map show borders of Serbia formed in 1945 and these borders are not at all related to borders of Serbia that was established by Germans in 1941. PANONIAN 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC) PANONIAN's post:

So, Fainites, what you proposing as solution? PANONIAN 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to ascertain the ambit this or any proposed article. It seems to me there are two main solutions. One is to expand this article so that it covers Serbia in WWII, beginning to end. Nedic's regime would be a substantial part of the article. That is an article that many object to being named "Nedic's regime" and seek a broader name for. "Nedic's regime" could presumably be a re-direct. The other solution is to have the article on Nedic's regime being just on Nedic's regime. Then a second article on Serbia in WWII from beginning to end. This would naturally have to deal with nedic's regime to some extent but there could be a link to the more detailed article. The other solutions such as Kingdom of Yugoslavia articles or articles for historical periods that don't cover the whole of WWII don't seem to garner much support.Fainites barleyscribs 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


(edit conflict) User:PANONIAN, the next time I catch you altering a single syllable of mine you will be instantly reported for refactoring other user's posts. And in light of your persistent ad hominems and trolling I will request a block, a temporary one at least. This bullying and disruptive behaviour has gone on long enough. You are not "in charge" of this talkpage, and you do not get to re-arrange other people's posts at will. Its bad enough that the talkpage is riddled with those ridiculous "vote sections".

The borders of Serbia in the first map are its 1945 "AVNOJ borders", they are of course identical to the borders of Federal State of Serbia (later renamed to SR Serbia) which were proclaimed in 1943. All that is well known and irrelevant, however, as the map is merely listed to depict the extent of the geographic term ("Serbia") in widespread use in relevant sources (completely detached from the Nedić regime). In other words, when sources on WWII Yugoslavia use the word "Serbia", they are almost NEVER referring to the Nedić government territory, but to Serbia as a geographic region roughly corresponding with its modern borders. (This is also the case with "Bosnia" and "Slovenia", while "Croatia" is used both for the NDH and as a geographic term respectively.)

Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious to me at this point that we have a serious communication problem. Your comment on the "1945 borders" having "nothing to do with the borders created by the Germans" is another in a long line of comments that are completely detached from the discussion and have absolutely nothing to do with anything. I do hope that you will exert more effort in interpreting posts, since you are obviously having language trouble. Simply ignoring those protions which you do not care to translate properly, and then carrying on repeating the same nonsense over and over again, is extremely annoying to others and does not help you. (You may also be interested to know that your username is properly spelled "PANNONIAN", and that the plural of "evidence" is "evidence", not "evidences") --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from false accusations, DIREKTOR. Everybody can see that I did not changed a single word in your post. I only transformed images from thumbnail to gallery for better view. Borders of Serbia that you presented in first map were established in 1945 and before that were neither geographical or administrative or anything similar - nobody in 1941 did not had even idea that Serbia will have such borders in 1945. As for trolling issue, you should rather consider to report yourself. And to what my disruptive behavior you speak about? I am not even editing this article at the current momment and I do not see how talk page discussion could be example of "disruptive behavior"? If you do not want that other people give answer to your comments then you should not start any discussion at all. As for AVNOJ borders, such borders were illegal in 1943 because AVNOJ was a expression of an rebel movement, not of recognized Yugoslav government in exile. Only in March 7, 1945, when temporary coalition government of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was formed, Federal Republic of Serbia became legal political entity (but even then not in present-day borders because Vojvodina in that time was an separate political entity and proclaimed unification with Serbia only in July 31, 1945). AVNOJ idea about Federal Serbia from 1943 did not included Vojvodina or Kosovo because solution for exact status of these two territories was left for post-war times. I also do not see any evidence for your claim that "when sources on WWII Yugoslavia use the word "Serbia", they are almost NEVER referring to the Nedić government territory, but to Serbia as a geographic region roughly corresponding with its modern borders" - that claim is not only unsourced and unproved, but I do not see how somebody who lived in 1941 could know what would be borders in 1945? PANONIAN 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@Fainites. I generally agree with the second solution, but I would like to see the "Serbia in World War II" merged into a larger "Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" article, since it would be an elegant solution to that other problem of Serbian history coverage on enWiki: the 1918-1943 gap. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR. Elegant yes - practical no. I agree there should be coverage of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1918-1943 but not at the expense of a comprehensive article on Serbia in WWII. The kingdom article could cover 1941 to 43 with a link to the more comprehensive version of events in those years in the WWII article.Fainites barleyscribs 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I will repeat again: THERE WAS NO SERBIA DURING KINGDOM OF YUGOSLAVIA. Kingdom of Yugoslavia was divided into banovinas, as everybody can see here (and in other sources too): http://cro-eu.com/galerija-fotografija/albums/userpics/10001/9-Kraljevina_Jugoslavija_-_podjela_na_banovine_1931.jpg All topics related to Kingdom of Yugoslavia are covered with article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia. We also have separate articles about each of the banovinas from that time, but we cannot have an article about something that did not existed. PANONIAN 17:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm also worried that the "Serbia in World War II" article may not have sufficient independent content to warrant a separate article. The Nedić regime is not referred to as "Serbia", but when we take it out there's not all that much content left. I'll not have PANONIAN butchering or copying this article to create a FORK.
On second thought, I may be getting ahead of myself. Scratch the above objections. I support a separate "Serbia in World War II" article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Nedić regime" is not used ever by any source as designation for any territory. As for separate "Serbia in World War II" article, I support it too. Of course, it would have to respect WW2 borders of Serbia, not those borders established in 1945. PANONIAN 17:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
LoL. Do you even understand what I'm saying to you here? I'm going caps lock.
1) ITS USED AS A DESIGNATION FOR A STATE. S-T-A-T-E. This article is about a STATE.
2) The word "Serbia" in the context of WWII = geographic region roughly the size of Serbia, its use is unrelated to the Nedić regime or its borders. That's how the damn word is used in nearly all sources. In the same way the words "Bosnia" or "Slovenia" are used. Serbia in World War II will cover the entirety of Serbia.
Always the same thing... I must be a masochist.
There ya go, Fainites. The guy essentially wants to create TWO articles on the exact same country, because "Nedić regime is not a term for territory". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, DIREKTOR, article is about state (your words). What was a name of that state? Certainly not "XY regime". Each state has a name, you know... Also, please explain how somebody who lived in 1941 could know what borders Serbia will have in 1945 and how he can use borders of non-existing future entity as geographical designation? Also, where is evidence that the "damn word is used in nearly all sources" like that? Can you show me a single source or evidence that confirm your statement? As for "always the same thing" comment, the thing is that I constantly ask that you provide sources and you constantly avoiding that. What seems to be problem with that? PANONIAN 20:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This article is about a state. The name of that state is "Nedić regime" (per sources usage). This is the 15th I've said this to you (counted). In all civility, you do not seem to be able to follow English all that well. Or, if you are, then you are evidently ignoring user posts. The sources have also been listed numerous, numerous times for all users to see and read. You can probably give up trying to dismiss them on the basis that "Nedić regime is not a term for territory" or some other absurdity. If it were up to you I assume we'd be obliged to split every country article on Wiki.
  • Wikipedia uses modern scholarly terminology, not the terminology of sixty years ago. Sources on WWII Yugoslavia use the term "Serbia" to refer to the geographic region roughly corresponding with Serbia's modern borders (just as with "Bosnia" or "Slovenia" or "Macedonia"). Does this need to be clarified further to you?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) OK PAN and DIR. Are you at least agreed that this article is about Nedic's regime and that there should be a separate Serbia in WWII article? What does everybody else think of this solution? Two articles or one? What about "Nedic's regime (Serbia)".
Tell me PANONIAN - why should the ambit of an article on Serbia, 1941 to 45 be limited to Hitlers temporary version? Fainites barleyscribs 23:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Fainites, the main problem here seems to be the fact that DIREKTOR just want to remove name "Serbia" from title of any article about that WW2 state. He claims that name "Nedic regime" is most common name for that state, but sources that he provided are not confirming that. He claims that this article speaks about WW2 puppet state and that it should remain under current title. So, I do not know how can I agree about anything with him. I think that administrators should examine his sources and administrators should say are these sources confirming that term "Nedic regime" was used as a designation for state or not. That is crucial for normal continuation of this discussion. PANONIAN 09:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Voting about "Nedić's Serbia" title

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: article was renamed to Nedić's Serbia -- PANONIAN 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing this (completely informal) voting just to see how many users would support that this article is renamed to "Nedić's Serbia". Please vote with "Support" or "Oppose". PANONIAN 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support PANONIAN 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Seriously, cut it out with the ridiculous votes.. xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
In previous section you said that this name is acceptable for you. So, what is problem now? You just do not want to reach any compromise with anybody or what? Name "Nedić's Serbia" is not best name solution by my opinion either, but if most users (including yourself) are considering this acceptable, then it is acceptable for me as well. PANONIAN 11:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Panonian, would you care to give a succint reason (or reasons) not to include "regime" in the title? walk victor falk talk 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Title of which article? If we have an article about regime only, then word "regime" is logical choice for the title, but if we have article about state then usage of term "regime" is against common sense. Following the opposite logic, we can rename article about Sweden to Regime of Fredrik Reinfeldt or to Sweden under regime of Fredrik Reinfeldt. That is simply not serious business and it transforms this article into joke. PANONIAN 21:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Because Nedić regime is "not a term for territory". And he's right: its not a term for territory. Its a term for a WWII puppet state - the puppet state this article is about. xD
What a ridiculous discussion... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No, DIREKTOR, term "Nedić regime" is not a name for state either. I am asking you again to provide evidence for such claim. If you do not provide an evidence for that then it is obvious that current name of this article is based only on your personal original research and that is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. PANONIAN 21:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The sections on media, film, theatre, sport and transportation don't have parallels at Quisling regime, and for good reason. This article does not appear to be about just the Nedić regime, but also about Serbia under the Nedić regime. There is a difference, highlighted in English by the fact that you can say "film in Serbia", but not "film in the Nedić regime". Srnec (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@"This article does not appear to be about just the Nedić regime, but also about Serbia under the Nedić regime." And Serbia under the Nedić regime is the "Nedić regime". :) Its all about how you choose to use the word "regime" - for the government or for the state as well. We can play those word games all day if you like. This article is about a state, a puppet state known in English sources as the Nedić regime. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
One logical question: how exactly is first government of Serbia (led by Aćimović) covered by an article about "Serbia under the Nedić regime"? How you suggest that Wikipedia cover that government? PANONIAN 21:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
16th time: This is an article about a state - not about a government. Its tiny Aćimović period is easily covered within a section. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken about English usage. The word "regime" is not used this way. It can mean "state" when state means "government", but it cannot mean "country". The term "Nedić regime" will not suggest a country to any English reader. Cf. wikt:regime#Noun. These aren't word games, this is about what the title conveys and whether that matches what the article contains. —Srnec (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not mistaken. These are word games. It matters not what you or I think, the fact that the term is used to refer to this state is sufficient. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well,DIREKTOR, perhaps you like word games and you having really good time playing your games here, but there is another way of dealing with you. You like rhetorical games and you do not want to present any sources. Fine. I will present sources instead of you. Here are Google Books hits for "Nedic regime", so let examine exact quotations from these sources. Quotation from first source: "Hitler had not really changed his attitude toward Nedić or the Serbs, and he had no intention of strenghthening the Nedic regime". Quotation from second source: "The Pavelić regime in Croatia was more brutal than the Nedić regime in Serbia.." Quotation from third source: "The Chetnik confederacy was linked in various ways to the Nedić regime in Serbia". So, I have no idea how somebody can read these sources and conclude that "Nedić regime" was a name of a country? These (and all other sources) are clearly stating that "Nedić regime" was a regime in Serbia. There is no single source that claim that "Nedić regime" is a name of a state. So, DIREKTOR, it is time for you to stop your word games. Wikipedia is based on sources and every single source is against you. PANONIAN 12:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, following the exemples of Vichy France and Francoist Spain, and because we lack a solution for more adequat name. FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The proposed name is indeed a proper name for this state, but it simply is not the most common. It also makes absolutely no sense at all to compare Vichy France and/or Franco's Spain with the Nedić regime, which was essentially a subordinate local entity within a German military occupation (Militärverwaltung), while the other two were actual sovereign countries. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I meant about the naming structure (leader name+country name) not entering in any further details. FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Vichy France was also under military occupation in part for the entire war and in its entirety for some of it. Srnec (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Please, Srcnec. First of all, Vichy France was destroyed in 1944 (entire war?). Secondly, Vichy France is incomparable with the Ndić regime, since it was not an entity subordiante to a military occupation authority. That its northern areas were under military administration makes no difference as to its status as a far more independent country. It even managed to preserve some of its neutrality. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
            • From these sources is undoubtedly clear that term "Nedic regime" is not used as a name of a country by one single source. I can agree with DIREKTOR that term "Nedić's Serbia" is perhaps not most common name of a country. Most common name would be simply "Serbia", as these sources are confirming, but term "Nedić's Serbia" is undoubtedly better and accurate than current title, which is not only "most uncommon" name of that country, but it is not used as a name of a country by one single source. Claim that "Nedic regime" is a name of a country is nothing but original research and personal POV pushing of user DIREKTOR and there is no single source that support such claim. Finally, DIREKTOR himself said that name "Nedić's Serbia" is acceptable for him as well, but now he attacking users that voted for this name. I sincerely doubt that user DIREKTOR has a constructive approach to this and that he is willing to reach and accept any compromise. Therefore, if other users reach an agreement about name change of this article and if DIREKTOR does not accept that, an administrator action will be unavoidable to protect this article from further POV pushing and violence that come from user DIREKTOR. PANONIAN 12:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I clearly understand what DIREKTOR has to say, nevertheless I support "Nedić's Serbia" as a compromise of Nedić regime and the location. Kebeta (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course. That will be the day when articles are renamed simply because some guy is LOUD enough and others forced into a "compromise" to appease him. Compromise is completely unnecessary since we are talking about policy. The current name is more common and is widespread in sources usage in referring to this state.
    Furthermore, the absurd proposals by User:PANONIAN will have us creating two World War II articles entitled "Serbia" - "Serbia in World War II", another one of his LOUDLY proposed articles, and "Nedić's Serbia". Note that the Serbian Wiki does not use the term "Nedić's Serbia" for this very same reason. If this article is renamed into "Nedić's Serbia" I will do my best to prevent User:PANONIAN from creating another couple dozen WP:POVFORKS to accommodate his ill-informed personal perceptions of his country's history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If there will be another article named "Serbia in World War II" (or something similar), then I also oppose renaming this one. Personally, I think that this one is sufficient to cover the topic. Kebeta (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I beleave we are discussing here the title for the article of the country that existed in PART of the territory of present day Serbia and that had Mr. Nedić as its ruler for most of the period. This article is about this country, and if another article entitled "Serbia in WWII" is made it wan´t be a duplication of this one because it will couver all that occured in Serbia during the period of WWII, where the Nedić regime was only one of them (Užice Republic, Partisans, Chetniks, Belgrade, Bombings, Massacres, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Banat, Croatia in Srem, Albanians in Kosovo, etc.) See the difference? FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Two "Serbia" articles on WWII is just POV forking. Also if you read User:PANONIAN's weird posts you will notice that not only is he going to cover the territory of the Nedić regime in his "Serbia in WWII article", but he wants to cover it exclusively in that article ("as for separate 'Serbia in World War II' article, (...) it would have to respect WW2 borders of Serbia, not those borders established in 1945")
To answer that motley list: The "Užice Republic" and "Belgrade" were in the Nedić regime, what exactly are you going to write about the Serbian part of Srijem?, Banat already has its own separate article and is also an autonomous par of the Nedić regime. There really is almost little to nothing to say on the regions annexed to Hungary or occupied by the Bulgarians. The massacres (I assume you are referring to Kragujevac and the like) also took place primarily in the Nedić regime. "Partisans", "bombings" etc. are just words.
Look in all modesty I know quite a lot about the war in Yugoslavia, and the only valid subject on Serbia outside the Nedić regime that I can think of are the Albanian massacres of Serbs in Kosovo and the activities of the 21st SS Skanderbeg. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear about one thing: I proposed creation of new article about WW2 puppet state of Serbia only in the case that this article is not renamed. My only point here is that we should have an article that cover the subject of WW2 puppet state of Serbia. Article named "Nedic regime" simply cannot cover that subject entirely. Therefore, I proposed two possible soultions for the problem: 1. renaming this article to any title with name "Serbia" in it (in this case, there is no need for new article), and 2. creation of new article (but only in the case that this article is not renamed - if solution number 2 is implemented then new article with title "Serbia" in it would cover WW2 puppet state, while article "Nedic regime" would be focused on Nedić government only, without infobox, state/territory categories and much of its content). In the case that this article is renamed to any title with name "Serbia" in it, need for new article would disappear. One more thing: I really do not understand behavior of user DIREKTOR. Here, he clearly stated that he would not object that this article is renamed to "Nedić's Serbia" and now he voted against it and he attacking users who supported renaming. How somebody can change his opinion like this in only two days? Therefore, mister DIREKTOR, please say exactly is renaming to "Nedić's Serbia" acceptable for you or not? (it cannot be both of that two). I am not fully satisfied with renaming to that name either, but if that is an compromise that will stop this ridiculous discussion I am fully supporting it. Or you would rather that we argue to death about same things? PANONIAN 08:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said: I am FINE with this article remaining as it is and you creating another "Serbia in WWII" article if you so desire. That is to say
  • The current title remains as is. "Article named 'Nedic regime' simply cannot cover that subject entirely"? xD Is that so now? What an interesting "declaration". It can, it did, and it does.
  • You do not butcher this article to fit your perceptions.
  • You create another Serbia in WWII article that is not a duplicate of this article (a WP:POVFORK, to be more precise).
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, there is one conclusion from this: any reasonable discussion with DIREKTOR is impossible. I am now officially asking administrators who reading this to examine these sources provided by DIREKTOR and to say their opinion about these sources: are these sources using term "Nedic regime" as a description for state or for regime. An neutral examination of these sources is the only way of stopping this pointless discussion. PANONIAN 09:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
LoL. I'm sure in the real world there are dozens of people just waiting hand and foot to follow your every "official" order, but you may find things are different on the internet. xD
You do not get to "proclaim" sources invalid based on your own (weird) perception that "territory" is referred to separately. Your ideas about country articles and countries in general are just... strange. You think that when a source uses the name of a state, that the "territory" is somehow excluded (which is unbelievable and amusing at the same time :)). It strikes me I could probably "dismiss" just about any source I want with creative thinking of that sort. You are right about one thing: this discussion is indeed pointless.
In short folks, this guy wants to create forks and separate this state's government and this state's "territory". I can't help him understand that country articles include the "territory" of the country they cover. I don't know if its the language barrier or whatever, but I tried. Have fun now, PANONIAN, just make sure you do not start another move-war. Any WP:POVFORKS you create will be AfD-ed on sight. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


-correction; the official name of the serbian state during WWII was indeed 'the Kingdom of Serbia'; evidence? lookee here: www.worldstatesmen.org; in the section about Serbia; and King of Yugoslavia, Petar II, was designated as its King, even if he did not accept the office or recognise the existence of the polity. The term 'government of national salvation'; even given the serbo-croat-english translation, was merely a term (quite obviously) for Milan's Nedic's government, not the state itself. Granted it was occupied by Germany, but then so was Norway and that was considered, at least by the Axis Powers, to be a de jure independent state.

Oh for goodness' sake.. this is the first time I hear of a "Kingdom of Serbia" after 1918. Get proper published scholarly sources (per WP:V). What you have to show is: 1) a published scholarly source that states Peter II was officially designated as the monarch of this state, 2) that its official name was "Kingdom of Serbia". We are not allowed to "deduce" that the name must have been "Kingdom of Serbia" simply because it had a monarch (e.g. Japan is a monarchy but is not named "Empire of Japan"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

-Yes, you're quite right about that. Similarly, plenty of the commonwealth realms have no adjective describing them, but have Elizabeth II as their Queen independently from the United Kingdom and are quite obviously monarchies. Tbh though; it's not the first time I've heard this mentioned. A recent book I read regarding the history of Serbia quite clearly states that Milan Nedic carried on the government in Petar's name. I'll have a scout round and have a look for a quote from it regarding this. It might also be a good idea for meto have a look for documents in serbo-croat containing the words'krajelvsto srbski'.

Also, I wasn't assuming the name of the state was 'kingdom of serbia' because Petar II was it's monarch. I was just quoting worldstatesmen.org directly. ('official name of the state was 'kingdom of serbia' ') ('Government carried on in the name of the absent and non-consenting Petar II.') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In short, find published sources. worldstatesmen.org is not acceptable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Three Yugoslavias" -page 130. Book is online. Apparently, according to this, Police Chiefs in Nedic's Serbia had to swear an oath to Petar II. OK, that doesn't state categorically that the name of the state was 'Kingdom of Serbia', but it does show that the government was carried on in his name, even if he did not acknowledge the state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Its an indication that you may be right, I'll give you that. Nothing more, however. Can you find a published source for "Kingdom of Serbia"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

-Not stating that implicitly at the moment, no. Although, regardless of the actual name of the polity, I believe that it's worth mentioning in the article that the state was at least regarded at least by itself as a monarchy under Petar II, and I quote from the book:

"Thus Nedic, aspiring to convey the impression of loyalty to King Petar II, hung a portrait of the King in his office and ordained that police recruits swear an oath to Petar II." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote is further referenced in the book as containing info from 'The National Question In Yugoslavia:Origins, History, Politics' (1984) by Ivo Banac, in particular pages 299-301. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, but a portrait and a police oath do not show that the state "regarded at least by itself as a monarchy under Petar II". Can you provide sources that confirm Peter II was the de jure monarch of this state? There is the question of the Germans allowing such a thing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

why doesn't it? Surely, an oath of loyalty to a monarch by citizens of the state shows that they are officially at least, regarded as it's monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. That would be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

-But it certainly does imply it. At any rate; I have found a direct source regarding the Petar II question; if not the state name question (although I still think it likely that the name of the State was simply 'Serbia' with no qualifiying adjective). I have hear a book entitled 'The Story Of Titles', by L.G. Pine, 1969 edition. On page 167 there is a section on titles used by governments acting in the names of Heads of State who did not acknowledge the existence of the polities they had been proclaimed titular head of. It cites Mexico in 1822, which proclaimed Ferdinand VII of Spain as it's Emperor, the State of the Cundimarquese in present-day columbia which likewise offered its crown to the aforementioned Ferdinand VII as well as Rhodesia 1965-1970 as regards Elizabeth II, the post-Dessalines Republic of Haiti as regards Henri Christophe. As well as similar evidence regarding the Haitian , there is a picture of an edict from 1942. Near the top, it clearly says(in Serbo-Croat); "Петар Други, По милости Божијој и вољи народној, краљ Србије" "Petar Drugi, Po milosti Bozjoj i Volji Narodnoj, Kralj Srbije" "Peter the Second, by the grace of God and the Will of the Nation, King of Serbia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

-also, your comment 'there is the question of the Germans allowing such a thing.' -I can't see why. Bohemia and Moravia still had Emil Hácha as its State President, as did Slovakia (with somewhat greater autonomy under Josef Tiso); Denmark kept Christian X as its King (although admittedly the Denmark was an exception due to it's 'Protectorate' Status) the northern half of the NDH was occupied by Germany, and yet it had Tomislav II as it's King, France had Marshal Petain as its 'Chef du Stat'; -how are these examples any different? I really cannot see how you can justify that statement to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... I really don't see the point of all those examples, as they are fundamentally different, one and all, from this case. The Germans were very unlikely to allow Peter II to be proclaimed "king" of their new puppet, when he was the head of state of an enemy, Allied country they had occupied. Also Peter II's faction was decidedly anti-German. He was brought to power in a coup (while still several months underage) as the figurehead of the anti-Axis Yugoslav faction. He was very much pro-British (even flew for the RAF), and led the Yugoslav government-in-exile in London.
As for the sources you brought up, I do wish you'd read WP:OR since there you will find why primary sources are usually not accepted. Once again: we require a published (secondary) source that makes the claim. I hope you shall not take this personally, and I do agree that your evidence does imply it, but unfortunately our deductions based on implications are not acceptable - we are not published historians. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as per FkpCascais, Kebeta and PANONIAN. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not that I find the title that problematic, but I didn't like Nedic regime and I don't like this one either. According to sources (John K. Cox, Jozo Tomasevich, R. J. B. Bosworth ), the official name was Government of national salvation. IMHO, Government of national salvation (Serbia), or even the previous title of Serbia (1941-1944) would be better. If an official name can be used, then I'd say it should. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this voting was over and article was already renamed, so if you think that some other title is better then you can propose new voting about title that you prefer. By the way, this is article about country which had 2 governments (Government of national salvation was just one of the two), so it would be incorrect that we use name of one of its government in its title. PANONIAN 08:19, 18 March 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.