Talk:SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 18:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment SandschakPolice Self-Defense Regiment Sandjak – Straight out WP:ENGLISH. Munoz, 2001, p. 292, the only English source covering this topic, refers to this unit as the "Police Self-Defense Regiment Sandjak". The move should be uncontroversial, only User:Antidiskriminator considers it to be anything else. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This unit belonged to SS forces. Removing SS from the title of article this military unit is wrong, incorrect and misleading. Even Munoz explains that Krempler was appointed by Himler to govern Sandžak and to mobilize fresh troops. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, this is what the unit is called in the only English source. Surely you cannot be against naming this unit on en WP per the only English source? I have provided the source and page. What is your English source for opposing this title? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until better evidence if there's only 1 source then we need comparison with other articles. SS tells us what most readers want to know, that this is a WWII article. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:. Hang on. What? There is only one English source. Period. What are your suggesting, WP:IAR (because we should seek comparison with other articles)? Just so I'm clear, we should hold this article (on en WP) at a German language title, despite the fact that the only English source for it calls it Police Self-Defense Regiment Sandjak? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
No, what I am suggesting is what I said:, namely that if there's only 1 source then we need comparison with other articles. WP:TITLE has 5 criteria : Recognizability – Naturalness – Precision – Conciseness – Consistency. The last of these 5, Consistency, requires that the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Hence if there's only 1 source then we need comparison with other articles. Other articles about SS units appear to use SS, and German. The onus is on yourself as proposer to address all 5 titling criteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
What other articles? What other SS Polizei Regiments have articles that we are comparing this one to? You, as opposer, have a responsibility to look, not blindly oppose without making an effort to do so yourself. Don't bother, there aren't any. The criteria only kick in if there is no WP:UCN. So far as I can see, the ONLY English version is the one I'm suggesting, so the proposed name is clearly is the common (and only) name in English, QED. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker, could you please bring down a couple of notches the tone in your communication with other editors. In particular you don't get to say to me "Hang on, what?" "blindly" "Don't bother" and so on. By other articles I refer initially to other articles in the footer categories: Category:Military units and formations established in 1943 first being 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade. Also I see this an article created by Antidiskriminator, which perhaps you should have mentioned in your naming of this editor in the RM proposal line. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I should also note that since Michael Mann The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing 2005 Page 362 calls this "Muslim Sandzak SS regiment" the claim of "only one English source. Period." is not entirely accurate. And in terms of article title consistency we'd be looking for Sandžak not Sandschak or Sandjak for the geographic area. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, you have been here a little longer than me, and I don't know what you deal with everyday on WP. But I can tell you what I deal with every single day I edit, where I edit. So, it would be very helpful if we had less of the holier than thou attitude and more actual focus on the topic at hand, if you don't mind, old fruit. Not sure what the relevance is of "me", meaning you, unless you are somehow a higher level of editor than everyone else, or perhaps my communication style is too direct for everyone? Ad has recently created a number of what I consider nakedly POV articles with dubious titles, and I've called him out on them. In my view, his choice of the German title for this article relates to the fact that he has been challenging the "self-protection" label used for a militia mentioned in the Pavle Đurišić article. It is part of a pattern of behaviour that he has been sanctioned for in the past, particularly relating to Đurišić. How is him being crap at titles an issue? I call plenty of people out, and as a MILHIST Coord, I regularly comment on RMs right across MILHIST, and support as many as I oppose. Check if you like, you'll find I comment a couple of times a week at least on RMs of articles I don't have the slightest interest in editing. Moslem Militia is a great example of an utterly useless title created by Ad, which has no value to the project at all in its current form. No-one on that RM has suggested I was out-of-line requesting a move there, except Antidiskriminator himself, of course, who has a serious case of WP:OWN (and plenty else besides) on pretty much every single thing he does that I see. Did you check what other articles about SS Polizei Regiments existed before you posted your opposition? A fair enough question, in my view, and no doubt in the view of others. So? In what way does WP:TITLE refer to categories? So far as I can see, it refers to the title of articles, not categories. Where do you get the category bit from? That would be a new aspect of WP:TITLE I haven't picked up before. Being here for a while doesn't make you immune from hard questions about your editing or comments, I hope. I certainly believe I accept reasonable correction, and have form for doing so. But I call it as I see it. And I am sure to be corrected again. Thankfully, I am not perfect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the English translation suggested does sound awkward.--Zoupan 14:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How exactly does it "sound awkward", Zoupan? Given it is the English title given by an English source? And what policy would you be referring to? WP:TITLE or WP:ENGLISH? Or another policy? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ENG, but the entire title should be translated, i.e. with the "SS" bit at the beginning. Intelligibility is the major factor here, since I dare say that most people in enwiki won't understand what "Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment" means. This is the reason why we don't have articles at 1. Infanterie-Division, or 1-я гвардейская армия for instance. Constantine 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I basically agree, though I am not completely sure taking in consideration Selbstschutz or Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz. Also, many sources do not translate Selbstschutz as self-protection, but simply as protection, so it might be necessary to take consistency in consideration too. After additional research and article expansion the situation might be clearer. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Antidiskriminator, I have found and added the following quotation from Osprey Books, which appears a reliable description, would you be so kind as to format it with the quote format style you have adopted for this article? Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

N. Thomas and K. Mikulan Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941-45 1855324733 Osprey Books 1995 p23 "In Sanjak, the border region between South- West Serbia and Northern Montenegro, the Italians formed a 3,000-strong anti-Partisan Moslem Militia, under Hoxha Patchariz, reformed in early 1944 as the Moslem Legion, under SS-Major Karl von Krempler."

Incidentally, it may be beneficial to create Krempler regiment as a redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Fully agree re the redirect. @ Antidiskriminator, I know, but these are different cases: the article on the "Selbstschutz" pertains precisely to a very specific phenomenon, the Nazi-sponsored WW2-era local security forces, and is used as a concise technical term instead of something more descriptive like "German-sponsored local security forces in WWII". Just like other technical terms, it has a place when used as such in the proper context, but as part of a composite title, I feel it is better to simply translate the term so that the subject is clear to any reader right from the beginning. Constantine 19:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not object the translation. How do you think Selbstschutz should be translated, selfprotection or protection? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
there is no consistent translation generally in English books, technically it should be Self-Defence, as that is the meaning of Selbstschutz and for Poland we use Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz... but then they really were ethnic Germans. However as this group is muslim, not Volksdeutscher there is less reason to use a German name. Another thing to consider is how two titles will distinguish the two articles: (Moslem Militia moves to Muslim Militia (Sandžak)) then should this be Muslim Legion (Sandžak)? What is the key distinction between the two articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It is important to take care about consistency on because there were many other "SS-Polizei Regiment"s and articles on them can be expected in future. There are plenty of English sources that do not translate "SS-Polizei Regiment". Even some wikipedia articles do not translate 4th SS Polizei Panzergrenadier Division every word from the name of "SS-Polizei" units.
  • One (out of many) battalion of Moslem Militia was merged with three battalions of Albanians to establish this regiment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just so we're clear, despite accusations elsewhere that I am trying to remove SS from the title, that is not the case. I've written five FAs about Balkan Waffen-SS divisions, and they make it clear I am in no way an apologist for the SS or Waffen-SS (or collaborators with them) in any way, shape or form. My move request did not include "SS" simply because Munoz did not translate it that way. End of story. But for clarity, the reliable sources seem pretty evenly split on the translation of "Selbstschutz" as "Self-Defence" (or "Self-Defense") or "Self-Protection". I'd be happy with either. What about SS Police Self-Defence Regiment Sandžak? BTW, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, the title should generally be the last name used. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Besides removal of SS, there are some other issues of this renaming proposal, connected with translation and maybe also with NPOV:
    1. Should some German words be left non-translated, taking in consideration sources and consistency with other wikipedia articles (i.e. "Selbstschutz" or "SS-Polizei")? Taking in consideration that nominator managed to find only one English source I am more inclined to leave German words, per WP:UE (If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on).)
    2. How to translate "Selbstschutz" ("Protection" or "Self-protection") if the decision is to translate it? Besides sources and other wikipedia articles, WP:POVTITLE should be also taken in consideration in this case. Naming SS Polizei unit as "self-protection" would maybe be more POV than to leave it as Selbstschutz or only protection (that is probably why Zoupan said it would sound awkward). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────*It is basically gobbledegook in German, per Constantine. When responding to him you didn't object to the word being translated, although your hedging about only using "Protection" was pretty obvious. "Selbstschutz" is not known in English. It cannot possible mean just "Defence", as Selbst means "Self". I think we can assume Munoz (considered by you to be a reliable source) has no relevant POV. He actually presents this unit name in English THEN gives the original German. It is not that I call it that, he does. As far as being consistent is concerned, we don't have much to go on. There just aren't enough "SS-Polizei" units on en WP (in fact there is one, the division - which wasn't really a SS-Polizei unit at all, it was a Panzergrenadier unit of the Waffen-SS made up from former members of the SS-Polizei) to base a consistency argument on. Just so we're clear, SS-Polizei were not part of the Waffen-SS. Should someone create all 30 or so SS-Polizei Regiments, and the consensus of the community is that SS-Polizei be translated, then they will all get translated, or vice versa. In the meantime, we can choose SS-Polizei Self-Defence Regiment Sandžak or SS Police Self-Defence Regiment Sandžak, but not translating "Selbstschutz" is really quite a strange approach and flies in the face of WP:ENGLISH. I actually believe it is far more POV to not translate it, because it is clear from your statements that you don't think it was a "self-defence" unit, and you don't want it referred to as such. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • It's "I" don't think, and your POV is transparent. I generally AGF with other editors, but not you. If the other editors here want to know why I'll direct them to links. Here are the Google Books hits for "Selbstschutz" with the two combinations:
  • Selbstschutz and "Self-Defence" here - 99 hits
  • Selbstschutz and "Self-Protection" here - 118 hits
  • this English-German dictionary defines Selbstschutz as "Self-Protection" in a social or ethnic context.

Given the definition and slightly higher number of hits, I think we should go with "Self-Protection". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Straw man fallacy. Its not about "Self-Defence" vs "Self-Protection". I underlined my position. Many sources do not translate Selbstschutz (or Polizei). Some sources that do translate it, don't necessarily translate it with POV "self" part.
  • You again misused an article's talkpage to complain about me. That is not what articles' talkpages are for, so please be so kind not to continue doing it. Thank you and all the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The generic German words should definitely be translated. The specific words SS and Sandschak can be kept verbatim if there's some value in that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Selbstschutz" has a very specific meaning in the context of WWII: Selbstschutz, which is not rendered by translations such as "Self-defence", which have connotations with the juridical term that are entirely inappropriate. walk victor falk talk 13:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
But the connotations were probably intentional, and if the sources replicate the phrasing, we shouldn't second guess them. This is the essence of WP:POVTITLE. We don't use Nezavisna Država Hrvatska just because the name "Independent State of Croatia" was a glaring travesty. If the sources translate a tendentious term, they don't do it because they believe in the self-defence aspect of the SS regiment, they just do it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I find your argument a bit red-herringy. Personally I would find "self-protection" a better translation of "selb-schutz", while "defence" is translated as "verteidigung", and indeed the German wiki self-defence article is titled "de:selbstverteidigung", for what it's worth. The tendentious connotations you refer to are introduced by sources using this translation, and that's a major reason for avoiding the wp:npov issues arising in using them that it's best to keep to the original. "SS-Polizei" is very comprehensible to the average English-speaking reader (including monoglots), and the rest of the exact nature of this unit can be better explained in the body of the article than in the title. walk victor falk talk 00:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that preferring an entirely German title for the reasons advanced is in itself very strange. At the very least, the dashes should be done away with. We do not render Waffen SS divisions as (for example, "13. Waffen-Gebirgsdivision der SS "Handschar" (kroat. Nr. 1)", we render them as "13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)" to make them semi-intelligible to casual readers. "Gebirgs" being a significant issue in terms of intelligibility. Fortunately, Regiment is the same word in English as in German, but I really think this is a bridge too far. What average person is going to know what "Selbstschutz" means, regardless of whether the term is POV or not? It will need to be translated in the lead for clarity in any case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the dashes are really haphazard as of now. It should be SS-Polizei Selbschutz-Regiment Sandschak. It is easily parsed by any English reader as "SS-Police SomethingInGerman(probablyTypeofTroopByAnalogyWithPanzerOrGrenadier)-Regiment ProperName. If the reader has the slightest familiarity whatsoever with any Germanic language (including English, which is with German member of the West Germanic sub-group), they may might realise that "selbst" is cognate with self, and describe the functionality of the unit, such as "self-supported", or intuit the approximate meaning of "selbstschutz" through general knowledge of Nazi matters (even if they miss that clue). Or they might be so ignorant of WWII and military matters they can't tell the difference between an armoured and mountain infantry unit, in which case "Self-Defence" remains thoroughly obscure. Regardless of the level of education of the reader or how much they are able to guess, a translation of "selbschutz" in the title doesn't help them, unless they are so knowledgeable that a translation is superfluous. walk victor falk talk 13:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
While I accept that Polizei is an easy retention given its obvious alignment with the English word Police, I completely disagree with the idea that any casual reader would intuit what Selbstschutz means. If we absolutely have to have any dashes, the only one should be the one between SS and Polizei. The one between Selbstschutz and Regiment is not consistent with any English usage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite right that the only dash necessary is between SS and polizei, sorry for that sloppy English of me. As to a casual reader, if they don't have a single clue about selbstschutz, they are rather likely to be confused and misled by self-defence or protection in the title in a military WWII context. From a didactic, encyclopedic and pedagogic point of view, it is often better not to throw too much information at once at readers, and the right time and place for introducing a translation is in the wp:lede:

SS-Police Selbstschutz Regiment Sandschak (from German: SS-Police Self-Defence Regiment Sandžak, Serbian: Легија „Кремплер") was a Schutzstaffel (SS) unit established on the territory of Sandžak by the senior Waffen-SS officer [...]

, like this. This takes of a great fundamental advantage of wikipedia as an encyclopedia, the capability of hypertexting. The pipelinking of Selbstschutz gives them an unobtrusive yet very obvious that it's a very special form of "self-defence"/"protection" we're talking about here, that they can explore further at leisure. walk victor falk talk 05:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see the logic in keeping the phrase "SS-Polizei". For Selbstschutz, you can say it's a proper name and prove it with an eponymous article, but not here. And I don't see the point in keeping such a similar German word - exactly because every English reader is simply going to see it as "SS Police", why not just use that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You're falling for the golden mean fallacy, just to push one bit more of English. If the Albylian wiki had to name a unit called 47 Mechanised Airborne Division Shropshire, and Albylian didn't have a word equivalent to "airborne" (in that it can describe both parachuted and heliborne troops), then translating "mechanised" instead of using the Albylian "mekanaizd" as in 47 Mechanised Airborne Division Shropshire, increases confusion because per military conventions (unitnumber|unittype|unitsize|unitname) it is easy to see the two italicized foreign words are the unit type, espececially when "mechanised" is so similar to the familiar Albylian word mekanaizd. On the other hand, with 47 Mekanazaid Airborne Division Shropshire, you've broken the pattern. What does the unfamiliar and foreign "airborne" mean when inserted between the unit type and the unit size? Is it some sort another proper name or nickname? Is it a military honorific, like "Guards" in the Soviet military? Is it a qualifier for "mechanised", or for "division"? Something else? There's no way to tell. And that's without going into that I have used the neutral number 47 in the example, if you use SS (which evidently is German) you've got a right unholy mix of German and English like this Germanname Englishname German/Englishname Propername, instead of something that is clearly in German and with but one word not immediately understandable, that is linked in the bodytext translation.
(And as an aside to this aside, knowing that it'd never be a serious proposition, but to show the amusing effects of going whole hog with 100% linguistic purism, a full translation would be Protection Echelon Police Self-Protection Regiment Sanjak, showing that more translation doesn't mean easier to understand, but at least it sounds funny
) Face-smile.svg walk victor falk talk 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────we still only have one source which actually translates the unit name, Munoz. "Police Self-Defense Regiment Sandjak". Our personal views on what parts should or shouldn't be translated are interesting, but not really policy-based. I have no problem with adding SS to the beginning, but some of the stuff above is really fringe. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's not up to us to translate, we have to find agreement among sources to use e.g protection/self-defence rather than vice-versa, anything that has been proposed is tending towards wp:or and wp:syn. walk victor falk talk 14:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, Munoz is the only source we have in English which actually translates the name of this specific unit for us. And he uses "Self-Defence". Which is why I proposed to move it to his translation. As I said, I'm relaxed about restoring the "SS" prefix for clarity, but Munoz is all we have in English, and this is en WP, which sort of sums up why I proposed to move it in the first place. Let's be clear here, these guys were not some white hat good guys, like most groups in Yugoslavia during the war they got up to some very bad stuff, and I'm all for putting it all up on WP for anyone to read, but the title needs to be intelligible in English and based on sources and policy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, wp:ue is "use English whenever possible, ceteris paribus", not "use English as much as possible". In this case, there are clear reasons that using English would reduce the intelligibility of the title. And considering the dearth of sources, it is better to treat as a proper name. walk victor falk talk 05:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. It is not "impossible" to use English here, in fact, that is what Munoz does, uses English then gives us the original German. As I think I have made clear, I cannot understand your view that using "Self-Defence" instead of "Selbstschutz" somehow reduces the "intelligibility" of the article title. It clearly makes it more intelligible to the casual WP reader, who may not have your extensive grasp of language or ability to intuit the meaning of German words. But I think we will have to agree to disagree. This RfM has been a bit rambling and off-policy, I wish good luck to the closing admin. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • When have I ever said it is "impossible" to use English? I'm only saying that translating results in a worse title, for reasons outlined mostly here and here, because the translation in context with the rest of the title makes it confusing, more than leaving it in German that simply becomes a foreign proper name to the reader that can't interpret it. I too wish luck to the closing administrator. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 10:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The English translation is extremely awkward, SS should be in the title, and keeping the original name means not having to choose between the American English "defense" and the British English "defence". Not all titles need to be translated into English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.