Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 5

3452:) was located in post-WW2 Serbia proper, so if we describe post-WW2 Serbia proper we would not exclude Banat from it. There is also a question why Tomasevich did not used phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat and Kosovo)". The fact that he did not used such phrase would mean that he considered north Kosovo to be a part of Serbia proper (as it indeed was in the WW2). Or to put it like this: Tomasevich speaks about WW2 and his usage of term "Serbia proper" clearly corresponding with political situation from WW2 and there is no evidence that he used this term anachronistically and that he referred to territories from other time periods. Regarding claim that if the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat" that is not what it says, I can say that if the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to post-WW2 or to pre-1912 territory" that is not what it says. And again, do not accuse me for OR without evidences since I did not accused you for much worse things. In fact, aims to annihilate WW2 Serbia were aims of Croatian Ustaša fascists from WW2. Ante Pavelić hated so much that Axis Serbia exists and wanted from Germans that they abolish her and divide her territory between neighboring Axis states (Croatia included). Maybe some people would more like that Hitler destroyed Serbia completely and killed all Serbs, but it is not what happened. So, even if we again have to argue here for months, implementation of Croatian Ustaša POV into this Serbia-related article would never be acceptable. This article could be written only in accordance with NPOV policy of Knowledge (XXG) and existence of 100 revert-warring Croatian accounts could not change the policies of Knowledge (XXG). In fact, whether you two are sockpuppets, meatpuppets or two Croatian users who coordinating their anti-Serbian campaign in Knowledge (XXG) is completely irrelevant. You will not "defeat" presented sources by unsourced empty rhetorics because your rhetorics would be always countered with sources from my side. So, if you again want to argue here for months, so be it. Of course, if you give up POV pushing and if you show willingness to accept info from presented sources and to achieve compromise, I would be here. Regarding the compromise, you did not gave me answer to my question: is there a reason for this article not to be named "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)"? As for term "Military Administration in Serbia", there is no single evidence that such term was used for territory - it was used for governing body of the territory and therefore, article about territory cannot be named like that. As for infobox and the lead sentence, we have to use compromise solutions there too and you also did not said is there something wrong with compromise that I proposed: "Serbia or the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia"? 2438:

borders. And I do not see any evidence that government of Milan Nedić tried to "present itself as Vichy Serbia". Because of what reason they would try to present themselves as such? They were members of a government that acted within the area of its jurisdiction and I do not see that they had any need to present themselves to somebody in certain light (especially because presented document that was created by the members of the government was not created for citizens or for outside world, but was only internal document in the official correspondence between members of the government and German military officials - I do not see why they would write incorrect things there. That would mean that they wanted to lie German military administrators about existence of Serbia, which would be really something unbelievable). As for maps, maps are reliable sources and they exist exactly because of the reason that people like you would not be able to twist words from the text. If presented source (Stevan K. Pavlowitch) mention word "Serbia" in the text and publish a map that shows area with borders named "Serbia" then there cannot be any doubt what term "Serbia" means in the text of this book. Regarding my compromise proposal that you rejected, I am willing to accept any other name that will not annihilate common name of the territory supported by the sources (i.e. name "Serbia"). If term "Serbia (military administration)" is what you proposing, it is acceptable to me. However, since this title could also apply to Habsburg Serbia from 1718-1739 (which was under military administration as well), perhaps more accurate and more descriptive term would be "Serbia (1941-1944 German Military Administration)" As for common name, per

3758:). What we seen from that? We see that Serbia was seen as a de jure separate country within the Axis Europe (unlike for example Albania and Montenegro, which were Italian protectorates, as it is accuratelly described by this document). We also see that name "Serbia" is also commonly used for the country and not only in this document on page 247, but in other documents that were presented in this book. These are official documents of the Serbian puppet government from 1941 to 1944 and it is fact that these documents are using name "Srbija" ("Serbia") to refer to the territory and that they also using term "država" ("country") to refer to political status of the territory. Furthermore, from all these documents it is evident that Serbian puppet government did not had so small jurisdiction. For example, there is document on page 155 named "UREDBA O PRAVNOM POLOŽAJU NEMAČKE NARODNOSNE GRUPE U SRBIJI" ("DECREE ON THE STATUS OF GERMAN ETHNIC GROUP IN SERBIA"). From that document we see that status of the ethnic Germans in Serbia was regulated by the official decree of the Serbian government (not by the decree of German military administrators) and that territory was here called "Serbia" (and not "Territory of the German Military Commander"). This source is a clear evidence that term "Serbia" was commonly used for the territory in official documents from that time. Note that these documents were monitored by the Germans administrators and there would not be name "Serbia" in these documents if German administrators did not approved usage of the name. 1305:

mention it). Also, I think that both names should be mentioned in the main body of the infobox (not on the very beginning of it) - otherwise, we would have a dispute which of the two names should we use on the beginning of the infobox - common one or official one? I am simply proposing compromise solution: either we should use neutral title "occupied territory" either we should not use any name at all (or alternatively, current article title could be also used in the beginning of the infobox). 4. We should determine which version of official name of the territory in English language is most accurate. So, far only Pavlowitch says that it was official name and this source mention it as "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia". Other two sources that mention (somewhat different) English versions of this name are not claiming that these are official forms of the name. Source whose authors are Brian Bond and Ian Roy uses form "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", but this source does not states that it is official name or official form of the name. We have also problem with German language sources, since some of them are using form "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" and some other "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien". So, is there an evidence which of those is most correct form and what would be authoritative translation of the name into English?

111:"administrative area" or "occupied territory". By the way, I will now use only term "administrative area" as description of status of Serbia so that DIREKTOR have no basis to accuse me for "shifted position" or "aim to present Serbia as country". I do not see any valid reason that article about one "administrative area" do not have its own infobox. So far the only stated "reason" against existence of infobox in this article was DIREKTOR's claim that "I trying to present Serbia as country with that infobox". Regarding this accusation, I am officially stating that I have no such aims and that I consider that Serbia was an "administrative area" as it is stated in article introduction (if DIREKTOR one more time repeat these false interpretations of my aims I will ask for administrator's intervention - he also indirectly accused me that I am Nazi supporter at least two times and this behavior simply has to stop). Regarding the possible solution for infobox problem, I think that neither infobox named "Former Country" neither one named "Former Subdivision" would be best possible choice for this article. Since I think that an suitable infobox for an "occupied administrative area" does not exist, perhaps someone could create new infobox that could be used specifically for these kinds of subjects. So, since I do not know how to create such infobox, is there anybody here who know to do that? 4554:? (the question is very relevant). Also, can you quote any sentence from any source that could be seen as a description of "geographical Serbia"? Also, if you claim that sources using term "Serbia" for geographic area only, why you object the usage of that term in article title? If your claim is correct then name "Serbia" in article title would be: 1. completely neutral, 2. would refer to geographic area, and 3. would not imply that subject of the article was a country. It is the exact thing that I am proposing here: usage of neutral title "Serbia". I am not advocating that titles "Country of Serbia" or "Puppet state of Serbia" are used. I am also not advocating that term "under occupation" is used, but unless we find better title, I will support current one, since it is supported by most google books hits. Also, political entity of Serbia is certainly not different subject from the geographic area that it including, so the article title should accurately describe both: the entity and the geographical area of the entity. I am insisting on 3 points: 1. usage of name "Serbia" in some form, 2. accuracy of the title, 3. NPOV title, especially without any kind of anti-Serbian POV (claim that Serbia was an "instrument of occupation" is a bit anti-Serbian, you know). So, what about title "Serbia (1941-1944)"? I say that this one is fully neutral without any implication of the status. 4531:

continued their occupation of the country that they created. Of course, I agree that from the point of view of international law, Axis occupation of Yugoslavia was not legal or recognized, so, according to the International law, Serbia, Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro, did not existed. However, it is only a point a view and it does not mean that these 3 puppet states did not existed at all. They existed de jure according to the point of view of the Axis Powers, and what is more important, they existed the facto. In fact, of these 3 de facto states, Serbia had the largest part of its claimed territory under control of its institutions (Large parts of the Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro were in fact controlled by the partisan resistance movement during most of the war, while this movement was mostly defeated in Serbia in autumn of 1941). We are not here to discuss international legality or to say which of the points of view regarding the jure existence of Serbia is correct, but we are here to determine the subject for an Knowledge (XXG) article. De facto states are valid subjects of Knowledge (XXG) articles, no matter what anybody thinks about legality of their existence (see:

3187:(i.e. for main part of WW2 Serbia without autonomous Banat, which was theoretically part of Serbia, but was governed by its local German minority). I see no evidence that Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to anything else (i.e. either to pre-1912 Serbia either to post-1945 Central Serbia). If there is a claim that Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to pre-1912 borders of Serbia in his 1975 work, then we would need to see clarification of that source (link please!) and exact quotation of the sentence from that source where this term is appearing. I also disagree that the "post-WWII Serbia proper very closely corresponds with the WWII territory" since there are very notable differences between these two areas. Second thing, from all presented sources, it is clear that term "Serbia" is used for the territory (in what ever form), so attempts for deletion of name "Serbia" from the article title are contrary to the sources - it is irrelevant in which form exactly is name written (Occupied Serbia 1941-1944, Serbia under German military command, etc) because there is always term "Serbia" in all variants, as well as in all history maps: 3755:

found on page 247 under the title "REGULISANJE DRŽAVNIH DUGOVA BIVŠE KRALJEVINE JUGOSLAVIJE" (or in English: "REGULATION OF PUBLIC DEBT OF THE KINGDOM OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA"). Note that this was originally published in "Službene novine" ("official Gazette" of Serbia) in September 15, 1942. Here is the quotation from the source: "Sva državna imovina bivše Kraljevine Jugoslavije i njenih banovina, koja se na dan 15 aprila 1941 nalazila na području koje je konačno pripalo jednoj od država-sticateljki, postala je od toga dana vlasništvo ove države-sticateljke. Države-sticateljke u smislu ovog Sporazuma su: Nemački Rajh, Italija (uključivo Albanija i Crna Gora), Mađarska, Bugarska, Hrvatska i Srbija." (or in English: "All State property of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and its regional units, which on 15 April 1941 was in area that eventually went to one of the state-successors, became from that day the property of the state-successors. State-successors in terms of this Agreement are: German Reich, Italy (including Albania and Montenegro), Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Serbia.") (Google translate page for users who cannot read Serbian:

3282:"Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" means that "Serbia proper" refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat. If this is not true, then the source would not use phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" but rather phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Vojvodina and Kosovo)", if it referred to post-1945 Serbia proper or "Serbia proper (in pre-1912 borders)" if it referred to pre-1912 borders. Phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" fully resembling official administrative system from the time of WW2 German occupation in Serbia. Anyway, since I think that nobody here would advocate renaming this article to "Serbia proper", it is pointless to discuss about this term any more. Regarding the "Serbia (occupation territory)" as a proposal for article title, while it is not unacceptable, it is too simplistic. So, why we should not use my compromise proposal "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)?" Is there some problem with this title or not? As for infobox and the lead sentence, I have this compromise to propose " 3541:

evidence for that to present to Knowledge (XXG) community, but other Serbian users in Knowledge (XXG) absolutely agree with me about this. And there was no proof that you are not sock either - declined request for conduction of checkuser is not an evidence (although, I am not 100% sure by myself anymore that you are sockpuppet due to the timing of your appearance here, but you cannot convince me that you do not coordinating your edits with DIREKTOR and that you do not originating from former Yugoslavia). And feel free to notify admins about my behavior - I stand behind everything that I said, I did not directly insulted you in any way, and I have right to express my suspicions about your identity especially due to the fact that you are involved in revert warring with various Serbian users in various articles - scope of your interest in Knowledge (XXG) absolutely does not correspond with something that would be expected to be the interest of an "retired Australian Army officer" (which you claim you are).

3655:

not consistent with the meaning of the sentence as it stands. It appears that your understanding of English expression is not helping in general in this discussion, and specifically in your understanding of this paragraph. I am happy to discuss wording that you believe will more clearly explain what happened, but my view is that it is now clear. As far as the 'Bibliography' and 'Further Reading' issue is concerned, I suggest you read WP:MOS. It is not my job to reproduce it here, but suffice to say I was in the process of attempting to improve the quality of the layout of this article, and started by moving the sources that are clearly used for inline citations in the article into a Bibliography section with ones that are not cited in Further Reading. I obviously have not finished doing that, and the formatting of the cites are pretty ordinary and need work as well. It has nothing to do with the origin of the sources. You really need to read WP:AGF and WP:BITE.

560:"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor , it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, and bearing some of the blame for the harshness of the rule. As time went on, Nedić's powers, instead of being increased as a reward for his loyal service to the Germans (which was repeatedly noted by most high German commanders and officials in Serbia), were whittled away. His situation was always difficult and frustrating and the minutes of his conferences with and his letters and memoranda to succeeding military commanders in Serbia amply show that it became more and more degrading to him personally." 3682:

expressed concerns that I had moved them to 'Further Reading' on the basis of some perceived bias against Serbian sources. However, it appears they some are primary sources with a high likelihood of bias, or secondary sources written by possible relatives of the primary sources. My concern is that they wouldn't meet WP:RS. Wasn't Boško Kostić the personal secretary of Dimitrije Ljotic? What relation to Boško Kostić is Lazo Kostić? And isn't the book written by Aleksander Nedić actually a collection of Milan Nedić's papers? I assume that the common family names are not coincidences? I am happy for them to stay in 'Further Reading' if this is the case, but if I am right they really have no place in the 'References' section. Can I ask those here who read Cyrillic to confirm one way or the other? Thanks.

425:

not think it is appropriate to say the German "governed" the territory--do you have a source that says that explicitly. Occupation forces are in control, but they do not really govern (hence the need of a puppet state). And it's not some sources, really, it is most source, at least from what I've seen. For example, see Roberts, page 19, where he speaks of Serbia being carved up and the parts not annexed by other groups (that being close to the 1912 borders) being under German/Bularian control. And I do not understand why you oppose the notion of listing the quisling and occupying forces in the same infobox, since they are closely related. It might be well to list the YGE/Chetniks there as well, since the YGE was the recognized governing body for the region labeled as Serbia during the war.

3555:

This is absolutely delusional stuff. How many retired Australian Army officers do you know? Maybe I wrote my doctoral thesis on civil war in Yugoslavia during WW2? How do you know that my grandfather wasn't a POW in Slovenia and went back there many times. Maybe my grandfather was a RAF bomber airman who parachuted into Yugoslavia when his bomber was shot down. Maybe all of those things are true, maybe none. Frankly, it's none of your business. You are very quick to make assumptions about what a retired Australian Army officer's interests might be. Just because you are here on WP focusing on articles to do with Serbia, doesn't mean I have to do the same regarding articles on Australia. If you want to edit articles on Australia, you go right ahead, you have my permission...

4602:-That book does say on page 64: "Serbia proper, approximately within its pre-1912 frontiers, was the only area of dismembered Yugoslavia in which the Germans established a military government of occupation." What I don't understand is why the names Serbia (1941-1944) or 'German occupied Serbia (1941-1945)' aren't acceptable.Using a term like "Territory of the German Military Commander in/of Serbia" would be far too confusing for a casual reader not immediatly familiar with the topic. It's not clear at all. That doesn't mean we can't put the name 'Territory of the German Military Commander in/of Serbia' in the infobox, but we all have no objections to the word 'Serbia' (as at least a geographical expression) to be used in some form as the tile of the article. 829:(Yugoslavia and Serbia) excluded each other. Government of Yugoslavia in exile did not recognized existence of Serbia while German and puppet Serbian authorities in Serbia did not recognized existence of Yugoslavia. Anyway, I also spoke with DIREKTOR on my personal talk page and he also agreed that usage of "free form infobox" does not imply that Serbia was country. Anyway, I am not against usage of any infobox, but you have to convince other users (including DIREKTOR) why different infobox should be used. I might agree with you that other infoboxes are "better" in some aspects, but one that we currently have is least controversial and generally acceptable for most users and its usage will prevent revert warring over this article. 2721:

for the word 'Serbia' to be retained in the title. To me, it is an issue about how the word 'Serbia' is presented in the title so that anyone looking at the title would not think that this 'Serbia' was a country. Given the number of different names used by the above authors, I think the solution here is a combination of adding an appropriate adjective to Serbia AND appropriate disambiguation in parentheses. I would be comfortable with a title that clearly shows that 'Serbia' was a German administered occupied territory. Some possible solutions for discussion include 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', Occupied territory of Serbia (under German administration), or 'German-administered territory of Serbia'.

3584:"remained within Serbia". It is factually inaccurate description. So, if there is no evidence that phrase "was organized as" is wrong in any way I will revert article to that term. Also, is it a bit hypocritical to tell me in your edit summary that I should not "alter text without consensus" while you exactly altering the text without consensus? You do not own this article, you know. Final thing, please describe here the difference between sources in "Bibliography" and "Further reading" sections. Does the distinction mean that sources in "Further reading" section are less valuable and that Croatian author Tomasevich is more valuable than Serbian authors. Such distinction is absolutely POV and unacceptable. 2717:

hit to see what the author calls the territory when they introduce it. From that point in the text, they nearly all revert to 'Serbia' eventually. This is common in English, not always so in other languages. Frankly, it is easier to use the shorter term once they have introduced what they are talking about, rather than use the name 'rump Serbia' or one of the other names on every occasion in the text. But given that they bothered to use a different term to introduce the territory in the first place, the later uses of the term 'Serbia' are not relevant to the case for 'Serbia' under the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Therefore, based on the references referred to above, it seems to me there isn't a WP:COMMONNAME.

2198:

created a territory called 'Serbia'", or words to that effect. You are inferring this, it is not in the sources, and therefore your entire argument is WP:OR. Prior to the last 48 hours we had no idea what the real name of the territory was. Now we know, give or take a comma. Strangely enough, the name is in German... Who knew? And it wasn't 'Serbia'? I could render almost all the same sources out of context in the text of the same book and say the territory was called 'Serbia under German occupation' rather than 'Serbia' under German occupation, for example. The maps are a side issue, just now introduced, by you, to support your argument. How about we address the texts first, then deal with maps.

3476:

NOT ANY POV ASSOCIATED WITH ANY FACTIOBN, COUNTRY OR WHATEVER. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT I DO. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY AT SPI THAT I AM NOT A SOCK. YET YOU CONTINUE. Frankly, Direktor frustrates the hell out of me at times, and your constant reference to socks and meatpuppets is insulting on more than one level. I am reporting you, despite my earlier pledge to rise above it, as I am sick to bloody death of your crap about socks, meatpuppets etc. You behave incredibly badly in this space, and it is time that your behaviour was brought before some non-involved admins who can take some action about it.

4167: 2270: 4177: 3756: 4292:

results are used as a descriptive phrase, not as a name for the geographical area. There is a clear distinction in English. We have an official name for this territory. Now we can either use that, or a Knowledge (XXG)-invented title that properly describes the territory and the fact that it was not only occupied, but under the direct authority of the German Commander in Serbia. I've made some suggestions above, but no-one seemed interested, so I reverted to the official name. Happy to re-visit the invented title if anyone is interested.

522:(what's up with that? :). As Nuujinn points out, sources also refer to Serbia being "carved up" by the occupation forces, referring no doubt, to "Serbia" in its post-1945 borders. Nuujinn, Serbia in 1918 did not include the Austro-Hungarian province of Vojvodina (though the province quickly voted to join the new Yugoslav state). Does Roberts refer to the Hungarians or the NDH as having participated in the "carving-up" of "Serbia"? If so, "Serbia" there refers to a territory defined by the post-1944 borders, not the 1912 borders. -- 3251:) that were included in the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" are pretty damn small and insignificant. Its a technicality, so I guess it is possible an author can simply disregard them and refer to the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" as being composed of Banat and "Serbia proper". Either way, "Serbia proper" in general does not include parts of Kosovo, and can in no way be considered to have included the Banat - and the term is NOT synonymous with the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". 480: 4141: 1397: 3988: 3776:. Did I not anticipate the response accurately, Peacemaker? As we say in Serbo-Croatian, "someone must be stupid here". And its probably me, since I have a record of dozens of useless head-against-the-wall posts where I explain, time and time again to PANONIAN, that he cannot draw his own conclusions from sources. Period. Now policy strictly prohibits any synthesis of any published material, but the most obvious one would be where some guy (like PANONIAN) actually thinks he should do his own research on 4193: 2579:- it shows territory named "Serbia" with its own political borders? Yes or no? As for infobox, I also proposed that both names used for the territory should be used in the infobox, so what exactly is problem in that proposal? Also we agreed about compromise version of then infobox few months ago, so why you now rejecting all achieved compromises and you starting same discussions from the very beginning? You by yourself was against usage of "Infobox former country", so why you now point to article 4149: 724:

had a quisling government controlled by a military occupational force. That's what the sources say, that's what we should say. And I simply disagree with your assertions regarding the use of the infobox being so narrowly constrained, since they are aids to navigation. Finally, as always, if you have a problem with my conduct, by all means bring it up wherever you think appropriate, but discussion of my conduct on this page seems to me to be inappropriate. Again, content, not contributor.

4159: 1589:

that the name of the territory was rendered in. Therefore, they are the ONLY sources that have been so far located in English, for this territory. None of the others state that they are are its official name, they are just convenient phrases to identify it. The current title of this article implies, incorrectly and misleadingly, that there was a pre-existing Serbia that was occupied by the Germans. There was not, even though the Territory was largely that of Serbia in its 1912 borders.

2575:

because of personal anti-Serbian nationalistic reasons, but I will not accuse you for that since I do not have direct evidence that would support such accusation. Also, which one of my claims is not supported by sources that I presented? Please quote that claim. As for evidence for info that Serbia was created by Germans, I provided sources for that, while you did not provided evidences that these sources are wrong or invalid. We can examine these sources one by one, so let start with

3448:

subject of this article is Serbia. Now about term "Serbia proper" again: phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" used by Tomasevich clearly describing Axis political division of the area and therefore there is no evidence that such term referring to any political territory from other time periods. In fact, if we watch this with "post-WW2 eyes" then we would say that Axis Serbia included "most of Central Serbia, northern Kosovo and the rest of Banat". Note that one part of Banat (

3374:

from several sources that the Military Commander in Serbia was responsible for an area of occupied territory, that included Serbia proper AND the Banat. It was the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' according to the sources. Under his authority, administrations were set up in Serbia proper AND in the Banat to help him do his job of governing so resources could be exploited.

4185: 4262: 2914: 4336:

occupation, while political entity named Serbia did existed. Therefore term "German-occupied Slovenia" indeed referring to geographic area only, but term "German-occupied Serbia" referring to political entity whose borders were defined by Axis occupational authorities. Otherwise, DIREKTOR would be obligated to define what were borders oh his "geographical area with name Serbia", i.e. he should say is this "geographical area" identical with political borders of

2989:

proper was administered by the German army of occupation, first with the help of a group of Serbian administrators-the Commissioner Administration-and then from August 29, 1941, with the help of a quisling government headed by General Milan Nedić." My reading of this is that the territory included two administrations, a Volksdeutsche one in the Banat and a military administration in 'Serbia proper' which was assisted in its work by the Acimovic/Nedic regimes.

4209: 31: 3780:, and present his "conclusions" here for us. And not only are these primary sources, they're primary sources from the Government of National Salvation, which we know was doing everything it can to present itself as a "country" - whereas it functioned as "nothing more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities" (Tomasevich p.182). And I said all this dozens of times before, but here we go, "starting again".. 2328:, so I expect you know that fully by now. Not only is it your own biased OR based on a primary source, it is also OR based on an inherently biased primary source - Nedic's government, who've been angling for years to present themselves as a "Vichy Serbia" without any success (in fact Nedic actually had his powers lessened as the war progressed). In short, a joke. Similarly, basing any conclusions on a map label is just 1672:@No such user. Correct. Serbia did not exist between 1918 and 1944. "Serbia under German occupation" implies there was a "Serbia" for the Germans to occupy. There was none, nor was anything called "Serbia" formed by the Axis occupation. Incorrect and misleading. And also implying the association of a Serbian state with the Axis powers where there was none, so its incorrect and misleading in a potentially insulting way. 1693:@PANONIAN, you're just POV-pushing. The official name was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (without "German"). It is comical and ridiculous to insist that, unless the sources should use "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in every sentence, that fact somehow "doesn't count". That sort of POV-pushing is extremely disruptive and detrimental to the encyclopedia, and can warrant sanctions. 450: 4546:- it says "the other puppet state, Serbia". And guess what, that book is written by your favorite author - Jozo Tomasevich. It is clear evidence that Tomasevich does not think that Serbia was only "geographical area". Can you explain why that source says that Serbia was a puppet state? Also you did not answered the crucial question: which territory is included into your fictional "geographical Serbia": the 460: 758:

tried to make this infobox to be a reflection of territory of Serbia only with info related to things such are population, religion, etc. I see that DIREKTOR does not like this infobox either, so he should say which info in this new infobox imply that "Serbia was country"? Current infobox does not "lists the two political entities in one infobox" and it is more focused on geographical data.

455: 1659:- reference states that official name of the territory was "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia" and just in one of the next sentences, the source says "In the case of Serbia". So, we have there both, official name and common name used, so if account Peacemaker67 want to use this source, he should use everything from it, not only selected phrases pulled out of context. 1443:

you prefer a google translate of a phrase instead of the one from a reliable source which actually gives the official title of the territory in German! Then you invoke WP:COMMONNAME. That policy has all sorts of factors which should be taken into account, including avoiding misleading names and POV names, which are two reasons why the current title is inappropriate under that policy.

475: 465: 624:

under the control of the German occupation forces. I do not agree that listing both is equivalent to validating a notion that Serbia as used in this article was a political entity--indeed, so long as the body and the lede make that clear, there will be no question as to what we are saying. I hope you have a relaxing vacation, we'll press on in the meantime.

3196:

accordance with the sources. Also, we can conduct a research to see which of the presented name variants is most widely used in English language sources in google books and then we can pick that name for the article title. Regarding the claim that term "Serbia" can be "also used in a geographic sense", I agree that there is such possibility, but if we have

2659:

page is a map labelled 'Occupied Serbia 1941-1944'. He then goes on to use the term 'Serbia' frequently in the following pages, including with reference to the 'military commander in Serbia'. He also uses 'Serbia proper' with a reference to the 1912 borders, on p. 95 of his 1975 work. In this work he then refers to 'occupied Serbia' then uses 'Serbia'.

4242:, not as a name for an fantasy science-fiction country that you are relentlessly trying to push unto this project. That is evident from the very phrases you bring up. "Serbia under German occupation" - is this your supposed "country"? A puppet state created by Germany - and then promptly "occupied" by Germany as well? "German-occupied Serbia"? 4201: 470: 350:

Serbia by sources, which was governed by Nedic's quisling regime which was under the control of the German occupation. I suppose we could work in the YGE, but we'd have to make sure they were a government in name only. Is that something we can agree upon? If so, then the issue is to figure out how to express that in the infobox.

1300:, title "Serbia under German occupation" would make a needed distinction between the two. Regarding the name which presented source (Serbia: the history behind the name) describes as "official name of the territory", such name is obviously not widely used in English-language sources and therefore it is not in accordance with 4344:? DIREKTOR should say are Syrmia, Bačka, western Sandžak, southern Kosovo and southern Serbia parts of his "geographical Serbia" or not. DIREKTOR should also provide a source that support view about "geographical Serbia" and sourced evidence that term "Serbia" was used in 1941-1944 to describe areas that were outside of 2834:'Territory'. The 'Territory' was under the full jurisdiction of the German Military Commander in Serbia. Within the 'Territory' operated a German Military Administration in Serbia, German and Bulgarian occupation forces, the two puppet governments etc. This article is about a geographical area isn't it? 4467:

territory)", provided PANONIAN could prove that is the commonname. However, since he cannot show anything of the sort, I am strongly in favor of simply using the official name and getting this over with. I'm against "occupied territory" since it really wouldn't solve anything. Provided PANONIAN could

4077:

Alright alright, as we agreed before, it doesn't really matter. Who cares, its not used in sources anyway. Its only important to PANONIAN who is desperately trying to salvage something from the situation and have the version of the title that most suggests there was a puppet state called "Serbia". As

4038:

I personally would not mind "Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" since I'm pretty sure that's the accurate translation (incidentally my cousin from Graz agrees with Google Translate :)). But that does not matter since its not used in sources, and Peacemaker is right in opposing it on those

3475:

I would rather have civil discussion about this issue than lower myself to your level. But, I've had more than enough of your incivility, harassment and accusations of being a sock or meatpuppet of Direktor, Ustase POV, 'Croatian user' rubbish etc. I AM AUSTRALIAN. I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO YUGOSLAVIA,

3373:

I cannot have been any clearer about this. I am not interested in removing the word 'Serbia' from the title of this article and have never suggested it. So far as I can see, neither has Direktor. I don't know why you keep banging on about it, PANNONIAN. The second thing is that it is absolutely clear

3311:

OR because you don't quite get what the source is saying. And frankly, this is a complicated issue Peacemaker and I are having trouble getting to grips with - and we actually read some of the sources. Its annoying to have to correct you constantly, let alone deal with your suspicion-driven refusal to

2774:

very closely corresponds with the German WWII "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (though not completely, as the latter was rather smaller). In fact, as an interesting note, Serbian nationalist groups often like to point out the similarity, now that Kosovo has seceded (or tried to secede)

2720:

If I knew nothing about this period of Yugoslavian history and I was looking for information about this period in this part of Yugoslavia, I would naturally search for 'Serbia'. It is also the only word that is in all of the names used by the above authors. For that reason I think it would be natural

2658:

Tomasevich (2001) introduces the occupied territory as follows: 'The Germans established a military government of occupation in Serbia proper, ...' (p. 175). His reference to 'Serbia proper' is a clear reference to Serbia in its former boundaries before the Balkan Wars. (ie in 1912). On the following

2442:

policy, term "Serbia" is one supported by most sources, while forms of the name that containing terms "Territory of the German Military Commander" (whose most accurate form was still not clearly established), even if official, are not used in prevailing number of English-language sources when name of

2213:

and, I'm disruptive? Before I even started editing this article, you claimed with no substantive grounds whatsoever that I am a sock, have been rebuffed despite my plea for a CHECKUSER, continued with your accusations because you are '100%' sure I am a sock, canvassed other editors you believed would

1603:

Having in mind very small number of sources that using name what you claim to be official, exact meaning and exact form of such name should be further clarified and confirmed by considerable number of other sources. Anyway, whether it was "real" official name of the territory or not is irrelevant for

1588:

actually, two sources use this name for this territory, and of all the so-called 'names' for this territory produced so far, they are the ONLY ones that actually state what the official title of the territory was. That is because they render the title from the German, which of course is the language

1367:

Oppose - firstly, it is not clear to what exactly term "Territory of the German Military Commander" refers to - quotes that you presented are pulled out of context. Furthermore, most sources are mentioning this territory as Serbia, so even if your sources are referring to name of the territory (which

944:

Furthermore, the Romanian/Vlach population is not listed as a minority, as there were 62,365 in Serbian Banat in 1931 and 159,549 in Central Serbia (mainly the Timok Valley) in 1921. Given the decrease in the Romanian population of Serbian Banat between 1921 and 1931, it would be safe to assume that

757:

that could be used for anything (territory, person, geographic area, animal, plant, whatever). This infobox does not imply that Serbia was country and I also did not used in this infobox anything that is specifically related either to German Military Administration or to Serbian puppet governments. I

723:

DIREKTOR, if I were arguing for calling Serbia in this context a political entity, you might have a point, but I'm explicitly not arguing for that. Territories and regions are generally governed. The government of the territory or region we're talking about, according to all sources as far as I know,

623:

So no, it is not that he refers to a territory defined by the post-1944 borders, not the 1912 borders. As for the quotes you present, both support the notion that Nedic was head of a government, however limited its powers were which governed, however weakly, an area called Serbia, while that area was

549:"But Nedić’s competence remained strictly circumscribed; indeed, his government had a largely "formal character", being for the most part restricted to ratifying decisions made previously by German authorities. The German military administration in Serbia was formidable, with a staff of 700 officers." 491:

Clearly, all these sources are in position that German "Military administration in Serbia" was an administration/regime that governed territory/administrative area named Serbia. So, DIREKTOR, if you have any source that claims that "Military administration in Serbia" was name for territory itself you

349:

force that controlled the territory. Activities of governments and of occupying forces may overlap, but generally, government functions and military ones are different in nature. I would also distinguish country/territory/region from those terms. I think we can say we're dealing with a region called

3754:

This is a book about WW2 Serbia and the important thing about this book is that it contains a very large number of primary sources, i.e. quotations from official documents and newspapers from 1941-1944 Serbia. We have no time and space to examine all of these documents, but one very important one is

3705:

suggests that the books included in the further reading section be topical, reliable and balanced. Given that this is English Knowledge (XXG) they should also be in English. As a side note I have noticed that some references used in the article are images and unreliable websites. They should be also

3654:

by the Axis. It says 'the territory that was not annexed by Germany or given to the surrounding Axis neighbors,...' and then refers to the occupied territory we are referring to in this article. It does NOT imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the war, and that was not my intention and is

3306:

No, PANONIAN, that is NOT what that means. Please improve your English/German language skills before entering into these arguments. And stop interpreting the sources. If the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat" - that is not what

3003:

Well, firstly, I don't see him equating Serbia proper with the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I thought he said so explicitly. Since this is a controversial issue I'm touching upon, I want to be clear: I myself am of the opinion that Kosovo is a region of "Serbia" in the wider sense.

2960:

Now for the record, I'm not opposing anything that you stated. But let me get this straight. According to Tomasevich, "Serbia proper" is "Serbia, essentially in its 1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region". That's practically equivalent with the extent of the Territory of the

2574:

Please quote exact sentence from WR:Original research policy which can confirm that anything what I said is an "original research". Otherwise (without such evidence), please do not raise false accusations against me. I also can accuse you that your goal here is to remove name "Serbia" from this page

1657: 1224: 812:

I think the subdivision infobox shown a few days ago was overall better than the new one. The new one doesn't resemble the standard infobox for an historical territory. The previously shown one had predacessor and successor states. I support that one being restored. As for the section that says what

660:

It is not a question of you "agreeing" whether the infobox implies this, indeed, experience teaches there is little or no chance that you would agree to anything I say or propose. Further, I must point out the fact that you (and Fainites) are engaged in active disputes with me elsewhere, and that it

573:

Nuujinn, I'm kind of frustrated with the word games on this talkpage. I am not opposing PANONIAN's version because it lists the two political entities in one infobox, though that also seems rather illogical to me. The problem is that they are listed together under the heading "Serbia", implying they

406:

What we can (and have I think) agreed upon, is that this is a territory (informally) referred to as Serbia in sources, which was governed by the German Military Administration, with the Nedić government as the latter's tool. It is PANONIAN's attempts to depict "Serbia" as another ("third") political

319:

to place articles into various "Former countries" categories that would not be suitable for subdivisions of former countries." Serbia was country until 1918 and is a country today, so that complicates things a bit. I also note that these templates are part of a wiki project for former countries, one

4306:

Just a reminder, they were 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', 'Occupied territory of Serbia (under German administration)', or 'German-administered territory of Serbia', and the one that Director suggested and PANONIAN stated was 'not unacceptable' (ie acceptable), 'Serbia (occupied

2307: 2042:

of when and where sources are necessary and should be requested. In fact, you're starting to "request sources" for any statement anyone posts, no matter how simple and/or obvious. Please don't be offended, but its rather strange and absurd - since you also don't seem to be aware it works both ways.

1836: 1442:

I believe you have misrepresented the sources I provided. First you provide a citation of Pavlowitch in another source which uses a different bit of punctuation, ie a - instead of a comma, second you accuse me of bad faith by not using the comma, when the second source I listed does not, and lastly

1304:

as far as article title is in question. 3. I think that we should mention both names (common and official) somewhere in article text or/and in the infobox (and I really do not understand why user DIREKTOR simply deleted from the infobox mention of common name, together with reliable references that

424:

I'm not proposing what PANONIAN proposed. And I'm not confused about the nature of the relationship of the Germans and Nedic's regime--the Germans were in control, but did not handle many of the ground level government tasks, and Nedic did engage in some activities not endorsed by the Germans. I do

374:

sources refer to the territory as "Serbia" mainly because it only did not exist for some 25 years between 1918 and 1943/44 (when the Federal State of Serbia was established). Its a name for that area on the map, and referring to it as such comes perfectly natural to me as well, even for the 1941-44

276:

Look, you want to have an infobox with the title "Serbia" that depicts the thing as near as a country as possible, with the German Administration and the Nedić government represented as its governing bodies. That is just something that I can not accept, not because I'm intransigent, but because our

4530:

Yes, Germans created country called Serbia and held that country under occupation. There is nothing contradictory there. In fact, the full description of events would be this one: Germans invaded Yugoslavia, occupied Yugoslavia, created country named Serbia from part of Yugoslav territory and then

3554:

Thankfully, WP policy does not require me to sell you anything. Anti-Serbian hey? So what am I doing editing articles on German units and operations, Serb and Croat units, Serb and Croat politicians and leaders, Australian POWs escaping from camps in Slovenia, etc etc. I'm on an anti-Serb crusade?

3447:

Please do not move this ridiculous dispute to article about Banat. I tell you here and now that I opposing renaming that article to "Veliki Bečkerek District" (if you want to support that name as "official") - common name used for that area in most sources is Banat, as well as common name used for

3388:

For my part, I still think "Military Administration in Serbia" is descriptive, and more common and elegant than "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Though I would prefer the latter to any user-invented alternatives, and there is no question that "Territory of the Military Commander in

2716:

That there is no WP:COMMONNAME among these WP:RS is clear. Google Books searches are no good in this case due to the frequency of the use of the word 'Serbia' AFTER they have introduced it with another term or phrase in the text. Saying that they all use 'Serbia' is no good unless you look at each

2597:

just a point of clarification @PANNONIAN. I hope this is a slip of the keyboard, but it was I that introduced Pavlowitch into this discussion. By not specifying who when responding to Direktor, you continue to imply I am a sock. Direktor and I may both have problems with this article title, but we

2583:

where such infobox is used? Also, subject of the other article is very different and there are certain problems with that article and with infobox used there (that article states that its subject is an "interim occupation authority", so due to that it should not have an territory/country infobox).

914:

DIREKTOR, I think that we will be never able to find solution that would be seen as best by everybody, but if current solution is at least basically acceptable for everybody then we should stick to it (I do not think that current solution is best because I think that infobox should also to contain

772:

I think this is a good starting point, since this infobox does not force us into oversimplifications. I expanded it a bit to reflect the various political entities with an interest or control in the area. I also pulled some of the material out of the lede, since that seemed heavy and did some copy

396:

As for distinguishing the military from the Nedić government, I think you're operating under a serious misconception here. German WWII military administrations were institutions of military occupation. Just like in any military occupation, they enjoyed supreme authority over any and all aspects of

4335:

Regarding the claim that sources are using term "Serbia" to refer to geographical region, I do not see source that can support such claim. I also do not see similarity with term "German-occupied Slovenia" since we all know that political entity named Slovenia did not existed in the time of German

4321:

Generally, term "Serbia (occupied territory)" is acceptable, but there is a slight problem: term could describe some other time periods in the history of Serbia. Therefore, I would rather support something like "Serbia (World War II occupied territory)". All other proposed titles in last post are

3195:

since name is commonly used in all presented references. I will say again: for me, any article title that describe the article subject as "Serbia of any kind" is fully acceptable. What is not acceptable is title that would refer to this area as to "something in Serbia", since that would not be in

2017:

Also, term "occupation" does not imply that occupied entity existed before occupation. Who exactly say that it imply that? You? Serbia was created by Germans and term "occupied" means that Serbia was under German military control instead that it was fully independent from anybody. There is no any

110:

I am not going to play rhetorical games with DIREKTOR, but question of usage of proper infobox for this article looks like valid one. Article introduction says "Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in occupied Yugoslavia", so we should use an infobox that is most suitable for

3583:

Now, let discuss this most recent revert warring where you replaced sentence "was organized as a German-administered occupied territory" with "remained German-administered occupied territory". Word "remained" imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the war and that then these territories

2310:

shows on page 140 a map of the territory named Serbia and map legend there says "German-occupied Banat and Serbia". Due to the fact that shade of the pattern used in the legend is same as one used for Serbia in the main body of the map (which depicting borders that were established by Germans in

2305:

are showing the existence of the territory named Serbia from 1941 to 1944, and therefore, such sources are confirming that territory named Serbia was established in 1941. Otherwise, why would all these history maps show an territory named Serbia if it did not existed and was not known under that

2268:

For the record: I was against current article title few months ago when it was proposed. However, it was a reasonable compromise (as was the older title Nedić's Serbia). So, now word "occupation" is not good for you, right? Fine, I will not cry if such word is not used. So, perhaps we can rename

2197:

Let's start again before we get to the right margin. @ PANNONIAN, 'All of them?' What a claim, I thought. So I have just looked at a selection of your list of sources, and actually NONE of them say that. This is a deliberately misleading statement. NONE of those sources actually say "the Germans

641:

Um Nuujinn you're making mistakes. Please read Roberts more carefully and familiarize yourself with the borders of Serbia. He refers to Vojvodina as being one part of Serbia, and the territory defined by the 1912 borders as another part of Serbia. As I said, Serbia's 1912 borders did not include

235:

So you're shifting you're argument again? First it was a "country", then when that proved plain wrong you claimed it was the "bare territory" we're talking about, when that no longer looked like it will help you have your Vichy Serbia infobox, "Serbia" became a "third political entity", when you

3540:

I am not buying that, dear Warmaker67. Your general contributions in various articles are so anti-Serbian that it is simply impossible that you do not originating from former Yugoslavia and that your ethnicity is most likely not Croat (even if you indeed live in Australia today). Yes, I have no

2988:

Definitely considers them equivalent. In full, he says: "Serbia, essentially in its pre-1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region and the Banat, was occupied by German troops and put under a military government. The Banat was administered by the local Volksdeutsche. Serbia

2047:

to the administrators of the territory either. Much as "France" can refer to the "administrators" of the state ("France has announced it will participate in the talks") and the entire political entity - since the administrators represent it. You're transmitting your confusion with this onto the

1641:

Let me state my position clearly: two English sources a common name maketh not. Or even five. I'm fine with mentioning that name somewhere in the lead or in the infobox, but moving it away from a descriptive title formulated in plain English into an obscure and convoluted title mentioned by two

1273:

I repeat, I provided TWO sources at the top of the section above. One is Pavlowitch, the other is Bold and Roy. They differ only in that one (Pavlowitch) uses a comma, and one (Bold and Roy) uses 'in'. The one that uses 'in' provides the German title in parentheses after the title in English. A

517:

what you're saying. None of these sources necessarily imply that Serbia was anything more than an informal name to refer to the territory (or "area" if that's your new thing) of "Serbia". Indeed, some of them actually imply the latter more directly, and one of them only mentions the name of the

378:

I have explained maybe 10 times why it is wrong, and I'm confused as to why you're confused. I stated plainly several times that PANONIAN mistakenly believes (probably because of the above) that the Military Administration and the Nedić government were "governing bodies" (his words) of a "third

4291:

this is just getting ridiculous. As I explained a long way above, raw Google hits are of absolutely no use, because, as I explained, they don't capture the way the author describes the geographical area the first time they mention it in a given book. Many of the hits on the first page of those

3681:

I am working my way through the citations in the article to identify pages where I can and check (if Google translate allows) that they are properly cited etc. I have a couple of questions about three of them that I was going to move back from 'Further Reading' to 'References' as PANONIAN had

2889:

I'm not sure what you are getting at. What I am saying is that at least one source (Tomasevich 2001) is inconsistent with your summation of how the sources usually use the term 'Serbia' in a geographical sense. See p. 63. He clearly equates 'Serbia proper' with 'Serbia, essentially in its 1912

2437:

I am doing original research? How so? I only presented and quoted reliable sources, nothing more, nothing less. I showed primary source which says that Serbia was established by Germans and I also showed secondary sources that presenting this Serbia as an existing entity with its own political

2229:@PANONIAN. "Serbia under German occupation" is the current title that you support. And you've just stated you think this "Serbia" was created by the Germans. So, according to you, the Germans occupied Yugoslavia, created a "Serbia" - and then presumably declared war and occupied this "Serbia" 1768:

just a point of clarification here, so that we are all on the same page. In 1922, the state was divided into oblasts, and in 1929 it became a unitary state divided into banovine. The last time prior to the invasion that 'Serbia' existed was 1922. The Germans actually occupied parts of several

706:

imply to an unacceptable degree that "Serbia" is not a name for a territory or area (as the sources imply), but for a political entity. This is plain obvious from the usage in infoboxes on other articles, and was at the time the stated intent of the user who actually wrote the infobox. So you

331:

The sources I've read on this historical period pretty consistently refer to the region/territory as Serbia, and Serbia was once and is now again a country, so I think we're on firm ground using the country or the former country infobox (but I would like hear what others familiar with infobox

164:

misleading to include within a territory template the two political entities. As I said, this creates the impression that the two were governmental institutions of a phantom "Vichy Serbia". In other words, in order to finally eliminate the Vichy Serbia slant in this article, this hypothetical

2833:

It doesn't matter what we think an author is using the word 'Serbia' to mean. We know, because the sources I've listed tell us when they introduce the territory into their text, and I've listed what they say. We are talking about a geographical area here. It must be, it starts with the word

1156:

it seems to me that if you wan't to show that a google search on 'Nedic's Serbia' shows that sources use that term to relate to the territory, you should do that search and use the results as the citation. In the interim, I will just delete the citation, as it doesn't relate to the content.

4020:

That you're doing OR? There's a direct quote from the policy, and its just beyond any question. That you're contradicted by (non-"interpreted"!) sources, also presented - and presented numerous times before. You "demand evidence" after anything anyone writes as an excuse for dismissing the

828:

Well, I disagree. Although, I was the one who included "subdivision infobox" into article, Serbia was not quite subdivision of anything and therefore such infobox would be misleading. Technically, it was also not subdivision of "German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia" because two entities

485: 201:, devoid of any mention of political entities, would be my idea of an elegant infobox depiction of this occupation zone. Once again, I think no infobox is a good solution, as well as the option of including two (rather small) infoboxes for the German Administration and the Nedić regime. -- 1999:, nothing else. As for term "Military Administration in Serbia", there is also no evidence that this term refers to territory - that term simply refers to administrators of the territory, otherwise, all these maps would present term "Military Administration in Serbia" instead "Serbia": 940:

Given that Nedic's Serbia only included Serbian Banat, and that that the German population of that area was 120,541 in 1931, down about 6,000 from 1921, the figure of 500,000 seems to be a major exaggeration or else confusion with the total German population of the whole of Yugoslavia.

620:

Serbia was carved up--parts going to Hungary, such as the Vojvodina, parts to Bulgaria, such as Macedonia, and a section of the southwest even going to Italy's puppet, Albania. That part of Serbia which was not annexed, and which had essentially the old pre-1912 borders, remained under

813:

country it is part of, it can say German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia - that is neutral. Just because it looks similar to the country infobox, that doesn't make a difference, there are many articles on Knowledge (XXG) that use that subdivision infobox for historic provinces, etc.--

1222:

from the article that common name used for the terrritory was "Serbia" and why you wrote that territory is named "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" when the only source that mentions official name here uses name "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia", see:

3201: 2353:

I don't know how to respond to your first post above. Where did I say that the word "occupation" is the problem? How could anyone draw that conclusion? Just as there was no "Serbia" under German occupation, there was no "Serbia" under military administration either - this "Serbia"

2770:(that term rarely/never means "1912 Serbia", which was rather large and also included what the authors call Macedonia). "Serbia proper" can also be called "rump Serbia" (particularly by Serbs) or "residual Serbia", and the interesting thing is that, geographically, the post-WWII 3316:

us both by referring to us as the same person, and are using confusing terminology out of POV reasons. You're also writing blocks of text in not-so-perfect English that are very difficult to read. Could you please do something about all this? We're trying to fix this article

2519:

Either way, the official name is "Territory of the Military Commander, (in) Serbia". That's the name that needs to go into the infobox, regardless of the COMMONNAME. And the infobox needs to restructured as a proper infobox for a German WWII military-administered territory

2680:

My point with putting all this up is that key authors (a representative sample of ones I actually have a copy of, plus the ones I located online in the last week and have linked above) use a whole range of terms to refer to the territory we are talking about, including:

574:

were the governmental bodies of a political entity by that name. This implication is not really in question, among other obvious reasons also because the author of the infobox has explicitly stated this was his intent. I don't know what more to say on that subject.

4062:

with respect to your cousin in Graz AND my former colleague who is a NATI translator who doesn't agree with your cousin ('of' is 'des', 'in' is 'in'), we have a source (Bond and Roy) for 'in Serbia', we don't have one for 'of Serbia' and it doesn't mean the same

2665:

Roberts refers to 'That part of Serbia that was not annexed, and which had essentially the old 1912 borders, remained under German-Bulgarian occupation' (p. 19) then uses 'Serbia'. He also has a map on pp. 32-33 which uses the label 'Serbia under German military

674:

my position by mistake, intending to argue against me, and later modified your stance so that it may be in opposition to whatever edits I propose. This seems to show you were more interested in opposing me, than supporting any particular course of action on this

3844: 2456:

It is perhaps some of the most blatant OR I've seen yet, PANONIAN. You're presenting reliable sources, but those reliable sources do not state anything in support of your claim, so you're "extrapolating" that they do on your own (from primary sources and map

1859:" or something of the sort in every sentence. That was never contested by anyone, and I'm really starting to get sick of you exploiting it to support these absurd claims of yours. Formally, this territory was not called "Serbia". And, incidentally, as far as 3349:

HOWEVER, I'm starting to lean towards Peacemaker's position. I don't think "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME, and I think we should start thinking along the lines of his proposals. I'm sorry you don't like the word "in", but the Germans apparently liked it a lot.

3234:

Panonian you are not helping with these blocks of text. "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)", simply means that "Serbia proper" does not include the Banat. That's all. Stop misquoting sources already. "Serbia proper" can only mean one thing, and that is -

846:

R-41, does the content of the current infobox strike you as problematic? My thought is we can work with the material and get that sorted out, and then perhaps choose a more appropriate infobox, perhaps even a custom one. Does that seem a workable approach?

2490::)). Another would be "Serbia (military territory)" or something like that. We must try to keep it short. But I am still not convinced at all that "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME. You have no evidence that a territory called "Serbia" was created by the Germans. 332:

conventions have to say). I confess I'm confused by DIREKTORS apparent insistence that we should not name the political entries in control (whatever than really means in this context) of the region, since he has put one of those entities into the infobox

4544: 2124:

at every turn. If "Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941" how could that Serbia, created by the Germans(!), be "under German occupation"? Its ridiculous. Did they create this occupation territory, and then declare war on it and occupy it again?

1912:

3490:

Now, Peacemaker, I may be frustrating, as you say, but I would appreciate it if you didn't actually go out and insult me for the sake of proving to User:PANONIAN, of all people, that you're not me. PANONIAN isn't very picky about his accusations.

1635:"Incorrectly and misleadingly?!" Are you trying to argue that Serbia didn't exist before German occupation? Sorry, but I don't find that line of argumentation persuasive, the more so because the proposed title reads "Territory of the... Commander 3258:"? I'm trying to think of as elegant a title as possible. But there must be no question that the article, named thusly, will have "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in the infobox and the lede (among others, in the lede, of course). 2311:

1941), there is no basis for claim that term "Serbia" here could apply either to "territory of present-day Serbia" either to some "geographical area" which was different from area within the borders which were established by the Germans in 1941.

2627:]. The first ref is a detailed text on the entire Axis occupation arrangements in Yugoslavia, and refers to 'Serbia (German occupation)', although it quite clearly explains that it was not a 'puppet state' but had a 'puppet government' (p. 11 2616:]. The first ref is a detailed text on the entire Axis occupation arrangements in Yugoslavia, and refers to 'Serbia (German occupation)', although it quite clearly explains that it was not a 'puppet state' but had a 'puppet government' (p. 11 4543:). As for my "request of evidences", it is legal action in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) rules. Users are obligated to support their claims with sources. So, I can present sources that saying that Serbia was a puppet state (check this one: 3412:

Maybe more elegant, but we are talking about a territorial unit here, not an administrative one. It was a territory, that was its official name (give or take a comma etc), and frankly, I'd be happy with any one of the three that are sourced.

2443:

the territory is in question (so far, only 3 English language references were presented as a support for such name). Anyway, perhaps compromise solution like "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)" might be acceptable for you?

2790:, or it can mean post-WWII Serbia, that does include Vojvodina but doesn't include Macedonia. I found that authors more frequently use the post-WWII definition of Serbia when using the term in a geographic sense, which is logical after all. 445:

Repeated comments are leading us nowhere. Let first establish what is meaning of which name. These sources are explicitly stating that German Military Administration was something that governed territory, and not name for territory itself:

615:

Like its predecessor , it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of

3598:

Please move this post to the appropriate noticeboard or archive/delete it. I will not be bullied in this manner on an article talkpage. If you do not do so, I'll post it and the previous such thread myself - but in a different context.

2965:(its defined in the way its defined in its article). I don't have the book with me at the moment, are you sure he's not referring to the German occupation territory rather than "Serbia proper"? Or does he consider those two equivalent? 3945:

nonsense you've got going is against policy, and can get you sanctioned. Please STOP ignoring policy (in spite of it being pointed out in every other post) and ignoring sources. You need to stop with this now. Do you, or do you not,

669:

you seem to have followed me here, probably to oppose whatever position I might assume, and are not objective participants imho. Indeed, both of you (misunderstanding the nature of the dispute) initially actually wrote a post or two

4397:

use the phrase in a geographic sense, since there was no country or state called "Serbia" that was occupied by the Germans. Hopefully you are not confusing your own claims, and are aware that you advocate the idea that the Germans

2003:

And this users repeating that "there was no Serbia that was under German occupation" after he saw references (maps) that proving opposite. This is trolling and disruption, and I hope that administrators now see what I speak about.

1274:

search of the title in German shows multiple good hits on Google Books, and therefore supports the translation used in Bold and Roy. My German grammar is not perfect, but it's good enough to know that 'in' means 'in', not comma.

389:

frequently (and please read my posts before commenting on them) I am not opposed to naming the governing bodies in their own infoboxes - I am only opposed to them being bunched together in one infobox under the heading "Serbia"

3183:

We already had discussion about meaning of term "Serbia proper" in World War II several months ago, and I showed evidence that "Serbia proper" in presented source (Tomasevich, 2001) was description for "Serbia without Banat":

2653:

I am happy that we know the official name for the territory, as we now have a reference to it (Pavlowitch 2002). I'll leave the exact punctuation for later. As far as the WP:COMMONNAME for the occupied territory is concerned:

646:

referring to the 1945 borders (also known around here as the AVNOJ borders). Indeed, it would be strange and unusual to refer to Serbia by its 1912 borders, the Serbian province of Vojvodina is its integral part (in general

3120:

The unanswered question that poses itself is whether the Government of National Salvation had any formal (or informal) authority over the Banat and its governing body? My guess would be that Germans would never subordinate

2739:

Well, what I must insist on is that the title does not present "Serbia" as being "occupied" or "under occupation". We cannot imply that WWII "Serbia" was a country, but we also cannot imply that Serbia was a country in the

4307:

territory)'. For the record, my preference is for 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', because it covers all the bases, but I can live with 'Serbia (occupied territory)' if only we could get consensus on it.

236:

could not find any sources for that you now claim its an "administrative area". We can obviously only go on like this until we drain the English dictionary of all such terms, but this is where I draw the line. The phrase "

4568: 165:"territory infobox" cannot include the German Military Administration or the Nedić government - or else it is not a territory infobox, but a Vichy Serbia infobox. For the record, however, I do not support such an infobox. 2669:

Pavlowitch (2006) uses the term 'residual Serbia under German control' (p. 22), then 'Serbian Residual State' then 'Serbia'. In his 2002 text, he uses the term 'Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia', then

4439:

Even if it would hypothetically correspond perfectly with the Territory of the Military Commander, it still would not support your claim that the thing was a country. So just one nonsensical argument after another...

2580: 2152:

So, any source that would support your claim that "there was no Serbia"? No? Nobody cares for your rhetorical nonsense here, you know. Engage yourself in disruptive bahaviour and I will write more reports to admins.

2866:"Think"? Where did I say "think"? :) I'm just trying to lay out all the uses of the term "Serbia" (and variations) that can be encountered in the sources. Its not a matter of opinion, they're usually quite obvious. 3622:

try WP:MOS. I was in the middle of improving the way citations and refs are presented in this article, but you know what? My timezone and yours aren't similar, and it was getting late last night when I started.

4214:

So, what is the conclusion? Terms "Serbia under German occupation" or "German-occupied Serbia" are favored by most English-language sources, so current article title should be kept due to WP:COMMONNAME policy.

3125:

to a Serbian government, but I'm not 100% certain. Reading Tomasevich, I'm even more inclined towards that position. I think we would need a source that explicitly states the GNS had formal authority over the

379:

political entity" that he calls Serbia ("Vichy Serbia"). This mistaken belief he has depicted in his infobox, and this I am trying to correct. An infobox that uses the term "Serbia", a colloquial term for the

252:

area" or "administrative territory". If you want an infobox for the administrative area feel free to introduce the Military Administration in Serbia infobox. But mark this: I refuse to follow you on this new,

1698:

4373:

Nonsense. All you do is "request evidence" for anything anyone says, regardless of whether that makes sense or not. It appears to be a tactic that you think might allow you to dismiss arguments easily. The

3929:

discourages commas - we can use the other version "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" - which is besides that more common anyway. This farce no longer even resembles productive discussion, its

2410:"Serbia" is the COMMONNAME, and we're talking hypothetically here, then the part in the brackets should explain (in the simplest way) what the German-created "Serbia" was. So something along the lines of " 147:

That is to say, for a geographic area of land - not for a state or state subdivision, or any kind of political entity, as the template is indeed used for such purposes (by myself as well, for that matter).

3938:- and it needs to stop. This article must no longer be held hostage by one personally-motivated, POV-pushing user without any kind of understanding of the subject matter, or even Knowledge (XXG) policy. 1000:

If you hit the google books link, you will find ample evidence for my edit. In fact, I searched Bailey's book online and could not find a reference to Nedic's Serbia, so I suggest it needs verification.

2676:

Judah has a map labelled 'Serbia (German occupied)' p. 116, on the same page he observes, 'What was left was Serbia, more or less within its 1912 boundaries'. He basically then uses 'Serbia' throughout.

2399:

No, I don't think so. I know I mentioned that possibility myself, but having thought about it, its really no better than the current title. Which Serbia was it that was "occupied"? As I said, it was an

1612:

Also, if you claim that current title is "incorrect and misleading", please provide a reliable reference that confirms your statements. Knowledge (XXG) does not support original research of the users:

710:

You may "press on", as it were, but I do not see the point of arguing without the guy you're arguing against. On the other hand, that does seem an effective way of achieving "instant-consensus" :). --

222:

Question: article introduction sentence says that Serbia under German occupation is an "administrative area", so why would infobox reflect "a geographic area of land" when it is not article subject?

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 397:

life and governance in the territory they were placed over, certainly not only the military aspects (indeed those were often separate and subordinate to military units, such as the Army Group F

2301:

it is necessary to allow state and national emblems.") - it is quotation from official document in the time of formation of the Government of National Salvation in 1941. All other sources from

1917:, no question. Is this what you're trying to push? Either way, you can either collaborate with others in solving this obvious problem, or you can continue to write "reports" and be disruptive ( 3803:

Not my own conclusion. Primary text of the mentioned source also using term "Serbia", so usage of that name is choice of the author of that book, which is a secondary source, not primary one.

401:). The Nedić government (the Government of National Salvation) was little more than a (quote) "tool of the occupation authorities", an instrument for carrying out the Administration's orders. 1505:

around here - so show adequate respect, please. What we currently have is a Knowledge (XXG)-invented term, so even if ONE source uses "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia",

338:

for example. PANONIAN prefers a different characterization. So it seems to me that the disagreements are about which entity to list and how to list them. I also think we can distinguish the

3918:) sources say or indicate - you shouldn't. Nobody needs you to post your nonsense "interpretations" of the facts and documents. When you get a diploma, and get published - then we'll talk. 2236:

The current title (directly and inescapably) implies there was a "Serbia" to be occupied by the Germans. There was no such state or entity. If the Germans created it, then it itself was an

3921:

The (real) sources are very clear on what exactly was the name of the this territory. I think this would be a good time to put an end to all this damn disruption. You have shown no basis

1783:

Yes, prior to Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, Serbia did not existed as administrative unit. But, Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941, as it is evidenced by all these sources:

3185: 193:

articles, with their nfoboxes, cover the political entities (I must say I'm proud this imo elegant and stable solution was my idea originally :)). However, I really can't support using

321: 4233:

thread, moving on to the second nonsense argument: raw Google hits. Following your logic "Serbia" is probably the most common name. Why don't you check how many hits "Serbia" gets? ;)

688:

The sources "imply" no more than that "Serbia" is the name for a "territory" or "area" governed, not by the Nedić government, but by the German Military Administration (and this they

2244:

occupation. PANONIAN, can you understand the difference? Are you capable of discontinuing a self-contradicting line of argument and acknowledging that some changes need to be done.

1863:

is concerned, there are hundreds of sources that use the term "Military Administration in Serbia" to refer to this regime - so where does that leave your little personal collection?

1016:

Books are mentioning "Nedić regime" as a name for government, not for territory. Do you have a single source that says that term "Nedić regime" was used as a name of the territory?

482:- "South of the Danube, Serbia fell under German military administration. Formally, Banat was considered part of Serbia too, but effectively this area was also under German control" 2233:. Is that what you're saying? Talk about "rhetorical nonsense". Its incredible how you just "dismiss" all this. Maybe I should "provide evidence" for it? Do you need a source? :D 1242:

the revert because his stuff was "sourced", or so he claims (as if the others' additions weren't). Do I detect a double standard, WW? I've reverted all additions and restored the

1143:

It is Knowledge (XXG) account - I do not see anything wrong in such statement. Also, have you or have you not a source that says that "the territory is known as "Nedić regime"?

2961:

Military Commander in Serbia (which included northern Kosovo). "Serbia proper" is usually not defined as including parts of Kosovo, because, well, that's Kosovo and that's

1738:, not "Serbia under German occupation". Unless you're implying the Germans occupied an area, established a territory called Serbia - and then immediately occupied it again? 707:"disagreeing" with an obvious fact like this is, to me, evidence of an inherent lack of objectivity in your dealings with myself. "Reflexive opposition", as Nsu called it. 283:. Why you're trying to do this I can't imagine, and I'm not usually the one that has to disassociate Serbia from collaborationism, but regardless: it is dead wrong and it 47: 17: 4133: 333: 4261:

to refer to a military-political entity, but to refer to the region commonly known as "Serbia" - which was "German-occupied". Much like "Slovenia" was "German-occupied"

2358:

the military administration. So the word "under" is the primary problem, rather. Let me try to explain again: if the Germans created your "Serbia", it is an instrument

3650:

It was I that made that edit, and in its context, it is correct. The paragraph is talking about what happened in the carving up of Yugoslavia after it was invaded and

3060:). Again, that cannot be considered a part of "Serbia proper" under any circumstances. To be more precise, I wouldn't seriously consider anything of the sort without 884:

then the current version is one of the few available options that does not mislead or imply the thing was a historical country or political entity ("Vichy Serbia").

2404:

occupation, not something "under occupation" or "occupied" itself. That's the gist of the problem with the current title, and my first idea doesn't really fix it.

915:

flag and coat of arms). Also, by my opinion, usage of government infoboxes would be misleading since infoboxes should present article title, not related subjects.

383:

in sources, and also incorporates the two political entities, in effect depicts - not a territory - but a state, a "Vichy Serbia" with two "governmental bodies".

2673:

Bond and Roy use 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', provide the original German name (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien), then use 'Serbia'.

1574:

What we have now is a descriptive title whose subject is obvious to anyone with a minimum knowledge in history. Please leave it alone, it's just fine as it is.

613:

DIREKTOR, we don't have to have an infobox, but France during World War II does, just one that labels it as a series of articles and which is more free form.

3843:

I do not have need for any original research. Only thing I have to do to counter your words is to present a source that says that Serbia was a puppet state:

2214:

support you, and completely failed to bring evidence that what you are stating sources say is actually factually correct. And I am the one being disruptive?

2625:], and secondly from 'The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii : a philologist's notebook, by Victor Klemperer and Martin Brady p. 254 2614:], and secondly from 'The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii : a philologist's notebook, by Victor Klemperer and Martin Brady p. 254 325: 190: 1120:

wrote that? Well isn't it obvious? This is all just me trying to confuse you by posting conflicting statements. Its all part of my plan, don't you see?

277:

project would be sporting a historical error of HUGE significance for the history of Serbia, listing that country in a list of Nazi satellites where it

4003:

I would however agree with usage of two names ("Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" and "Serbia") within the lead sentence and the infobox.

3056:

In addition, the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia included the autonomous region of Banat (which is today a part of the wider province of

1966:

In addition, now that we know the official name of this entity, we can put together the appropriate, standard infobox for a German-occupied territory.

552:

Sabrina P. Ramet. The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2006. Pp. 130

2038:

Yes, you should probably write some more reports... Look, you don't seem to understand what original searching is, and I'm starting to doubt you have

1429:

Serbia" but rather something like "Territory of Serbia under German military commander", which is virtually same as "Serbia under German occupation".

1425:

Also, according to google translate, German name "Gebiet des Militdrbefehlshaber Serbiens" would not mean "Territory of the German Military Commander

3100:

Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (with its government, the Military Administration in Serbia), and its subordinate "civil" institutions

1995:. There is no evidence that "sources use name Serbia because it would be ridiculous to repeat other name". Personal opinion and original research of 2806:". In other words, as a collective term for the Military Administration, along with its subordinate Nedic government, and the territory it controls. 618:, yes, exactly, that's what a puppet state does, administrates with limited powers under the control of it's puppet master. As for Roberts, p. 19 4468:

show that "Serbia" is the commonname, it would still be an instrument of occupation, not something that that was "occupied" or "under occupation".

2120:

The problem that needs to be solved is the current nonsense title. There was no "Serbia" that was under German occupation. And you, PANONIAN, are

1908:

The problem that needs to be solved is the current nonsense title. There was no "Serbia" that was under German occupation. And you, PANONIAN, are

1519:

evidence that "Serbia under German occupation" refers to this territory. Also please actually learn some German before trying to translate it :D.

887:

I would still prefer we didn't have an infobox, or alternatively, if we used the infoboxes of the two political entities covered in this article (

4567:

Or to put it like this: I support usage of term "Serbia" in the same way as your favorite author Jozo Tomasevich used it in this map on page 62:

3968: 3254:

Its really these little "simplifications" that the sources use that confuse this issue more than anything... Panonian, what do you think about "

1728:

with regard to actually proving common usage. So get over that fact, and do some actual research - or else stop making false claims. But even

1075:" in this context means simply "government". "Nedic regime" is just another name for the puppet Government of National Salvation of General 336: 1715:

Anyway, whether it was "real" official name of the territory or not is irrelevant for the question of choosing best name for this article.

3820:

if you try to "interpret" something from that that (such as "Serbia was a puppet state"). Do you understand? Please say you understand...

1835:

And most funny thing here - your own source (Stevan K. Pavlowitch) published a similar map that shows territory named Serbia on page 140:

692:

unambiguously), with the Nedić government as an effective (quote) "organ" of that administration. That is to say, yes the sources call an

1818:

comes from University of Nevada web site and it shows Europe in 1942 with territory named Serbia. All these other maps are showing same:

1171:

I see. Well, I will not cry if term "Nedić's Serbia" is not mentioned there. Do you agree that we then delete entire disputed sentence?

596:

I will be leaving once again on vacation, I only got back to town for a few days. I hope we can take a break, I'll be back in a week. --

312: 2487: 185:

is being used just to represent the territory alone, and excludes any mention of the two political entities within Kosovo. While the

4501:

should PANONIAN revert it. I won't pretend I would not like to see him sanctioned for the "sockupuppet" harassment and for all this

3336:

So I'll take "simplistic" as a compliment. The exact layout of the lede will be written in accordance with specific instructions at

1404:" (somehow, you forgot to use word "Serbia" in your quote, did you?). Anyway, my argument that title of this article should respect 1103:

Then why account Peacemaker67 wrote in the article that "the territory is known as "Nedić regime"? Which source support that claim?

315:

says "This infobox should be used if the state in question was always a subdivision of some larger entity. For all other cases, use

3697:

I recommend removing them. Indeed many of the books are written by people within the regime or by people directly related to them:

588:) to deal with the political entities. The other alternative is to cover the entities within this article, and using two infoboxes. 577:

I think the most logical course of action would be one you yourself suggested, to finally define this article as the equivalent to

1855:" is indeed the term sources use at times because it would be ridiculous to repeat "Territory of the German Military Commander in 696:

by the name "Serbia", but this does not justify presenting this area as a political entity. There is a difference. And using the

4360:

then sources would not describe it as exclusively "German-occupied", since this area was occupied by other Axis states as well.

2052:

where you and your compatriots are "defending Serbia", its impossible to correct your mistaken preconceptions. Very frustrating.

4497:

At this point I think we should introduce the official name into the article (with sources), and bring this whole matter up on

3925:

on which to disregard them. You have agreed to "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" as an acceptable title, but since

2332:

OR. When you get published, PANONIAN, then we'll talk. In the meantime, if you want to prove something, you need a source that

697: 308: 198: 157: 4626: 4611: 4578: 4562: 4523: 4458: 4368: 4330: 4316: 4301: 4286: 4223: 4104: 4086:

Serbia" - and therefore the opposition. Whatever the case may be, catering to fanciful demands is simply out of the question.

4072: 4057: 4011: 3998: 3982: 3877: 3854: 3838: 3811: 3798: 3766: 3737: 3723: 3691: 3664: 3645: 3632: 3617: 3592: 3564: 3549: 3523: 3509: 3485: 3460: 3422: 3407: 3383: 3368: 3298: 3276: 3212: 3146: 2998: 2983: 2899: 2884: 2861: 2843: 2828: 2730: 2607: 2592: 2541: 2451: 2432: 2394: 2380: 2319: 2280: 2262: 2223: 2207: 2161: 2147: 2026: 2012: 1984: 1846: 1830: 1809: 1795: 1778: 1763: 1667: 1651: 1623: 1598: 1583: 1548: 1481: 1460: 1437: 1420: 1384: 1361: 1313: 1283: 1268: 1193: 1179: 1166: 1151: 1138: 1111: 1097: 1061: 1047: 1024: 1010: 987: 969: 954: 923: 909: 859: 837: 822: 799: 785: 766: 736: 718: 636: 604: 530: 500: 437: 419: 391: 362: 295: 230: 209: 134: 119: 4174: 3200:

then it is obvious that we deal with an political and not with geographical area with this name. Also, I do not see a map in

2623:

here are two more refs to add to the mix, firstly from 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' by Raphael Lemkin, from p. 241 onwards

2612:

here are two more refs to add to the mix, firstly from 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' by Raphael Lemkin, from p. 241 onwards

945:

there were 210,000 Romanians in Serbia in 1931 and some 200,000 in 1941 based on the decline in Banat between 1921 and 1948.

794: 129: 3901: 3817: 2325: 1334:. My sources for this name for the territory are, in English, Pavlowitch 2002, 'Serbia: the history behind the name' p. 141 2775:

and Vojvodina has increased its autonomy ("the Americans are Nazis and want to reduce Serbia to what the Nazis had etc..").

2631:]. The second ref relates to a map used in German schoolbooks with the label 'Region of the Military Commander in Serbia'. 2620:]. The second ref relates to a map used in German schoolbooks with the label 'Region of the Military Commander in Serbia'. 125:

Infobox country is supposedly suitable for use for a territory. However, I will ask some infobox people what they suggest.

2297:, потребно је дозволити државне и националне амблеме." (English translation: "considering that the German military force 4156: 472:- "Only one area, Serbia and Banat, with a population of German origin, was under direct German military administration" 4410:

a country called "Serbia". And hopefully you are aware of the difference between the verbs "to occupy" and "to create".

3702: 3514:

Saying you're frustrating (at times) isn't insulting, Direktor. Everyone around here seems to have a hairtrigger... :)

2411: 1215: 3241:. No scholar in his right mind would state that parts of Kosovo or Vojvodina are part of "Serbia proper". That's its 2935:

Peacemaker, what are we arguing about? I hope you're not trying to start some spat to show Panonian you're not me? :)

2697:

residual Serbia under German control or Serbian Residual State or Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia

2324:

This has to be the third time or something like that when I find myself explaining to you that what you're doing is

3987:

Also name that you proposing is supported only by one google books hit, so it is not quite example of common name:

3255: 983: 582: 578: 38: 4435:

The exact territorial extent of a the area a particular source refers to by the term "Serbia", is also completely

4607: 2362:, and is not "under" occupation (or "military administration" or whichever synonymous phrase you'd care to use). 1735: 1465:

This is not personal issue, so please do not comment "my abilities". Question is: do you have evidence that term

2049: 1501:

What Peacemaker has done is he finally found an actual name for this territory, which pretty much makes him the

3859:

Oh that's right, your googled contents entry from some book. At this point I'm convinced you must be joking...

2486:

I just stated "Serbia (military administration)" as an elegant option (and no, it cannot possibly apply to the

194: 182: 1608:

states that most common names should be used for article titles, and in this case most common name is Serbia:

4082:

Serbia" is (for some weird reason) probably to him more suggestive of a Serbian puppet state than "commander

2749:

As I've been saying for a while now, there are two distinct meanings of the term "Serbia" in a WWII context:

2129:, no question. In short, there was no "Serbia under German occupation". Its a problem that needs correcting. 1719:

states that most common names should be used for article titles, and in this case most common name is Serbia.

1556:

so even if ONE source uses "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", WP:COMMONNAME supports it.

2337: 2289:

Also regarding the source which specifically says that "Serbia was formed by Germans", here is such source:

1560: 316: 3931: 3192: 2439: 1860: 1716: 1605: 1506: 1470: 1405: 1369: 1301: 1289: 324:

and evidently they did not get around to making an inforbox for historical regions. But there I found this

140: 4622: 4312: 4297: 4068: 3733: 3687: 3660: 3628: 3560: 3519: 3481: 3418: 3379: 2994: 2895: 2857: 2839: 2726: 2603: 2390: 2385:

If Serbia really is the COMMONNAME (I am not yet convinced) then what about 'Serbia (occupied territory)'?

2219: 2203: 1805: 1774: 1647: 1594: 1579: 1456: 1448: 1357: 1279: 1189: 1162: 1057: 1006: 139:

As I mentioned Fainites, please be sure, in order to prevent said inquiries to take the form of effective

4378:

is on you to show that these hits refer to a country, which is your claim, not on others to show they do

3701:

was the transport commissar and Aleksander Nedić is the grandson of Boško Nedić, brother of Milan Nedić.

1390: 960:

Your observation makes perfect sense. If you could give us a source for your numbers, we could fix that.

2787: 1800:

exactly which of those sources states that the Germans created a territory (or country) called 'Serbia'?

979: 950: 1530:. He will not change his position, but it might force him to stop repeating "evidence" all the time.. 1233: 946: 4603: 3449: 965: 4356:

were parts of "geographic Serbia" in 1941-1944. Finally, if "geographical Serbia" is identical with

3935: 1769:

banovine of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they did not occupy Serbia, as it didn't exist at that time.

586: 452:- "He found his homeland occupied by German troops and governed by a German military administration" 4551: 4357: 4341: 2043:"There's no evidence that this term refers to territory"?, well there's no evidence that it refers 1232:

I reverted info that was added without agreement. Direktor, first gain consensus, and then edit. --

346: 4375: 2913: 2890:

borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region'. Not quite as obvious as you 'think'?

2269:

article to "Serbia under German administration" or "Serbia under German military administration":

1408:

policy stands, while name supported by these sources ("Territory of the German military commander-

4515: 4450: 4278: 4096: 4049: 3960: 3869: 3830: 3790: 3715: 3609: 3501: 3399: 3360: 3268: 3248: 3138: 2975: 2876: 2820: 2533: 2424: 2372: 2254: 2139: 2033: 1976: 1755: 1630: 1540: 1288:

Here is my opinion about subject: 1. article title should use most common name of the territory (

1260: 1130: 1089: 1039: 186: 3974:

Only bunch of personal insults addressed to me - no source and no evidence for anything stated.

3926: 700:, with the heading "Serbia", and with the two political entities listed as its governing bodies 3020:" is basically "Serbia, essentially in its pre-1912 borders", as the image caption states here 4618: 4308: 4293: 4064: 3729: 3698: 3683: 3656: 3624: 3556: 3515: 3477: 3414: 3375: 2990: 2891: 2853: 2835: 2779: 2722: 2599: 2521: 2386: 2215: 2199: 1801: 1770: 1643: 1590: 1575: 1473:

policy? Also, do you have evidence that current name of the article is "misleading" or "POV"?

1452: 1444: 1353: 1275: 1185: 1158: 1053: 1002: 978:

This would be a useful addition to the article, please add, along with the relevant citation.

854: 780: 731: 631: 509:"Clearly", PANONIAN, you do not understand that you cannot simply post sentences you yourself 432: 357: 3337: 3016:

and Danube). Northern Kosovo simply isn't "Serbia proper" or "central Serbia" - its Kosovo. "

3191:

Therefore, deletion of name "Serbia" from the article title would not be in accordance with

2918: 2584:

And you cannot possibly use one Knowledge (XXG) article as a source for other Wiki article.

1296:

that common name is "Serbia". Of course, due to the fact that we have another article named

4502: 3942: 1918: 1527: 240:

area" in the lead refers to the fact that the area was administered by the German Military

4536: 1469:(in what ever form) is an example of most common name of the territory that would satisfy 1372:

policy (sources that supporting "Serbia" as a most common name of the territory are here:

961: 4498: 3773: 3332:

the COMMONNAME is "Serbia" as you claim, then the part in the brackets is supposed to be

2778:

The term "Serbia" itself can (and is) also used in a geographic sense. Now this can mean

2290: 1336:], and Bond and Roy 1975, War and Society: a yearbook of military history, Vol 1. p. 230 1238:

Ah yes, but when PANONIAN adds information without consensus and is reverted, he actually

537:@Nuujinn. There's no question of Nedić's status as an effective "tool" or "organ" of the 160:

can in fact be used to represent the territory alone, it will still not make it any less

4264:- but there was no puppet Slovenia. Do you finally understand that your own claims make 3914:

support you, or to put it in simple terms for you: when you have to "explain" what (you

2694:

That part of Serbia that was not annexed, and which had essentially the old 1912 borders

3637:

So, you refusing to discuss the issue? Fine, I will ask administrators for help again.

1522:@Peacemaker, could you copy down Pavlowitch and Bond & Roy? PANONIAN is absolutely 818: 642:

Vojvodina - are you reading my posts at all or just trying to pick a fight? Roberts is

3751: 1613: 585:, without at infobox and with separate articles (already actually created by PANONIAN 4571: 4555: 4508: 4443: 4361: 4323: 4271: 4216: 4089: 4042: 4004: 3991: 3975: 3953: 3862: 3847: 3823: 3804: 3783: 3759: 3708: 3638: 3602: 3585: 3542: 3494: 3453: 3392: 3353: 3291: 3261: 3237: 3205: 3131: 3104: 3017: 3005: 2968: 2962: 2869: 2813: 2771: 2759: 2585: 2526: 2444: 2417: 2365: 2312: 2273: 2247: 2154: 2132: 2019: 2005: 1996: 1992: 1969: 1839: 1823: 1788: 1748: 1660: 1616: 1570:

1. Mutual; shared by more than one. 3. Found in large numbers or in a large quantity.

1533: 1516: 1474: 1430: 1413: 1377: 1306: 1253: 1226: 1172: 1144: 1123: 1104: 1082: 1052:

why is the citation there then? Nedic regime can only be about the puppet government.

1032: 1017: 916: 903: 830: 791: 759: 712: 598: 524: 513:

as supporting your views ("they must be saying this or that"), they have to actually

493: 462:- "a Serbia under German military administration with a puppet government of its own" 413: 289: 223: 203: 126: 112: 4540: 3312:

accept that you're making a mistake. That is forgetting about the fact that you're

2848:

Here's another book using the term 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'

2340:

where the logical fallacy of requesting evidence for a negative is elaborated upon.

850: 776: 727: 627: 565:

War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration

428: 353: 4385:

As for you "requesting evidence" that the term is used in a geographic capacity -

2744:

that was occupied by the Germans. I can hardly see the difference between the two.

2629:]. It also uses the term 'Serbia (under German military administration)' at p. 53 2618:]. It also uses the term 'Serbia (under German military administration)' at p. 53 4547: 4345: 4337: 2576: 1815: 1246:

Of course the real victims here are the poor admins who are expected to actually

197:, which is used on current subjects, for a German WWII occupation zone. Not even 1076: 487:- "The German military administration in Serbia, a regime of unmitigated terror" 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4238:

We've been over this many times as well. "Serbia" is a term used to refer to a

4532: 4349: 3772:

Ugh... not another useless thread, and another block of text full of nonsense

1745:

And please stop repeating "provide a reference" after anyone says anything xD

1499:

have evidence that you have evidence for the evidence you claim is evident? :)

1368:

is not clear from presented quotes), your proposed name would fail to satisfy

342: 2662:

Milazzo introduces the territory as 'rump Serbia' (p. 10) then uses 'Serbia'.

3907:

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material

3816:"Yes your own conclusion". The source can use any term it wants - its still 3197: 3188: 3057: 2850:], and one with a map that shows 'Serbia Territory of the Commander Serbia' 2783: 2767: 2762:", which usually means post-WWII Serbia without its autonomous provinces of 2302: 2000: 1819: 1784: 1609: 1373: 1293: 814: 808:

The new infobox is bad, the subdivision infobox shown previously was better

457:- "the remainder of Serbia was placed under German military administration" 3990:. Article should keep current title, due to prevailing number of sources. 411:

political entities as its "governing bodies", that I am trying to fix. --

339: 3189:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links

2001:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links

1820:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links

1565: 1822:

So, would you tell me what problem you have with info presented there?

3340:. The infobox will use the official name, as is also general practice. 1991:

OK - this is exactly what I speak about, this is original research of

467:- "the Banat and Serbia were put under German military administration" 4353: 3023:(the "1912 borders" or the "pre-1912 borders" were acquired in 1878). 2763: 2581:

German military administration in occupied France during World War II

1297: 872:*sigh..* I had a feeling this wouldn't stay dead (didn't I tell you, 178: 2127:

The title implies there was a Serbia prior to 1941 that was occupied

1915:

The title implies there was a Serbia prior to 1941 that was occupied

477:- "in April 1941, Serbia was placed under a military administration" 4348:. For example, we would require source that would say that western 2912: 1389:

Furthermore, you did not read your sources correctly. Check this:

2802:" to refer to the German "Territory of the Military Commander in 3750:

Now, let start again. I have one nice source to introduce here:

3021: 3013: 1704:

Haha :), nope. Unless there's a sources conflict - we just need

2293:

Quotation from the source: "с обзиром да је немачка војна сила

1787:

Or you have some problem with info presented in these sources?

1451:) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (personal tone removed by author) 25: 3728:

I had a read of the guideline, and agree. I've deleted them.

3198:

sources that showing an territory with borders named "Serbia"

1526:

to this horribly misleading title, and has a serious case of

1467:

Territory of the German Military Commander (in of - ,) Serbia

876:). Lets not touch this one, at least for now... If we really 4391:. All sources using the phrase "German-occupied Serbia" can 3950:

agree to use the sourced official title for this territory?

1724:

As I keep telling you, your little collection of sources is

2117:

again and again. I'll copy-paste the paragraph you ignored:

1642:

sources and nowhere else is way too nitpicky for my taste.

3706:

removed and, if possible, replaced by reliable sources. --

2755:

An author can use the term in a purely geographic sense.

3247:

That said, these parts of Kosovo (northern parts around

1838:. Would you now tell me that your own source is wrong? 1219: 889: 281: 4570:- on that map, name is simply "Serbia", nothing more. 3389:

Serbia" is what we need for the infobox and the lede.

2291:

http://www.gimnazija.mod.gov.rs/predavanja/ustanak.pdf

1614:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research

1392:- it says "Territory of the German military commander- 1342:. This can be confirmed via a Google Books search for 893:), but even if the current state isn't a particularly 2048:

discussion, and since you think this is some sort of

1604:

the question of choosing best name for this article.

1412:") could be mentioned somewhere in the article text. 4617:

what about Serbia (occupation territory 1941-1944)?

4138:

Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia

3288:

Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia

3012:

as Serbia without Kosovo (and anything north of the

2336:

states that. As recommended reading I would suggest

1332:

Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia

3752:

http://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Ogledi07.pdf

1639:". How is that any less "incorrect and misleading"? 4244:If those terms refer to a military or state entity 4130:Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia 1734:you are correct, then we need to use a title like 1400:says "Territory of the German Military Commander, 661:appears very likely your recent arrival is due to 18:Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia 4268:and are so contradictory they refute themselves? 3307:it says. Not only are you doing OR, you're doing 1214:OK, DIREKTOR, since I opened an report about you 4463:@Peacemaker. Actually I suggested "Serbia (occup 143:, to emphasize that this template is being used 1785:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 1610:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 1374:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 1338:]. Bond and Roy state that the German name was 558: 547: 328:and that may help inform the discussion here. 156:Let me repeat once more, however, that even if 3326:Enough "compromises", we do this by the book. 259:you came up with to achieve the same POV goal. 2700:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia 8: 4176:, no google books hits for English version: 4158:, no google books hits for English version: 3103:Government of National Salvation, governing 2917:Serbia in 1912 and its expansion during the 4190:Serbia under German military administration 4164:Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien 2709:Region of the Military Commander in Serbia 1348:Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien 326:Historical_regions_of_the_Balkan_Peninsula 307:Why is it wrong? I tend to think that the 191:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija 1656:Now, let examine the provided reference: 492:should present such source here and now. 4171:Area of the Military Commander in Serbia 4153:Area of the Military Commander of Serbia 3900:For the fifteenth time: enough with the 567:, Stanford University Press 2001, p.182. 4146:Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien 3204:(where it is supposed to be located?). 2598:have different views and perspectives. 1344:Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien 1340:Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien 897:version, at least it isn't a decidedly 3579:Most recent revert warring of DIREKTOR 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4505:disruption and nonsense POV-pushing. 1116:"account Peacemaker67"? You mean why 7: 4255:Those phrases use the term "Serbia" 4016:"Evidence" he says.. "Evidence" for 2706:Serbia under German military command 1851:Don't confuse the issue, PANONIAN. " 4125:Let now examine google books hits: 313:Template:Infobox_Former_Subdivision 4249:how can this "Serbia" be "occupied 4039:grounds. We cannot invent titles. 1330:I propose moving this article to: 1218:, plase explain to people why you 145:just for the bare territory alone. 24: 4078:strange as it sounds, "commander 3113:government in the region of Banat 3097:So what we have in this area is: 2308:the very source introduced by you 1029:Enter the nonsense word games... 936:German Population was not 500,000 4404:a country called "Serbia" - not 2412:Serbia (military administration) 29: 3891: 3703:Knowledge (XXG):Further reading 3677:Possible primary references etc 698:Template:Infobox former country 309:Template:Infobox former country 199:Template:Infobox former country 177:take note, for example, of the 158:Template:Infobox former country 4182:Serbia under German occupation 2240:occupation, and not something 924:09:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 910:13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 860:00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 838:22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 823:20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 800:19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 786:17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 767:13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 737:12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 719:11:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 637:11:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 605:10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 531:10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 501:06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 438:01:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 420:00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 363:00:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 296:23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 231:21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 210:16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 135:19:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 120:18:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 1: 3256:Serbia (occupation territory) 2798:The author can use the term " 1558:" Am I the only one who sees 4382:. That's your first mistake. 4121:Common name per google books 2115:stop avoiding the main issue 970:03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 955:03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 621:German-Bulgarian occupation. 539:Militärverwaltung in Serbien 520:Militärverwaltung in Serbien 4340:or perhaps with borders of 4208:- 3,890 google books hits: 1736:Serbia (occupied territory) 988:01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 4643: 3107:+ parts of northern Kosovo 2712:Serbia (German occupation) 2608:21:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2593:15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2542:12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2452:12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2433:09:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2395:09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2381:09:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2320:08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2281:16:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2263:16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2224:15:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2208:14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2162:14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2148:14:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2027:14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2013:14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1985:13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1847:13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1831:13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1814:All of them. For example, 1810:06:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1796:04:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1779:23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1764:14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1668:13:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1652:13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1624:13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1599:12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1584:11:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1549:09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1482:05:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1461:01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1438:04:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1421:04:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1385:04:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1362:01:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1314:04:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1284:02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1269:20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1194:14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1180:23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1167:23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1152:22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1139:22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1112:22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1098:22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1062:22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1048:22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1025:22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 1011:20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 583:Poland during World War II 579:France during World War II 4627:03:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 4612:20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4579:18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4563:18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4524:15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4459:15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4369:14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4331:14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4317:07:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4302:07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4287:06:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4224:05:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4184:- 179 google books hits: 4105:06:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4073:06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4058:06:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4012:06:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3999:05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3983:05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3969:05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3878:06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3855:06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3839:06:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3812:05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3799:05:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3767:04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 3738:20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 3724:13:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 3692:12:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 3665:13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3646:11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3633:11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3618:11:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3593:11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3565:14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3550:11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3524:11:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3510:11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3486:11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3461:10:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3423:10:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3408:10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3384:01:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3369:15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 3299:14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 3277:14:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 3213:13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 3147:13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2999:12:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2984:12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2900:12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2885:12:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2862:11:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2844:11:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2829:10:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2731:01:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2688:Occupied Serbia 1941-1944 320:bureau of which concerns 4388:you provided it yourself 4200:- 24 google books hits: 4148:- 47 google books hits: 3941:Believe it or not, this 2703:Serbia (German occupied) 1326:Proposed move of article 880:have an infobox for the 256:fourth line of reasoning 195:Template:Infobox country 183:Template:Infobox country 4192:- 7 google books hits: 4166:- 3 google books hits: 2782:, that doesn't include 1561:contradictio in adjecto 1220:deleted referenced info 4206:German-occupied Serbia 4140:, 1 google books hit: 4132:- 1 google books hit: 3334:as simple as possible. 3314:continuously insulting 3290:". A fair compromise? 2921: 2122:contradicting yourself 1910:contradicting yourself 1568:provides definitions " 570: 555: 317:Infobox former country 106:Infobox issue solution 2916: 2018:contradiction there. 1726:completely irrelevant 407:entity, with the two 42:of past discussions. 4322:acceptable as well. 4266:no sense whatsoever, 3818:WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH 2326:WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH 1292:), and according to 753:OK, I now posted an 311:may be appropriate. 347:military occupation 3249:Kosovska Mitrovica 2922: 2299:established Serbia 2295:успоставила Србију 187:Republic of Kosovo 4240:geographic region 4198:Serbia, 1941-1944 3902:ORIGINAL RESEARCH 2786:but does include 2488:Kingdom of Serbia 2414:" comes to mind. 2037: 1634: 1294:all these sources 996:Nedic regime edit 882:territory itself, 797: 755:free form infobox 568: 553: 132: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4634: 4576: 4560: 4522: 4521: 4518: 4511: 4457: 4456: 4453: 4446: 4366: 4328: 4285: 4284: 4281: 4274: 4221: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4092: 4056: 4055: 4052: 4045: 4009: 3996: 3980: 3967: 3966: 3963: 3956: 3910:". Sources must 3876: 3875: 3872: 3865: 3852: 3837: 3836: 3833: 3826: 3809: 3797: 3796: 3793: 3786: 3764: 3722: 3718: 3711: 3643: 3616: 3615: 3612: 3605: 3590: 3547: 3508: 3507: 3504: 3497: 3458: 3406: 3405: 3402: 3395: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3356: 3296: 3275: 3274: 3271: 3264: 3243:very definition. 3210: 3145: 3144: 3141: 3134: 2982: 2981: 2978: 2971: 2919:First Balkan War 2883: 2882: 2879: 2872: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2816: 2590: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2529: 2449: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2420: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2368: 2317: 2278: 2261: 2260: 2257: 2250: 2159: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2135: 2031: 2024: 2010: 1983: 1982: 1979: 1972: 1844: 1828: 1793: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1751: 1665: 1628: 1621: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1536: 1509:supports it. Do 1479: 1435: 1418: 1382: 1311: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1256: 1244:status quo ante. 1234:User:WhiteWriter 1177: 1149: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1126: 1109: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1085: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1035: 1022: 980:SummertimeDoctor 921: 908: 906: 858: 835: 795: 784: 764: 749:Let move forward 735: 717: 715: 644:without question 635: 603: 601: 562: 551: 529: 527: 498: 436: 418: 416: 361: 294: 292: 228: 208: 206: 189:article and the 130: 117: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4642: 4641: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4604:JWULTRABLIZZARD 4572: 4556: 4537:Northern Cyprus 4516: 4513: 4509: 4506: 4451: 4448: 4444: 4441: 4362: 4324: 4279: 4276: 4272: 4269: 4217: 4123: 4097: 4094: 4090: 4087: 4050: 4047: 4043: 4040: 4005: 3992: 3976: 3961: 3958: 3954: 3951: 3898: 3870: 3867: 3863: 3860: 3848: 3831: 3828: 3824: 3821: 3805: 3791: 3788: 3784: 3781: 3778:primary sources 3760: 3748: 3746:Let start again 3721: 3716: 3709: 3707: 3679: 3639: 3610: 3607: 3603: 3600: 3586: 3581: 3543: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3492: 3454: 3400: 3397: 3393: 3390: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3292: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3259: 3206: 3139: 3136: 3132: 3129: 3008:is practically 2976: 2973: 2969: 2966: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2867: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2811: 2586: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2445: 2425: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2363: 2313: 2274: 2255: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2155: 2140: 2137: 2133: 2130: 2050:WP:BATTLEGROUND 2020: 2006: 1977: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1840: 1824: 1789: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1661: 1617: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1503:deus ex machina 1475: 1431: 1414: 1398:your own source 1378: 1328: 1307: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1250:the nonsense.. 1212: 1173: 1145: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1105: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1018: 998: 938: 917: 904: 902: 848: 831: 810: 774: 760: 751: 725: 713: 711: 625: 599: 597: 525: 523: 494: 426: 414: 412: 385:As I have said 351: 290: 288: 279:does not belong 244:. That is the " 224: 204: 202: 181:article. There 113: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4640: 4638: 4630: 4629: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4383: 4235: 4234: 4212: 4211: 4203: 4195: 4187: 4179: 4169:- in English: 4161: 4143: 4135: 4122: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 3936:WP:POV PUSHING 3897: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3747: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3713: 3699:Lazo M. Kostić 3678: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3580: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3450:Pančevački Rit 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3127: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3108: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2776: 2746: 2745: 2735: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2707: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2678: 2677: 2674: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2621: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2284: 2283: 2227: 2226: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2118: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1640: 1626: 1573: 1500: 1495:@PANONIAN, do 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 997: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 973: 972: 937: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 885: 865: 864: 863: 862: 841: 840: 809: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 750: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 708: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 608: 607: 590: 589: 575: 571: 561: 556: 550: 545: 534: 533: 505: 489: 488: 483: 478: 473: 468: 463: 458: 453: 443: 442: 441: 440: 404: 403: 402: 394: 384: 376: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 250:administrative 246:administration 242:Administration 238:administrative 215: 214: 213: 212: 169: 168: 167: 166: 151: 150: 149: 148: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4639: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4580: 4577: 4575: 4569: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4561: 4559: 4553: 4552:modern Serbia 4549: 4545: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4519: 4512: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4454: 4447: 4438: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4409: 4408: 4403: 4402: 4396: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4384: 4381: 4377: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4367: 4365: 4359: 4358:modern Serbia 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4342:modern Serbia 4339: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4329: 4327: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4282: 4275: 4267: 4263: 4260: 4259: 4254: 4251: 4250: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4222: 4220: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4202: 4199: 4196: 4194: 4191: 4188: 4186: 4183: 4180: 4178: 4175: 4172: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4160: 4157: 4154: 4151:(in English: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4142: 4139: 4136: 4134: 4131: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4120: 4106: 4100: 4093: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4053: 4046: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4019: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4010: 4008: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3989: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3981: 3979: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3964: 3957: 3949: 3944: 3939: 3937: 3933: 3932:WP:DISRUPTION 3928: 3924: 3919: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3908: 3904:, PANONIAN: " 3903: 3895: 3879: 3873: 3866: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3853: 3851: 3845: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3834: 3827: 3819: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3810: 3808: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3794: 3787: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3765: 3763: 3757: 3753: 3745: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3719: 3712: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3676: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3653: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3642: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3613: 3606: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3578: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3548: 3546: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3505: 3498: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3474: 3462: 3459: 3457: 3451: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3403: 3396: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3364: 3357: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3315: 3310: 3305: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3297: 3295: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3272: 3265: 3257: 3252: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3238:Serbia proper 3214: 3211: 3209: 3203: 3199: 3194: 3193:WP:COMMONNAME 3190: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3148: 3142: 3135: 3128: 3124: 3123:Volksdeutsche 3119: 3112: 3111:Volksdeutsche 3109: 3106: 3105:Serbia proper 3102: 3101: 3099: 3098: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3022: 3019: 3018:Serbia proper 3015: 3011: 3007: 3006:Serbia proper 3002: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2979: 2972: 2964: 2963:Serbia proper 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2920: 2915: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2880: 2873: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2849: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2824: 2817: 2810: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2794: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2772:Serbia proper 2769: 2765: 2761: 2760:Serbia proper 2757: 2756: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2718: 2711: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2685:Serbia proper 2684: 2683: 2682: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2630: 2628: 2626: 2624: 2622: 2619: 2617: 2615: 2613: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2582: 2578: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2543: 2537: 2530: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2448: 2441: 2440:WP:COMMONNAME 2436: 2435: 2434: 2428: 2421: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2403: 2402:instrument of 2398: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2376: 2369: 2361: 2360:of occupation 2357: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2309: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2277: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2258: 2251: 2243: 2239: 2238:instrument of 2234: 2232: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2143: 2136: 2128: 2123: 2119: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2051: 2046: 2041: 2035: 2034:edit conflict 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2023: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2002: 1998: 1997:User:DIREKTOR 1994: 1993:User:DIREKTOR 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1980: 1973: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1862: 1861:WP:COMMONNAME 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1843: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1829: 1827: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1794: 1792: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1759: 1752: 1744: 1737: 1733: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1720: 1718: 1717:WP:COMMONNAME 1712: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1700: 1695: 1694: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1664: 1658: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1638: 1632: 1631:edit conflict 1627: 1625: 1622: 1620: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1606:WP:COMMONNAME 1602: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1544: 1537: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1507:WP:COMMONNAME 1504: 1498: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1472: 1471:WP:COMMONNAME 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1419: 1417: 1411: 1407: 1406:WP:COMMONNAME 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1375: 1371: 1370:WP:COMMONNAME 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1335: 1333: 1325: 1315: 1312: 1310: 1303: 1302:WP:COMMONNAME 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290:WP:COMMONNAME 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1264: 1257: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227:User:PANONIAN 1225: 1221: 1217: 1209: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1176: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1148: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1134: 1127: 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1093: 1086: 1078: 1074: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1036: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1021: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 995: 989: 985: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 971: 967: 963: 959: 958: 957: 956: 952: 948: 942: 935: 925: 922: 920: 913: 912: 911: 907: 900: 896: 892: 891: 886: 883: 879: 875: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 861: 856: 852: 845: 844: 843: 842: 839: 836: 834: 827: 826: 825: 824: 820: 816: 807: 801: 798: 793: 789: 788: 787: 782: 778: 771: 770: 769: 768: 765: 763: 756: 748: 738: 733: 729: 722: 721: 720: 716: 709: 705: 704: 699: 695: 691: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 673: 668: 665:involvement. 664: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 645: 640: 639: 638: 633: 629: 622: 617: 612: 611: 610: 609: 606: 602: 595: 592: 591: 587: 584: 580: 576: 572: 569: 566: 557: 554: 546: 544: 540: 536: 535: 532: 528: 521: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 503: 502: 499: 497: 486: 484: 481: 479: 476: 474: 471: 469: 466: 464: 461: 459: 456: 454: 451: 449: 448: 447: 439: 434: 430: 423: 422: 421: 417: 410: 405: 400: 395: 392: 388: 382: 377: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 359: 355: 348: 344: 341: 337: 334: 329: 327: 323: 318: 314: 310: 297: 293: 286: 285:will not fly. 282: 280: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 258: 257: 251: 247: 243: 239: 234: 233: 232: 229: 227: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 211: 207: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 173: 172: 171: 170: 163: 159: 155: 154: 153: 152: 146: 142: 141:WP:CANVASSING 138: 137: 136: 133: 128: 124: 123: 122: 121: 118: 116: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4619:Peacemaker67 4601: 4573: 4557: 4541:Transnistria 4464: 4436: 4406: 4405: 4400: 4399: 4393: 4392: 4387: 4386: 4379: 4363: 4352:and eastern 4325: 4309:Peacemaker67 4294:Peacemaker67 4265: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4230: 4218: 4213: 4205: 4197: 4189: 4181: 4170: 4163: 4152: 4145: 4137: 4129: 4124: 4083: 4079: 4065:Peacemaker67 4017: 4006: 3993: 3977: 3947: 3940: 3922: 3920: 3915: 3911: 3906: 3905: 3899: 3893: 3849: 3806: 3777: 3761: 3749: 3730:Peacemaker67 3684:Peacemaker67 3680: 3657:Peacemaker67 3651: 3640: 3625:Peacemaker67 3587: 3582: 3557:Peacemaker67 3544: 3516:Peacemaker67 3478:Peacemaker67 3455: 3415:Peacemaker67 3376:Peacemaker67 3333: 3328: 3327: 3313: 3308: 3303: 3293: 3287: 3283: 3253: 3246: 3242: 3236: 3233: 3207: 3122: 3110: 3061: 3009: 2991:Peacemaker67 2892:Peacemaker67 2854:Peacemaker67 2836:Peacemaker67 2803: 2799: 2795: 2752: 2741: 2734: 2723:Peacemaker67 2719: 2715: 2679: 2652: 2600:Peacemaker67 2587: 2446: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2387:Peacemaker67 2359: 2355: 2338:this article 2333: 2329: 2314: 2306:name? Also, 2298: 2294: 2275: 2241: 2237: 2235: 2230: 2228: 2216:Peacemaker67 2200:Peacemaker67 2196: 2156: 2126: 2121: 2114: 2113:But again - 2044: 2039: 2021: 2007: 1914: 1909: 1856: 1852: 1841: 1825: 1802:Peacemaker67 1790: 1771:Peacemaker67 1730: 1729: 1725: 1714: 1705: 1697: 1662: 1644:No such user 1636: 1618: 1591:Peacemaker67 1576:No such user 1569: 1559: 1555: 1523: 1521: 1511: 1510: 1502: 1496: 1494: 1476: 1466: 1453:Peacemaker67 1445:Peacemaker67 1432: 1426: 1415: 1409: 1401: 1393: 1379: 1354:Peacemaker67 1347: 1343: 1339: 1331: 1329: 1308: 1276:Peacemaker67 1247: 1243: 1239: 1213: 1186:Peacemaker67 1174: 1159:Peacemaker67 1146: 1117: 1106: 1072: 1070: 1054:Peacemaker67 1019: 1003:Peacemaker67 999: 943: 939: 918: 898: 894: 890:this variant 888: 881: 877: 873: 832: 811: 761: 754: 752: 702: 701: 693: 689: 671: 666: 662: 647:perception). 643: 619: 614: 593: 564: 563:Tomasevich, 559: 548: 542: 538: 519: 514: 510: 504: 495: 490: 444: 408: 398: 386: 380: 371: 330: 306: 284: 278: 255: 254: 249: 245: 241: 237: 225: 174: 161: 144: 114: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4548:Axis Serbia 4437:irrelevant. 4346:Axis Serbia 4338:Axis Serbia 3896:start again 2780:1912 Serbia 2742:Interbellum 2691:rump Serbia 2457:labels :)). 2045:exclusively 2040:any concept 1566:wikt:common 1077:Milan Nedic 947:Prussia1231 901:version. -- 790:Good idea! 36:This is an 4533:Somaliland 3923:whatsoever 2758:You have " 2334:explicitly 962:FkpCascais 672:supporting 343:government 248:" of the " 98:Archive 10 4376:WP:BURDEN 3710:◅PRODUCER 3202:this link 3058:Vojvodina 3004:However, 2788:Macedonia 2784:Vojvodina 2768:Vojvodina 2670:'Serbia'. 2666:command'. 2330:laughable 2303:this link 1637:in Serbia 1396:". Also, 511:interpret 381:territory 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 4574:PANONIAN 4558:PANONIAN 4510:Director 4445:Director 4407:occupied 4364:PANONIAN 4326:PANONIAN 4273:Director 4219:PANONIAN 4091:Director 4044:Director 4007:PANONIAN 3994:PANONIAN 3978:PANONIAN 3955:Director 3927:WP:TITLE 3912:directly 3864:Director 3850:PANONIAN 3825:Director 3807:PANONIAN 3785:Director 3762:PANONIAN 3652:occupied 3641:PANONIAN 3604:Director 3588:PANONIAN 3545:PANONIAN 3496:Director 3456:PANONIAN 3394:Director 3355:Director 3294:PANONIAN 3263:Director 3208:PANONIAN 3133:Director 3064:support. 3062:explicit 2970:Director 2871:Director 2815:Director 2588:PANONIAN 2577:this one 2528:Director 2447:PANONIAN 2419:Director 2367:Director 2315:PANONIAN 2276:PANONIAN 2249:Director 2157:PANONIAN 2134:Director 2022:PANONIAN 2008:PANONIAN 1971:Director 1842:PANONIAN 1826:PANONIAN 1816:this map 1791:PANONIAN 1750:Director 1699:sources. 1663:PANONIAN 1619:PANONIAN 1535:Director 1517:explicit 1477:PANONIAN 1433:PANONIAN 1416:PANONIAN 1380:PANONIAN 1309:PANONIAN 1255:Director 1210:DIREKTOR 1175:PANONIAN 1147:PANONIAN 1125:Director 1107:PANONIAN 1084:Director 1034:Director 1020:PANONIAN 919:PANONIAN 905:DIREKTOR 874:Panonac? 833:PANONIAN 792:Fainites 762:PANONIAN 714:DIREKTOR 675:article. 600:DIREKTOR 526:DIREKTOR 496:PANONIAN 415:DIREKTOR 345:and the 340:quisling 291:DIREKTOR 226:PANONIAN 205:DIREKTOR 127:Fainites 115:PANONIAN 4401:created 4350:Sandžak 4231:another 3948:finally 3338:WP:LEDE 3286:or the 3010:defined 1524:married 1240:reports 851:Nuujinn 777:Nuujinn 773:edits. 728:Nuujinn 628:Nuujinn 429:Nuujinn 375:period. 370:Indeed, 354:Nuujinn 322:regions 162:grossly 39:archive 4503:WP:OWN 4354:Syrmia 4063:thing. 3943:WP:OWN 3916:think! 3892:Let's 3304:ARGH.. 3284:Serbia 3126:Banat. 2804:Serbia 2800:Serbia 2764:Kosovo 1919:WP:OWN 1857:Serbia 1853:Serbia 1564:here? 1528:WP:OWN 1410:Serbia 1402:Serbia 1394:Serbia 1298:Serbia 1184:done. 1073:Régime 796:scribs 616:effort 179:Kosovo 131:scribs 4499:WP:AE 4465:ation 4021:post. 4018:what? 3774:WP:OR 3317:here. 2242:under 2231:again 1515:have 690:state 16:< 4623:talk 4608:talk 4517:talk 4452:talk 4394:only 4313:talk 4298:talk 4280:talk 4229:And 4098:talk 4069:talk 4051:talk 3962:talk 3934:and 3871:talk 3832:talk 3792:talk 3734:talk 3717:TALK 3688:talk 3661:talk 3629:talk 3611:talk 3561:talk 3520:talk 3503:talk 3482:talk 3419:talk 3401:talk 3380:talk 3362:talk 3270:talk 3140:talk 3014:Sava 2995:talk 2977:talk 2896:talk 2878:talk 2858:talk 2840:talk 2822:talk 2766:and 2727:talk 2604:talk 2535:talk 2426:talk 2391:talk 2374:talk 2256:talk 2220:talk 2204:talk 2141:talk 1978:talk 1806:talk 1775:talk 1757:talk 1708:(1). 1648:talk 1595:talk 1580:talk 1542:talk 1457:talk 1449:talk 1358:talk 1280:talk 1262:talk 1248:read 1216:here 1190:talk 1163:talk 1132:talk 1091:talk 1058:talk 1041:talk 1007:talk 984:talk 966:talk 951:talk 895:good 878:must 855:talk 819:talk 815:R-41 781:talk 732:talk 703:does 694:area 667:I.e. 632:talk 594:P.S. 581:and 543:e.g. 433:talk 409:real 399:e.g. 387:very 372:some 358:talk 175:P.S. 4550:or 4507:-- 4442:-- 4380:not 4270:-- 4258:not 4253:"?? 4088:-- 4041:-- 3952:-- 3894:not 3861:-- 3822:-- 3782:-- 3601:-- 3493:-- 3391:-- 3352:-- 3309:bad 3260:-- 3130:-- 2967:-- 2868:-- 2812:-- 2525:-- 2416:-- 2364:-- 2356:was 2246:-- 2131:-- 1968:-- 1747:-- 1706:one 1532:-- 1512:you 1497:you 1352:]. 1346:or 1252:-- 1122:-- 1081:-- 1031:-- 899:bad 515:say 4625:) 4610:) 4539:, 4535:, 4315:) 4300:) 4246:, 4173:- 4155:- 4084:in 4080:of 4071:) 3846:. 3736:) 3690:) 3663:) 3631:) 3563:) 3522:) 3484:) 3421:) 3382:) 3329:IF 2997:) 2898:) 2860:) 2852:] 2842:) 2796:2) 2753:1) 2729:) 2606:) 2523:. 2407:If 2393:) 2272:? 2222:) 2206:) 1921:). 1808:) 1777:) 1731:if 1721:" 1713:@" 1701:" 1696:@" 1650:) 1597:) 1582:) 1572:" 1459:) 1427:in 1376:) 1360:) 1282:) 1192:) 1165:) 1079:. 1060:) 1009:) 986:) 968:) 953:) 849:-- 821:) 775:-- 726:-- 663:my 626:-- 541:. 427:-- 352:-- 335:, 287:-- 94:→ 64:← 4621:( 4606:( 4520:) 4514:( 4455:) 4449:( 4311:( 4296:( 4283:) 4277:( 4101:) 4095:( 4067:( 4054:) 4048:( 3965:) 3959:( 3874:) 3868:( 3835:) 3829:( 3795:) 3789:( 3732:( 3720:) 3714:( 3686:( 3659:( 3627:( 3614:) 3608:( 3559:( 3518:( 3506:) 3500:( 3480:( 3417:( 3404:) 3398:( 3378:( 3365:) 3359:( 3273:) 3267:( 3143:) 3137:( 2993:( 2980:) 2974:( 2894:( 2881:) 2875:( 2856:( 2838:( 2825:) 2819:( 2725:( 2602:( 2538:) 2532:( 2429:) 2423:( 2389:( 2377:) 2371:( 2259:) 2253:( 2218:( 2202:( 2144:) 2138:( 2036:) 2032:( 1981:) 1975:( 1804:( 1773:( 1760:) 1754:( 1646:( 1633:) 1629:( 1593:( 1578:( 1554:" 1545:) 1539:( 1455:( 1447:( 1356:( 1350:. 1278:( 1265:) 1259:( 1188:( 1161:( 1135:) 1129:( 1118:I 1094:) 1088:( 1071:" 1056:( 1044:) 1038:( 1005:( 982:( 964:( 949:( 857:) 853:( 817:( 783:) 779:( 734:) 730:( 634:) 630:( 435:) 431:( 393:. 360:) 356:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index