Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Page protection

I have protected this page for 3 days to stop a budding edit war over "puppet state". Please discuss it here. Some discussion has already taken place on WhiteWriter's talk.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead issue

All right, lets see what the sources have to say. PANONIAN, please list your sources that support your proposal that there existed a puppet state called "Serbia" during WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes PANONIAN, I know you don't give a damn about whatever goes on on the talkpage now that your version was protected by an administrator, but I do request once more that you lay out here all the sources that you have for your position. I will then be listing all the sources that do NOT describe the state of affairs in this territory as having been part of a puppet state, in order to ascertain whether WP:FRINGE VIEW applies to your calim. You have my full and undivided attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am not going to play your rhetorical games any more. I presented my sources on this talk page in earlier discussion, so try to read them, OK? I cannot believe that somebody can spend several months to engage himself in these ridiculous, pointless and childish rhetorical games. Can you find another hobby in your life? PANONIAN 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here follows a the summation at the end of a (very detailed) treatise on the establishment and authorities of the Nedić government

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], 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."

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration, Stanford University Press 2001, p.182.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Even your quotation says "doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified". PANONIAN 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ha. That is not "my quotation", but your comment is the perfect example of how you misrepresent published sources. In essence, all you do here is take quotes like the one above out of context. An author clearly explains the status of Nedić's government, but PANONIAN is not interested in all that - all he needs is a few quote-mined sentences, like the expertly excavated one above, to "prove" his point.

Gentlemen, there was no puppet state. In no place in occupied Europe did a German Military Administration exist simultaneously with a recognized puppet state of the Axis Powers. Common sense itself rebels against such nonsense nationalist tosh. The two are mutually exclusive: either a territory is under an occupation authority - or its is granted the status of an independent puppet state, not both. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Panonian - keep it clean. Direktor was asked for sources - and here they come. In the mean time - I am posting the earlier sources here again for ease of reference for any new readers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Earlier sources.

• PANONIANs sources;
• "satellite state of Serbia" The history of Serbia : John K. Cox
• "The other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government" Contemporary Yugoslavia: Jozo Tomasevich, Wayne S.Vucinich
• "German rump state in Serbia", Armed Peacekeepers in Bosnia
• "...a puppet state of Serbia was created...",Balkan strongmen: dictators and authoritarian rulers of South Eastern Europe Аутор: Bernd Jürgen Fischer

Fainites sources;

• "What remained of Yugoslavia after the various annexations, redemptions and restorations was called by the Germans the "Serbian residual state" and kept under their control.....It had no status other than that of occupied territory", Pavlowitch; Hitlers New Disorder
• "the rump Serbian state" Ramet; Three Yugoslavias

@Fainites, here you have the whole gist of the issue laid-out beautifully by PANONIAN himself. See the Tomasevich quote? And do you see what PANONIAN has selected from it? That's exactly what's happening here, and I've been saying it for weeks now. An author clearly states the Germans established a government subordinate to military occupation, with no international standing whatsoever, but he happens to use the word "state" or "country" at some point and presto - its PANONIAN's "source". Note particularly "the other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government", the author does not really claim a phantom puppet state existed there, he's merely using the term more loosely. And I've read Cox so I can only stand in awe of how masterfully his position is twisted. In reality, PANONIAN has not a single source, not a single scholar that really and truly claims, without having been taken out of context, that Nazi Germany established an actual puppet state called "Serbia" or the "Serbian State". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are Cox's words actually describing the inauguration of Nedić's government on p.84:

"Inside Serbia itself, the Germans were looking around for Serbs to help them run the country. They set up General Milan Nedić in a Government of National Salvation."

And when referring to the entity later in the text he uses the terms "the Nedić administration" (e.g. on p.88) and "the Nedić government" (p.93 etc.). But we have PANONIAN's quote so I guess Cox thinks there was a "puppet state" there right? The whole thing is just quote mining and misrepresentation of valid sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could there just be a basic misunderstanding/disagreement about the meaning of "puppet state"? As I understand it, a puppet state is not a proper state - because it's a puppet. That's why you call it a puppet. There is no reason though why a puppet state should not have a name - which indeed this one did. It wouldn't get anything like international recognition. Also - whenever the puppet-master chose, they could do what they wanted or pull the whole thing. The degree of autonomy would depend on all sorts of things - including necessity. The NDH was doing all the right things (from the Nazi point of view) so they could have more autonomy - until it all went a bit wrong and then the Nazi's just did what they wanted anyway regarding NDH territory. On the other hand, Hitler hated Serbs, thought they were slavs ie inferior, and blamed them for Yugoslavia not joining the Axis, so they had no autonomy.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...you're right. xP Upon reading a few dictionary entries, seems "puppet state" can be used to refer to a "government". Well.. that solves the mystery of the self-contradicting sources and ends any dispute at stroke. Don't I feel sheepish -.-, I guess it took a real English-speaker.

The sources are in agreement then (I knew they had to be, this is just too basic) - and do not contradict Tomasevich. The term "puppets state", on the few occasions that it is actually used, is used in the sense of "puppet government". Wikipedia does make a distinction between a country and a government and covers the two differently. This still means we cannot treat this government, apparently often referred to with the term "puppet state", as an actual country and write a country article called "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No but we can write an article called "Serbia under German occupation" under which it is described as a puppet state. Hooray! Now - does this leave an issue with the map? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so you're really trying to argue against me but have accidentally argued for me? Ah.

Well it seems the names of the "puppet states", in the sense of "puppet government", were "Government of National Salvation" (1) and "Commissary Government" (2), not "Serbia Under German Occupation". There was no puppet state under the name of "Serbia Under German Occupation". Indeed, if the article does indeed cover both the Military Administration in Serbia, its two subordinate "puppet states" the Government of National Salvation and Commissary Government, how can we start this article with "Serbia under German occupation was a Nazi-installed puppet state.."?

Your first lead draft was spot-on, your second one seems more like a makeshift compromise, without any real logic behind it, intended to get the hell out of the annoying discussion. Am I near the mark? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't argue for or against anyone Direktor. I am simply trying to assist editors to reach a consensus that is also in accordance with policies and sources. switch off pompous mode. The lead currently says "Serbia under German occupation refers to the Nazi-installed puppet state..." which is better grammar. It's a descriptive title - which is allowed. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Serbia under German Occupation" DOES NOT refer to any puppet state, call it what you will. This article also covers the Military Administration in Serbia, which is not a puppet state, and as far as puppet states are concerned: there is not one of them, but two, and neither are called "Serbia", still less "Serbia Under German Occupation". The lead is essentially gibberish and does not even remotely reflect the the article's scope. "Descriptive title"?

"Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in occupied Yugoslavia set up by Nazi Germany following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia." (your own words) reflects the article's diverse scope excellently allowing for an elaboration on the Military Administration that governed the area and the two subordinate puppet governments that were installed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let see: the basic delusion of mister DIREKTOR is that he thinks that terms "puppet state" and "puppet government" are referring to same thing. This is clearly wrong. From source that was presented by DIREKTOR himself we can clearly see that these things are regarded as separate subjects. Sentence "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" clearly indicates that we speak about 3 different subjects here: 1. puppet country, 2. German administration, 3. puppet Serbian administration. Also, official name of German administration ("Military administration in Serbia") clearly indicates that it is just administration in Serbia. Also, nobody here disputing that Serbian puppet government was subordinated to German military administration, but administrations are very different subjects from countries or territories that they govern. I cannot believe that several users here wasting so much of their free time discussing with a person that do not understand difference between one country and government that govern that country. Status of puppet Serbian government is not same as status of puppet state of Serbia. There are several other examples of countries whose local governments are somewhat subordinated to foreign or international administrations. Notable cases are Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, or if we want to list unrecognized countries only then notable examples are Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia. Governments of all these countries are or were subordinated to various forms of foreign or international civil or military administrations and these governments are enjoying or enjoyed various levels of autonomy. However, what is common for all these countries (including WW2 Serbia) is that they were not annexed by any foreign country and that they were seen as de jure independent by those powers that occupied them or administered them. In Axis new order, Serbia was seen as de jure independent country and whether that country was administered by German or Serbian administration is completely irrelevant. So, sources presented by DIREKTOR are obviously speaking about status of government and not about status of country itself. In fact, these sources are making very clear difference between country and government ("doing part of the work of administering the country"). So, since DIREKTOR thinks that country and government are one same thing he should provide sources that confirming this, i.e. sources that will clearly say "country of Serbia was same as government of Serbia". So far, such source was not presented. On the contrary, presented sources are clearly distinguishing country of Serbia from its government. PANONIAN 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "lets see" who's being "delusional". Dictionary.com defines "puppet state" as "a government that is appointed by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority that may impose hardships on those governed [syn: puppet government]". So we can conclude that the terms "puppet state" and "puppet government" do, in fact, refer to same thing. As most dictionaries point out, the two terms are synonyms and can be used interchangeably. Thanks to Finites who pointed that out, you can no push your POV on the basis of my poor English skills.

As for your confusion with regard to the difference between "territory" and "administration", I do believe it is at the very root of this problem. Both the Military Administration in Serbia and the Nedić government (referred to also in sources as the "Nedić administration") were "administrations".

But this is an entirely meaningless exchange. As I said, this article covers the Military Administration in Serbia, which was not a puppet state, and covers two different puppet state/government entities that were established by the Military Administration. Neither of the two puppet states/governments had the name "Serbia", still less "Serbia Under German Occupation". The lead is essentially gibberish. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources please - as to what the territory governed by the military administration was called.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, it is positive change that you presented some sources that supporting some of your claims, so now we maybe can have something that looks like serious discussion. I agree that dictionaries that you presented are claiming that term "puppet state" can refer to "puppet government", but here is another definition which states that "puppet state" can refer to "entity". Also, Wikipedia article about puppet state lists most of these states under name of the country, not under name of a government (so, it seems that term is mostly used for countries, and sometimes also for their governments). I admit that usage of this term looks a bit confusing, but even if term "puppet state" could be equalized with term "puppet government", that government still cannot exist without country or territory that it govern. We cannot ignore numerous sources that mention that this country/territory that had name "Serbia" existed. Therefore, due to somewhat unclear meaning of term "puppet state", I can accept some parts of your changes, i.e. those that describing Serbia as "administrative area". However, I do not agree with your changes in infobox. Since you defined that article speaks about "administrative area" then infobox should also reflect that administrative area (named "Serbia") and not only German military administration and Government of national salvation. Infobox also should reflect Serbia itself and Commisary government. I believe that we can include all these things into single infobox. Also, is there any evidence that flag of Germany was officialy used by German administration in Serbia? Your division of infobox into two parts is competelly bad and wrong. PANONIAN 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Allright, so now that we have all the sources and have reviewed them, the situation becomes clear at last: 1) the name for the territory alone, seems to have been "Serbia". 2) This territory was under German occupation and was administered first and foremost by the German Military Administration in Serbia (Wolff, Lee, Tomasevich), 3) which had installed two successive and subordinate civil puppet governments/states, the short-lived Commissary Government and the Government of National Salvation (neither of which were known as "Serbia").

Now then, will someone (Fainites) please tell me what is wrong with

"Serbia under German occupation was a territory in occupied Yugoslavia established following the invasion and dismemberment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April of 1941. The territory was placed under the authority of the German Military Administration in Serbia, which set up Serbian Quisling civil governments: initially the Commissary Government under Milan Aćimović, lasting for the first two months of occupation, and subsequently the Government of National Salvation under Milan Nedić, which remained in power until 1944."

? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that your first version of the text is better (version where you used term "administrative area" instead "territory", but I suppose that term "territory" is acceptable too). Anyway, do we agree to use a single infobox for all these subjects? If we do not use a single infobox we would need as much as 4 infoboxes to cover all four subjects: territory itself, German administration and two Serbian governments. PANONIAN 15:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I only copied down Fainites's proposal, those aren't my words. As I said I would not mind either, but "administrative area" does seem slightly better to me as well. Lets finish the lead business and then tackle the infobox problem. "One step at a time" seems to be working here. First the title (check), then the lead (check), and finally the infobox(es). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any further problem with lead part, so you can say your standpoint about infoboxes. PANONIAN 16:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented what I understand to be the agreed lead between editors. Please correct me if I am wrong in that. I will now unblock. I also did a few copy-edits to adjust to the rephrasing. I also added "German-run" to the camps as I understand from previous discussions this is considered an important point but feel free to remove and discuss if I am wrong in this. I have also put your new discussions on infoboxes and which map under separate headings for the sake of other editors.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the above quote was the agreed-upon version (with the replacement of "territory" with "administrative area"). Fainites you've entered something else completely, and then PANONIAN's modified it. This is not the way we play as I understand the game. I've entered the above version (plus some translations into Serbian which I hope noone minds). If there's still some dispute to iron-out lets have it here rather than posting it in the article.

PANONIAN, I've reverted your other non-consensus changes unrelated to the lead. Consensus first, edits later (and the flag looks just.. terrible. its just a scan, its not even vector, provided its accurate at all of course). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR kindly strike out your bad faith insinuations made above. Your version is not in strict accordance with the suggested version above either. You do not own this article. These matters can be discussed without insinuations of bad faith on your part. You spent several days recently insulting everybody for not agreeing with you before having to acknowledge your "understanding" was wrong. Have you learned nothing from this? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kindly cool your heels and stop assuming bad faith. I did not mean to imply anything at all and I am sick and tired of having to fight my way through your preconceptions every step of the way and on every talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly cool thanks - but I did misread your post so apologies for that. I'll strike it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Map issue

The original map - showing the country after the Axis powers divided it all up - labels the Serbian bit as the "National Government of Salvation" with "Serbia under German occupation" underneath. WhiteWriter has altered it to show "Serbia" and underneath "under German occupation". To avoid revert wars, can we agree here on a suitable label? The problem with the first one is that the NGS doesn't cover the whole period.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no "Serbia" and not a single source supports that in reality. The full names of the "puppet states" were the "Government of National Salvation" and "Commissary Government", under the umbrella and authority of the German Military Administration (which is sourced by four separate sources). There is in reality nothing to discuss here, the only name this territory ever had was "Military Administration in Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is no reason why a puppet state (or indeed an administrative area) should not have a name, you will need sources for that assertion please Direktor. They will need to be good ones given Tomasevich himself says "The other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government".Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What sources? What assertion? Just... what? Look, the highest authority in that territory was the Military Administration in Serbia, whatever puppet regimes existed answered to it, were subordinate to it in every way, had no recognition outside it, and were little more than its tools (Tomasevich). The sentence you quote above shows exactly what I mean ("kept under a formal German military government").

Is it by chance that you are opposed to my position in every single issue of every single dispute you (I assume) follow me to? I take it your admitted personal distaste for my style of conversation has a part in this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Direktor I really really do not care about the precise nature of the final result. Only that it is is in accordance with the best sources and is not likely to result in edit wars. One reason I often find myself addressing you is to ask you to provide sources to support the very definite positions you tend to take. I started this discussion because WhiteWriter made an obvious goodfaith change to the map, thinking, not unreasonably, the argument was now resolved. You now wish to argue the same point all over again having failed to provide sources except for 1 page reference on the last occasion. You have reverted all of his edits across 5 articles. I am hoping that by providing a forum for discussion here, you will be able to provide any sources you have to support your assertion that the puppet state/government/administrative area was not called "Serbia" as asserted by the other editors here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So its my fault you and WhiteWriter assumed the issue was solved without the participants actually agreeing? The only reason why this issue exists is that PANONIAN keeps pushing the idea that this article is about some fictitious country he likes to imagine, and I know the territory was under military occupation because I researched the issue. I can't imagine how you thought I would agree to a lead version that depicts this article's scope as being on some country of "Serbia Under German Occupation" (which undoubtedly was PANONIAN's plan with suggesting this title), when its scope includes one (1) German Military Administration and two (2) puppet regimes, which the title merges into one "puppet state". In short (and to use your own words), I don't care if now it looks like I'm "restarting" the issue, I'm not - it was never solved in the first place and that was painfully obvious.

As for your request, I'll prove that this territory was not called "Serbia" when you prove it was not called "Direktoria". I'll be waiting for your sources.

If we're done with requests for proving negative statements and shifting burdens of evidence, I'll repeat that the official names of the two puppet states/governments were the "Government of National Salvation" and the "Commissary Government" - not "Serbia". And I can provide dozens and dozens of sources to that effect, demonstrating that even IF the three sources that call these governments "Serbia" are not simply misrepresented (as one of them certainly is), the two are in a very decided minority. I would not be surprised if the other two sources, just like Cox, use "Nedić government" and "Nedić administration" far more frequently than "Serbia".

And with regard to the map, the whole issue of the puppet states and whether they were called Serbia - is irrelevant. The supreme authority in this territory was the German Military Administration, and that is a very well sourced fact. Hence, that should be the label attached to this territory on any political map. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No I suppose on reflection it was foolish to suppose the matter was agreed by you. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Other editors have produced sources showing there was a puppet or rump state or administrative area called Serbia. What I would like you to produce Direktor are sources which indicate what you say this entity, this territory, this puppet whatever governed by the German military administration was actually called. Where would a german soldier posted there tell his wife he was going? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This territory had the name "Military Administration in Serbia", just like all the other German Militärverwaltungs across occupied Europe, and I believe numerous sources have already been provided to the effect that this was the supreme governing body of the area. Their territory was defined by the Germans and they gave it its name. The soldier would say to his wife: "Helga, ich bin in der serbischen Militärverwaltung stationiert". Or possibly "ich bin in Jugoslawien stationiert" since he grew-up in the Interbellum.

As for the puppet governments/states themselves, I've already explained more than once that the official names of the puppet states (or governments) are not in question in any way with the sources, that none of them were called "Serbia", and that numerous sources can be provided to that effect. And I've explained that the two sources (possibly misrepresented like Cox) which refer to the puppet governments as "Serbia", if not taken out of context and misrepresented themselves, are a decided minority when it comes to referring to the puppet states as "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Aahahaha, bravo for Helga! As a German speaker, it is very funny to see that explanation in german there! :) Now, i agree with you Direktor. That Ernst, or Heinrich would really say something like that. But, we can see "serbischen Militärverwaltung" in that explanation. So, saying that Serbia and Serbians was that entity under German occupation is not that wrong, as i see. And i will not mention question of sources here and now... And after your agreement on this title here, this wast discussion and chaos regarding one title in one image is, if you ask me, quite hypocritical. I am really sorry, but i see it like that. If you have that attitude that this entire thematic and naming issue is not settled in a good way, you should create one good, sourced, brilliantly explained and at least month long move and rename request, and solve that there, with neutral participants also. At the end, your arguments in this section is not related to the image, but article subject. So, can you tell me what would you propose as a solution, and that is different from your image, on which none of us agreed? Maybe we can find something different... ? :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Military Administration in Serbia" ≠ "Serbia", WhiteWriter. And the difference is quite crucial as you can note: one is the name of a country, the other of a military occupation. These exchanges also have nothing at all to do with the title of the article, which I'm really getting tired of explaining at this point. The title is perfectly fine, it is the scope of this article that is the core of this dispute, and always was from the start. I have no intention of posting a WP:RM.

As for the image itself, my arguments are quite related to it. I can only post for the third time in this thread that the governing authority of this territory was the German Military Administration (which is very well sourced), and that this should be the label of the territory in any political map. Least of all some fictitious "Serbia", a name which does not refer to either the German authority or any of the two puppet states/governments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate which policies require that governing authority of this territory .... should be the label of the territory in any political map. You may well be right FAIK but I am a bit suprised by this idea. Editors are very well aware that the German Military Administration was the supreme authority. It does not necessariy follow from that, that that was it's name. Other editors have produced sources indicating the territory was called , rightly or wrongly, "Serbia". You are being asked to produce sources showing it was called whatever you say it was called.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this map issue (I already elaborated this on Fainite's talk page, but I will repeat it here), DIREKTOR's map is certainly not "original map". Original map is this map that was created and uploaded by me in 31 October 2010 Now here you can see this list of references that I included on that page concluding with 3 November 2010. What then happened? DIREKTOR modified my map and uploaded his modified versions here: [1], [2]. Then, instead to post references that are supporting his modifications DIREKTOR simply copy-pasted my references from original map: [3], [4] Problem is that my references are not supporting his modifications in these maps. If you examine some of these references (those that are available online), you will see that they all using name "Serbia" and not name "Government of National Salvation". Also, speaking about second map that show political situation in 1943-1944, my references are not supporting these borders of countries since they all show political situation in 1941-1942 (i.e, before capitulation of Italy). We can just make a simple comparison of this: here is DIREKTOR's map that show Dalmatia within Independent State of Croatia and whole of Slovenia occupied by Germans and here are references that are allegedly supporting info in that map: [5], [6], [7] (It is clear that these references showing Dalmatia and part of Slovenia under Italian occupation, and not under German one or under NDH). I tried to ask DIREKTOR in Wikimedia Commons to provide his own sources for his map modifications, but he did not done that. Then, I tried to change reference list and to include references that actually showing political situation in 1943-1944: [8]. However, an IP (presumably DIREKTOR), reverted my edit and returned false references that do not supporting info which is presented in this map: [9]. So, this is very clear evidence that DIREKTOR is abusing sources and that the only thing that he cares about is to push his POV no matter what sources would say and no matter if he have sources for his claims or not. It is evident that he copy-pasted my references with a single goal to make false impression that his maps are referenced while in fact they are not - sources from that list which are available online are clearly against DIREKTOR's POV, while listed books are those from my personal private library and I doubt that DIREKTOR read a single one of them. DIREKTOR either should provide real references for his map modifications (the ones that actually would support these modifications) either his maps should be removed from Wikipedia as clear examples of unsourced original research. Wikipedia should not use files with abused references. PANONIAN 15:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: DIREKTOR now uploaded another file with abused references: [10]. Presumably, he now want to replace my map that is currently used in this article: [11]. As everybody can see, he again copy-pasted sources from my map: here is my edit from 24 November 2009 where I added these references to original map and here is edit of mister DIREKTOR where he copy-pasted my references to use them as "support" for his map. So, as someone who introduced and read these references, I say that they not supporting DIREKTOR's new POV that "Military administration of Serbia" was a name of a country or territory (and everybody can confirm this after examining these references). This kind of behavior and falsification of sources is simply unacceptable. So, yes, I agree with DIREKTOR that "Military administration of Serbia" was a supreme authority in Serbia, but there is no single source or historical map that would support his idea that "Military administration of Serbia" was actually a name of Serbia. Sources that DIREKTOR introduced are clearly distinguishing country of Serbia from both, German Military administration and local Serbian administration. Can somebody please stop this user from further disruption and damage that he doing to Wikipedia? PANONIAN 15:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PANONIAN. When I said "original map" I was only looking at recent events on this article and the others reverted by DIREKTOR. I can now see that the original map created by you from the sources provided was first altered by Direktor and when that did not last, copied, with sources, into another file and then altered to show the area named as "Government of National Salvation". The three maps you have linked to as sources do not use this name. Did you use any other maps as sources? As a matter of interest, what did the Times Historical Atlas call it?Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at all the maps you used as sources and they clearly show the situation when Italy had chunks of the Dalmatian coast so not suitable for the second map where they have been copy pasted. The name of the territory in the maps,is always "Serbia" qualified by various legends such as "under German occupation" or "German Military Administration". Particularly relevent are the two Washington DC maps, this and this compiled from German Foreign Ministry information for Washington DCs Documents on German Foreign Policy. It appears therefore that DIREKTOR has indeed copy-pasted PANONIAN's map. and the sources, to create his own two maps, renaming "Serbia" as "Government of National Salvation" although that name is not supported by the source maps.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, user:WhiteWriter later uploaded new versions of DIREKTOR's maps where name "Serbia" is used instead "Government of national salvation", but original map was created by me and later modified by DIREKTOR who copy-pasted my sources. As for the "three maps that I have linked as sources that do not using name Serbia", I agree that they do not, but they do not using name "Government of national salvation" either. Anyway, in the time when I created this map and introduced these sources I was not very active in English Wikipedia and I did not knew that name "Serbia" used in my map would be problem for DIREKTOR. Therefore, I listed these references as a support for general political situation and borders, not as a support for name "Serbia". However, regarding Serbia, these references either using name "Serbia" either do not using any name, but there is no single one of those references that using names "Government of national salvation" or "Military administration in Serbia" as a country/territory name. As for other sources, I am collecting maps and last time I checked I had about 37,000 various maps in my computer and the only maps in that collection that using name "Government of national salvation" as a name of Serbia are those created by DIREKTOR (I am saving into my computer all maps that I find in Wikipedia). As for Times atlas, it uses name "Serbia". Anyway, you can conduct your own research and you can check some maps that google search engine can find. PANONIAN 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)Wow! 37,000! But we only have one globe. I was agreeing with you that they did not use the name "Government of National Salvation". They either use "Serbia" or there are a couple that don't give names for any territory. I'm not sure what DIREKTOR means when he says a political map should give the name of the governing authority of the territory. Presumably the UK would appear as "the Queen in Parliament".Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Fainites, I scaned page from Times history atlas (The Times History of Europe, Times Books, London, 2002) just for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe1942_scan.JPG (I know that I violated copyright policies by this, by since you are an administrator you can delete this image after you see it and no damage to Wikipedia copyrights will be done - or you can delete it after 2-3 days so that DIREKTOR and others could see it too). This atlas is very good source for issues related to European history and this discussion should take that source into account. PANONIAN 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As for maps, I do not have 37,000 maps that showing Serbia during World War II. :) I have 37,000 maps of all kinds - historical, political, ethnical, even maps that showing alternate realities, worlds from computer games, future proposed countries and so on. PANONIAN 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you about the Times Atlas of World History. I used to have one but lent it to someone. It's amazing how much information they can cram into one book by using maps.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From the histories of the various articles, PANONIANs version was replaced by DIREKTORs on 4th June 2011.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not about to take a scanned map that actually depicts the Kingdom of Montenegro as a part of a "Serbia" seriously. The map's coverage of WWII Yugoslavia is obviously superficial, not to say flawed, when they can't even get the actual borders and countries in this area right.

All right fellas, so what is this "Serbia" you both talk about? What does the term refer to? If you're referring just to the German-administered territory alone, I'll buy that (as opposed to a country or as another name for the Government of National Salvation). If the map were to say "under German military administration", and if a clear distinction was made from the other areas that were not under military administration, I'll introduce the changes to my map myself (WhiteWriter's map is almost an identical copy of my own modification of PANONIAN's map, and it really becomes redundant after an agreement on the label is achieved as this is its only distinction) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the sources alone, it appears to refer to the territory administered by the GMA and the Quisling governments, whether it's called a territory, entity, puppet state or whatever. "Administrative area" was a free interpretation by me to try and find a neutral solution. Territory is also neutral. (Personally I would have thought "puppet state" was neutral too because the whole point of it is that it's a false front masking the reality, not the real thing. However, I can see why some readers might think this meant the entity was more of a state than it was leading to edit warring in the future. Of course - if it had been a state, old Nedic would not have had to have faffed around trying to achieve one. I would have thought this can all be dealt with in the body of the article.) (By the way - which map says "Kingdom of Montenegro" as part of Serbia? On the scanned version it does say "Montenegro" but it's written out in the sea with an arrow). Fainites ^barleyscribs 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Nedić, seems the German military liked him well enough but he just could not get the (more "socialist") Nazis to go for an old non-Aryan(!) "reactionary". As far as I'm concerned both solutions for the lead are fine, I think it would be prudent to leave it up to you. It might avoid the Direktor-Likes-it-So-it-Must-Be-Biased Syndrome.

(The scanned map presented by PANONIAN shows the Banat, "Serbia", and Montenegro in the same colour. The Banat is fine as it is was sort of like an "autonomous province" within the territory created for the local Germans, but the Kingdom of Montenegro was an entirely separate entity with a similar status to the Independent State of Croatia, in fact its often informally referred to as the "Independent State of Montenegro". A mistake, most assuredly, and a serious one. There was really no connection with the two areas: one was a German military occupation, the other an Italian protectorate.)

As far as the map's concerned, if we're all agreed I'll enter the changes myself (I've been meaning to change the NDH's colour to Croatian red anyway). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Better wait until Panonian and anybody else has a chance to comment. My concern is to achieve consensus based on sources. I understood from his post at the end of the section above he was OK with "administrative area". I noticed the map was in the same colour. Not sure what that was meant to show. You'd need to see the key. As for Nedic - I expect his problem was that Hitler etc would have seen him as a Slav and therefore an untermensch, not to be taken seriously.Fainites ^barleyscribs 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Map issue redux

The scanned map presented by PANONIAN shows all "Axis-administered territories" (including Ostland and Ukraine) in the same colour, but Montenegro is clearly presented separately from Serbia (as opposed to Banat, which is divided from Serbia by broken line, not by the full one). Sure, scaned map is of much lower quality than original one, but it does not show that Montenegro is part of Serbia - it show various Axis-administered territories in same colour and I do not see why this would be wrong. As for map that we should use in the article, I do not agree that we should use map that mention name of any administration instead name "Serbia". Anyway, DIREKTOR, you said here that "the name for the territory alone, seems to have been Serbia", so why map that show that territory should not use name "Serbia"? All maps from all sources are using only name "Serbia" and not name of any administration. PANONIAN 15:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes lets forget about the scanned map for the moment, are you allright with "Serbia (under German military administration)" as the label per the sources provided by Fainites? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Title is acceptable, but not best one. I say that we should use my original map with name "Serbia (German occupation)". It is clear that your map is plagiate created from my work and why we should use this plagiate when we have original version which is of much better quality? PANONIAN 09:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad the fair reputation of the THAOTW is restored. If it helps, the Washington DC source maps say Serbia with "under German military command" underneath. The others say "occupied...." in various ways. As a compromise, why not use Panonians map - as he did all the research and the work, and the Washington DC legend? Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, it is PANONIAN's map: its just a colour modification I made not wanting to overwrite anyone's work, and its attributed to him with his research underneath. I also added another map with the post-1943 state of affairs depicted in the same colour scheme and imho the two make a good pair. I never pretended I did not modify another map, but I do think (in all modesty) that my modifications are good work. I consider PANONIAN's accusations of "plagiarization" quite offensive (not to mention absurd considering the stuff is PD), they do not at all help the fragile progress we've made thus far.

Anyway I would like the label to refer in some way to the fact that the area was presided-over by a military administration, which was not the case anywhere else in occupied Yugoslavia. The whole place was "occupied", sometimes through puppet government, sometimes through direct annexation, but only Serbia was administered by military commanders along the lines of, say northern France or Norway or Greece. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, what I consider offensive is your behavior where you changing various files of other users in Wikimedia Commons thinking that you are smarter than these users and that only you know which colors are "better" and which ones are not. You neither respecting these users neither their work. That is rude and completely unfriendly behavior and, by my opinion, most of such file changes performed by you in Wikimedia Commons are examples of such behavior. Colors that you imposing in your changes of these files are not "better" by any criteria and therefore your general "work" in Wikimedia Commons is rather disruptive than constructive. So, be aware of this: while Wikimedia/Wikipedia policies allowing you to upload modified versions of my maps under separate filenames, these policies also allowing me that, once you leave Wikipedia for good, I remove your modified versions of my files from articles or modify them again to reflect what I see as better colors or descriptions (and be sure that I will do that, as I already done with some other versions of my files that were modified by some other users). I would always accept every friendly suggestion how any of my maps could be corrected and improved, by changes that you making to files created by other users are clear disrespect towards them and towards their work and, unlike some other users whose files you modified, I will not tolerate your bullishness. Regarding current look of this article (while you are still present in Wikipedia), I can accept this compromise: my map of Serbia could remain in infobox and your modified map of Yugoslavia (with whatever description you prefer in it) could remain in the article. In the future, other solutions will be implemented. PANONIAN 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

These files are public domain and can be modified by anyone who wishes it, which, by your definition I emphasize, would mean quite a lot of people are in the danger of "thinking they're smarter than you". Since it is well within anyone's rights to modify public domain images on Wikimedia Commons, I wonder which act of "respect" you believe I have withheld? I added the new map, sporting national colours, as a good-faith edit.

PANONIAN, I liked your work and I wanted to improve it further. Thats all. And I must add that it would be arrogant, not to mention contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, to assume one's work is literally perfect and cannot be improved. I am not the author of the new maps, we both are, and you more so than I. And if you have no objections I would like to list us both as co-authors, now that we agree on the maps' contents at last. Indeed, it even occurs to me that I might enter these superficial changes of mine on your map, if you do not object to my entry of national colours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please. General inter-wiki revert war that we had about usage of these files clearly show how much you disrespect me and my work. And I bet that other users whose maps you "improved" would 100% agree with me about your actions in Wikimedia Commons. And here is evidence for that: User XrysD also reverted your "improvements" to his maps: [12], [13] (and, unrelated to any dispute that we had anywhere, I sincerely agree with User XrysD that your versions of his files were much worse than original ones). I am sorry that you do not understand that your behavior is inappropriate but, besides written rules in Wikimedia Commons, there is also unwritten rule of mutual respect among users who (unlike you) actually created something for Wikipedia and who do not changing files created by others against agreement with them. In fact, if I think that an file created by other user is inaccurate, I notify that user about my opinion, but it is up to him whether he will change his file or not. Therefore, DIREKTOR, it is clear that you changed my file without any agreement with me and that I still do not agree with any of your changes in that file. So, I refuse your proposal to mention me as co-author. By Wikimedia policies, your are obligated to mention that you created your file from my file, but I do not agree even with very existence of your plagiate file (and I certainly do not agree with your choice of colors) and therefore I refuse to be mentioned as its co-author. And I object that you make any changes to my original map. In fact Commons policies are protecting original uploaders from this kind of behavior of other users - these policies would allow you to upload modified files under different filenames, but revert warring in original file with its original uploader (whether it would be me, User XrysD or anybody else) would certainly trigger admin sanctions against you. PANONIAN 06:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(I hope, Fainites, that you will take note of the above exchange.) PANONIAN, I am startled and deeply disappointed at your attitude. I did not "edit-war" over anything, and this resentment about a few meaningless colour modifications (I had every right to post) is childish to no end. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I know that technically you are right - it's all free use - etc etc etc, but as a matter of common flawed humanity, I'd be a bit pissed off if I'd spent hours researching and creating a map and someone just came along and altered it without even starting off with a polite suggestion. I know one shouldn't "own" articles but I feel a bit like that when, after spending months sourcing, writing and FA'ing Attachment theory someone comes along and adds or changes things that aren't in the source and are, in my view, stylistically inferior. I try not to feel ownerish but we are but human. The colour change without a proposal is just irritating and calling Panonian "childish" is adding insult to injury. Why couldn't you just say "sorry - I should have mentioned it". The change of designation of an area that was not supported by the sources the creator provided was more problematical though. None of Panonian's sources labelled Serbia as the "Government of National Salvation" as you did, yet you added no new sources. You described your edits on Panonians map as Rm borders and margin + entered a new color scheme whereas in fact you had changed the name of the territory, the subject matter of the dispute here. You also knew there was no consensus on this point.Why is everyone still arguing about this? I thought you guys had agreed now. Panonian - we all know you created the map. If we are now agreed on the name, can't you just stick it in?Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Fainites, we agreed about name of this article, but that agreement was result of a compromise and it does not quite reflecting data from the sources that I used. These sources are using name "Serbia" and for the sake of accuracy I would rather base my work on these sources than on a some Wiki compromise. However, I am not insisting that my map is used in this article at all. I will just let other users to decide which of the maps should be used here and if general opinion among other users prevail to decision that DIREKTOR's modified map is more suitable for this article then his map should be used. For me, map issue is over, but only when this article is in question and this is certainly not green light for DIREKTOR to engage himself in commons or inter-wiki revert warring. PANONIAN 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as my maps have been mentioned above I thought I'd just add a few words here. PANONIAN's experience with DIREKTOR is similar to mine (direct edits to my work without any consultation). I must say I have never come across another user who behaves like DIREKTOR in this respect. I agree with the posts above by PANONIAN and Fainites about the spirit of wikis - that although change is not in theory restricted, it should be done in a consensual way rather than a confrontational one. And that the original author of a map (who has done all the research and work creating it) should have priority in any changes if there is dispute. In the case of my map (NDH counties and districts in 1943) following further research (by myself) I decided that a few of his changes had some basis in fact (I had shown the OZAK and Kotor as being part of RSI (Italy) when they are better considered as under German Military Control and not part of any country). So I edited the map - consensus! Now in terms of how to label "countries" in maps, in my view it depends on what the map is of. All of my maps are civil administration which show the de-jure (or de-facto) internal civil administration boundaries. So in the case of NDH, although the Germans/Italians had overall military control, the civil administration was done by Croats. They called the "country" Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska (Independant State of Croatia), so it is labelled as such on my map. Likewise my map of the state-described-by-this-article has the label "Serbia" because that is what the Serbian civil administration called it. In the case of PANONIAN's map its title is "Axis occupation of Yugoslavia". In fact the whole country was occupied (militarily) by the Germans/Italians/Bulgarians/Albanians, including NDH. Certain parts also had foreign civil administrations, for example northern slovenia by the germans, as they had been annexed as well as occupied. In my view, the country labels on PANONIAN's map are valid names for the areas as they had local civil administrations that used them. One would not label Slovenia this way as it was annexed into Italy and Germany. However, NDH should also really show the German/Italian occupation areas to be consistent as it was most definitely under military occupation! (see NDH article. I hope that has been of some help to resolve the issue. XrysD (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, but what if the fellow already hates your guts like PANONIAN does mine, and would certainly refuse to cooperate in any way just for spite? Would you then give up an entire project that could be very beneficial to Wikipedia out of courtesy?

@Thanks for dropping by, XrysD. This is not a forum on User:DIREKTOR, however, so if you don't have any business here other than blatant trolling I would ask you to take your flamer comments over to the ever growing We Hate Direktor Club.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To cooperate with you about what, DIREKTOR? As Fainites saw by himself you did not provided any source for your map changes. I can cooperate with others if they present sources, not only empty and illogical rhetorics. And please do not accuse other users for trolling. PANONIAN 06:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I am proposing that article name is changed back to Nedić's Serbia because current name caused vandalization of the infobox by user:DIREKTOR, who thinks that name change also changed the subject of the article and who thinks that term "Nedić's Serbia" was synonym for "Nedić government" and not synonym for "Serbia under German occupation". Therefore, since I do not have problem with name "Nedić's Serbia" (which is synonym for "Serbia under German occupation" and not for "Nedić government"), but I have problem with vandalized infobox, I am proposing that name is reverted back to "Nedić's Serbia", so that DIREKTOR can interpret that name in accordance with his POV and the he do not remove symbols from the infobox. I do not want to be involved in revert warring with him, but something must be done about this problem. PANONIAN 06:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen on that notion. I haven't been following the discussions here all that closely, but I think the current name is appropriate, and I believe we can craft an appropriate infobox. "Nedić's Serbia" strikes me as a poorer choice, since neither a territory, nor a country, nor a state belong to a single person. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites has just topic-banned Direktor from Balkan articles for 6 months, so let's not rush into action. I understand that Panonian had enough of his filibustering (well, we all did); even if he is often right, he just can't accept that he's not always right, and just get along with people. Having seen him in action on this talk page, I somehow doubt he'll be able to contest that ban. No such user (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, if DIREKTOR is banned, then I am revoking my proposal. PANONIAN 13:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The fifth (or is it sixth) renaming dispute in 6 months would have been more than flesh and blood could bear. By the way - am I missing something or are there no archives for this talkpage?Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, looks like the archives were broken loose with the name change of the article: Talk:Nedić_regime/Archive_1

I'm not sure how to fix that myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So, is DIREKTOR banned or not? As I see, he can edit articles without any limitation. PANONIAN 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not switch it back to that name. This name is more inclusive of the fact that there were other leadership in Serbia, such as Acimovic and the German Military Commanders.--R-41 (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox issues

Ok. First of all, I myself don't see any need for an infobox on the short-lived, two-month Aćimović government, and I don't understand what you mean with "infobox for the territory", these are infoboxes on political entities. Secondly, I must say I can't see how we can continue with this infobox format without it being strongly misleading. Something must be done: we really can't have, for example, Nedić's flag with the German military governors listed as rulers, and Nedić as a deputy (he really wasn't anyone's "deputy").

Now, you know my stance already. I really don't see what other choice we have: the Military Administration needs an infobox of its own. Its an entirely separate authority from the Nedić regime, which in my opinion, should also have an infobox of its own. The only other real alternative, if you mind the swastika too much, is no infoboxes. We can't have this "amalgam" of Wikipedia's own manufacture standing as it is, infoboxes are misleading enough on their own without our help. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, according to dictionary, "territory" is "political entity": [14]. Furthermore, certain things from your government infobox are unrelated to government: flag, anthem, capital, official language, religion, etc. They were flag, anthem, capital, official language, religion of Serbia, not of its government. Furthermore, the whole absurdity of your approach is seen in the fact that while you used name "Government of National Salvation" for whole infobox, you also wrote in that same infobox that this government had its government: [15] (please explain how one government can have its own government?). Clearly, these infoboxes are for territories and there are separate entries within infoboxes for governments that administered these territories. Furthermore, if you check articles about some other puppet states (for example Manchukuo, Far Eastern Republic, Independent State of Croatia, etc), you can clearly see that all these infoboxes are reflecting territories of these states, not only their governments. You proposing here something that is not implemented anywhere else in Wikipedia and that is clearly wrong and bad solution. Articles about all counties in Croatia are having their own "territory infoboxes" and you say that WW2 Serbia which was much more important than these counties should not have one. Does your approach mean that we should use "government infoboxes" for these articles too and that instead "Independent State of Croatia" we should use "Ustaša government" or instead "Lika-senj county" we should use "Administration of Lika-Senj county"? Seems that your "government POV" is related only to Serbia. As for Commisary government, which Wiki rule or guideline says that "short-lived" government should not be presented in the infobox? Please quote such rule or guideline if there is one. As for the flag, flag used in the article was not correct one - I uploaded now Flag.svg real official flag of Serbia and it was not "Nedić's flag", but state flag of Serbia, which was approved by Germans as such. Therefore, German administration can go under this flag because they approved this flag and they regarded themselves as occupational forces in the territory that used this flag. I see nothing misleading here. Real misleading thing is your approach where you wrote that Serbia was part of Germany and where you used flag of Germany. And no, German military administration does not need its own infobox. What could be relevant for that infobox anyway? The only things that could be used in such infobox would be name of administration and list of commanders. All other things (flag, capital, languages, population, etc) are completelly unrelated to German military administration. These things are related to territory and to territory only. Also, I wrote separate articles about two Serbian governments and therefore, if we have separate articles about them, usage of their infoboxes here would be example of POV fork. It is common practice in Wikipedia to have separate articles for states/territories and their governments. If there are separate articles about Serbia and Government of Serbia then there should be separate ones about Serbia under German occupation and its governments (Besides that article "Government of Serbia" does not have an infobox and article about Federal government of the United States does not have one either - so, you clearly violating Wikipedia practices with your approach to government issues). If you think that it is needed, we can create new article about German military administration as well. This article is about territory named Serbia and we should not change its character. I also do not agree that we do not use any infobox. If article about Independent state of Croatia have infobox then article about Serbia should have one too. PANONIAN 09:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Allright this is nonsense. You still consider "Serbia" a state, and not a name for the territory. The NDH had a far better status than the occupied territory of Serbia, and thats a fact you're going to have to face somehow, though I can't imagine why it bothers you that Croatia was a Nazi satellite and Serbia was kept under military administration. In actuality, I know for a fact many of your countrymen are quite proud of that and would like to emphasize the distinction between the two. So far as I've seen, you're unique in trying to downplay it (what that may speak about you I shan't venture to speculate). And if for one moment you think I'm here trying to emphasize the "superior" status of the NDH, you'd better think again, as I actually share the opinions of those countrymen of yours, and consider it a disgrace upon our national history that some Croats in early 1941 gave their support to Nazi Germany and Hitler and went about slaughtering their countrymen.

• The simple fact of the matter is we can't merge the infoboxes on the Military Administration in Serbia and the Government of National Salvation and call them both "Serbia". Its just balderdash. We need at least two infoboxes if we're even going to come close to cutting down on the misleading and confusing nature of this article. Or none.
• Flag. Oh come on PANONIAN, that scanned thing is awful. The simple tricolour's been up there for ages. First show the sources indicating that was the flag of the Government of National Salvation, then if you're right we'll do a vector .SVG flag.
• Successor. The successor here is the state of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY), and not one of its subdivisions. We usually list the actual country and not a subdivision up there (see the NDH, e.g.). Especially if you think Serbia was a separate country and not a subdivision (so you should actually be the one supporting this). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just no more infoboxes, please. Infoboxes must burn in hell. If you must, change this one, or even remove it, just don't add more. An infobox is meant to be a summary of important data about the article, not a price and classification tag. No such user (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes must burn in hell, yeah, and the one in the article right now the perfect example why. What I'm saying is if we're going to have any infoboxes at all, there have to be two, but I'm also fine with none. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I think NSU has a point. Either this one can be adjusted to contain the necessary information or it may be best not to have one at all. Infoboxes do seem to be a flash point for edit warring and treading on national sensibilities toes in this area. They are just supposed to be a quick guide to basic information from the article, that's all.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um yes, NSU has a point. The same one I made a bit earlier. Infoboxes stink, and I would not mind if this article had none. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any valid reason why infobox should be removed? I do not think that claim that "Infoboxes stink" is example of any reasonable argument. Usage of infoboxes is common practice in Wikipedia in articles about various countries and territories and therefore it should be used for WW2 Serbia too, which was something between country and territory. It is clearly irrelevant whether Serbia is country or territory. Infoboxes are used in articles about administrative units of much smaller importance, such are counties, districts and municipalities. If one municipality article have its own infobox, why this article should not have it? This is really not question was status of NDH "better" than status of Serbia. I hope that nobody here would deny that status of Serbia was "better" than status of Vukovar-Syrmia County (and article about this county do have its own infobox). Also, this is not question of what any of us would think about things of what one should be proud of. These things should be discussed in political forums, not in Wikipedia. The only things that we should be concerned of are facts, sources, Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia practices, so please DIREKTOR, can you present any Wikipedia guideline and practice that say that article about one territory should not have an infobox? Also, I do not understand your sentence where you claim that "we can't merge the infoboxes on the Military Administration in Serbia and the Government of National Salvation and call them both Serbia". Who say that we "merging these infoboxes" and that anybody "call these administrations with name Serbia"? This is article about territory and Serbia was name of the territory and there is no single source that using name Serbia either for Military Administration in Serbia or for the Government of National Salvation. Also, since this article was created, it was about territory and its infobox was infobox for territory and we do not "merging" anything here. It was you who tried to split that infobox into two infoboxes and to change its basic character. And there is nothing "confusing" about nature of this article. It is article about one WW2 territory and the only person that is confused by its nature is you (obviously, your confusion does not come from nature of this article but from your lack of understanding of relations between states/territories and their administrations/governments). As for flag, it was scaned from reliable source and it was official flag of Serbia. It is irrelevant what you think about aesthetical nature of this file. You say "it is awful"? So what? Are we making artistic gallery or encyclopaedia? If you find better version of this flag you can replace current one, but please do not replace it with modern flag of Serbia. And again: it was not the flag of the Government of National Salvation, but the flag of Serbia as it is clearly indicated in my source which is mentioned on the page of this flag in Wikimedia Commons. As for successor state, both, DFY and PRS were successors, but PRS would be certainly more important one due to many aspects. PANONIAN 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN would you please stop posting these massive, unwieldy posts. Your only objective here is essentially to mislead the reader as much as possible towards believing this was some Serbian "counterpart" equal in status to the Independent State of Croatia, and you have made this abundantly clear. It is highly misleading to take an occupied territory (called Serbia, granted) administered by a military command and depict it as some sort of country with its flag, coat of arms, and an assortment of leaders mixed together from all the two or three separate governments and authorities that existed therein. We can either depict these authorities properly, in their infoboxes, or we can have no infoboxes. But we can't have you take an infobox that used to represent the Government of National Salvation and expand it into this "Independent State of Serbia" infobox of yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR, my objective here is to stop you from destroying this article or from drastically altering its nature. Why would I misled readers towards any believing and what benefit I could have from that? And where exactly I wrote that Serbia had "status equal to status of the Independent State of Croatia"? In fact, status of Independent State of Croatia is not a subject of my interest and for me, this article is completely unrelated to the Independent State of Croatia. I mentioned Independent State of Croatia only as illustration of the fact that you do not performing anti-state/territory campaign against history of your own country, only against history of mine. Nevertheless, if you agreed that there was an administrative territory with name Serbia, why you do not agree that it have its own infobox? I will repeat that usage of infoboxes for articles about administrative territories are standard practice in Wikipedia. I fail to see how usage of infobox can imply that Serbia was independent country. We all agreed that Serbia was "administrative area", but an "administrative area" should also have an infobox according to standard practices of Wikipedia. Sure, if usage of infobox named "Infobox Former Country" is problematic, we can use some other infobox designed for non-sovereign administrative units. All in all, administrative territory with name Serbia existed and it had its flag, capital, population, etc. Note that every municipality in Serbia also have its flag and coat of arms and that flag and coat of arms, by all means, are not a symbols of statehood. Your agenda by which article should not contain anything that even distantly might look as "Serbian statehood" is clearly disruptive and tends to deprive this article from legitimate content such are infobox, flag, coat of arms and other relevant info that is mentioned in that infobox. So, let try to implement our agreement that Serbia was not country but "administrative area" and let compare content of this article with another article which clearly is not about an country - that article would be Zagreb County. It is clear that this other article have an infobox, which contains flag, name of administrator, name of administrative seat, etc - basically all things that are used in infobox for Serbia. So, do you want to say that infobox used in Zagreb County article is something that imply that Zagreb County is a country? I also do not see why Serbian and German political and military leaders that governed territory of Serbia cannot be mentioned in infobox about Serbia. If župan that govern Zagreb County is mentioned in that article, why these leaders that governed Serbia should not be mentioned here. Also, there is no reason for separate infoboxes for administrations because there is not much things that we could include into these infoboxes (as I already explained in my previous post). Also you are clearly wrong in your claim that current infobox was originally used to "represent the Government of National Salvation". Here is evidence that it was originally used to represent "Nedić's Serbia", which is obviously name for territory and not for the government: [16]. I do not see that name change from "Nedić's Serbia" to "Serbia under German occupation" changed anything in basic meaning of the subject of this article. Also further evidence that infobox used in this article in the time when it was named "Nedić's Serbia" was about territory and not about Serbian government is the fact that such infobox listed names of German commanders, which clearly were not part of Serbian government. PANONIAN 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to respond to this? In PowerPoint? If you seriously think I'm waging some kind of "territory/anti-state campaign" against your country then there's nothing I can say here that will make an impact. PANONIAN, this place was under military occupation - Serbia during WWII wasn't a "country" per se, it was a territory kept under military occupation. No other period of my country or your country's history compares! Counties are counties, countries are countries, but this was a military occupation.

Look, since you created all those separate articles, I move we place the infoboxes there and leave this article without one. As Nsu says, infoboxes are a terrible pain. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How are you supposed to respond to my post? That is your problem, not mine. If you want summary, here it is: I agreed that territory was under military occupation and that it was not real country, but, as we all agreed that it was "administrative area", I pointed out that usage of infoboxes for Wikipedia articles about non-independent territories or administrative subdivisions is a standard practice and that I do not see valid reason that such standard practice is not implemented here as well. In fact, this infobox was in the article for long time, and name change of the article did not changed the essence of the article and therefore there is no need for infobox removal. I also pointed out that government-related articles in Wikipedia do not have infoboxes and that therefore, there is no reason that we use these infoboxes in separate government articles. Also, I said that the only things that we can include into government infoboxes could be name of the government and names of government members because governments clearly did not had flags, predecessor states, population, currency, etc. They were only administrative bodies and nothing else. As for your emphasizing that territory was under military occupation, Bosnia and Iraq are under military occupation too, but their articles are containing infoboxes. In fact, your claim that article about some territory that was/is under military occupation should not have an infobox is ridiculous. Please show me which Wikipedia guideline and practice support your claim or show me some other Wikipedia article about similar subject where your idea is implemented. Why should we implement here something that is not implemented anywhere else in Wikipedia? Because user DIREKTOR says so? Either show concrete Wikipedia guidelines and examples which would support your ideas either we really do not have serious subject to talk about and we just wasting our time. PANONIAN 06:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we simplify this discussion;

• There is no policy reason why a territory should not have an infobox. The relevent template here is titled "country or territory". There are also templates for governemnt organisations of all stripes - indeed for most things.
• Panonian has stated clearly that he is not arguing that WWII Serbia is a "country". Clearly any suggestion in the infobox that this was some kind of independent state is contrary to the sources provided so far and is not going to find consensus.
• The current infobox describes "Serbia" as territory under Axis administration. That is in accordance with sources. Not so sure about"caretaker government" though. How about "puppet civil government under German military administration".
• The suggestion for no infobox is not because there is anything inherently wrong with an infobox for an occupied territory but because on controversial subjects they are very difficult to get right and are flashpoints for misunderstandings, irreconcilable disagreements and edit warring and therefore have the potential to be more trouble than they are worth. This is likely to be the case here for historical reasons and because the efforts by a collaborationist civil administration to turn a militarily occupied territory into an "independent" state like the NDH or KofMontenegro were unsuccessful.
• The advantage of not having one is not having to argue about it right now. The potential disadvantage of not having one is that other editors will probably keep trying to add one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Fainites, is the infobx is an attemot to present a territory as a country, never mind the concessions. Note the flag and coat-of-arms of the Government of National Salvation, being presented as the flag and coa of a "Serbia". And note for another example the government entry: "Caretaker (or puppet) government under Military Administration". The civil government was not under military administration - the whole damn territory was. And have a look at the "anthem": was it of the territory, or of the Government of National Salvation? I assure you, PANONIAN most certainly is trying his best to depict Serbia as a sort of country - its what he's beeen doing since day one of this issue for goodness' sake. This infobox of his simply can't stand.

And here's the "ploy" in short: PANONIAN is essentially once again separating the German Military Administration from the "territory" it administered, and de-emphasize the fact that this was the supreme governmental authority there. If we were to actually post an infobox for this territory, it would have a German flag, it would read as a "Territory under German Military administration", and would list its government as "Military Administration", or possibly "Military Administration with puppet government". But this is unacceptable to PANONIAN, as he is actually out to present the Nedić Government of National Salvation as a sort of "Serbia" to the best of his abilities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please stop posting false assumptions about my intentions. Where is your evidence that I "attempt to present a territory as a country"? I ask for this territory nothing less than for Zagreb County, which obviously is not a country. Flag, coat of arms and anthem were indeed symbols of Serbia, no matter was Serbia a country or not. Please show evidence that flag, coat of arms and anthem are exclusive symbols of a country. If Zagreb County is not a country, why it have its own flag? And again: there is no single evidence that "supreme governmental authority" of any territory is same as territory itself. If there is evidence for this, please present us a source that can confirm your statement. Or you want to say that United States of America is same as Federal government of the United States? As for flag of Germany, do you have any evidence that such flag was used as a flag of Serbia from 1941 to 1944? We cannot accept your claim without evidences. And again: I am not trying to "present the Nedić Government of National Salvation as a sort of Serbia" because I am well aware of the difference between state/territory/county and its governing body. PANONIAN 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You always have been, and still are, trying to portray the Government of National Salvation as a country. And you are doing this (marginal concessions aside) by de-emphasizing the fact that the territory was under the control of the Military Administration.

• What sources can you provide that the flag of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the flag of the "territory under German Military Administration"?
• What sources do you have that the anthem of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the anthem of the "territory under German Military Administration"?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But what evidence do YOU have for any of YOUR assertions, DIREKTOR? You continually keep on making these absolute statements, such as "this was not a state" or "this was an occupied territory" but you don't have any evidence whatsoever to back these claims up, whereas others have. As you have been so keen to point out in the past, 'DIREKTOR', "not using reliable (primary and secondary) sources" is NOT how wikipedia works. Kindly provide eveidence for your claims or stop derailing this entire article. We want truth here, not POV.

On another note, what would be the point in this government using a flag that was the same as the pre-1918 serbian kingdom, as well as that state's coat of arms?

Lastly, it is very obvious, DIREKTOR, that you are somewhat confused as to the distinction between state and government: a state is the territory, yes, we often use the term 'the state' to refer unofficially to the government of the country, but the two are not synomynous. The government is person or persons governing said territory. Hence er, GOVERNmentJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, can you, as administrator, please notify DIREKTOR that he should not use these false interpretations of my intentions: [17] - is there any evidence that I am "trying to portray the Government of National Salvation as a country" or that I am "de-emphasizing the fact that the territory was under the control of the Military Administration"? I clearly stated that I agree with definition that Serbia was an administrative area under German military administration and I do not understand what further problem DIREKTOR have with that statement. PANONIAN 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

JWULTRABLIZZARD, flag and coat of arms that I included into infobox were official flag and coat of arms of Serbia from 1941 to 1944 and they are not same as symbols of the former Kingdom of Serbia - symbols of the Kingdom of Serbia also had crown above the eagle, something that symbols of 1941-1944 Serbia did not had. Also, forms of the shields are not same in two groups of symbols. PANONIAN 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, why you avoiding questions from my post? Can you answer why Zagreb County have its flag if it is not a country? Also, source from where I scaned flag and coat of arms (and which is listed on pages of these files) clearly stating that these were symbols of Serbia and not symbols of the government. Same source also confirms that "Oj, Srbijo mila mati" was anthem of Serbia. PANONIAN 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out with the Zagreb County nonsense, your "analogy" is about as flawed as is they get.

• What sources can you provide that the flag of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the flag of the "territory under German Military Administration"? You call it the "flag of Serbia", which is very interesting since it seems you consider flags adopted by the Government of National Salvation to be "flags of Serbia".
• What sources do you have that the anthem of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the anthem of the "territory under German Military Administration"? Here also, the "anthem" Nedić's government adopted (as part of his bid to create his own Axis-recognized country), you very misleadingly call the "anthem of Serbia".

As I said, you're out to turn the Nedić Government of National Salvation into "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? PANONIAN? We both agree "with the definition that Serbia was an administrative area under German military administration". The flag and anthem are both of the Nedić government, adopted by them and them alone. These were not the flag and anthem of the "administrative area under German military administration". Not a single "administrative area under German military administration" had a flag of its own. There are no conceivable verbal acrobatics by which you can claim otherwise.

You don't want to split the infoboxes? Fine. You want one infobox on the "territory"? Fine - then do it properly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you. I can wait until then. PANONIAN 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a glorious day for the fatherland? Can this article please be repaired and spared of more damage while we wait?

Moving on, it seems to be an obvious fact that you do not know how successor states are listed, or when the People's Republic of Serbia was founded.

• In 1944 the full name of the Serbian state recognized by the Allied powers, i.e. the one instituted by the Yugoslav government, was "Federal State of Serbia". And it had no flag or insignia as yet. They were both instituted on 17 January 1947 [18].
• Nowhere on this Wikipedia, nowhere mind you, will you find listed as successor states both a country and its subdivision (whether it be a federal republic, state, province, whatever).
• It is also usual practice NOT to list subdivisions as successors, except for a subdivision-to-subdivision succession within one country. So if, say, North Dakota and South Dakota were to merge into a Greater Dakota, we can list Greater Dakota as the successor to North Dakota. But if Cuba were annexed by the US and turned into the 51st state, we would list the United States as the successor to the Cuban Republic, not the new State of Cuba. In short, this territory was succeeded by DF Yugoslavia, not a subdivision within DF Yugoslavia.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, your source only contains flag of socialist Serbia and does not say that "Serbian state was recognized by the Allied powers as Federal State of Serbia". And now you looking for examples in Wikipedia while you disregarded all examples about infobox that I presented? I am sorry, but you have no evidence for your claims. You clearly not presenting any concrete examples in Wikipedia articles only hypothetical ideas what would be if "Cuba is annexed by the US". Anyway, example is not appropriate because Cuba is sovereign state and you claimed by yourself that WW2 Serbia was not state, so in such light, there is no problem that socialist Serbia is listed as its successor (none of the two could be regarded as independent state, according to your own words). PANONIAN 06:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, DIREKTOR, I am aware of limitation of my source for symbols of Serbia which cannot be verified via Internet. Of course, as soon as I find an reliable Internet source that confirm that these were symbols of Serbia, question of usage of these symbols in the infobox will be opened again. It is tragic for Wikipedia that such verifiability limitations would allow to users with agenda (such is DIREKTOR) to do what ever they want. PANONIAN 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The successor state is DF Yugoslavia, sans additional subdivisions. The flag is completely anachronistic besides. And as for your demand that I source "Federal State of Serbia", I would like you instead to source "People's Republic of Serbia" in 1944 when the King was deposed in 1945! Its an interesting brand of spiteful nonsense when someone claims that the country which was not (yet) a republic, had one of its subdivisions that was. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, DIREKTOR, you have a point here - name Federal Serbia was indeed used as first name of Yugoslav Serbia. As for the question whether it should be mentioned in the infobox as successor of WW2 Serbia, it would be nice to know what is opinion of other users about this. PANONIAN 15:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

POV

I tagged this article with "neutrality" and "accuracy" tags and tags should remain there as long as article reflects DIREKTOR's POV pushing and weird ideas that symbols were symbols "of the government" and not symbols of Serbia used and adopted by the government and that infoboxes of non-sovereign territories should not contain flags, coats of arms and anthems. PANONIAN 06:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• What sources can you provide that the flag of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the flag of the (quote) "territory under German Military Administration"?
• What sources do you have that the anthem of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the anthem of the (quote) "territory under German Military Administration"?

Please provide evidence for claims of POV, and don't just add tags to make yourself feel better. Sources first, then tag the thing if you wish. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, DIREKTOR, I stated that my source which says that these were symbols of Serbia is listed on pages of these symbols (in wikimedia commons), but I can name that source here. It is this book: Nenad M. Jovanović, Grbovi, zastave i himne u istoriji Srbije, Beograd, 2010. Anyway, I am aware of the verifiability problem related to this source and I will not return these symbols to the infobox until I find some source that could be verified on the Internet. Perhaps some other users are able to present such verifiable source? PANONIAN 15:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of symbols into infobox?

OK, unrelated to the question of whether DIREKTOR is temporarily blocked or not, I do not want simply to return these symbols to the infobox so that DIREKTOR could say that "I was free to push POV because he was blocked". Basically, DIREKTOR claims that flag, coat of arms and anthem were "symbols of the government" (source for this claim is not provided), while published source that I have (which would be this book: Nenad M. Jovanović, Grbovi, zastave i himne u istoriji Srbije, Beograd, 2010.) claims that these were symbols of Serbia. I am aware that my source could not be verified on the Internet and therefore, I would ask other users are they able to provide some verifiable sources that would clarify what these symbols represented? PANONIAN 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to XrysD. I agree with returning them to the infobox. After all, they were symbols of the entity we're describing, even if that entity was a fairly fictional makeup. No such user (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaced symbols

Well, seems that we have another issue here: User:TRAJAN 117 now replaced original symbols that I scaned from a book with something that he describe as "derivative work of these files". If we compare his derivative work with original files we will see that his derivative work is simply too different from original images and that these modified images are not reflecting actual historical symbols of Serbia from 1941 to 1944. Seems to me that User:TRAJAN 117 simply used eagle from modern symbols of Serbia which was clearly different. Can User:TRAJAN 117 confirm did he used eagle from modern flag of Serbia? PANONIAN 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To your question, yes. But feel free to modify them if you can create/find a better eagle. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, TRAJAN 117, but don't you think that we should use image of exact eagle that was used in original flag? I mean, we cannot "create better eagle" because every eagle that we create would not be same as original one and that would be problem for heraldic science. From the heraldic point of view every difference in symbols from different time periods is important and we should use images with accurate symbols (no matter of the bad quality of these images) instead that we only seek better aesthetics, but with disrespect towards accuracy. PANONIAN 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, I think TRAJAN just meant better as in more polished rather than newer. I have been looking for better source material but none has appeared yet. This page,which covers flag history, suggests that official information on the flag is hard to come by. However, a version of the state coat-of-arms is present on a number of banknotes that the regime issued. As graphics are my work, I am offering to create a version of the arms and flag based on the ones that PANONIAN posted previously. I can create them as a derived version, or if he prefers I can post them as a revision of his version. As the flag and arms have a reference source (as quoted on PANONIAN's page for his version) I suggest the symbols section is re-instated. More than one source always helps, but the fact that PANONIAN's reference is not available online should not invalidate it. Not every source can be posted on the web (this is particularly true of maps where you are forbidden to do this because of copyright). Authors references should be taken in good faith and should stand unless proved false - this is the way it works in academia. XrysD (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very decent offer XrysD.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

XrysD, I would not object that you create new images that reflecting actual historical symbols of Serbia. I just would like to suggest that you upload these images under different filename and not over existing images that I uploaded. Speaking about online references, I have one here, but it is not very reliable since it looks like an internet forum. Anyway, symbols of WW2 Serbia posted in that web page are same as in my published source and are not "ugly" as my scaned images. PANONIAN 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't those more or less the same as the modern Flag of Serbia, only with the coat of arms in the center of the flag? If that's the case, it's a piece of cake to adjust using a svg editor. No such user (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at PANONIANs scan carefully, the modern eagle has more detail and more feathers. Is there in fact one standard eagle or are there older and more modern versions? What I mean is, is the scanned eagle meant to be different or was it just a bit of amateurish stitchery?Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1941-1944

FRY 1991-2006

Srb 2006-

That scan, File:Coat of arms of Serbia (1941–1944).svg much more resembles File:Coat of arms of Yugoslavia (1992–2003).svg, only with Serbian cross in the middle. I'm not sure if there are actual heraldic differences between the two eagles. No such user (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Heradically there is not much difference as heraldry doesn't concern itself with such things. The heraldic description is Gules, a bicephalic eagle Argent armed Or. Overall an escutcheon Gules, a cross Argent between four firesteels Argent. The form of the eagle isn't really described so, it doesn't mean they don't look different. The book that PANONIAN got the image from is a detailed study of the arms, flags and emblems of Serbia and Montenegro and seems comprehensive and reliable. As we have the correct arms (in bitmap form), and PANONIAN is happy for me to create a derivative work then I shall create an exact vector version that we can use. XrysD (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I am not sure any more what was real look of eagle in 1941-1944. Here is another version of eagle from war-time money (from 1942). Anyway, this eagle used on money might be different because of some reason (that one might be used as symbol of Serbian bank instead as symbol of Serbia). However, I know that some modern symbols of Serbia, FR Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska used different eagles and shields and, due to these differences we can determine from which time period and state every eagle originates. I also think that heraldry do care how many feathers eagle have (it would certainly depend of the issue how detailed certain heraldic study is - in more detailed studies there would be more detailed description of symbols). Also, there is more differences between eagle from WW2 symbols and modern one. Here is full list of differences: 1. shape of shield, 2. framework of shield,3. number of feathers, 4. shape of wings, 5. shape of legs, 6. shape of neck, 7. shape of head, 8. shape of tail, 9. shape of Serbian cross. PANONIAN 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a heraldry thing. If you say Gules, a bicephalic eagle Argent armed Or maybe that means something within certain parameters but there is a degree of artistic licence within that. Perhaps XrysD can help on this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

About the currency, there are several different eagles shown on the notes I have seen, so they are not consistent. But as I mentioned above the formal heraldic description of these eagles is the same. I don't know exactly why heraldic descriptions are like this, but they were established a thousand or more years ago when coats-of-arms were first used. I am guessing the reason they seem a bit vague is due to ease of recognition on a battlefield. It would be hard to tell the difference between two different white eagles on a shield at a distance. So if your emblem is a white eagle with a white/red escutcheon on it, then heraldically you can have any white eagle with a white/red escutcheon. I believe that Serbia is now the only nation to have a white double-headed eagle on its arms? The fact that so many different designs of the serbian eagle have existed is testamant to this (a book on the history of Serbian arms would have been very boring if the form of the eagle was completely described and fixed down to the last feather!) But again just to avoid confusion, I am not saying that all the eagles look the same or that it doesn't matter. Clearly it does or I wouldn't be bothering to do a vector version of the 1941-44 arms. It is simply that under official heraldic rules you have a large leeway in what your eagle looks like. Other legislation can tie down the appearance more of course (for example Poland has strict rules on its eagle). But the formal rules of Heraldry do not. XrysD (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure, but I think that present-day Serbia too has strict rules on its eagle. I read in some newspaper about dispute regarding that eagle, since some experts claimed that current eagle is not authentic and that it should be changed. PANONIAN 05:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have created the derived vector versions and re-instated them in the symbols section.XrysD (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR has been editing the arms and flag already! I reverted his changes as they are unjustified. But Fainites, I thought he was banned from editing any balkans related material for 6 months? XrysD (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears the ban was lifted as having been improperly placed. See Wikipedia:Ae#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_DIREKTOR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) it was decided I was "involved" in content and therefore shouldn't have banned him myself.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well DIREKTOR is up to his usual behaviour. Having failed to change my version to his liking, he has now created his version of the arms and flag. In case you are wondering what the difference is, his version has been "colour matched" to the original JPG. Given the JPG is a non colour calibrated scan of a print any such matching is not valid or even helpful. I tried to explain that scanned images like this aren't reliable sources of colour, but I guess he doesn't understand. I have replaced most InfoBox occurences of the JPG version with my vector version now (in accordance with the general Commons instructions to do this). So far it's only the croat version of this page that has the DIREKTOR version (which is rather ironic given he was opposed to their use on this page before). XrysD (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Could everyone please stop this bitter, accusing tone. I don't agree with everything DIREKTOR has done, but I think his version of the flag more accurately reflects what real colours would be used on the flag. The shade of red on the original version is what I call "computer screen red", it is so bright, that it can only exist on a screen. His shade of colours reflect those traditionally used on the Serbian flag since the 1880s. In addition he removed the black outline from the original flag upload that would not exist on a real flag. I prefer his colour shades and his versions are used on the Serbian and Croatian language Wikipedias now.--R-41 (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

All colours have an international code don't they? Before that there were specific names. Isn't there an official colour? Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the flag colour, all we have to go on is the heraldic description of gules which is red. Because the shade of red is not specified I simply chose primary red. In the absence of any other documentary or physical evidence any other opinion is purely subjective. R-41 happens to prefer DIREKTOR's faded red but others may prefer the primary colour. Just read the talk page of the current Serbian flag to see the problems there are with this sort of thing (Talk Page of Current Serbian Flag). However, as contemporary documentary or physical evidence is unlikely to surface, we could make some reasonable assumptions. The current Serbian flag now has defined colours. As a way forward and compromise I will change the colours of the arms and flag to match these. About DIREKTOR, I was just stating the facts. As I have mentioned above, some of the things he says do make sense. But his reasons for changing this file did not. If he had discussed the issue with me it could have been resolved (like other changes to my maps I have made). Hopefully having the official colours will help smooth things a little. XrysD (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic example of the phenomenon known as the color of the bikeshed. No such user (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well hey, people do get hung up about the detail on Wikipedia that's true. But flags are pretty much nothing but colour, especially the ones without arms or symbols. So it's not quite the color of the bikeshed, although it's heading into its suburbs :) If you've ever had to look through a book of Pantone swatches to try and match the colour of something you begin to appreciate how difficult a subject colour is, especially colour reproduction and colour perception. Or are you like some of my friends who have a six-colours-fits-all system? ;) XrysD (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the complexity of color matching, but we're arguing about colors on an obscure, ill-documented and seldom used flag from 70 years ago. I doubt that anyone at that time spent more time at thinking about those colors than we're doing now. No such user (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits of user R-41

OK, R-41, I reverted your edits in both articles (this one and one about government of national salvation) because you unilaterally and without agreement changed characters of both articles by these edits. I am arguing with DIREKTOR for months because of this same issue and I think that all users should refrain themselves from unilateral actions regarding this problem. Since I numerous times asked DIREKTOR for sources and evidences that would support his views, I have to ask you as well: R-41, do you have any source or evidence that would confirm claim that "Military administration in Serbia" and "Government of National Salvation" were names for territories and not just names for administrations (a groups of people in a cabinet) that governed territory with name "Serbia"? PANONIAN 06:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am following the precedent on other articles with the same kind of infobox for other Military Administrations, such as the Military Administration of Belgium and North France. All the sources I have seen with relavent information to the administration of the territory indicate that it was called the Military Administration in Serbia. Here are some sources:

• Tomasević, Jozo. (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford University Press. Pp. 81.
  • States of the German "Concluding Report on the Military Administration in Serbia" in April 1945.
• “Harald Turner und die Militärverwaltung in Serbien 1941-1942,” in Verwaltung contra Menschenführbung im Staat Hitler: Studien zum politisch-administrativen System, ed. Dieter Rebenstitsch and Karl Teppe (Göttingen, 1986).
  • A German-language study of the Military Administration in Serbia.
• Sabrina P. Ramet. The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2006. Pp. 130.
  • Key sentences: "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."

.--R-41 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do not see evidence that show that "Military administration in Serbia" was a name for territory. Even your interpretation of Military Administration of Belgium and North France is wrong because name of that territory was "Belgium and North France", as could be seen here or in many google books. Anyway, speaking about Serbia, sentences like "Concluding Report on the Military Administration in Serbia" or "The German military administration in Serbia was formidable, with a staff of 700 officers" are not proving that term "Military Administration in Serbia" was a name for territory instead name for "group of military people that governed a territory". Please present us some source that specifically says that "Military Administration in Serbia was a name for territory". PANONIAN 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, please see this source where "Military administration in Serbia" is described as "a regime of unmitigated terror", not as "name of territory". PANONIAN 06:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia article "Military Administration of Belgium and North France" in fact have name "Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France" and from this source, we can see that it is described as "military government", not as "territory". In fact, by my opinion article "Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France" should be renamed to "Belgium and Northern France" (and that article which clearly have a wrong name should not be used as a precedent for anything). PANONIAN 06:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

R-41 is right (and no amount of evidence will suffice for PANONIAN). Its unbelievable that one user has managed to bully all these people into accepting his own version of history here, proclaiming edits "not acceptable" [19] (an indication imho of a serious case of WP:OWN). He wants his Nazi "Serbia" here and there's nothing anyone can do about it :).

• This is an article about a "territory under German military administration", to quote the article. It should have an infobox about the German military administration, which should sport the German flag just like any other such infobox on this project.
• Since the article also includes within its scope the puppet Government of National Salvation, it should also have an infobox on it as well. Its quite feasible, they both turn out rather small.

The current merged infobox was pushed through by PANONIAN as a means of creating an infobox with the name "Serbia" stamped on it, just like the current title he suggested was proposed because it uses the word "Serbia". Now PANONIAN is going around listing this Nazi "Serbia" of his (an occupied military-administered territory mind you!) alongside Nazi Germany and the NDH in Axis infobox columns on Wikipedia's World War II articles [20]. I could not believe it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about me and start talking about article? Now, if this is an article about a "territory under German military administration" then it should have infobox about a "territory under German military administration", not about "the German military administration" or about two Serbian governments. Article should have infobox that would reflect whole subject of that article, not its sub-subjects. Also, what would be basys for inclusion of flag of Nazi Germany? Serbia was not annexed by Germany, so I see no reason for usage og flag of Germany. Is there any source that say that flag of Germany was used as flag of Serbia? PANONIAN 08:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Word games. The German flag was the flag of the German Militärverwaltung in Serbien. Unoficially, the territory administered by the Militärverwaltung in Serbien is referred to as "Serbia" (sometimes). That does not mean a country called "Serbia" existed. Officially, there was no "Serbia" to have a flag at all. This was a territory under military occupation. The civil authority of the German Military Administration, the Nedić government, did not constitute a country and this is made very clear in sources.

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], 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."
Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration, Stanford University Press 2001, p.182.

The current infobox is an artificial construct devised for the purpose of using the term "Serbia", and in such a way as to deliberately mislead the reader into thinking this "Serbia" was an actual Axis country in the fascist bloc (see the infobox here for a good example). It should be split into two (small) infoboxes, this time covering actual political entities (as opposed to an imagined amalgam): one for the German Military Administration in Serbia, using the German flag like any other such infobox, and another for the Nedić government, using the symbols of the Nedić government. See my proposal here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please stop with this. This article is about territory and therefore it should have infobox that reflecting territory, not administrations that administered territory. End of story. PANONIAN 19:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"End of story"? "Not acceptable"? :) A territory alone is not a country and should not have a country infobox. Thats the whole point, its misleading. There was no country or political entity called "Serbia", and yet we have an infobox with that name. This article includes within its scope the Militärverwaltung in Serbien and the Nedić government, those are the only two (major) political entities here that can possibly be depicted with infoboxes. If this article is on a territory than it should have no political infobox: the only way this can be handled without "inaugurating" an historically non-existent country is two infoboxes or no infoboxes at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. Would you accept that we use some infobox for territory instead for country? PANONIAN 19:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, DIREKTOR, it is clear that you do not understand what term "political entity" means. Here is definition of "political entity" from dictionary: "body politic, country, nation, res publica, commonwealth, state, land - a politically organized body of people under a single government". Clearly, Serbia was territory that was an political entity. It was without any doubt an "politically organized body of people". It had its borders and governing institutions. PANONIAN 07:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you PANONIAN, but I know English very well (if I do say so myself), and I made no mistake in the usage of that term. "Serbia" (during WWII) is the unofficial short name for a German military occupation zone, the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. You're trying to depict it as a country in the fascist bloc [21]. You are wrong to do so, and you have no sources whatsoever backing you in it: so stop.

Again, for umpteenth time: there was no entity with the official name "Serbia". None. The only entities in existence were the German occupation authority and its subordinate civil government, the Government of National Salvation of Milan Nedić. Neither were formally known as "Serbia". The "Serbia" that you claim was "clearly a political entity", can by elimination only conceivably be some romantic, trans-historical, ethereal concept the rest of us are not privy to. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes there was entity with name "Serbia", as all these sources suggesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 And I did not saw that you presented a single source that can support your claim. PANONIAN 10:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're really drowning in your own stew now.. Which supposed "entity" was this? We know its not Nedić's government, nor the German administration. Was it some mysterious "amalgam" of the two that only you see, the "Nedić's Military German Administration"? :)

The sources DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. Your interpretations of sources do not concern anyone. Even you apparently do not know what it is you claim anymore. First your "Serbia" was a (quote) "country", then it was a name "just for the territory itself", now you claim sources say "Serbia" was a "political entity" - even though NONE of the sources say any of the three, and simply use the term as a short name for what was, beyond any sensible dispute, an area under military occupation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not said anything new, so, please: 1. stop talking, 2. present sources, 3. read sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 PANONIAN 11:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You continuously shift your position. Before I can check your sources against your latest "Serbia lives!" theory, I need to know what it is you are saying as you are being VERY unclear. The real-world authorities that actually existed were the #1 Nedić government and #2 the German Military Administration. Is your "Serbia" 1) a third "political entity"; 2) another name for one of the two non-imaginary entities; or 3) some kind of "amalgam" between the two real-life entities? Please be direct in answering. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Serbia is occupied territory governed by two administrative bodies: German Military administration and Serbian puppet government. This definition cannot be more clear than it is. PANONIAN 12:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and those two "administrative bodies" (as you define them), should have their infoboxes. The occupied territory alone, informally referred to as "Serbia", is NOT a state and it should not have a country infobox, or any infobox at all.

You've apparently shifted your position yet again. You seem to have withdrawn from the position that "Serbia" refers to a "political entity". First it was a "country", then a "territory", then a "political entity", then a "territory", then a "political entity" - and now its a "territory" again. If its not a political entity, if its just the territory (and it is), then you should not present it as a political entity with that country infobox.

Now you shall surely once again claim that "Serbia" refers to a political entity? Just remember, do not do so again without secondary sources, quoted properly(!), explicitly saying that which you claimed before: that "Serbia", separate from both the Nedić government and the Military Administration, was a "third entity of its own" (to quote you yourself).

The article is about the territory. The territory is referred to as "Serbia" by pretty much every source, and the territory is not the same thing at all as the puppet government of the territory, nor the same thing as the military administration which controlled the puppet government. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about a territory. On that territory, which is certainly "not the same thing at all as the puppet government of the territory", existed two political authorities. If the they're clearly separate, as you say (and I agree), how can we use one infobox to refer to them all? Even further - how can we use an infobox, a former country infobox no less, for a territory alone in the frist place??

The answer is simple: PANONIAN's objective is to depict this territory as an Axis country called "Serbia". He's doing his best to do this and only withdrew from the position that this was a "country" when presented with a ton of contradicting sources. Now he's doing his absolute best to give this territory as many attributes of a former country article as he can possibly get away with.

While I'm positive you're here to "oppose my tyranny", Nuujinn, the complexity of this issue seems to have led you to write a post that gives the appearance of you actually arguing for my position. You must surely rectify that at once and shift to PANONIAN's side post haste? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the issue in a nutshell:

• If "Serbia" refers to a "territory" (as I think we all know it does), separately from the two political entities - then it should by no means be depicted as a country with that infobox. It is beyond doubt that this arrangement implies it was a country, not a "territory". In this case there is also no reason whatsoever to oppose posting an infobox for the German Military Administration and possibly also the Nedić government.
• If "Serbia" refers to a former political entity then it should have a former country infobox. The question is: what political entity does it refer to?
  • If it refers to the Nedić government - then we should use an infobox of the Nedić government.
  • If it refers to the German Military Administration - then we obviously need to use an infobox for the Military Administration.
  • If it does not refer to either of the two political entities, but to some "third political entity" (to quote your previous claims), then the current infobox can be justified - but that simply was not the case. There are no sources which actually claim there was a "third political entity" there by the name of "Serbia", and if there are you certainly have NOT presented them.

(For future posting of sources, please present a quote alongside at least the name of the publication and the page of the quote - not just a link to a Wikipedia page of yours with several dozen links you accumulated, saying "there is my source, read it!") --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is against Wiki practice that articles about territories containing infoboxes of governments that governed territories. Examples are Serbia, United States of America, Una-Sana Canton, Styria, etc). Do you have any example of article about territory where infobox of government that govern territory is included as well? According to Wikipedia practices, infoboxes are reflecting article subjects and nothing else. Is there any specific reason why this article should not follow these practices? Second, I never "shifted my position" - my position always stands together with sources that saying that an political entity named "Serbia" existed from 1941 to 1944. I tried to use different terminology about exact nature of that entity foolishly thinking that I will reach compromise and that some of these terms will be acceptable for DIREKTOR, but he even attacking me because these compromise attempts since for him "Serbia did not existed at all". Regarding sources, these maps clearly presenting Serbia as political entity: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. All of these are political maps and they do not showing "geographic areas" but political entities. As for infobox, I attempted to make compromise by replacing "country infobox" with "subdivision infobox" but nevertheless seems that DIREKTOR thinks that there is no difference between the two and he again saying that article "should not have country infobox" no matter that it does not have such infobox any more. So, DIREKTOR, please stop with this crap - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A COUNTRY INFOBOX. It have a subdivision infobox (I posted that one because I did not found any other more suitable for this article) and instead to appreciate my efforts to make compromise acceptable for you, you constantly attacking me and accusing me that I want to "present Serbia like a country". I was not one who added that country infobox into article and now I replaced it with another one that does not represent country, so what exactly is a problem? Would you be so kind to say which territory infobox is acceptable for you? Would the form of infobox used for administrative unit of very low level such is Beli Manastir municipality be acceptable for you so that it does not look like a country to you? Also, from the title of this article and from its content is very clear that it refer to political territory of Serbia and not to German Military Administration or Serbian puppet government. Also numerous sources are claiming that political entity named "Serbia" existed and I collected some of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Regarding page numbers, here are direct links to pages where mention of WW2 Serbia could be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Google_books_quotations_related_to_Serbia_and_Military_Administration_in_Serbia PANONIAN 05:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, DIREKTOR, you know what, I just removed both, infobox and symbols sections: [27]. I hope you are happy now: YOU WON, MAN!!! Is that not great? PANONIAN 05:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. I understand dealing with Direktor can be frustrating, but it would save you a lot of nerves if you wouldn't take his actions to heart. (No such user) 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, focus on the content and not the contributor. I'm not arguing for either of your positions. The article is about a territory, not the government of the territory, and we should not be constrained by the infobox. Most of the sources I have looked at use Serbia as the name of the territory, and use that name on maps. PANONIAN has suggested that this was the best infobox he could find, but we are not required to have an infobox at all, as far as I know, and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is not a good idea. My suggestion would be that we use a history of template instead, following the lead of France during World War II and Poland during World War II. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is equal to Vichy France and General Governorate, not to France during World War II and Poland during World War II. PANONIAN 13:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Nazi system produced such a mess in it's occupied territories. I would agree that we shouldn't be constrained by the symbolism of an "infobox" but does this style of infobox indicate a country as such? General Government was also the name of the territory. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, you really should not post personal attacks like "dealing with Direktor can be frustrating" and then tell others to "focus on the content and not the contributor". The universe might implode.. :). As far as I'm concerned this article can be conceived either as the France during World War II article or the Military Administration in France article, but certainly not Vichy France - "Vichy Serbia" simply did not exist.

@PANONIAN. Its not really a surprising occurrence, it happens every few posts, but here yet again PANONIAN makes his agenda clear. This article is like the Vichy France article? Vichy France, or the French State (État français), was a country, like the NDH and even more independent (some authors even dispute that Vichy was a puppet state) - and yet you are comparing it with a military occupation zone. (I also can't believe you're saying this article is like the General Government article - the GG was a province of Germany.)

What I can't understand is: why? Why are you trying to make this place out like a country, like Vichy France? Why?

@Fainites. "Does this style of infobox indicate a country as such?" Yes. And that is quite clearly PANONIAN's intent, Fainites. To present this area as a "Vichy France" or "Vichy Serbia" if you like. The irony is that this was exactly Nedić's ambition, one he never achieved. (As I said, the GG was a province of Germany.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well is it this one Template:Infobox country because that one can be used for a country or a territory or a geopolitical organisation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I formally request you apologize for your statement you really should not post personal attacks like "'"dealing" with Direktor can be frustrating" and then tell others to "focus on the content and not the contributor" and strike that comment. Check the history. It was not I that said that, I merely manually signed for No Such User. And again, please refrain from characterizing the motives of other editors, it's really not appropriate.

Fainites, Template:Infobox country might well work. I like the series template because it's pretty free form, but let's see if country will work. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not realize it was not you, I sincerely apologize. You are right to request that the comments center on content, but I will continue pointing out content-relevant(!) POV agendas. This is a very significant distinction you often overlook. I'm not implying anything about PANONIAN as a person, I'm sure he's a very likeable fellow, I'm discussing what I believe is an obvious POV pattern in his content(!) edits and positions. WP:NPOV is a very important policy, Nuujinn. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think accusing another editor of having a POV, an agenda, or stating what you believe their intent is, is commenting on the editor: here yet again PANONIAN makes his agenda clear, While I'm positive you're here to "oppose my tyranny", Nuujinn, no amount of evidence will suffice for PANONIAN, and Its unbelievable that one user has managed to bully all these people into accepting his own version of history here are clearly not comments about content. And I note you have not stuck your comment above where you misattributed a statement to me. Please do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention whatsoever of conforming to what are your own personal standards of user behaviour, Nuujinn. Statements expressing an opinion regarding the slanted POV of another user's edits constitute one of the most common occurrences on Wikipedia talkpages, are directly related to content issues, and are not personal attacks. I advise you to carefully (re-)read the entire WP:NPA policy (as opposed to only its "nutshell" form) in order to obtain a clearer understanding of what constitutes a personal attack on Wikipedia. Personal attacks I will and do avoid, and if some are posted I will apologize, but I will not under any circumstances avoid any and all comments that have anything to do with a Wikipedia user. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence and Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all seem to me to be the relevant portions of the policies. You've implied that PANONIAN is a bully, is promoting an agenda, and that PANONIAN will not accept evidence, that I am here to oppose your tyranny. These are accusations about personal behaviour, do you have any evidence? Do you not see that these are insults to PANONIAN and myself? And in what possible way are these comments about content, as you have claimed. Finally, I ask a third time that you strike your comment in which you misattribute a statement to me made by another user. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment stricken. The above comments on personal behaviour certainly do not lack evidence, and you're trying once again to turn a good-natured joke of mine against me. This is a fruitless exchange. And in the future I will not discuss my behaviour with you Nuujinn, as I believe the purpose of your constant and unfounded accusations of misbehaviour, somehow only directed at one user, is to deliberately paint me in an unduly negative light. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@PANONIAN please calm down. I'll be leaving soon on holiday again so we'll have to take another break I guess. In the meantime I wish you reconsider demanding that "Serbia" was a name for a "third political entity". You also imo really need to read WP:V and WP:OR as you are continuosly posting primary sources you yourself interpret as supporting your position (whatever your position might be at that time). There are no (secondary) sources that actually say, explicitly, that "Serbia" was a third political entity on this territory - you only "interpret" some statements in that way, statements which could just as easily not support your position at all, claiming this must be what they "imply". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a case where the infobox does not inform. This article should not have any infobox at all. Nor should Serbia be considered a combatant in World War II, but of course by listing Chetniks and Partisans in infoboxes we are practically asking for Serb state forces to be listed as well. Infoboxes are a source of many problems. Srnec (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. No infobox is a good solution, and I do not quite understand why No such user reverted that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think that every article has to have an infobox, but I still fail to see a problem with this one. It is an infobox which does not cover only a sovereign state, but practically any well-defined territory. I am at loss why you are keeping to make a big deal out of it, and why do you read so thorough consequences of existance of an infobox (as if anybody here is trying to assign WWII Serbia any type of sovereignity). I am sorry, but I do think that you're obsessed with that approach, and that your insistence crossed the line of being disruptive in this particular article long time ago, and that you fail to see it. Your arguments were analysed in good faith by several participants in this debate, and rejected. Do you realize that on this article you're the boy who cried wolf now, because even if you're right, your history makes people oppose you reflexively? We're all different, but when I cannot win a debate, I take the article off my watchlist and try to forget about it; when you cannot win a debate, you keep on pulling everyone's cords until everyone is pissed off. No such user (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that stupid, No such user, I know full well I am actually right and am being opposed reflexively by a number of my fellow users. And please do not post misleading sentences giving the impression that there is a consensus on this issue (with me as the raving madman).

This infobox is not used "for practically any well defined territory", as in "territory" alone, its used for practically any well-defined political entity. PANONIAN's infobox covers a fictitious "third political entity", some kind of amalgam between the German Military Administration and Nedić's government, and was created with the intent of depicting a "Vichy Serbia" as much as possible (note that in PANONIAN's original version, the Nedić government flag and coa were in there as well). Why he would want to do that I can't imagine, but the fact is that PANONIAN's edits certainly are slanting this article towards depicting such an imaginary state. This results in this fictitious "(Vichy) Serbia" being listed as an actual Axis country on WWII articles (see here). The whole slant is incredibly misleading as to the status of this German occupation zone, and steps must be taken to clarify this issue - fixing or removing the infobox is the most important one. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"I know full well I am actually right" – somehow I'm not surprised with this attitude of yours. A real refreshment would be a statement that you know full well that you're actually wrong. No such user (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm right. That actually means I'm not being deceptive (which is the alternative). Unless they're lying, everyone here thinks they are right. Shocked? But maybe you're on to something there, given the climate on this talkpage perhaps I really should have said I am wrong so that you fellas can oppose me by saying I'm right. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the personal stuff. Template:Infobox country can be used for a country, a territory or a geopolitical entity. Therefore it's use does not imply "it" is a country. What has been used in this article is Template:Infobox former subdivision. This is based on Template: Infobox country. According to it's instructions This infobox should be used if the state in question was always a subdivision of some larger entity. For all other cases, use Infobox former country. As we are dealing with a territory rather than a state, it looks as if technically Template: Infobox country can be used (though I can see why "former subdivision" was selected as that is what it is). I will ask the writers of these templates whether they meant to use the word "state" or whether "former subdivision" can also apply to a mere territory. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Enough of the personal stuff"? Yes sir! :) When you're inquiring please be sure to emphasize that this template is being used just for the bare territory alone. The fields, the pastures, teh lakes, the (burned Balkans) villages, etc. Not for a state or subdivision(!) or any kind of political entity.

However, this is not just an issue of template misuse. The main problem, as I've said numerous times, is that the infobox is deliberately devised in its current form to suggest the existence of a "third political entity". I can maybe stomach an infobox "just for the territory" (remember this is PANONIAN's stuff not mine), though I think it would be pretty useless, but not with the Military Administration and the Nedić government merged in it under the name "Serbia" - suggesting they were both part of the administration of some phantom "Vichy Serbia". That's the gist of the issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just something about some issues: General Government was in fact known as "General Governorate", while "General Government" is only wrong English translation of original German name (Of course, this wrong translation became most common in modern English and that is why it is still used). This is certainly not example that Germans named their occupied territories with same names as were names of governments of these territories. Regarding Vichy France, I did not meant that "level of self-rule" of Serbia and Vichy France was same. I only meant that both these articles are speaking about "administrative areas" in Axis Europe, not about histories of modern countries. It is clear that this article does not speak about "history of the territory of present-day Serbia during World War II" because territory of present-day Serbia was not occupied only by Germans. PANONIAN 19:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your meaning and the purpose of your examples was plain Panonian - ie examples of areas that were not "proper" countries as it were, for which the infobox was suitable.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clear but not relevant to the issue, there seems to be a lapse in communication here Fainites. I'll repeat once more. Yes, the infobox is indeed used, even I have used it myself, for all sorts of former political entities, such as provinces of countries, puppet governments, and (more relevantly) German Military Administrations. I myself could also list as many examples as you'd like. The point I'm making (and have been making long before the "examples" were posted) is that PANONIAN's infobox represents the Military Administration and the Nedić government merged under the name "Serbia" - suggesting they were together part of the administration of some phantom country or political entity by the name "(Vichy) Serbia". This PANONIAN said himself, and it is just plain wrong. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)