Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yugoslav Front → Yugoslavia in World War II – "Yugoslav Front" is not how the Yugoslavian theatre of WW2 is usually called: it wasn't a real battlefront, as there were multiple sides in a messy guerilla warfare and barely any front lines. In absence of a common name, we need a descriptive title, so I propose this one as simple and recognizable, in line with Belgium in World War II or Hungary in World War II. --Relisted. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)No such user (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note 1: The title was extensively debated in the longish section above, should anyone wish to re-read the discussion
• Note 2: There is a range of styles used for country WW II articles, and for Europe a more frequent format is e.g. Military history of Greece during World War II. I don't think it would be appropriate for this case, because it implies there was a "Yugoslavia" involved and there was barely any, and it's too unwieldy. No such user (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, oppose. As per all the arguments above; I'll try to summarize here. This article is about a war, not the history of one particular country's involvement in WWII. To illustrate, the topic equally covers the involvement of Germany, Italy and Bulgaria in the region, as much as Yugoslavia's own involvement (whichever "Yugoslavia" that may be, the Chetnik or the Partisan "Yugoslavia"). It could just as easily be viewed as the "Axis in Yugoslavia" article.

In short: the proposed title does not reflect the scope.

To be sure, I'm not defending the current title: its a sort of Wiki compromise, a compromise that's lasted long because most users around here simply don't like the WP:COMMONNAME found in sources: "National Liberation War". I can see the problems with that title, but frankly, there is no other viable choice. The solution, whatever it may be, is not to push through an unsourced descriptive title that doesn't correspond with the subject of the article, and in effect changes its focus. -- Director (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Direktor. I would also add that history does not always have to be written from the perspective of victor. At least more than half of century after the events. From the perspective of Axis countries Yugoslavia was a real battlefront.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not always have to be, but in this instance, it is. The Partisans' historical reputation is indeed today subject to a veritable Hegelian reaction in Yugoslav countries, ranging from realistic appraisal (for a change), to outright condemnation. Nevertheless, modern historiography in ex-Yugoslavia and outside, has not brought forward any new name for the war to replace the old Yugoslav title. Hence "National Liberation War" is the only choice we have if we're to follow naming policy. If not, what the hey.. I'm not going to stir up trouble. But the proposed name is just not a solution. -- Director (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Disagree about the alleged scope issue, a quick look at the current scope shows there is no real difference in time period, it starts the day of the invasion, ends when the fighting officially ended. The subject scope is also basically the same, what occurred in Yugoslavia between those dates, all of which was impacted on by WWII. The September 1939-April 1941 bit can be included by way of brief background, and there is already invasion information in the current article. Ad's comment about victor perspective doesn't make any sense, the current primary name is not the victor's name for it, but the secondary bolded name "National Liberation War" is. Director's claims about common name are dubious, as any examination of the Google results will show. The secondary name is classic POV, that is why a NDESC is needed, as explained ad nauseum above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The title unquestionably changes the scope. An article about Yugoslavia's role in WWII is a different topic than this conflict, which in either case warrants a separate article. -- Director (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Director, could you do your best not to drown this RM in repeating points you have already made? If they are convincing they will surely stand on their own. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I can only promise to try, Peacemaker. -- Director (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is an absolute no-brainer. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's just not true.. -- Director (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, there's always the obvious alternate route of endless wikilawyering. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose An article titled Yugoslavia during World War II is probably a good idea (it could include everything from September 1st 1939 until the very end of the war and can go into greater depth about the role of the Yugoslavia government-in-exile than this article does) but there was a real Yugoslav front in World War II as part of greater combat operations in southeastern Europe. A very real war was fought when the Axis invaded, when they tried to destroy the partisans and launched the seven enemy offensives and when the Soviets finally rolled into Belgrade and other cities. As such, I think it's best that the title stay. 23 editor (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the story of Yugoslavia in World War II is mainly a story of war? Which in turn means that such a clearly titled article would mainly talk about the same thing as this article already does? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. The story of Yugoslavia in World War II is mainly a story about period between 1 September 1939 and partition of Yugoslavia in Spring 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm* That's just plain preposterous. That may actually be a POV of the Axis forces that had dismembered Yugoslavia and wanted to pretend it just wasn't there any more. In a sense, it would be the height of (or rather a new low of) historical revisionism if Wikipedia would approach this subject like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support a split since it seems like an article could be written on both topics, though clearly there would be a lot of overlap between them. Red Slash 22:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly an improvement on the current name, which purports to be the formal, capitalised name when it is no such thing and is rarely found in sources either way; it is also incredibly opaque in so far as it purports to be a descriptive term. As ever, some people are subjecting the proposed title to overwrought micro-analysis and suggesting that it tips the focus on its head, when it does no such thing. It's a perfectly reasonable WP:NDESC title for the broad issues here. Even if it might mean some tweaking around the margins of the scope, so what? No topics of this sort come in perfectly set borders. I also don't understand why some are outright rejecting this option, with the likely consequence of stalemate and just staying where we are. Even if it's not ideal from your perspective, why not settle for it at least as an undoubtedly better option than the current title? I believe there's a saying about noses and faces. N-HH (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose both (a) the change in scope and (b) the forced conformity of a series of "County X in WWII" titles. A better title option, that also changes the scope, but would have the benefit of remedying our lack of an article on the Axis occupation in general is Occupation and resistance in Yugoslavia. Srnec (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The general problem here is that , as can be seen from the discussion above, with such a broad topic everyone, in good faith, has an idea what the title and scope should be. However, it is very difficult to achieve a common ground from such wide variety of options, and we invariably end up at a semi-random title (such as Yugoslav Front) which no one is happy with. As can be seen in section above, we already had a rather fruitless attempt to gain even a minimal consensus. I'd just like to remind about the common definition of consensus as "solution everybody can live with", not as a "solution everybody is happy with"; the proposed title was not conceived out of "forced conformity", but because it has the neutral and recognizable overtone (IMO). No such user (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I would not be happy with the proposed title. It broadens the scope without actually broadening the coverage. And you can't remedy that by beefing up the invasion section (a waste of time, when the invasion article itself could use a little beefing up). The scope would include things we have almost no coverage of at all, like the government- and armed-forces-in-exile and the negotiations with the Axis leading up to 25 March 1941. A big deal? No, but unless there are volunteers to do that writing, we should not broaden the scope. (I would like to do it, but I do not have the time right now.) Srnec (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      • With respect, that is not a reason. Would you say "don't create a stub for a notable topic because no-one is going to prioritise getting it to B Class"? I hope not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
        • There is such a thing as a bad stub that I would urge people not to create—our guidelines already do, in fact: "it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. . . provide adequate context."
          But we're not talking about stubs, but about changing the scope of an existing article. Would you support renaming Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to German occupation of Yugoslav territories if it was unaccompanied by any effort to expand the article to cover the other territories occupied by Germany? I hope not. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
          • The appropriate action in that case would be for the article you suggest to be a summary article, of which the TotMCinS would be a legitimate content fork. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
            • And why doesn't that apply in this case? Why shouldn't the article on the war between occupiers and resistors in Yugoslavia be a sub-article ("legitimate content fork") of a general article yet to be created?
              Although at Talk:Yugoslavia in World War II I said in reference to such a general article that "nobody should waste his or her time creating an article that is inevitably going to be entirely redundant to other articles", I am not opposed to a general article per se. I am only opposed to acts of pure cannibalisation of existing articles to form new, overlapping ones, so that our coverage becomes ever more splintered, uneven and unnavigable. In other words, a general article (which we've never had before) should be built from scratch, with minimal borrowing of text wholesale from other Wiki articles. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
              • Now THAT we can agree on. One of the reasons it is so hard to navigate this period is the lack of a summary article for the whole period of the war. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, Peacemaker, you must try not to drown the RM in repetitive arguments. -- Director (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The Yugoslav "front" was not really a defined battlefront and very few sources describe it as such. All relevant sources written on the subject use descriptive names and so should we. Timbouctou (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. "YuFront" isn't a good title in more than one way, but the new one would actually be worse: "Yugoslavia in World War II" is an entirely silly name that changes this article's focus from the war - to Yugoslavia itself and its war contribution, just like all other "X in WWII" articles. It is indeed just silly: they saw a couple articles of a completely different category and thought to take their name format to a war article. Just a complete disregard for giving this conflict a well-organized coverage. If this thing is actually renamed, I'll be creating an article on the war; then hopefully folks at the AfD will explain the difference between these types of articles to you guys.

And don't get me started on the fact that the move ignores WP:NAME entirely. Sources do use a name for this war besides YuFront. -- Director (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You were saying something about drowning the discussion in repetitive arguments? :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Its a running gag.. :) -- Director (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And like most jokes, there is an element of truth in it. ;-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support The current title artificially constricts the scope of the article (to purely military partisan actions post-1941). Just to take one instance, in the "background" section, instead of the geo-political situation of Yugoslavia in 1939-41 one would expect, it is instead a brief summary of the invasion itself. This would work if "Yugoslav Front" was a sub-article of "yugoslavia in wwii" per wp:contentfork, but as the main article about Yugoslavia during the Second World War, it is gravely lacking in coverage of the subject that is simply unencyclopedic in a way that is shameful for such an important subject. A name reflecting the broader scope such a subject merits is the first step in rectifying this situation. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• The restriction in scope is not artificial. The article is about an insurgency. And why should nomenclature be the first step in "rectifying this situation" and not content creation? Renaming this article will not cause it to become the article you want it to be. Srnec (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per above arguments but also titling consistency in category and clarity. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per In ictu oculi. There is no reason why it cannot be slightly expanded to encompass the full scope of the new title, and the consistency would certainly be much appreciated (see Template:WWII history by nation) Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• So you think it only needs slight expansion to fit the proposed title? We don't have a Germany in World War II article (redirects to Nazi Germany) or a Canada in World War II article (redirects to Military history of Canada during World War II). Where's this consistency? Srnec (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Srnec, I see many of your points. But just a question: are you saying we should leave this article as ir is and create a new one from the scratch which would be the "full-scope" one? FkpCascais (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

See my comments to Peacemaker67 at 23:49 on 25 March 2014 and at 2:55 on 26 March 2014. Do they answer your question? Srnec (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Srnec, I think that Canada, Germany etc. "in World War II" are indeed needed. I believe, particularly that the Nazi Germany redirect is extremely unhelpful and that a clear, brief-ish overview of Germany's participation & experience of WWII would indeed be of considerable use to our readers. Ditto Canada, Bulgaria, South Africa etc. whose articles redirect to "Military history of...". Personally, as I'm not a hard-core military historian, I find it rather unsatisfying that that's all available on the subject of the country's full involvement during the conflict. Also, by the way - and this addresses No such user's "note 2" above, I don't think you can just neglect the dozen-or-so articles which are currently "...in WWII", and which are at least as common, if not more so, than "Military history of...". Brigade Piron (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's all another debate for another time (or place). I pointed to those articles solely to show that the argument from consistency fails—there is no consistency! I don't think you can neglect the numerous articles on fronts, theatres, uprisings, insurgencies, campaigns and resistance movements. Why should this article fit into your preferred box? Srnec (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really do sympathise with your concerns and in another context to Wikipedia I really would agree with you. The problem, I think, is that our readers do just want a potted history of the conflict by country and consequently they're the ones putting the history in "boxes"! Let's face it, from a truly theoretical perspective, any attempt at periodization is artificial, and therefore wrong. But, "Foo in WWII" fits nicely horizontally (i.e. allowing basic comparison between different countries' experiences of WWII), as well as vertically (across articles covering a country's history by period). And I think that's the most important thing in our coverage. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

BP.. this is an article about a specific conflict. Not Yugoslavia, in WWII or out of it. Your arguments, so far as I can see, do not pertain to the objections to the move: namely that the title does not reflect the topic and scope. Note the difference between Eastern Front of World War II and Soviet Union in World War II. -- Director (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Direktor:, on Talk:Yugoslavia in World War II you opposed BP's attempt to create that article on the basis that it's largely redundant with this one (and I agreed). Now you argue against renaming of this article, on the basis that its scope is only about the conflict. I presume, if I'd try to add some more material in order to enlarge the scope, you would revert under the same pretext, wouldn't you? That's a huge catch-22. We need either one or two articles (and this RM is pretty much about that decision), but if we agree on the former, then it should be all-encompassing. No such user (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify as succinctly as possible: the "Yugoslavia in WWII" topic is narrower than the "War" topic. There isn't much of it, and I believe that we can include in this article whatever aspects aren't already covered here. That is to say, the War is the big, huge topic, while "Yugoslavia in WWII" is tiny. It overlaps with this article, and articles like the TMCiS/GNS and NDH articles - and whatever happens to be left (if anything) can be included here as "background".

To have a separate "Yugoslavia in WWII" article is folly, in my opinion; at least I can't imagine what it could possibly cover that we already don't have an article for. To actually change the War article into "Yugoslavia in WWII", now that's a step beyond - its supreme folly. The War is the big topic here. Our article has a bad title, and now its paying for it by getting its whole scope and priorities jumbled. -- Director (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I think it ought to be clear I would NOT have opposed an expansion of this article's scope, as long as its topic (reflected by the title) remains the actual War. I actually said so from the start ("cover what's left in the war article"). Now, it may be you have this huge pile of text and sources and really can justify a Yugoslavia in WWII article separate from the war itself - that's a different subject, though, and I would argue the best way to go about that is: "first post here, then argue for a split". If there's a bunch of content unrelated to the war, who could justifiably oppose a content split? Whatever the case may be there - this rename is a terrible, terrible idea. -- Director (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, but not the way you think. I definitely agree with Red Slash that a split is what's really needed here. There's a difference between Yugoslavia in World War II and the Yugoslav Front. Both should be covered, but moving this article to that title would be really messy. There's already talk page discussion and page history at Yugoslavia in World War II, and the article we have here has a strong military focus. I'd rather see something like this version of Yugoslavia in World War II restored and expanded. So I like the idea of a split, but it's not necessary to formally perform one here. There should absolutely be an article at Yugoslavia in World War II, but just moving this one there doesn't seem like the right solution to me. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If I gather the implications of the opposes correctly, it's something like "the new title sounds like it means Military History of the Country of Yugoslavia in WW2" which would presumably only apply to government remnants post-defeat and not the Partisans. Well... then don't make that article. Just say up front in the lede "this article covers all of the military history of any fighting in the borders of Yugoslavia by anyone," problem solved. Not a fan of "Yugoslav Front" as a term anyway, it's not used often enough and isn't immediately clear it refers to WW2. SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this war goes beyond "Military history of Yugoslavia in WW2", and is a distinctly different topic from it. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying either. I'm saying that we shouldn't change the title without a corresponding change in scope. I'm also opposed to a change in scope, since the topic of this article is highly notable. I opposed the creation of a new page on Yugoslavia in World War II (over on that talk page) because it was a stubby copy/paste job and we have no need of that. We have to do better in 2014. I would not oppose such an article if it were done well and more or less "from scratch", emphasising those things that aren't covered well already in articles of their own. Srnec (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like Director's complaints could be addressed as I suggested by modifying the lede to say something along the lines of "This is about the entire war in Yugoslavia." The topic can be whatever we want it to be - just say so in the lede, I hardly think the proposed title would foreclose it. I suppose I'd also support World War II in Yugoslavia to make it more clear that the topic is a war, not one country's participation, and avoid the problems with "National Liberation War". For Srnec's suggestion, I don't think "Occupation and Resistance" is clear enough, so I'd much prefer just "World War II" which is clear if a tad broad. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I get where you're coming from: #1 the current title is bad; #2 we need an article with the topic of the war in Yugoslavia. Yeah. The thing is: the title needs to correspond with the topic. That's the no.1 basic thing about the WP:NAME. If we do move, but keep the article's scope, we'd be going directly against policy. The topic of this article isn't "Yugoslavia", its the conflict. -- Director (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, so the basic problem here is the absence of a real "front". Although for most of the years it was a civil and guerrilla war, it started and ended as a true battlefront. In 1944 there was the Syrmian Front from October 1944 until almost the end of the war. In Dalmatia in 1944 the war was also fought as a battlefront, which the Germans called Linie grün (green line). After the Battle of Knin, a huge strategic front from the Drava, through Syrmia, Eastern Bosnia, south of Sarajevo and Mostar and to the Adriatic was formed, with a few partisan corps behind the line ( Nikola Anić: Povijest Osmog dalmatinskog korpusa Narodnooslobodilačke vojske Hrvatske : 1943.-1945., page 182). + [1] Tzowu (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

First, a small correction: I believe the term "Syrmian Front" may extend beyond actual Syrmia to more-or-less cover the entirety of the front you described (because Syrmia is where the main confrontation was along that front). Even so: there was quite a bit of territory behind the front that was in the hands of Partisans as well.

Second, the problem of the current title isn't that there wasn't really a "front", technically there were all sorts of "fronts" I suppose, at one time or another. The problem is that this conflict as a whole is the very last aspect of WWII you want to characterize as a "front", and of course - scholars know that. The main problem with the current title is that it is not used at all in English-language sources, which is condicio sine qua non.

Third: pretty much everyone here is agreed that the current title isn't good. The question is - is the proposed title "good"? To that I say: NOOOO. The title must reflect the actual topic of the article. The topic isn't Yugoslavia - its this conflict. -- Director (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But it is the main problem, since most of the years it was a civil war between Chetniks, Partisans and Ustashas. There was no real "front" until 1944, when it did became a "front", despite a few partisan pockets west of it which didn't really pose a huge threat to the Axis. Syrmian Front referred to northern NDH and parts of Serbia, southern one wasn't called Syrmian Front, and it's not as there's no one that calls it a Yugoslav Front amongst historians. So the current title is not that inaccurate if we are to be precise, and neither is the proposed one (Yugoslavia in World War II) or World War II in Yugoslavia, Occupation and resistance in Yugoslavia etc. However, since this title has been in use for years, I don't see a need to change it. Tzowu (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, its not a question of accuracy: "Yugoslav Front" isn't a good title since it isn't used in the sources. That's sine qua non. Whether its accurate or not is a moot point - though it is better than the proposed title, since it at least corresponds to the article's topic. The proposed title is a bad idea because this isn't an article about "Yugoslavia" as such, but instead about a conflict Yugoslavia participated in.

For the record, though.. the majority of the actual fighting in the serious offensives was done between Partisans and Germans & Italians. This isn't primarily a civil war. -- Director (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Director that either National Liberation War or National Liberation Struggle (Yugoslavia) is the most accurate term. It is the most accurate despite it is a shame that it was hijacked by commies what many anti-communist nationalists are still unable to get over, even so many years after the collapse of Titoism, but if the nationalist allergy to communism is so strong that the highjacked term is now infected in their eyes, and Director can't provide desensitization as Doctor(to-be-soon) here, then it is Occupation and resistance in Yugoslavia proposed by srnec here or at least World War II in Yugoslavia, proposed by SnowFire, close enough to the allergy-provoking one ;-) --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. "National Liberation War" is indeed the (most common, sourced) name of this conflict. It is simply another in a long, looong list of wars "POV-named" by the victors. "Communist POV"? Sure. But naming policy (WP:POVNAME) explicitly states we are to ignore the POV and go with the name anyway. With a sourced name present, the last thing we should do, per policy, is invent names of our own. Even if they did correspond to the article's topic (as the current proposal does not). -- Director (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec's reasoning. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion Perhaps a better title would be Yugoslav theatre of World War II. Unlike "Yugoslav Front", "Yugoslav theatre of war" is at least used to refer to this conflict, for example here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• I could live with Peacemaker67's suggestion, but I think it's about time somebody makes an argument for the status quo—if only to assuage our consciences. So here goes.

1. The term "Yugoslav Front" is in fact used in reliable English sources, albeit rarely, in just the same way as we are using it here. Sabrina Ramet, "The Dissolution of Yugoslavia: Competing Narratives of Resentment and Blame", Südosteuropa: Zeitschrift für Politik und Gesellschaft 1 (2007): 26–69, writes that "[a]ccording to the Serbian historical narrative, the Yugoslav front of World War Two—where fighting began in April 1941 and ended only in July 1945—should be understood as a three-way contest. . ." Michael H. Adorjan, with the School of Advanced Military Studies at the United States Army Command and General Staff College, has published Lost Unconventional Warfare Lessons from the Yugoslav Front (Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: 2012). Does its usefulness for our purposes outweight is rarity? Yes.

— Srnec — continues after insertion below

If that's the best argument and the best collection of sources that you can muster up about that, then I'm afraid you've merely proven the opposite point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

1. It is not clear that Direktor's preferred term (National, or People's, Liberation War) is primarily used in the neutral, descriptive manner we require. The inherent POV of the term is not the issue—the POV of English usage is. Is it used in a purely descriptive fashion, or is it mostly referenced as the term preferred by post-war Yugoslav historiography? (In my experience, more the latter; and I would have to thoroughly review the evidence to be convinced otherwose, as I suspect would most participants.)
2. The current term has in its favour over other proposals (both mine and Peacemaker's) that it is both very short and very clear. Unlike Yugoslav theatre, it does not require the entire war to be named, since there has never been another Yugoslav front of a larger war. Unlike "occupation and resistance", it is clearly about a war. ("Occupation and resistance in Denmark", for example, means something entirely different.) Srnec (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ad 2 re:Srnec: Of course the term is used in a "purely" (as much as any term in social sciences is, history is not hard science) descriptive fashion because it describes how it is termed in most historiographic sources, that happen to be written by Titoist historians, right (admit, that's what you all believe, except Director and me), but most of those historians were just as normal as their colleagues who were doing normal historiography using normal research methods. It is the revisionist anti-communist historians who have been trying to prove otherwise last 20 years! Why? Because of their anti-communist (nationalist) POV.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds to me you are the one full of misconceptions and prejudice. Not everyone living in post-Yugoslav countries is a lunatic nationalist as Direktor would have you believe. Whether communist Yugoslav historians were doing "normal historiography" is extremely debatable, but that is an issue for a different discussion. As for the "People's Liberation War" term - it was invented in a letter written by Tito personally (not a historian) and it was from there reprinted in a communist party newspaper Borba (whose editors were certainly not historians) during WW2. Following the end of the war it was adopted as the official term for the proscribed narrative of the war that was taught in schools. It ceased to be used in all post-Yugoslav countries in the early 1990s. But the main issue with it is that the term was never adopted in English-language sources written by actual historians, not during Yugoslavia, not after it collapsed. Never. Some sources merely mentioned it in footnotes and in fact more had been written about the term as a purely ideological construct used to promote nation-building an whatnot than as a practical term for events of World War II in Yugoslavia. So nobody calls it that way in Yugoslavia anymore, and nobody calls it that way outside Yugoslavia. And policy (the one Direktor loves to invoke so much) says we should go with what English-language sources use. Not with what they don't. Timbouctou (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I can only interpret the above as an ironic attempt at proving any misconceptions and prejudice anyone might have had about post-Yugoslavites.

So you're saying "National Liberation War" is POV?! Oh me oh my!, if only there was some kind of provision in the naming policy that dealt with a situation where the most-common/only name in sources happens to be POV... As demonstrated numerous times, "National Liberation War" is indeed the only/most-common name this conflict has. Our problem here is akin to someone trying to invent a new name for, say, the American Civil War because its actual name is biased.

As for English sources usage, I can only surmise you have not noticed that the term "National Liberation War" is, in fact - in English. I also don't think anyone here particularly cares which terms you and your friends use for whatever. -- Director (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Point is, historians did not invent this term, and non-Yugoslav historians never used it at all. If you believe otherwise, try proving it instead of making your usual round of insults, belittling and personal attacks. Timbouctou (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course historians didn't invent the term, I dare say that's true for the majority of wars throughout history. What does that matter? Its the only name, the only name used by non-Yugoslav historians as well. And I did naturally post (and re-post) sources in support.

Re your fantasy personal attacks, I suggest you not try not posting personal provocations out of the clear blue, just for once. -- Director (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment was a response to Dancing Philosopher's post, and I clearly was not talking to you. But since you decided to bud in, perhaps you might explain how "People's Liberation War" is the "most common" term for the topic of this article. I have no problem with it being POV but I do with your claim (and it really is yours and yours only) that it is somehow the most common. Timbouctou (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So if I were to imply you've been going around purposely misleading other users, it would be ok as long as I addressed someone else?

Firstly, the specific term I advocate is "National Liberation War", as that is the more common version. So lets not get confused. Secondly, National or People's Liberation war isn't really the "most common" name, its the only name this war ever had or has. In sources or out. Everything else amounts to either user-invented descriptive terms, or cumbersome, fished-out phrases which are in either case less common. -- Director (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with the translation (the original language already recognizes the distinction between nacija and narod and pretending it does not is misleading) but nevermind. What you call descriptive terms, or "cumbersome, fished-out phrases" is exactly what 99.9% of professional historians who ever wrote on this topic in English used. The fact that the remaining 0.1% mentioned in passing the translation of what Yugoslav sources had officially used for 45 years should be beside the point. Timbouctou (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, "nacionalno" can mean only "national", whereas "narodno" can legitimately be translated as either "national" or "people's", depending on the context. Strictly speaking I too tend to disagree with the translation, and believe that "people's" may be slightly more appropriate in the context. If I were publishing a book, I'd use "people's". I'm not editing a secondary source, though, but a tertiary one, so I go with the most common term.

In WP:NAME I see a provision to use the most common term found in sources. That is what I am proposing we do. I do not agree with an artificial separation that compares the commonname on the one side, with every other title on the other. Which might allow us to then pick and choose any title we like from the latter group. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with a characterisation of "Yugoslav Front" as clearer than "Yugoslav theatre of World War II", it certainly is shorter. The advantage of "Yugoslav theatre of World War II" is that it is entirely neutral and far clearer and more appropriate to the type of combat that predominated. A front is "the foremost line or part of an armed force", which clearly doesn't apply to Yugoslavia during this fighting. A theatre of war is "a region in which active military operations are in progress". So I think while brevity favours front, it describes a type of fighting that only occurred here very late in the war. IMO clarity favours theatre. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Yugoslav theatre" does not reflect the civil war aspect of the conflict.. though it is better than "Yugoslavia in WWII".

If I had to suggest an unsourced name, I would suggest simply "War in Yugoslavia" (from Tomasevich [2]). With an {{About}} template on top, of course. Though I don't mean to imply that's a whole lot better than any other user-invented title. -- Director (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@No such user, Antidiskriminator, 23 editor, Joy, and Red Slash:@N-HH, Srnec, Timbouctou, Victor falk, and In ictu oculi:@Brigade Piron, FkpCascais, BDD, SnowFire, and Tzowu:@DancingPhilosopher, PRODUCER, and DIREKTOR: I think we all know that Director won't be happy with anything other than National Liberation War, and there may be one or two others that consider it the best title. But we work on policy-led consensus. I have no idea why Director thinks that "Yugoslav theatre of World War II" doesn't reflect civil war, as a "theatre of war" is defined as "a region in which active military operations are in progress". That can include any sort of active military operations, major offensive or defensive operations, insurgency, counter-insurgency, civil war etc. A "Front" is something else entirely, by definition it excludes almost all civil wars (except in the case of something like the American Civil War), and could not be less appropriate or descriptive of the vast majority of fighting that occurred in Yugoslavia during WWII after 18 April 1941. I suggest to all other editors that are interested in drawing this to a close that they consider "Yugoslav theatre of World War II" as an appropriate alternate descriptive title for this article. I believe all the policy issues have been aired sufficiently, and propose this title on the basis of WP:NDESC in that a descriptive phrase is best for this title, given that "Liberation" reflects a non-neutral and inherently communist POV that doesn't reflect the Axis or various nationalist groups experience. My proposed title is based on the reliable sources I linked to above that use the term "Yugoslav theatre". In fairness, I believe that the option of "National Liberation War (Yugoslavia)" (the disambiguation being necessary due to the Vietnamese, Chinese and Zimbabwean use of the term, among others) should also be voted upon here so it gets a clear airing. One vote for each proposal please, and please try to make a single comment, not engage in long strings of back and forth about why your interpretation of policy is better than someone else's. I think we know each other's position on that, let's put this thing to bed. Thanks.

Yah, the reason you think I "won't be happy" with anything other than "National Liberation War" - is that I said so. I can say it again: I won't be happy with anything other than "National Liberation War" (that's regardless of the outcome here). Why? Because when I don't know how to name an article, I don't stop and think "hmm, which title do I think is best for this article". Instead, I check the sources, and find the WP:COMMONNAME.

Seriously though, Peacemaker, just to be perfectly honest, I'll post however many posts I like. Um.. I don't appreciate being "refereed" all that often. -- Director (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And seriously Director, I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets sick of the walls of text repeating the same arguments. Frankly, it is disruptive to respectful discussion and consensus building. But you go right ahead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have your permission, I must say I feel much better. Thanks a bunch. -- Director (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we all know what you views are on it and the policy. Could you please not repeat the same arguments you have made several times already? If editors agree with you, they will make that clear, If not, they won't. If you are not happy with the outcome, you can take it to DR. But please just stop and let the process unfold however it unfolds, so that we can all move on. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be rude, but I think I'll post whatever I like, however many times I feel is necessary. And I feel the argument should be articulated here in brief, for any new participants in the discussion who might not feel like reading above threads. I remind you this RM thread almost exclusively carries arguments for and against "Yugoslavia in WWII". And no, I obviously won't take it to DR: that would be disruptive. DR doesn't really deal with this sort of thing. -- Director (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"we all know what you", "But please just stop ... so that we can all move on." This is not the first time you use we vs you perspective in discussions. It is wrong because it isolates your opponents and create false impression that their position is unsupported by anyone else. I advise you not to continue using it in discussions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Had a look at both sides of the argument. Oz Cro (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't fit with current scope of article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as better than the current title, but would prefer Alternate proposal 3 below; see reasoning there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral Prefer to current title, but prefer Alternative proposal 3. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, at least it's an improvement over the current title, which gives no indication that this relates to World War II. bd2412 T 13:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 1 (Yugoslav theatre of World War II)

• Support per my comment above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Director (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Had a look at both sides of the argument. Oz Cro (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, Not an acceptable alternative for me to "Yugoslavia in World War II" which I have argued above is a much more useful scope. Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Acceptable. Really, any neutral descriptive title would be better than the current title. Let's try to find a way out of the stalemate. People are really reading too much into titles. No such user (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't really see the purpose of lengthening the title like this. Was there a notable Yugoslav front in another war? --BDD (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• there wasn't a Yugoslav Front in any war. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - doesn't fit with current scope of article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – The fighting in Yugoslavia was part of a wider Balkan theatre. 23 editor (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Acceptable, but would prefer alternative 3 below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Not really better "theatre" is better than "front" from a strict military technical point of view, but it is associated with certain operational levels , and the article covers actions at levels both below and above them. Also, it has more connotations with conventional warfare, though in theory it covers both conventional and unconventional warfare. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Acceptable, but prefer alternative 3. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2 (National Liberation War)

• Oppose per my comment above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As I said before: there are about 85,000 SET hits for this name [3][4]. There is no other notable contender in sources (nothing else even comes close). POV is an acknowledged flaw, but not a very relevant one - per WP:POVNAME ("the prevalence of the name generally overrides POV concerns"). An English term, translated from another language, is obviously still an English term.. As for recognizability, I believe the use in sources speaks to that.

I keep pointing out that this is simply the name of this damn war. The only name, really. The name that is historical and historiographical. Policy explicitly mandates its use. I just don't understand why this conflict needs Wikipedia users to manufacture a title for it. That is, beyond WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT sentiments against using a term coined by Communists. -- Director (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Had a look at both sides of the argument. Oz Cro (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, Not an acceptable alternative to "Yugoslavia in World War II", which I believe would be better in all respects, or a desirable title. Brigade Piron (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:JUSTNOTACCEPTABLE. -- Director (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Really appreciated, DIREKTOR. Perhaps I can read that, while you read the long, and detailed explanation for my decision which I put above - and which you have already commented on... Brigade Piron (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. A POV name must be prevalent to be accepted as article title, and this one is nowhere near. Direktor, by now you should know better how to interpret Google hits: the actual count is 82 [5], and many are just false positives, or mere translations of the term in then-official use in Yugoslavia. No such user (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, that is not, in fact, the way to interpret Google hits. And secondly, the name could have 13 hits and it'd still probably be the most common. Thirdly, I doubt Wikipedia naming policy depends on arbitrary user definitions of the word "prevalent". -- Director (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Then, I'd suggest that you re-read (and comprehend) WP:POVNAME, because your interpretation looks rather idiosyncratic. I admit that I used term prevalent ad hoc, before having read the following sentence from there: "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." For further reading: wikt:prevalent. No such user (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, I do have a complete and total understanding of what the adjective "prevalent" means. Thank you. Which is why I know "prevalent" is essentially used as a synonym for "most common" in WP:NAME. Its not a separate, arbitrary criteria to be used in constructing desperate arguments for ignoring commonality. -- Director (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Throughout this entire discussion I've yet to see a single solitary policy-relevant argument against the commonname. -- Director (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Then, let me explain why your reading of WP:COMMONNAME is wrong unique. Basically, for the policy purpose, "most common" usually means "encountered in ~50% or more instances" in reliable sources, not merely "most common among all alternatives". Let me grant you, for the purpose of discussion, that "National Liberation War" is more common than any given alternative. However, it is hardly used by more than, say, 15% instances (and 82 doubtful book hits is hardly even 15%). However, as the name has neutrality and modernity problems (it's outdated), we're not mandated to use it, as it's far from prevalent. Commonality is a factor to weigh, but not the only one. No such user (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you're working by some completely different set of policies. The WP:COMMONNAME is absolutely not the name "encountered in 50% or more instances". Its the "most common name". Period. If one name occurs in 15% of instances, and you have 17 other different titles each at 5%, then the 15% is the commonname. That is not the case here, though: here, "National Liberation War" well exceed 50% of all references to the War. All the proposed titles combined do not come close to half the hits for NLW. There's nothing to "grant" - I challenge you to show otherwise.

As for the "prevalent" business, I'm sorry, but that's just wordplay nonsense. "Prevalence" refers to commonality - nothing else. The more common title is the more "prevalent" one. Its not some separate arbitrary criteria. And its not up to you or anyone else here to declare whether a title fits your personal definition of what's "prevalent", or "recognizable", or whatever. Objective indicators to the prevalence or non-prevalence of any proposed title are required. I have provided those for the "prevalence" of NLW. -- Director (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[References to the] "National Liberation War" well exceed 50% of all references to the War.
That's hard to demonstrate—and you haven't demonstrated it. I continue to be sceptical. In my reading, the term is mostly referred to rather than used. It is prevalent in the translated titles of Yugoslav works. I get less than 100 Google books results for each translation of the official Yugoslav name. Srnec (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter since the commonname has nothing to do with "50%". In either case the burden is not on me: if there is an alternative (or combination of alternatives) that comes close in prevalence to NLW - please do demonstrate that this is so. Based on my experience debating and researching this topic, I'm reasonably confident in my assertion that no alternatives to NLW come even close. As I said, I challenge anyone to show otherwise. Indeed, no matter how one flips around the search settings, NLW always comes out on top.

Translated Yugoslav works are perfectly relevant English-language sources. Indeed, many of them are top-quality. -- Director (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So, I'll just pull another policy quote, underlining mine. From WP:UCN: When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above. No such user (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake... noo.

• #1 As I said - I contend that "NLW" does indeed exceed 50% of all references to this war as such. You've not done anything to show otherwise. So either way - what's your point?
• #2 "..as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources" is simply an example of what the "single obvious term" typically is. Usually the issue involves two competing titles: when one is more common, then its in the "majority" with regard to the other by default. When there's more than two - its absolutely not necessary that one of them be more common than all the rest combined or else we get to pick whatever we like. The policy would not function at all if we had it that way. We could get out of following the commonname in virtually every single instance: all you'd have to do is find a few more names (no matter how unusable) and show it doesn't actually exceed 50%.

All that sentence does is advise what to do when there really is no clear commonname, as with TMCiS, for example. -- Director (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I should think it would be National Liberation War per WP:UNDAB. The POV makes me skeptical of this option, but it's a better fit for the article's scope that Yugoslavia in World War II. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. Though I too would prefer to do without unnecessary disambiguation. POV is not a serious problem ("the prevalence of the name overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" [6]); there are countless articles on this project, and indeed, conflicts specifically, that have "POV" names. -- Director (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative idea - considering that subject of article is basically guerilla conflict in Yugoslavia, why not simply use something simple like Resistance in Yugoslavia for title?--Staberinde (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons already stated multiple times - "National Liberation War" is a) not common at all, b) POV, c) outdated. Timbouctou (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, its neither of the three, instead its the only name for the conflict found in sources. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't really need to respond to every single comment anyone has ever made on this topic, you know. It's not helping your case. Timbouctou (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - not actually a unique name, quite a few other conflicts have been called like that: National Liberation War in google books.--Staberinde (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If disambiguation is necessary, then its "National Liberation War (Yugoslavia)". No problems there at all. -- Director (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – POV title. I highly doubt that anti-communists in Yugoslavia considered themselves liberated. 23 editor (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Many wars are named by the victors in a manner that is "POV" from the losers' perspective (the "American Civil War" is a prominent example; "Croatian War of Independence" is another). That doesn't really matter at all, though: please read WP:POVNAME. -- Director (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No "Greater-Serbian Aggression" and "Homeland War (Croatia)" would be POV titles. Croatian War of Independence describes the war through which Croatia gained its independence. 23 editor (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think its "POV" or not, the point is that the losers generally do not agree. On the Serbian Wiki the term is "War in Croatia", and that's the term (analogous to "Bosnian War") that is used in Serbia. Technically the "independence" of Croatia wasn't contested at all: the war was about whether the RSK would secede from the independent Croatia or not. But lets not get into that here! -- Director (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. From a cursory glance, this term seems to be used predominantly by Yugoslavian authors, and understandably so, but I am not convinced it represents the wider English-speaking scholarly discourse on the matter. It's also quite opaque to the uninitiated reader: which "nation", which "liberation" is referred to? Don't other nations also have wars they refer to like that? It's like "Freiheitskriege", which may be a very strongly conventionalized name in its German context, but our article is still at Napoleonic Wars. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well "Freiheitskriege" is a German term, and it isn't more common in English-language sources than "Napoleonic Wars". I don't see the analogy.
• I don't think being "used by Yugoslav authors" is any sort of reason to exclude an English-language term. Policy deals with the language, not the ethnicity of the author(s).
• The uninitiated reader doesn't "pick" the title: the sources do. The whole point of the article is to "initiate".
• If disambiguation is necessary - then we disambiguate.

-- Director (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; to call any war a "Liberation War" shows point of view in my opinion. The term may have been used often in Yugoslavia, but this is of course to be expected. Equivalent, equally POV terms exist for any number of conflicts all over the world, but that doesn't mean we should use them. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course its POV. And yes, if they're the most common, then we are supposed to use those "equally POV terms". Please read the naming policy, specifically WP:POVNAME. -- Director (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 3 (World War II in Yugoslavia)

Just brainstorming this: Avoids the problems about article scope perceived with Yugoslavia in World War II (i.e. the article being primarily about the war, not primarily about the country), and is shorter and simpler than Yugoslav theatre of World War II. Plain and simple, descriptive, easy to understand, and definitely also used in multiple reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is the best alternate proposed thus far. If consensus is for a change, I support this one. Srnec (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There's not much of a semantic difference between this and the original proposed title. Furthermore, since consistency is desirable in article titles, it's worth noting that World War II in popular culture is the only other article that begins with "World War II in." --BDD (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Ugh.. I hope you're happy, Nsu. Did I not say this would be a massive can of worms? :)

How about "War in Yugoslavia", as a modification of the above proposal? With an {{about}} template on top, of course. It seems more elegant.. -- Director (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per earlier comment (but I'd also support the original "Yugoslavia in World War II"). If phrasing it as "World War II in Yugoslavia" is more acceptable to at least some of the opposers, this title is fine as well. SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per BDD. This would be creating added confusion for no discernible benefit. I count 35 articles which follow the form "Foo in/during World War II" here, and not one which follows the "World War II in Foo" format proposed here. The difference is semantic and, as illustrated, there is a convention which the MOS says to follow. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What MOS section says which convention needs to be followed in this case? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case it's extremely simple - WP:Article titles puts "consistency" as one of its key criteria - in this case "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" is recommended. As has been demonstrated elsewhere here, there is only one article in the whole of Wiki which starts "WWII in X" (popular culture, actually), versus nearly 40 that start "Foo in/during WWII". Personally, I feel that fairly clear-cut, if this article is indeed intended to be a treatment of Yugoslavia's history 1939-45 as the consensus seems to be.Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you were really looking for something extremely simple, you could just name the other article title criteria - this title, just like the other one, fits all of them. It's recognizable, natural, precise, and concise. I wouldn't even say that the permutation makes it particularly inconsistent - "WWII in former Yugoslavia" would stick out, while neither of these permutations is anything like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That logic is bizarre. You're saying that, in order to make this article join a consensus, you're going to change all the others? I think that's mad. I'm not arguing this point (life's too short) but suffice to say that "WWII in Foo" doesn't have any scope for actions done by Foo outside its borders (kind of important), whereas you can call a section of Foo in World War II on "internal operations" and thus nicely cover the "WWII in Foo" scope - and everything else. Plus, of course, this isn't just a trend for WWII articles, WWI and many other follow it too. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we change all the others. I'm simply saying that consistency does not equal perfect uniformity. This is neither bizarre nor mad, by any stretch of imagination. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• If we weren't apparently surrounded by what appear to be exceedingly fastidious people, I would be telling you that this is another no-brainer. *sigh* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support this, or alternatively "World War II in Yugoslavia", whatever is more in line with similar articles. Timbouctou (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I have been quiet mostly because I have been very undecided about the naming and I didn´t wanted at all to engage in eternal debates as usual. However by now, it does seem to me that this FPS proposal does seem as the most adequate one as it works perfectly for the desired scope and it is a practical title. FkpCascais (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Prefer this to the original, the difference is not semantic. Thanks, FPS. Definitely oppose the suggested alternative of "War in Yugoslavia". Far too vague, ignores the 1992-95 war. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Logical, adequate title. It was mentioned in the discussion in section above, prior to RM. No such user (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This just isn't the scope of the article because World War II in Yugoslavia as a country pretty much ended on 17 April 1941. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

While this is true, I'd like to point out that we have Occupation of Poland (1939-1945), not just General Government administration. Everyone knows it means "occupation of the area roughly comprising pre-WWII Poland" and it isn't a problem, so I doubt referencing Yugoslavia would be a problem here. SnowFire (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong example. Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) does not mislead readers while the proposed title does. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowfire is right, it isn't misleading in the slightest. "World War II in Yugoslavia" clearly means "what happened during WWII in Yugoslavia". Yugoslavia existed de jure throughout the war. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I still think it is misleading. As one editor stated: The military history of Yugoslavia as a country in WWII pretty much ended (except for insignificant exile forces) on 17 April 1941. Maybe Yugoslavia existed de jure because of its exile government and its insignificant forces, but this just isn't the scope of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see we're going in circles. So let's complete this one: *facepalm* That's just plain preposterous. That may actually be a POV of the Axis forces that had dismembered Yugoslavia and wanted to pretend it just wasn't there any more. In a sense, it would be the height of (or rather a new low of) historical revisionism if Wikipedia would approach this subject like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"to pretend"? They did not have to pretend at all. Yugoslavia just wasn't there any more. As one editor stated: The military history of Yugoslavia as a country in WWII pretty much ended (except for insignificant exile forces) on 17 April 1941. Your facepalm can be seen by someone as an ridicule fallacy, so I advise you not to use it on wikipedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a view that implies that Yugoslavia was strictly the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That particular state never came back and its military was never rebuilt as such; but the country was soon rebuilt in roughly the same place. Saying that during the war the country of Yugoslavia entirely disappeared as a matter of concept, despite 70 years of hindsight, is ridiculous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another fallacy. This time it is a straw man fallacy. I, of course, never implied "that Yugoslavia was strictly the Kingdom of Yugoslavia". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, another exercise in wikilawyering, as usual. Yes, what you said means either exactly that, or some other preposterous thing. Either way, this discussion has become ridiculous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskiminator, I disagree with you. Yugoslavia did existed, had a governament-in-exile, and even military forces fighting for the restauration of the country and monarchy. Being occupied doesn´t mean that it ceased to exist. We could solve that with a minor fix, World War II in occupied Yugoslavia but I think it is unecessary to make such change in title. Yugoslavia did existed as recognised country, had a governament (in exile) and after 4 years of war, Yugoslavia was restored. I disagree with the view that Yugoslavia didn´t existed. FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is good that we disagree. People are entitled to their opinion although it may differ. In case of Yugoslavia, you are basically right that it existed during the WWII. But only in one period, between 1939 and April 1941. In April it was first occupied, partitioned and its parts were either annexed by other countries or put under military administration. It was not occupied, like some other countries, i.e. Denmark or Norway.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support This is better than the original proposal. The semantic difference is meaningful, "Yugoslavia in World War II" corresponds more to "the war that [state entity or country] Yugoslavia fought", while "World War II in Yugoslavia" is more like "the war(s) that was fought in [geographical area] Yugoslavia", which better reflects the nature of the conflict with its many factions and different types of warfare (civil, conventional, partisan). So that it deviates from the standard "X in WWII" (which is only standard for occupied or axis countries, and even then with exceptions) is only an advantage; that is one thing that "Yugoslav front" has for it, it marks the nature of the conflict as special, the problem is that it is just too much and is confusing, therefore it fails wp:astonish. In fact, I wish that "Yugoslavia in World War II" and "World War II in Yugoslavia" were even more dissimilar, as to make the difference clearer, but we can leave it as a subtle reward for the discerning reader. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Victor Falk sums it up well above; this is a different case as we are not discussing the polity Yugoslavia's part in the war but rather the part of World War II fought in the geographical area then called Yugoslavia. Whether or not a de jure or de facto nation state called Yugoslavia existed throughout the war is irrelevant to the conversation. In my opinion this is the best solution. Yes it puts the article out of sync with the other World War II articles, but since we have established that this is a special case I don't see this as a problem. A phrase that springs to mind for me is "the exception proves the rule". —Cliftonian (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be annoying here, but I see you too seem to entertain the notion that the article title should be in sync with other relevant article titles. There is no such requirement - it has to be consistent with them, which does not mean it has to be exactly synchronized with them in every possible aspect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"...you too seem to entertain the notion..."? Is your comment about "exceedingly fastidious people" here (diff) just violation of WP:NPA or WP:COMMONSENSE too?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Consistency" is to be interpreted with leeway; it means that, ceteris paribus, articles should be as similar as possible. If there are reasons to deviate, then conformity should be discarded. There is a middle way between heteroclite stamp collecting and compromise-less invariability in ordering. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. IMHO, much better then the current name and the best way to descripe the (complex) conflict that took place on the geographical area of what was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later became DF Yugoslavia.--Saxum (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Best of the alternatives – sometimes a late entrant can turn out to be that rather than a curveball that just derails and complicates an ongoing discussion – and a clear improvement on the current name in that it simply, clearly and concisely describes the subject matter. By contrast and as previously noted, the current name, along with other titles in this topic area, not only fails on that score but also misleadingly purports to be the standard, real-world formal/proper name when it is in fact more or less a totally WP-invented one. N-HH talk/edits 10:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 4 (Military history of Yugoslavia during World War II)

Recognizing that this article is almost exclusively about military topics, and that consistency is an important element of naming, I propose Military history of Yugoslavia during World War II. There are many similarly named articles; there's even an existing category to match this title. I don't discount the nominator's original point that "there was barely any" Yugoslavia at the time, but I think the "Yugoslavia" in the title could refer to a geographic area as much as a sovereign state. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Again, this isn't about Yugoslavia as such, or its military history. Plus the name is just too long and inelegant in my view. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This just isn't the scope of the article. The military history of Yugoslavia as a country in WWII pretty much ended (except for insignificant exile forces) on 17 April 1941. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The country, yes, but not the area. Why do we need to draw such a distinction? --BDD (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The countries having "Military history of (X) during WWII" are the US, UK, AU, CA, NZ, and FI... What do they have in common? That their warfare was mainly conventional (hence the military), which was definitely not the case with Yugoslavia. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Direktor, Peacemaker and Victor Falk. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 5 (Resistance in Yugoslavia)

Simple, short, used in reliable sources, and most important - it actually fits current scope of article, which focuses on guerilla warfare period and treats Invasion of Yugoslavia only as a background.--Staberinde (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem there is the complexity of the conflict: its a also a civil war between two resistance factions (even though the status of one as a "resistance faction" could be legitimately disputed due to widespread collaboration). -- Director (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: actually, this is a really good idea. Staberinde is right that this is basically what is being treated here anyway and requires no real change in content. It also makes it clear what it is not about, i.e. a total history of everything about Yugoslavia in the conflict. DIREKTOR, who seems unwilling to compromise even in the slightest, could do well to look at any other country in WWII in which resistance movements (communist/nationalist etc.) existed in mutual hostility and competition. This is perhaps different in extent, but not principle. In any case, nothing that cannot be explained in the lede. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

#1 Ironically I just posted a compromise proposal in the thread above. #2 The extent is the whole point. If you have two movements "giving each-other the evil eye", then its arguably fine to ignore their marginal confrontations in naming the article. If however, they engage in full scale warfare with divisions and brigades and artillery and tanks, etc. then its something of a nono. Plus, the "civil war" aspect arguably also includes the diverse and powerful collaborationist forces as well.

Then there's the problematic idea of describing a war, or theatre of war, as "resistance". -- Director (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Completely ignores the significant civil war aspects included in the scope. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only it excludes the civil war, but also the conventional fighting in 1944-45 (which the current title is actually most appropriate for) after the liberation of most of Yugoslavia in 1944. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Direktor, Peacemaker and Victor Falk. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary

For the closing admin, I believe that after an exhaustive (and exhausting) discussion, we now have a reasonable consensus for a renaming to Alternate proposal 3 World War II in Yugoslavia. At the risk of making an "ass" out of "u" and "me", I would like to thank User:No such user for having the "temerity" to RM this article, and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for proposing Alternative 3. Nice one. Regular editors in this time and place know that RMs are usually fraught affairs. No doubt those that disagree with my attempt to bring this to a conclusion will want to have the last say. Let the walls of text descend. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If there was a reasonable consensus you would not have prepared your version of conclusion to administrator. The arguments of opposing editors which could be summarized as:

1. the same reasons as Yugoslavia in WWII (the difference is semantic)
2. consistency issue
3. the subject of this article goes beyond "Military history of Yugoslavia in WW2", and is a distinctly different topic from it.
4. this just isn't the scope of the article because World War II in Yugoslavia as a country pretty much ended on 17 April 1941.

Nobody refuted those arguments. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Nobody refuted those arguments"? How many more iterations are necessary? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can´t see how Yugoslavia ended in 1941. Its territory was simply occupied and puppet states with very limited or none international recognition, were formed in it. The governament and monarchy went into exile, and Mihailovic Chetniks fought for them in Yugoslavia. Tito Partisans liberated large areas of the county. Between the two, with much greater effectivness by Partisans, they didn´t allowed Axis forces to totally control the entire country at any point. So, I totally disagree with the idea that Yugoslavia died on April 17, 1941, and then was reborn, when? That is why I don´t see at all wrong the title mentioning Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Its a de facto/de jure issue. De facto Yugoslavia most certainly did end in 1941, and was "reborn", as you say, arguably through the year 1944 (the exact date is arbitrary). De jure, since the country was invaded illegally, it never stopped existing and was reformed along communist lines. -- Director (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree about "de facto", which is only relevant here. Regarding de jure, one can probably argue about legality of any country in the world. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid these comments betray an ignorance of the contemporary international law of armed conflict (in this case, Hague Law) regarding occupied territories. Lemkin explains it for the layman, if you are interested. There is no doubt whatsoever that Yugoslavia existed de jure after 17 April 1941 (by international law). But that is not the point, Alternative 3 refers to "in Yugoslavia", therefore "within the territory of Yugoslavia". That is one of the reasons why it is a good title. But I'll leave you to your musings. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not dispute that Yugoslavia existed de jure after 17 April 1941, though you are right when you say "but that is not the point". After April 1941 Yugoslavia had only its exiled government. Not territory. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Luxembourg also ceased to exist de facto after being annexed by Germany. Does this mean we can't have an article called "WWII in Luxembourg" or "Luxembourg during WWII"? ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong example.

1. Yugoslavia was not annexed to Germany as a whole, separate entity. There were other countries created on its territory or expanded into it, which is subject of appropriate articles on that topic.
2. Luxembourg exists as a city, regardless of the existence of the country. No city or geographical region was Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is only a country. No Yugoslavia as a country - no Yugoslavia.
3. Also, as explained many times by DIREKTOR, it is important to bear in mind that the subject of this article goes beyond "Military history of Yugoslavia in WW2", and is a distinctly different topic from it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• So, if I understand things correctly, we couldn't have an article called History of Poland (1795-1807), between the Third Partition and the Grand-Duchy of Warsaw? ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• A country called Yugoslavia existed both at the start and at the end of the war, and in any case even during the period when it was occupied and split up the geographical concept of "Yugoslavia" would surely have still been universally understood at the time. The term Yugoslavia remains widely understood today the context of 20th-century history as well as in the context of military history. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I still think that both in the context of 20th-century history and the context of military history the term Yugoslavia is much more understood as a country than as the geographical concept. Even if term Yugoslavia is understood not as a country but as the geographical concept (which I think is incorrect), that was only the last (point 4) of the arguments of opposing editors I presented.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Israel is also understood more as country than a geographical concept. Suppose there's a war in a not distant future where Arabs were victorious, say in 2034. Israel would be divided between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, a independent state of Beduinistan set up in the Negev desert and a puppet ghetto state called "the Tel Aviv Republic", set up around the city. Then a rebellion from the Jews would overthrow their rulers, and a state called Israel (re-)established on 14 May 2048. Are you saying that wikipedians in the second half of the XXIst century couldn't write an article called History of Israel (2034-2048)? ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As ever in these Yugoslavia/WW2 title discussions, this is getting bogged down in esoteric overanalysis of what the title or individual words used within it might really mean or imply at some abstract definitional level and individual WP editors declaring, on the basis of their own deduction, whether the individual terms therefore can/should be used or not. It doesn't matter whether Yugoslavia, Serbia or whatever really existed between this point in time and that, whether de jure or de facto, whether as a "real" country or not etc. What matters is whether the terms are used in the real world in respect of the context at issue. They are. The only issue is how to deploy them in a clear, simple and concise descriptive title of a sort that is in turn also commonly found in real-world sources. Consensus seems to be emerging on that in the discussion above. N-HH talk/edits 10:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Again you're drawing undue parallels with TMCS. Your point isn't really valid in that these titles are user-invented, not based directly on sources. I.e. we're not allowed to draw a conclusion from the sources that their using the term in this or that context justifies its use as an encyclopedia article title.

That said, there's really nothing at all to discuss re "Yugoslavia". The term is not really used to denote a region (except in a post-1991 context, when the term is actually "ex-Yugoslavia", or "the Balkans"). Its sources usage in the WWII time frame is due to its de jure status, i.e. the fact that it legally did not cease to exist at all between 1918 and 1992. This is the case with all Axis occupied countries (even Austria and Czechoslovakia, which were technically not in legal existence).

De facto, however, there was no "Yugoslavia" after April 1941; and it can't be argued the country was de facto restored until at least(!) late November 1943, and October 1944 at the latest. Within that 11 month period there are several dates that can be arbitrarily picked as the "point" when Yugoslavia was restored into de facto existence. The second Yugoslavia used 29 November 1943 as the date of its foundation. Though I've even heard arguments that Yugoslavia wasn't "really" restored until well into 1945 (though imo such talk is pretty silly considering the state of affairs by late 1944, with a government sitting in Belgrade and a huge army etc). -- Director (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The implicit reference to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (and other pages, as it happens) addresses the wider principles at stake, although it is a little off topic in immediate terms – both represent an attempt to establish proper, capitalised forms for things when there is no significant evidence that they are the proper, capitalised foms and, to compound the problem, they also fail as descriptive titles since they do not clearly describe. As to the rest of your post, it seems an odd response to my observation that we are getting bogged down in esoteric and overly technical analysis rather than addressing the simpler and more relevant point, and merely observing and following real-world usage. QED I guess. N-HH talk/edits 12:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "That being said", "the end" or "QED" should probably be avoided in discussions. If your comment was really QED it would not be necessary to emphasize it.
• The reference to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia or to German occupied territory of Montenegro should really illustrate "the wider principle at stake". Unlike Yugoslavia, that never existed as geographical concept, Serbia and Montenegro geographical regions existed for centuries long periods without countries Serbia or Montenegro. Still, the wider principle in case of those two directly related geographical regions was to add "territory", but in case of Yugoslavia not. The consensus reached here might have direct consequence to those two articles. If there is no need to insist on some kind of "territory ....." in this case of Yugoslavia, there would be much less basis to insist on it in case of Serbia or Montenegro that existed as geographical regions, unlike Yugoslavia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your post makes very little sense, Antid. So much so that to reply would take unraveling quite a few things.

• Its perfectly legitimate to use any of those phrases. None of them should be avoided in discussions at all.
• Both "Yugoslavia" and "Serbia" can be used as geographical context, but in a WWII context, "Yugoslavia" is used primarily due to not having legally ceased to exist. I.e. due to being another country under Nazi occupation. The term "Yugoslavia" as such is only rarely used in a geographic sense, due to political implications (i.e. such terminology implies support of Yugoslavism).
• None of this relates to TMCS: that article and its title have very little or nothing to do with this one. That article uses the full official name of an entity because there is no clear commonname for the article's topic (a German military administrative entity). This conflict neither has an "official name", nor is the commonname unclear (its just rejected).

-- Director (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I mentioned the connection to "Territory..." articles to reply to N-HH. It is not directly related to this move discussion so it is probably better not to continue it here.
• Since Alt3 is more related to WWII than Yugoslavia, there would be more sense to discuss point 3 here (whether "the subject of this article goes beyond "Military history of Yugoslavia in WW2", and is a distinctly different topic from it") instead of this point 4 *(whether World War II in Yugoslavia as a country pretty much ended on 17 April 1941). Point 4 is probably more related to the original move proposal (Yugoslavia in World War II). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really anything wrong with using "Yugoslavia" in title. Legalistic crap aside its easy to recognize geographic term for average reader. Problem I see with 3rd proposal is "World War II in" part because this article treats first phase of World War II in Yugoslavia (axis invasion) simply as background event and not as something that is actually part of article's focus.--Staberinde (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is merely a re-naming of a section heading, easily fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.