Talk:Commissioner Government/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Commissary Government - proposed move

'Commissary' is a really strange translation. We don't use the term 'commissary' in Australia at all, but in US English, commissary means 'A restaurant in a movie studio, military base, prison, or other institution or a store that sells food and drink to members of an organization, esp. a grocery store on a military base.'. It pretty much doesn't mean anything else. Alternative terms in sources include, but are not limited to 'Commissioner Administration' (Tomasevich), or 'Government of Commissars' (Ramet, Cohen and Stojanović). Personally, I have to say that in terms of what makes sense in English, 'Commissioner' is probably better, because it is a term used to indicate that a person has been given a 'commission' to do a certain job (in the same way you 'commission' a painting, or the chief of police is known as the 'Commissioner' because he is 'commissioned' by the government to keep the peace). I did a quick and dirty Google Books check, and it was one hit (Tomasevich) for 'Commissioner Administration Acimovic', two for 'Commissary Government Acimovic' (Pettibone and Okęcki) and three for 'Government of Commissars' (as above). Not exactly big numbers, I know, but this is a pretty obscure topic. The current article title lacks accuracy in English translation and detracts from the understanding of the English-speaking reader (due to the use of 'Commissary'), particularly American readers. At this stage I am looking for a move to 'Government of Commissars', as two key sources on the topic of the German occupation in Yugoslavia (Cohen and Ramet) use it. I am not familiar with Stojanović. However, if someone thinks (a reasonable thought too, I might add) that 'Commissars' is also misleading due to the relationship of the word with communism, in which case, 'Commissioner Administration' is the last man standing. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see this thread before I moved, apologies, but imo there's really no question that "government" is a more appropriate term than "administration". The institution was called "vlada", which quite unambiguously means "government". I agree on "Comissary" vs. "Comissioner" though. I checked the sources and "Commissioner Government" seems pretty common as well. -- Director (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible merge?

Any chance this article could be merged into the Government of National Salvation or Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) articles? Thoughts? I myself really think this very brief, powerless institution does not really need a seperate article, and that the matter could adequately be covered in Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander). -- Director (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be adequately covered in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Waited a while. Merging. -- Director (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Content was not merged, it was just deleted... therefor, restoring article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Merging = redirecting, WhiteWriter. But if you're referring to the list (the only part not already present in the main article), I already said that in my opinion it is clearly below WP:NOTE. If you disagree, feel free to move it yourself. -- Director (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
redirected page to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia where it is covered in adequate detail for a subject that is below the threshold for WP:N. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No discussion has occurred here regarding the notability of this topic. It is also a content fork of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Reverting to a redirect. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Article

Ok, obviously there is some interest about this article. Also, content from this article was never merged, so i also think that it may be good to actually have this one. Can someone actually explain a specific reason to merge this? List of deputies, commissioners, may be quite important and useful. And, we have sources. Please, lets talk about this subject. At the end, i object to remove and hide this from encyclopedia with out any actual reason. P.S. POVFORk is not the reason, as material from here is not in the redirected article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The interest so far has been from an new ARBMAC-warned user and two obvious socks. However, I am happy to discuss the merits of having a separate article for something that had no power and only existed for a couple of months. I'd also be happy to merge notable information into the Territory... article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, given the material in this article is just a list of people, and the detail and context of its appointment and replacement is more properly covered in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia I suggest it be converted to a list article with the title "List of members of the Commissioner Government". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, i am OK with it, but why would we create a list, if we dont have a main article about it? If it is titled only "Commissioner Government", then we have a few more possibilities to expand this in better way then if it is just a list. We can, but i think that it is not the time still for it. Maybe, if we expand this a bit more, then it may have separate article, only "List of members of the Commissioner Government". By the way, i created redirect here in the mean time. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Because it needs context, and the context is provided in the Territory... article. If we expanded this article, it would just be with information already in the Territory... article (I know this because I added it there). This government is of questionable notability IMO, and it makes sense to cover it in the Territory... article and if the list of commissioners is needed (as you appear to believe), then a list article is a logical way of doing it. It can be see also'd at the top of the appropriate section of the Territory article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No, i actually disagree. It is very notable subject, and this article should be the main article about it, as Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is something very different. I disagree with you, and think that context should be added here. P.S. Yes, i finds this list very useful, and this was only place to have it here on wiki. Regarding context, i added {{main|Commissioner Government}} in the article, so that is the way to gain context also. Can you help me in expanding this article? There is actually a lot to say about this... --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything that can be said about it that I am aware of is already in the Territory article. WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". What multiple reliable sources does it have significant coverage in? You are the one saying it is very notable, so back your statement up. Perhaps it would be best if I AfD'd it so this discussion could be put on a policy-based footing in front of the community. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, circus arrived, so, let it stay as list. That is anyway useful addition to the subject. If anyone have something against it, use normal ways of wiki editing, instead of POV edit warring. Nobody is allowed to redirect article without merging the content first. If the rest of circus have something against, use AfD as normal editors do... --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, i want to state that if you two agreed to redirect this article, that maybe was consensus at the time, bot consensus can change. Now, i disagree with removal of this material. This is useful and notable subject, and we should not put even more material in main article. If anyone dont like this, use civilized methods of dispute resolution. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I consider this article does not meet WP general notability guideline (WP:NOTE) because it does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The following information not currently in this article is already in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article (which I consider needs to stay there to provide proper context for the appointment of the Commissioner Government by the Germans and its rapid replacement by the Government of National Salvation).

Aćimović formed his Commissioner Administration on 30 April 1941, consisting of ten commissioners. He was sworn into office in late May. The other nine commissioners were (info already in this article). Several of the commissioners had held ministerial posts in the pre-war Yugoslav government, and Ivanić and Vasiljević were both closely linked to Zbor. One of the first tasks of the administration was to carry out Turner's orders for the registration of 'all Jews and Gypsies' in the occupied territory and implementation of severe restrictions on their activities. While the implementation of these orders was supervised by the German military government, Aćimović and his interior ministry were responsible for carrying them out.

In mid-May, Aćimović's administration issued a declaration to the effect that the Serbian people wanted 'sincere and loyal cooperation with their great neighbor, the German people'. Most of the local administrators in the counties and districts remained in place.

While the commissioners were quite experienced in their portfolio areas or in politics or public administration generally, the Aćimović administration itself was in an extremely difficult position because it lacked any semblance of power. The three main tasks of the Aćimović administration were to secure the acquiescence of the population to the German occupation, help restore services, and 'identify and remove undesirables from public services.

In late June 1941, the Aćimović administration issued an ordinance regarding the administration of the Banat which essentially made the region a separate civil administrative unit under the control of the local Volksdeutsche under the leadership of Sepp Janko. While the Banat was formally under the jurisdiction of the Aćimović administration, in practical terms it was largely autonomous of Belgrade and under the control of the military government through the military district command in Pančevo.

The Aćimović administration, with only the former Yugoslav gendarmerie available to fight the resistance, suffered 246 attacks between 1 July and 15 August, killing 82 rebels for the loss of 26. The Germans encouraged Aćimović to make an arrangement with Mihailović, but Mihailović refused. Aćimović did not take effective steps against Mihailović during the summer. Turner suggested that Dankelmann strengthen the Aćimović administration so that it might subdue the rebellion itself. Aćimović gave orders that the wives of communists and their sons older than 16 years of age be arrested and held. The Aćimović administration appealed for rebels to return to their homes and announced bounties for the killing of rebels and their leaders.

This material is the sum total of everything that could be gleaned from Tomasevich, Pavlowitch, two chapters in a collection edited by Ramet, a book by Lemkin and a highly dubious tome by Dobrich. In Tomasevich's comprehensive 1975 book on the Chetniks (of 500 pages) there is one paragraph on this government. In no way could these mentions be called "significant coverage" in any of those sources, despite the fact that there are several reliable ones that mention its existence. Given the subject government only existed for a total of four months and did almost nothing of any importance, that is not terribly surprising, but it nevertheless doesn't meet the need for "significant coverage". I also note that of the people named in the current article, only two of the original 10 commissioners have an existing article on en WP, and only two of the 18 commissioners and deputies in the second government have an existing article on en WP. In fact, of the eight in the first government, almost none of them could meet the requirements of WP:NOTE, as follows: Risto Jojić [1] Dušan Letica [2] Dušan Pantić [3] Momčilo Janković [4] Milosav Vasiljević [5] Dr Stevan Ivanić [6] Stanislav Josifović [7] Jeremija Protić [8] Most of them are mentioned in only two sources, Tomasevich 2001 and Cohen, and in both cases as a mere list of the commissioners, nothing about what they did. If no further sources for this article are forthcoming, I will be submitting it to WP:AFD with a request for deletion. I am dropping my previous suggestion that it could be a list article because if the government itself is not notable, the the commissioners are also not notable. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TLDR, peace. Please, try to be more concise. Well, this list can be also without red links, that is not the most important thing in list articles. Also, Peace, c'mon, there are far more then just two sources as you presented. Anyone can go deeper in this, and find more material about it. Also, this is question of notability, should we mention them anyway, or not. What are their accomplishments? In the first place, they where members of puppet Government. That is relevant and notable information. Then, some of them are very notable as individual. There are not good reasons for removal of this. Then, as i already explained, i am not that much for remaining of this article, as much i truly am for this list! We must not just censor the material! --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It is after all a WP:CFORK that was recreated after months of being a redirect.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There has been a significant incresse in the number of susoicious sock accounts and IPs promoting various pro-Serbian POVs. More than a few opinionated users have been blocked or topic-banned recently. Imo the inevitable Socking Phase may have begun.. I was just in the process of starting to investigate when I had to leave for a while. Experience tells me WP:SPI is very likely to nail someone or other if reports are compiled. --Director (can't seem to sign on this damn thing :)
WW, when will you stop making completely inaccurate posts with no evidence yet adhere to a position for which you have no justification. I have shown (in detail) what sources are available, stated IAW policy that there is not significant coverage, and you blithely state "c'mon, there are far more then just two sources as you presented. Anyone can go deeper in this, and find more material about it". If anyone can do it, you do it! Produce some evidence. I think AfD is the only way to deal with this issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Peace, i agree with you. AfD is a normal way to deal with dispute, and this DIREKTORs edit war is just obvious vandalism. I will see some references. Anyway, we should wait for RM. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Commissioner Government → List of members of the Commissioner Government – Per reasons explained above, i propose to rename this into list, as it is the list of members. Then, article can be useful addition of the main articles about the WWII Serbia occupation. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I consider the underlying article subject doesn't meet WP:NOTE so moving it isn't a solution. When this RM is complete I will AfD this article, and if it survives I will consider this move. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You didnt actually address the subject, but only your narrow view. We are not talking about notability, but about correct title for this subject. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Relevant WikiProjects was informed about this RM. --WhiteWriterspeaks

With respect, WW, you jumped in with this RM when it really should have gone to AfD first to determine if it really is notable. Peacemaker67(send... over) 13:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Technically, it should go to RfD.
That wouldn't properly address the issue with WP:NOTE though. I think I'll just take it to AfD tomorrow regardless of the premature RM. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a redirect because there was nothing noteworthy that hadn't been expanded in other articles. Btw WW I hope that there won't be any !Support by accounts that haven't been active for months and even years.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

merge suggestions

At the AfD, the title Serbian puppet governments of World War II was suggested to consolidate these topics. Another option is the German territory article, and yet another is Axis occupation of Serbia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Axis occupation of Serbia is ahistorical. I suggest Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course not. Axis occupation of Serbia has wider scope than territory occupied only by Germany.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Rot. Defining the events of 1941-45 using the boundaries of the modern state of Serbia is ahistorical. Events of WWII should be defined within the boundaries of the occupied territories, puppet states or whatever existed at the time, not placed in a Tardis and zapped forward to 2013. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No, no, and no, of course not, we will not use stupid Territory article that you buddies pushed against several rules. We have stone consensus against it, do not even try to push it again without new stong consensus. I am also for axis ocupation, that we already have, but i am in the first place against the merge, as subject is notable and good. No reason to merge, we have references, and i do not see any consensus to merge all of those in one article, but to CREATE article that will deal with it. Then, axis ocupation of Serbia is the place for it. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you please stop spilling bile over the Territory... article? You did it at the AfD and you did it here, yet there's four move discussions listed on Talk over there that are all marked as no consensus, so insisting that there is "stone consensus against it" is nonsensical. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
What WW is referring to there is that I and a few others also don't like the Territory title. I think "Military Administration in Serbia" would be more elegant and hence stable (also it would be in-line with other such articles). But I'd rather be run over by a tank while listening to bad poetry than agree to any of Antid/WW's "Serbia" titles.. So we can't agree and we have the Territory title, which is kind of like Dayton.. not great, just fine for now. -- Director (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be merged, but not in any "Puppet governments" article, it ought to be merged into the Government of National Salvation (as the "background"), or the Territory of the Military Commander article itself. Either would be fine with me, but what I don't like is the "Puppet governments" idea or the idea of this article standing. -- Director (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition of unnecessary info about the Govt of National Salvation

This article is about the Commissioner Government, not the GNS. All it needs to do is briefly explain that the GNS replaced it and how that came about, not go into detail about the GNS. Also, if there are sources for the information about war crimes trials, then source it and cite it, don't just add it to the lead. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"collaborationist puppet government"

Both are true, but it sounds like overselling. Can we pick one? Srnec (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

They are distinct ideas, one without the other doesn't provide the full picture. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commissioner_Government/Archive_1&oldid=1136629966"