Talk:18th (Croatian) Eastern Bosnian Brigade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 18th (Croatian) Eastern Bosnian Brigade article.
Article policies
18th (Croatian) Eastern Bosnian Brigade is part of WikiProject Former Yugoslavia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Former Yugoslavia and its nations, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia. If you would like to participate, you can this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (May 2008)

[edit] Name

The convention is to use country name only if the name of unit is generic, which in this case it is not. In any case when using the brackets, only the country name is used, so in this case (Yugoslavia), which in this case is unnecessary--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I thought of that as well, but the problem is this: the Partisans were for a very long time not recognized as Yugoslavia's liberation forces, and instead actually fought against the recognized Yugoslav forces on the ground, the Chetniks. Also, Yugoslavia was technically occupied and did not de facto exist at the time. Furthermore, simply stating "(Yugoslavia)" in the title would be very unclear, as units of several militaries could claim the same name: the pre-WW2 Royal Yugoslav Army, the WW2 Chetniks (Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland), the WW2 Yugoslav Partisans, and the post-WW2 Yugoslav People's Army.
In short, it would be like naming units of Nazi Germany, Weimar Germany, and the German Empire simply "(Germany)". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. I suggest we only discuss the matter here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
In other words: 1) you can't use "(Yugoslavia)", as that is far too vague (Kingdom, or Socialist Republic?), all units of both the Royal Yugoslav Army, the Yugoslav People's Army, and the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland are also "(Yugoslavia)", and one can argue that the country didn't de facto exist, being dismembered by the Axis.
2) You can't use "(SFR Yugoslavia)" because that country (both de jure and de facto) didn't exist until 1945, and that would be naming them the same as the units of the Yugoslav People's Army, which is the actual army of the SFR Yugoslavia (during its existence).
I hope you see the problem, I'm aware of the convention but this is as best as we could do, considering the unusual circumstances. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

However, I suppose we could simply remove the brackets... agreeable? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not agreeable. You don't need the (Yugoslav Partisans) there because that was not part of the unit name. Remember how you replaced my abbreviation in the Belgrade Offensive OOB with Yugoslav Partsans? That is what it was for, to use in the brackets as an abbreviation for the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOVJ) because lots of different formations on both sides called themselves partisans so the use of Yugoslav Partisans is not explicit, and you simply copied it from somewhere which was not very particular about who they referred to. In reality this particular unit should have (NOVJ), and the units of Chetniks can have Chetnik in the unit name, while the post war Yugoslav units use (Yugoslavia) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood, I explained why I didn't use "(Yugoslavia)" and I said I suppose that we could simply remove the text in the brackets, "(Yugoslav Partisans)". Agreeable? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the name of the Yugoslav Partisans, that is a whole other discussion. I will simply say that, yes many formations in WW2 Yugoslavia used partisan tactics, but only one faction was know as the Partisans. Their official name is not "People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia" (Narodnooslobodilacka vojska Jugoslavije, NOVJ), but "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia" (NOV i POJ). "Yugoslav Partisans" is simply their most common name, no matter what tactics they may use. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you who misunderstand. The name People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia is applied to the Overall command structure of the resistance in Yugoslavia. In terms of actual organisation of forces, the troops were divided into the People's Liberation Army, and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia. The regiments, brigades, divisions and so on were a part of the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, and retained their names for most of the history of Yugoslavia. As formations they belonged to a recognised (at least by Allies) national force, and the fact that Yugoslav Partisans is the popular usage in English can not change this organisational affiliation. Properly the NOVJ should be in the brackets to differentiate it from the Royal Yugoslav Army. Any partisan units can have Yugoslav Partisans in brackets if they remained as separate units after the creation of the NOVJ . In any case, that is my perspective. I strongly believe in calling things their correct names. In a reference work being explicit is strongly expected.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See my post on this matter on Talk:Belgrade Offensive, I propose we move the discussion there. Their correct short name is most certainly not "People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia", that must be some other army, a formation known by that name did not exist at all. The fact that they fit the description of what is known as a "People's Liberation Army" is completely irrelevant, only their actual name is relevant. Their correct short name is the "Yugoslav Partisans", no matter the tactics they used, and no matter the fact that you personally find the distinction between partisans and Partisans too complicated and confusing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't like to offer a source for your assertion?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, national armies don't have "short names". The name of the Yugoslav army was a part of the decree of its formation in 1942 I believe.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
National armies do indeed have short names. Ever heard of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army - that'll be the Red Army. The Canadian Forces Mobile Command? 'Canadian Army' to all and sundry. The New Zealand Military Forces? - the NZ Army. You're wrong, Mrg, I'm sorry. Buckshot06(prof) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes Buckshot, thank you for your input. Yet another shot at finding some fault with what I say, and yet again I need to remind you that this is a reference work. In a reference work we try for the benefit of the reader to use the correct name for any organisation if only in the introduction to the subject article, which is not the point here. Short names are not helpful when a given army undergoes a change in its official name, is it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They're all over the place, Britannica uses "Yugoslav Partisans", the US Library of Congress uses "Yugoslav Partisans" (note the capital "P") etc., etc.... Don't tell me these aren't acceptable?, just look at online encyclopedias (Google-it if you don't believe me). I would know, around here, for example, when you say "partisan" (partizan) you are more likely to be understood in the Yugoslav Partisan meaning than the partisan (military) one. Of course, I'm not backing this at all by the local usage, I'm just illustrating to what an extent this name is used.
If Armies don't have short names, why don't we use "Workers' and Peasants' Red Army" instead of "Red Army". One could argue that this was not a "national army". I dare suggest you're looking at this a little too much from your perspective, I can see how you may feel it would be somewhat confusing for a reader, but that's why we have wikilinks, isn't it? and you can always add an explanation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you DIREKTOR, do you actually own any books on the history of the military forces of Yugoslavia? Why would you suppose people would want to look at Wikipedia if all we do is reference it to Britannica? As I explained, there is no need to overuse Red Army, however I'd like to see you and Buckshot here write an article on Soviet - Chinese Communist Party military relationships during the 1930s and 40s using only "Red Army". My point was, and is, that armies do not have short names. The short versions of names may be used for convenience, but hey are not official names. Also, sources need to be relevant to your claims. Preferably they need to be published works in English dedicated to the subject you are editing, and not country data from the Library of Congress. Something with a title like "History of armed forces in Yugoslavia" would be great, thanks--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Britannica, the US Library of Congress, these are reliable sources, I will not discuss this further because it is ridiculous, nor will I waste my time researching this as this is determined primarily by the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I cannot see what you're trying to do here, I didn't create the article, i.e. its title, and let me assure you that the WP name is not determined by published sources. Do I own any books on the subject? Well if you must know, I own a library of books with at least a dozen addressing WW2 Yugoslavia, the problem being that I'm not home for the time being and have just a few available to me, one of which is English, and none of which refer to the Partisans in any other way other than "Partisans".
We are talking about the short name of the movement, use of short names in other encyclopedias (like Britannica) and in general on the Internet is all I need. You seem to be unable to grasp this, what is it that you're trying to do? There is no way the Partisans article will be renamed into "Yugoslav Army" simply because they were an Army during a part of WW2, that does not change their short name and/or the fact that it was equally used regardless of their size and tactics.
I apologize for being so gruff, but please stop bothering me with this, this is like discussing whether the common name for the Republic of France is "France". "Partisans" does not refer to their tactics. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen direktor. If you have this library, you would have no problems providing a reference, but you did not. I on the other hand have a complete set of Britannica, so I can assure you I know what's in it without you telling me that. Oh, and by the way, there is a reference to France being the Republic of France. Here is news for you, WP:COMMONNAME does not determine names of organisations like armies, sources do....notably primary sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said (you may not believe me) I do not have access to it at present. But this is not the issue, tell me, you do not believe me when I say that "the Partisans" was the common name for this organization? At the present I only have one English source (all Yugoslav sources refer to them as "the Partisans") and it calls them "the Partisans".
But I'm not sure what you're proposing... are you saying we should scour every available published work on this period and keep score how many of them use "the Partisans" and how many use "Yugoslav Army"? Though I'd say almost none would be found using the latter term. Do you have a source that uses "Yugoslav Army"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The origins of JNA can be found in the Yugoslav Partisan units of World War II. As a part of the antifascist People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia, the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOVJ), a predecessor of JNA, was formed on December 22, 1941 in the town of Rudo in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the liberation of the country from the Axis Powers occupation, that date was officially celebrated as the Day of the Army in the SFR Yugoslavia. In March of 1945, the NOVJ was renamed the Yugoslav Army (Jugoslovenska Armija) and finally on its 10th anniversary on December 22, 1951, received the adjective People's (i.e. Narodna).[citation needed]

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

omg so that's the problem, I thought you were talking about "Yugoslav Army"! Ok, we appear to have a misunderstanding here: "People's Liberation Army and Partisan detachments of Yugoslavia" was not their name for no reason, you see they had "regular" units and "irregular" ones, however "regular" they may have been. The regulars ("Assault" and "Proletarian" Brigades) were capable of operating outside their own area and were called "People's Liberation Army", while the irregulars (more or less all other formations) were the "Partisan detachments" (of Yugoslavia). The "People's Liberation Army" part was the foundation for the national Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija, JNA), yes, but it was only part of the organization whose full official name was "People's Liberation Army and Partisan detachments of Yugoslavia", and the common short name would be "the (Yugoslav) Partisans".[citation needed] (Anyway where is that from, it sounds familiar?) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I cannot get my hands on the books at the moment, and since you only accept non-online sources I don't know what to say... On a personal note, I can't believe you think I'm lying or something... I wonder if you found references about "Partisan" use ion your own sources but aren't mentioning them on purpose. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)