24 June 2017
14 June 2017
"mass execution" in lead (it's 2:1 on the talk page) and it is supported by sources; nobody is proposing to re-title the article
13 June 2017
This sentence seems arbitrary. What modern scholars approve of this? And it's a massacre, so disgust is rather expected.
sp 'christianize' is a verb ≈
3 April 2017
13 November 2016
3 August 2016
23 June 2016
21 June 2016
6 June 2016
"Mass execution" is POV, sources overwhelmingly refer to it as a massacre, there's zero question about that, "cult" is misleading
5 June 2016
2 June 2016
22 May 2016
Appreciated! However, since links tend to be preferred in the body, I switched 'em around. While having the redlink in the lede might more readily encourage someone to translate the German article which is appended, it is a bit of an eyesore.
→Controversy within German nationalism and Nazi Germany: no article, already redlinked in lead
21 May 2016
This did not happen in 772.
Undid revision 721378918 by Bermicourt (talk) Lol, it's in the name of the item. "Mass execution" is inaccurate and frankly bizarre.
We have massacre in the title. We need to explain what it was in the lede. Massacre is too general and, by the dictionary definition, not accurate. It's also not helpful to say "the massacre was a massacre".
20 May 2016
Charlemagne, who ordered the massacre, isn't mentioned until the third sentence?
What's with this wiggling around about massacre? "Mass execution" is bullshit—the very name of the event in English refers to it as a massacre. The Saxons were also *captive*, which is totally uncontroversial.
consistency and readabilitym
"mass execution of 4,500 Saxons" is more informative and less misleading than "massacre of 4,500 captive Saxons"
the first efforts to "exonerate" Charlemagne date to the 1870s
19 May 2016
18 May 2016
→Scholarship: More wording adjustment
Undid revision 720875184 by Bloodofox (talk) I see now that this was in fact reworded
Undid revision 720868408 by Srnec (talk) You've got the source. The issue is wording—don't present theory in wikivoice, you know better.
→Sources: more annals
you should have reworded if you had an issue, and not just removed sourced material from a leading scholar
→Controversy within German nationalism and Nazi Germany: Hmm.. Can't find much mention of this but I can find a Widukinddenkmal in Herford
A big chunk of this article is about how Nazi Germany handled the legacy of Charlemagne, the massacre at Verden being a big part of this. Whether or not we use the term "leading", mention needs to be in the lead on how Nazi Germany handled Charlemagne.
→Scholarship: This paragraph needs to be removed until it's rewritten: a lot of this is opinion but written in Wiki-voice. We can relay what she says but not relay it as fact.
17 May 2016
it was Verden then, but it wasn't Lower Saxonym
again, it did not "lead to" Nazi Germany's celebration of Charlemagne
Why are we highlighting one scholar's interpretation against convention here? Moved to "scholarship".
→Sources: This just redirects to Royal Frankish Annals
This is English Wikipedia and we're not dependent on German scholarship. We can make a section discussing this topic (it's pretty interesting) but the English is not a translation of the German.
Rv: The lead is a summary of the contents of the article and even this is too barebones (see WP:LEAD). "Mass execution" just redirects to mass murder.
oops, superfluous word removed
Aiming to make the lede more of a factual summary, focussed on the event, leaving the detail to the following sections.