Talk:Kraljevo massacre
 | Kraljevo massacre has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 18, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kraljevo massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from Kraljevo massacre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Deletion of material from Byford edit
The following material has been deleted from the article:
The social scientist Jovan Byford notes that German reprisal shootings against non-Serbs in the occupied territory did not provoke a similar response.[1]
but the edit summaries do not adequately explain why this is being repeatedly deleted. So far the edit summaries used have stated "Fanciful invention by somebody who wasn't there removed" and "Source refers to itself? Not allowed. Also weighting. See WP:UNDUE" There is nothing undue about it, it is only one sentence from Byford, who is a reliable source, and it is directly relevant to this massacre and the response to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Byford 2011, p. 120.
General Review + Source Expansion edit
After reviewing this article and its history section, I think that this article could benefit from a general review and revision by a new contributor.
The fact that one user has been allowed to author over 95% of this article seems to contradict Wikipedia's spirit of collective knowledge. Although the content of this article itself seems exceptionally well written, the sole authorship of Amanuensis Balkanicus allows their interpretations to reign supreme in a particularly touchy area of 20th century history.
Additionally, as it covers an incident within the greater context of Balkan history, this page could benefit from the inclusion of more sources originating from the region, instead of mostly western texts.
Thank you for your consideration School Project9191 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- G’day, this is often the case, as it is common for one editor to pull together an article. Others have contributed through reviews and checks. Care must be taken with the use of local sources, as they can be heavily biased towards one side or the other, and historical revisionism has been rife in the countries of former Yugoslavia for a considerable period. Perhaps you could suggest what sources might be added and we could discuss that here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)