Talk:Gudovac massacre

FA nom

Wouldn't it be better to run this through GA and Milhist A-Class before making a run at FA? Just wondering, not a reflection on the quality of the article at this point in time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't have gone through the whole process fast enough by 28 April. Besides, there's no rule that says an article has to go through GA and A-Class first. 23 editor (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Poem

How about adding to "Explanatory notes" the poem that was carved on the Gudovac monument (p. 254)? It is short and uncomplicated to translate, but if you pursue the policy of no user-translated material in articles, it can be omitted too. Anyway, I'll post my translation of it (six verses): They loved the sun and laughter, They wanted bread for everyone in the world And that a human do not kill a human. The sowers of darkness and hate Took their lives away; Their deaths must not be in vain. (Voljeli su sunce i smijeh, Htjeli su kruha za sve na svijetu I da čovjek ne ubija čovjeka. Sijači mraka i mržnje Oduzeše im život; Njihova smrt ne smije biti uzaludna.) The book was published in Zagreb by Ured za informacije Izvršnog vijeća Sabora Narodne Republike Hrvatske. Vladimir (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection. 23 editor (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Vladimir (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Which variant of English is this article intended to be in? At the moment it has both. It can't remain a FA in this state. --John (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been in British Canadian English since this revision by 23 editor. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I figured this out. It would be helpful next time to add an ENGVAR template. --John (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The article should remain in the English variant it was first created in, per our guidelines.104.169.27.100 (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Gudovac

Some parts of the text could be added to Gudovac, which is extremely short.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Far from featured article

First of all, a huge portion of the article is redundant, i.e. an unnecessary repetition of the information accessible through the article internal links: Background and Prelude sections. Out of the text effective 7.5 pages these two sections contain 3 full pages.

After we have use of unreliable and disqualified sources: Judah disqualified by Dusan Djordjevich, a Stanford University scholar, Charles Simic, and D.B. Macdonald, Tomasevic - an amateur historian

The statement: Their superiors demanded a partial exhumation of the gravesite, ordered that the exhumed corpses be photographed, and requested an investigation, as well as the arrest and punishment, of those responsible. is false. The exumation was complete and all corpses were photographed by German military doctor Ziegler. The overal number of exumated bodies was 187 and one who survived (Despic, from Klokocevac village)

The statement: Estimates of the number of victims vary. Marko Attila Hoare, a historian specializing in the Balkans, puts the figure at 184 killed.[41] The journalist Tim Judah writes that there were 187 fatalities.[38] Other historians, such as Ivo Goldstein and Mark Biondich, mention 196 deaths.[39][40] makes no sense. As we see from the above, the number of corpses was 187, by exhumation. Overall number of arrested by Ustashe was 200. According to the R. Kovac research in late 1940, the overall number of executed was 196. R. Kovac was a head of the Bjelovar Museum dedicated to the Gudovac massacre.

WP:WEASEL "Marko Attila Hoare, a historian specializing in the Balkans ...", "Most modern historians agree that the Ustaše killed over 300,000 Serbs ..."

I removed all redundancies and some false statements and came to a more coherent version of the article in my sandbox. However, my version can be further trimmed and improved by using and adding more reliable sources (Bulajic, Karaula, for example)--Bocin kolega (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I disagree with your characterisation of the article, and with your dismissal of Judah and Tomasevich. If you have a problem with a source, best go to the reliable sources noticeboard to get a community view on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not dismiss Judah, a journalist. He was dismissed by Dusan Djordjevich, a Stanford University scholar, by David B. McDonald a London School of Economics and Political Sciences scholar. I have no problem with sources, it has the article author for biased approach to this topic. A "community" first shall be at a scholar level, and the discussion place shall be Journal of International Studies, or Humanities and Social Sciences Online, or London Review of Books.--Bocin kolega (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)