 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perović has been cherrypicked, given nothing has been added to this article about Keserović being captured by the Germans and then released thanks to the influence of the collaborationist Kosta Pećanac, as well as the information that Keserović attacked early, then as soon as the Partisans attacked on the appointed day, Keserović withdrew, leaving the Partisans to fight the Germans alone. It also has nothing about the Chetniks conscripting unarmed peasants but the Partisans relying on volunteers. The article has been written with a pro-Chetnik POV, and I have tagged it accordingly until I can get to examining Perović and providing a more balanced account. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- The POV tag is not justified.
-
The current text of the article clearly says:
The post-war Yugoslav sources blamed Keserović for the failure of the attack on Kruševac.[25] These sources accuse Keserović of attacking the German garrison earlier than agreed and for halting the attack when Partisan forces joined the attack.
- On the other hand statement
leaving the Partisans to fight the Germans alone
is incorrect. On the first day Keserović and his unit fought alone, while starting from the second day Chetnik Stalać Detachment and communists fought this battle. - Lack of information about the Keserovićs capture and release and about way of conscripting has nothing to do with
a pro-Chetnik POV
and do not warant POV tag, so I will remove it. Lack of information about chetnik commander being captured by Germans or how few dozens of people volutarily joined communists can hardly be seen as pro-Chetnik POV. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is entirely justified, on the grounds I've outlined.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- You have now made it worse, by adding material not related to this attack but relating to events that took place three years later. I have tagged the section appropriately. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
-
The current text of the article clearly says:
- I added (
diff) some material based on the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which explicitly says that articles about battles should have aftermath section to provide additional information, including:
Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next?
. It is very common practice to have aftermath section which describes what happened next, even if that was many years after the main topic date. The communist attempt to capture Krusevac in 1941 failed, but their attempt to do so in 1944 was sucess, at least for them, not for their victims. Here, take for example Albanian revolt of 1432–1436 article. You promoted it to GA status ( diff) although it includes events (ie. LoL) that happened more than eight years after the date covered with main topic, not to mention different territory and different people which were included. The tag you added diff is not justified and I will remove it.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)- That is an extremely long bow to draw. The 1944-1945 purges have been investigated multiple times, and are disputed and subject to all sorts of POV. Yet you use just one version of events, and do not explain that there are disputes about how many of those killed were killed in fighting and how many were killed after being disarmed or surrendering, or even after being absorbed into the Partisans. In any case, what connection do they have with this attack? None that is explained in this article. That is why I placed the tag and have reinstated it. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The second half of the second paragraph, from
After the regime of communists in Serbia ended...
onwards, and the 1944 photographs, are clearly off-topic. - Ryk72 talk 12:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I added (
diff) some material based on the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which explicitly says that articles about battles should have aftermath section to provide additional information, including:
User:Antidiskriminator pinged me about this discussion (for the record, we don't always agree). I don't think the section, or the paragraph in the section is off-topic or out of scope. However, there is the issue of WP:UNDUE. Do sources which discuss events of 1941 also usually discuss the events of 1944? It seems that something about it belongs in here but how much and how to write it is an open question. Right now that paragraph seems to be using only a primary source, or at least one that is "close to the event". Antidiskriminator, can you provide another secondary source about the info? Volunteer Marek 23:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Volunteer Marek for your confirmation that the text of the section is not off-topic. I do not think that the source I used is primary source, nor it is even remotely close to the event. The source is commission established 64 years after the event in question. Its members ( link to list of members) include 24 people, most of them scholars specialized in the subject. I will provide additional sources. Best regards.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 09:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll remove it until we have better sourcing. - Ryk72 talk 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Start-Class Serbia articles
- Low-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- Start-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perović has been cherrypicked, given nothing has been added to this article about Keserović being captured by the Germans and then released thanks to the influence of the collaborationist Kosta Pećanac, as well as the information that Keserović attacked early, then as soon as the Partisans attacked on the appointed day, Keserović withdrew, leaving the Partisans to fight the Germans alone. It also has nothing about the Chetniks conscripting unarmed peasants but the Partisans relying on volunteers. The article has been written with a pro-Chetnik POV, and I have tagged it accordingly until I can get to examining Perović and providing a more balanced account. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- The POV tag is not justified.
-
The current text of the article clearly says:
The post-war Yugoslav sources blamed Keserović for the failure of the attack on Kruševac.[25] These sources accuse Keserović of attacking the German garrison earlier than agreed and for halting the attack when Partisan forces joined the attack.
- On the other hand statement
leaving the Partisans to fight the Germans alone
is incorrect. On the first day Keserović and his unit fought alone, while starting from the second day Chetnik Stalać Detachment and communists fought this battle. - Lack of information about the Keserovićs capture and release and about way of conscripting has nothing to do with
a pro-Chetnik POV
and do not warant POV tag, so I will remove it. Lack of information about chetnik commander being captured by Germans or how few dozens of people volutarily joined communists can hardly be seen as pro-Chetnik POV. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is entirely justified, on the grounds I've outlined.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- You have now made it worse, by adding material not related to this attack but relating to events that took place three years later. I have tagged the section appropriately. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
-
The current text of the article clearly says:
- I added (
diff) some material based on the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which explicitly says that articles about battles should have aftermath section to provide additional information, including:
Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next?
. It is very common practice to have aftermath section which describes what happened next, even if that was many years after the main topic date. The communist attempt to capture Krusevac in 1941 failed, but their attempt to do so in 1944 was sucess, at least for them, not for their victims. Here, take for example Albanian revolt of 1432–1436 article. You promoted it to GA status ( diff) although it includes events (ie. LoL) that happened more than eight years after the date covered with main topic, not to mention different territory and different people which were included. The tag you added diff is not justified and I will remove it.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)- That is an extremely long bow to draw. The 1944-1945 purges have been investigated multiple times, and are disputed and subject to all sorts of POV. Yet you use just one version of events, and do not explain that there are disputes about how many of those killed were killed in fighting and how many were killed after being disarmed or surrendering, or even after being absorbed into the Partisans. In any case, what connection do they have with this attack? None that is explained in this article. That is why I placed the tag and have reinstated it. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The second half of the second paragraph, from
After the regime of communists in Serbia ended...
onwards, and the 1944 photographs, are clearly off-topic. - Ryk72 talk 12:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I added (
diff) some material based on the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which explicitly says that articles about battles should have aftermath section to provide additional information, including:
User:Antidiskriminator pinged me about this discussion (for the record, we don't always agree). I don't think the section, or the paragraph in the section is off-topic or out of scope. However, there is the issue of WP:UNDUE. Do sources which discuss events of 1941 also usually discuss the events of 1944? It seems that something about it belongs in here but how much and how to write it is an open question. Right now that paragraph seems to be using only a primary source, or at least one that is "close to the event". Antidiskriminator, can you provide another secondary source about the info? Volunteer Marek 23:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Volunteer Marek for your confirmation that the text of the section is not off-topic. I do not think that the source I used is primary source, nor it is even remotely close to the event. The source is commission established 64 years after the event in question. Its members ( link to list of members) include 24 people, most of them scholars specialized in the subject. I will provide additional sources. Best regards.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 09:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll remove it until we have better sourcing. - Ryk72 talk 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Start-Class Serbia articles
- Low-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- Start-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles