This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking at the Wikipedia page NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, it seems like "Operation Allied Force" is not the best phrase to use to refer to the bombing because it had multiple codenames. Should this page's title be changed to "Civilian Casualties during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" to be more consistent with the main article about the bombing? 李艾连 ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As it stands, the title of this article is very biased. It seems to imply that the civilian deaths were intentionally caused by the US military, which is an assertion not backed up by the sources. I would suggest changing to title to "Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force." Also, i'm not sure why each incident needs its own article, as they could all be covered well within this main article. Dchall1 07:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I would question the need for most of these daughter articles. The Chinese embassy bombing seemed to get a lot of independent media coverage, but are any of these notable outside of the fact that they were one instance of civilian casualties inflicted during Operation Allied Force? Savidan 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Knowing how the smart bomb operates with GPRS coordinates and camera tracking, you wish to say that equipment mailfunctioned in 22 cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.54.146 ( talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged four of the smaller articles for merger into this article. None of them is longer than four paragraphs, and would be better covered within this article. Dchall1 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is incomplete. There are a lot of more incidents.
The 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad article could also be included into this corpus (seems separated from the others). -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
According to military historian and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren:
Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum rei publicae causa ( Henry Wotton). This figure may be right, but is it for the number of people killed by NATO or the causality on both sides during the war (It was an ethnic cleansing campaign that initiated the bombing campaign)? Alternatively as no source is given for who collected the numbers how do we know they do not come from the Serbs a party to the conflict who have a reason to distort the figures? The numbers are not coming from a disinterested party (Oren has a point to make for his country) and as such may well be biased. Without a disinterested (academic) source to back it up or a repost from a similar political motivated source, the quote fails NPOV. -- PBS ( talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You don`t get the message. Casaulties caused by NATO only had ratio 4:1. Very few soldiers died during that campaign, mainly people in hospitals, babies, employes of TV stations and embassies. Camapign of ethnic clensing was never proven (even it was often in previous
Balkan wars) that so called "operation horseshoe"). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.105.54.146 (
talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking at the Wikipedia page NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, it seems like "Operation Allied Force" is not the best phrase to use to refer to the bombing because it had multiple codenames. Should this page's title be changed to "Civilian Casualties during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" to be more consistent with the main article about the bombing? 李艾连 ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As it stands, the title of this article is very biased. It seems to imply that the civilian deaths were intentionally caused by the US military, which is an assertion not backed up by the sources. I would suggest changing to title to "Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force." Also, i'm not sure why each incident needs its own article, as they could all be covered well within this main article. Dchall1 07:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I would question the need for most of these daughter articles. The Chinese embassy bombing seemed to get a lot of independent media coverage, but are any of these notable outside of the fact that they were one instance of civilian casualties inflicted during Operation Allied Force? Savidan 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Knowing how the smart bomb operates with GPRS coordinates and camera tracking, you wish to say that equipment mailfunctioned in 22 cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.54.146 ( talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged four of the smaller articles for merger into this article. None of them is longer than four paragraphs, and would be better covered within this article. Dchall1 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is incomplete. There are a lot of more incidents.
The 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad article could also be included into this corpus (seems separated from the others). -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
According to military historian and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren:
Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum rei publicae causa ( Henry Wotton). This figure may be right, but is it for the number of people killed by NATO or the causality on both sides during the war (It was an ethnic cleansing campaign that initiated the bombing campaign)? Alternatively as no source is given for who collected the numbers how do we know they do not come from the Serbs a party to the conflict who have a reason to distort the figures? The numbers are not coming from a disinterested party (Oren has a point to make for his country) and as such may well be biased. Without a disinterested (academic) source to back it up or a repost from a similar political motivated source, the quote fails NPOV. -- PBS ( talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You don`t get the message. Casaulties caused by NATO only had ratio 4:1. Very few soldiers died during that campaign, mainly people in hospitals, babies, employes of TV stations and embassies. Camapign of ethnic clensing was never proven (even it was often in previous
Balkan wars) that so called "operation horseshoe"). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.105.54.146 (
talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)