This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I am against the anonymouly proposed merge. This article has got potential and there is plenty of information out there to bring it out its stub status. E Asterion u talking to me? 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please tell me guys if this disambiguation (which I've just created) is ok (neutral, etc) thanks.-- Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 04:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge. This start class article already has more information than can be contained in the simple list, and can easily be expanded. -- Knulclunk 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a conversation that started on my talk page:
Is this event more notable than 9/11? The 9/11 article does not list all of its victims anywhere in the article except for listing the names of those victims who were famous for something else other than just being victims of the attacks as well as providing an external link to the list of those confirmed killed. Granted, almost 3,000 people died in 9/11, but wouldn't it then be in poor taste to say that the NATO bombing list is appropriate simply because it is shorter? There is no assertion of notability for any of the NATO bombing victims outside the lone fact that they died in the event and that, in my mind and according to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, makes the list somewhat innapropriate for a Wikipedia article. Besides, there is an external link that lists those names. SWik78 ( talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Не написано даже то что по заключению ряда авторитетных международных организаций, следящих за соблюдением прав человека, включая «Международная амнистия» и «Human Rights Watch», разгром телестудии подпадает под разряд военных преступлений. 87.249.213.27 ( talk) 13:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the story with the pic? Is it or is it not a pic of the RTS buildings after the airstrike? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Over at Radio Television of Serbia, it says that the building was "demolished and partly burned" in protests in 2000 - it was, after all, a Milošević mouthpiece. The photo was taken in 2005. Why, then, is the photo used to portray damage caused by the NATO airstrike in 1999? bobrayner ( talk) 12:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
oh yeah. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
If any editor is interested in the true elements about Serbian nationalism and its links to the pre-2000 administration, I present a short list of discussions and main space sections to clarify the point. I see how the sources for the text I changed alluded to "nationalism" but in similar fashion to claims of a 'Serb military' for the FRY period, simplification and erroneous labelling even in newpapers did run contrary to established principles. So here is a list of areas where the point has been addressed:
Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This edit and the content it inserts aren't supported by the sources it provides. As mentioned above, the NY Times mention "Belgrade TV" (2 years before the bombing), and the two others sources also fail to mention "RTS"'s activities in such a manner (the Judah ref doesn't even come with a page number). 23 editor ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a few available, which should be used in this article: here are two [2], [3]. I suggest these are far better sources than news reports. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
After all that talk about high quality sourcing, I'm surprised that we're now plumbing the depths of lit-crit in order to find a source which supports Antidiskriminator's preferred stance:
[5]
Must have taken a while browsing Google Books to find a source which said the right thing... and the new text is a close paraphrase too! If you want more sourced content, I'll happily add some from more reliable sources.
bobrayner (
talk) 00:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Bobrayner felt a need to group two sentences together stemming from the 2011 RTS-issued apology into a subsection called "Role of RTS"!? I guess an apology suddenly became a role. Also, the second sentence "RTS also stated in the apology that there was no doubt that the state media were under the direct control of the late President of Serbia Slobodan Milošević and that Serbian state media were used by Milošević as a war tool for inciting ethnic hatred and deceiving his people in order to get the support needed to continue waging war in the former Yugoslavia" has ZERO support in the actual apology text. 99.226.44.125 ( talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Why does Chomsky's editorialising get a whole new section of its own, when even RTS' own role in the war is cut down? Surely some mistake. bobrayner ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Why was the studio complex targeted when attacking the transmission infrastructure(which had much greater "dual use" potential) would have been more effective in their objective in getting RTS off the air (for longer) while probably killing fewer civilians and wouldn't have destroyed any cultural archive material ? 90.200.110.103 ( talk) 21:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Re edits by User:91.148.93.34 - First [6] that's not how this works. You don't make highly POV changes and then "promise" to "go to the talk page". Second these edits are disruptive in that they remove reliably sourced text, give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe views and some of them are just silly. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not all of it, but a mention of Chomsky's views would suffice. Something along the lines of: "Professor Noam Chomsky characterized it as a deliberate attack against journalists and later compared the attack to the Charlie Hebdo shooting." The rest is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. 23 editor ( talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any realistic reason why is sourced section about Comparisons removed from this article? It is very much relevant with the subject of this article, as both things are attacks on journalism. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There has been for the last month a cycle of removing content and then restoring that content. None of those involved have at any point used the talk page. This is the content (citing the last edit made in the cycle)
[10].
This content involves a quote; actually it almost entirely comprises a quote. This quote is by far the longest of any quotation in the article, it is the only quote from a journalistic source rather than one made by an expert or agency, and it is an anonymous quote: it comes from an article that has no named author. The quote expresses an extremist and absolutist opinion in rhetorical language that is not neutral ("blatantly spread"; "whipping up"; "onslaught", etc.). Consider the advice in
WP:QUOTE: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful." And from
WP:NN-QUOTE "Ask yourself - if this quotation was rewritten to be a direct statement in the Wikipedia "editorial voice", rather than a quotation, without changing its essential message, would it be acceptable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines? If the answer is "probably not", this is an indication (though not a proof) that the quotation might not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia." Much of this quote is also off topic - it has content about "anti-government protests in March 1991" (long before the events covered in this article). This, in its original context, is editorializing for effect: grouping together separate events in order to support the overall pov message. Editorializing like this is common in opinion-piece newspaper articles, but it should not be allowed into quotations used on Wikipedia. Even setting aside the off-topic material, the opinions expressed in this quote are not in agreement with more authoritative named sources. The quote claims "It [the TV station's "propaganda"] also prompted Nato in 1999 to declare the state TV a legitimate target. However, we have the UN report stating the "TV station's broadcasts to generate support for the war was not sufficient to make the RTS building a military target" and that the "primary goal" of the NATO bombing was "disabling the Serbian military command and control system", i.e., nothing to do with "propaganda" broadcasts.
In short, I think this quotation should go because it adds imbalance to the article, it is anonymous, it contains claims that go against that found in more reliable named sources, its wording goes against that recommended on advice pages on quotation usage, and it contains off-topic content editorialized for pov effect. I fully support efforts to remove this content.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"With the bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, NATO recognized that media is a weapon during war.<ref name="Scott2007">{{cite book|author=Neda Atanasoski|editor=Niall Scott|title=Monsters and the Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IzVJvx_snDUC&pg=PA72|accessdate=27 August 2013|year=2007|publisher=Rodopi|isbn=978-90-420-2253-9|page=73|quote=By destroying RTS, the alliance affirmed that it recognized the media as a weapon during times of war - though, paradoxically, they only acknowledged it to be a weapon in the enemy's hands.}}</ref>"
The second part of the quote makes it clear this is a comment on the hypocrisy of what we can only hypothesize is NATO's position. The first part of the quote sounds like it is a description. I would prefer to scrap the whole thing, much as the complete statement seems true to my POV. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I am against the anonymouly proposed merge. This article has got potential and there is plenty of information out there to bring it out its stub status. E Asterion u talking to me? 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please tell me guys if this disambiguation (which I've just created) is ok (neutral, etc) thanks.-- Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 04:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge. This start class article already has more information than can be contained in the simple list, and can easily be expanded. -- Knulclunk 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a conversation that started on my talk page:
Is this event more notable than 9/11? The 9/11 article does not list all of its victims anywhere in the article except for listing the names of those victims who were famous for something else other than just being victims of the attacks as well as providing an external link to the list of those confirmed killed. Granted, almost 3,000 people died in 9/11, but wouldn't it then be in poor taste to say that the NATO bombing list is appropriate simply because it is shorter? There is no assertion of notability for any of the NATO bombing victims outside the lone fact that they died in the event and that, in my mind and according to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, makes the list somewhat innapropriate for a Wikipedia article. Besides, there is an external link that lists those names. SWik78 ( talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Не написано даже то что по заключению ряда авторитетных международных организаций, следящих за соблюдением прав человека, включая «Международная амнистия» и «Human Rights Watch», разгром телестудии подпадает под разряд военных преступлений. 87.249.213.27 ( talk) 13:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the story with the pic? Is it or is it not a pic of the RTS buildings after the airstrike? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Over at Radio Television of Serbia, it says that the building was "demolished and partly burned" in protests in 2000 - it was, after all, a Milošević mouthpiece. The photo was taken in 2005. Why, then, is the photo used to portray damage caused by the NATO airstrike in 1999? bobrayner ( talk) 12:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
oh yeah. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
If any editor is interested in the true elements about Serbian nationalism and its links to the pre-2000 administration, I present a short list of discussions and main space sections to clarify the point. I see how the sources for the text I changed alluded to "nationalism" but in similar fashion to claims of a 'Serb military' for the FRY period, simplification and erroneous labelling even in newpapers did run contrary to established principles. So here is a list of areas where the point has been addressed:
Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This edit and the content it inserts aren't supported by the sources it provides. As mentioned above, the NY Times mention "Belgrade TV" (2 years before the bombing), and the two others sources also fail to mention "RTS"'s activities in such a manner (the Judah ref doesn't even come with a page number). 23 editor ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a few available, which should be used in this article: here are two [2], [3]. I suggest these are far better sources than news reports. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
After all that talk about high quality sourcing, I'm surprised that we're now plumbing the depths of lit-crit in order to find a source which supports Antidiskriminator's preferred stance:
[5]
Must have taken a while browsing Google Books to find a source which said the right thing... and the new text is a close paraphrase too! If you want more sourced content, I'll happily add some from more reliable sources.
bobrayner (
talk) 00:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Bobrayner felt a need to group two sentences together stemming from the 2011 RTS-issued apology into a subsection called "Role of RTS"!? I guess an apology suddenly became a role. Also, the second sentence "RTS also stated in the apology that there was no doubt that the state media were under the direct control of the late President of Serbia Slobodan Milošević and that Serbian state media were used by Milošević as a war tool for inciting ethnic hatred and deceiving his people in order to get the support needed to continue waging war in the former Yugoslavia" has ZERO support in the actual apology text. 99.226.44.125 ( talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Why does Chomsky's editorialising get a whole new section of its own, when even RTS' own role in the war is cut down? Surely some mistake. bobrayner ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Why was the studio complex targeted when attacking the transmission infrastructure(which had much greater "dual use" potential) would have been more effective in their objective in getting RTS off the air (for longer) while probably killing fewer civilians and wouldn't have destroyed any cultural archive material ? 90.200.110.103 ( talk) 21:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Re edits by User:91.148.93.34 - First [6] that's not how this works. You don't make highly POV changes and then "promise" to "go to the talk page". Second these edits are disruptive in that they remove reliably sourced text, give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe views and some of them are just silly. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not all of it, but a mention of Chomsky's views would suffice. Something along the lines of: "Professor Noam Chomsky characterized it as a deliberate attack against journalists and later compared the attack to the Charlie Hebdo shooting." The rest is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. 23 editor ( talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any realistic reason why is sourced section about Comparisons removed from this article? It is very much relevant with the subject of this article, as both things are attacks on journalism. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There has been for the last month a cycle of removing content and then restoring that content. None of those involved have at any point used the talk page. This is the content (citing the last edit made in the cycle)
[10].
This content involves a quote; actually it almost entirely comprises a quote. This quote is by far the longest of any quotation in the article, it is the only quote from a journalistic source rather than one made by an expert or agency, and it is an anonymous quote: it comes from an article that has no named author. The quote expresses an extremist and absolutist opinion in rhetorical language that is not neutral ("blatantly spread"; "whipping up"; "onslaught", etc.). Consider the advice in
WP:QUOTE: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful." And from
WP:NN-QUOTE "Ask yourself - if this quotation was rewritten to be a direct statement in the Wikipedia "editorial voice", rather than a quotation, without changing its essential message, would it be acceptable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines? If the answer is "probably not", this is an indication (though not a proof) that the quotation might not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia." Much of this quote is also off topic - it has content about "anti-government protests in March 1991" (long before the events covered in this article). This, in its original context, is editorializing for effect: grouping together separate events in order to support the overall pov message. Editorializing like this is common in opinion-piece newspaper articles, but it should not be allowed into quotations used on Wikipedia. Even setting aside the off-topic material, the opinions expressed in this quote are not in agreement with more authoritative named sources. The quote claims "It [the TV station's "propaganda"] also prompted Nato in 1999 to declare the state TV a legitimate target. However, we have the UN report stating the "TV station's broadcasts to generate support for the war was not sufficient to make the RTS building a military target" and that the "primary goal" of the NATO bombing was "disabling the Serbian military command and control system", i.e., nothing to do with "propaganda" broadcasts.
In short, I think this quotation should go because it adds imbalance to the article, it is anonymous, it contains claims that go against that found in more reliable named sources, its wording goes against that recommended on advice pages on quotation usage, and it contains off-topic content editorialized for pov effect. I fully support efforts to remove this content.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"With the bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, NATO recognized that media is a weapon during war.<ref name="Scott2007">{{cite book|author=Neda Atanasoski|editor=Niall Scott|title=Monsters and the Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IzVJvx_snDUC&pg=PA72|accessdate=27 August 2013|year=2007|publisher=Rodopi|isbn=978-90-420-2253-9|page=73|quote=By destroying RTS, the alliance affirmed that it recognized the media as a weapon during times of war - though, paradoxically, they only acknowledged it to be a weapon in the enemy's hands.}}</ref>"
The second part of the quote makes it clear this is a comment on the hypocrisy of what we can only hypothesize is NATO's position. The first part of the quote sounds like it is a description. I would prefer to scrap the whole thing, much as the complete statement seems true to my POV. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)