Talk:NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

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)[reply]

NATO bombings (disambiguation)[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge[edit]

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)[reply]

List of victims[edit]

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)[reply]

I think the point of WP:NOT#MEMORIALis so you don't put up a page for your dad. The manner of the deaths make the deaths notable, in the way that we list all the victims at Kent State Shootings or Candelária massacre. I wouldn't be opposed to the listing of 9|11 victims, in fact I would be surprised that it hasn't been done. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Почему так скудно написано?[edit]

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)[reply]

Pic[edit]

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)[reply]

Problems with the image[edit]

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)[reply]

thanks Bob. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Somehow I managed to start this section without noticing your comment above - I need more caffeine, sorry. bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two buildings of RTS in Belgrade. One in Aberdareva street which was bombed by Nato and presented by removed picture, and another in Takovska street which part was damaged and burned in 2000 and reconstructed in 2004, before the removed picture was taken. link--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobryner: Will you please be so kind to restore the image you removed during your little edit war?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is a pretty poorly composed photo because it does not provide useful context to help identify its location, but based on this [1] Guardian photo, I tend to agree with Antid. Bob, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I suggest it would be appropriate for you to restore it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bob? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's just been restored by WhiteWriter. So be it... bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobrayner. He restored it because you failed to do it ignoring presented evidence for three days. That was not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, even when I'm spending a weekend in a hotel with no wifi, that makes me an ignorant, unconstructive pov-pusher too!
The persistent inability to assume good faith makes the editing environment very difficult. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exact nature of pre-2000 propaganda[edit]

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)[reply]

Are you suggesting that on-wiki content - which you have edited - should overrule what reliable sources say? bobrayner (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the on-wiki content is itself drawn from what the "reliable sources" say but on this occasion, the souce does not say what the editor here stated anyhow. Either way, my edit does not contradict the statement removed, whether state propaganda preached Serbian nationalism or not, it served the leadership of the country and that is what the article continues to say. It is a question of whether the regime itself was based on conventional nationalism and the overwhelming sources from analysts testify that it wasn't. From the source you have, "For 10 years now, state television has fed the Serbs with an undiluted diet of nationalism" and this selective and tendentious statement fails to even specify whose nationalism was being fed to the Serbs. You know the rules on WP:OR. Furthermore, there were two nations that were part of FR Yugoslavia and one of them is not recognised within Serbian nationalist sentiment. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, 23 editor is still repeatedly removing sources which don't fit that POV. Regardless of the fact that there are multiple reliable sources. Just another day on Balkan topics... bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bring sources which actually describe what you're trying to source. Your misuse of sources is appalling. 23 editor (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that Judah needs a page citation in order to be included. I have just looked at the other sources for the description of why the bombing of RTS was carried out, and I think any sources used need to be those that reflect what NATO itself said about why it conducted the strike, not general commentary on what RTS might have done over the previous ten years. I don't think the current sources do that. What I suggest is that we leave the article alone, discuss the sources here individually (as far as what source supports what), then agree on a lead that reflects what the sources say about why RTS was hit and what followed in terms of investigation and conclusions. But the edit warring about this needs to stop. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bobryner has recently already been warned more than once for edit warring. Tolerating his disruptions and issuing multiple warnings instead of sanctions was wrong. It was obviously understood as some kind of green light to continue with edit warring. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

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)[reply]

Scholarly and reliable non-news sources published by university presses[edit]

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)[reply]

That would be nice in principle; but when I cite this, it almost always gets reverted. bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the use of anything by Tim Judah, and will take any questions about it to RSN. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant if text written by some journalist is published in the newspapers or within a book. It is still a text written by journalist. I agree that scholarly (non-journalist) sources are far better than those written by journalists. Position of Tim Judah is not the only position about the events in former Yugoslavia so WP:NPOV should be respected. There is no need to extensively use his works in articles because there are much better sources written by specialists in the topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day again Ad. Firstly, there is nothing wrong with Judah in terms of WP:RS from the perspective of author or publishing house. The three most relevant (to this topic) books he has published have been published by two of the most prestigious university presses in the world. If there are so many better books by specialists, why don't you use them? It would be unreasonable to expect other editors to work out what these better sources are by ESP. What NPOV has to do with it is beyond me. You draw that policy like a gun, but apparently don't understand it. I expect that those of us who consider Judah to be a reliable scholarly source will continue to use him in this article and others. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not our first discussion. I noticed that your comments about my opinion and arguments I present are often based on misrepresentation of my position which presents my arguments as absurd and ridiculous. I did not say that works of Judah are unreliable nor I said that university presses which published his books are not reputable. I think I clearly stated that there is no need for articles to extensively rely on works of Judah if there are professional specialists who wrote numerous works about events in former Yugoslavia.
  • I do expect that you and small group of editors will continue to extensively use works of Tim Judah.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I trust you will not be disappointed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does Judah have to say about this incident in particular? And Bob, when you cited Judah you didn't mention a page #. [4] See? 23 editor (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new problem[edit]

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)[reply]

It's disappointing that 99.226.44.125 is still trying to blank reliably-sourced content whilst logged out. You should log back in, and try to comply with policy in future. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing that you're inventing claims and statements in a published apology. You should stop inventing sock puppet conspiracies when called out over your edits and try to source properly in the future.99.226.44.125 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First you tried just blanking relevant, sourced content with no excuse at all; when called out on that you blanked it again with a nonsensical comment about other people's edits; when called out on that, you blanked it with the excuse that it's irrelevant (does anyone seriously believe that RTS' apology for their role in the war is irrelevant to an article about RTS being bombed for their role in the war?), then you blanked it again with the same absurd excuse, and now you've blanked it again with a new and completely different excuse. I can't wait to see the next excuse!
I, too, would be embarrassed to say such things whilst logged in. bobrayner (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You not only have a severe problem with sourcing properly, you have an even worse problem when it comes to summarizing the order and the gist of the edits. But leaving aside for a moment your poor attempts at diverting attention from the fact you injected a personal POV claim and tried to pass it off as being part of a source..... Why did you attribute a personal POV statement to a source that says nothing of the sort? Why are you trying to present an "apology" as a "role"? Why are you continuing to falsely present the apology even on the talk page discussions? (RTS' apology doesn't say a word about "their role in the war" (your term) - this is entirely your own POV concoction not supported by what the apology actually says). I initially assumed you wouldn't be so brazen as to invent entire personal POV claims and hide them under a source that doesn't make them hoping nobody notices, so I assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to sourcing, but I see I was very wrong. Blanking a two-sentence paragraph grouped into a subsection that presents an "apology" as a "role" - inane misrepresentations (that are woefully wrongly sourced on top of that) were hardly worth my time to explain, but since you wanted one there you go.... Please, somewhere in-between your sock puppet conspiracy theories, do try to address some of these specific questions.99.226.44.125 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Role of RTS as seen by bobrayner in RTS' 2011 apology[edit]

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)[reply]

It's not really a reason to delete it all along with the sources. I've reverted you, but addressed the issue you pointed out in a way that should make it more neutral. - Anonimski (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to read all this discussion in the aftermath of Paris attack to Charlie Hebdo. Are we all Charlie? Should Charlie Hebdo apology for their cartoons? The public outcry for "freedom of speech" would put in perspective this episode of the RTS bombing, and the neutrality of the discussion about the apology. I wrote this after reading this comment by Chomsky, to contribute to the discussion about the neutrality of the article --Oakwood (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have, reluctantly, reverted a recent edit because it implied that Chomsky was disagreeing with a position held just by NATO, whilst in reality a number of reliable sources have held the same thing, to the extent that we should just state the position as fact rather than as "Nato argued that...". bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a critical article which should improve NPOV, and phrased it so that the text can't imply that NATO is alone in the view (which already has been clarified earlier, in the lead part of the page), only stating that it was the main argument that was used for the raid. - Anonimski (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on Chomsky[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Nope, no mistake has been done - the RTS apology is still covered in a proper way, and actually mentioned ahead of Chomsky. That section was just trimmed down because part of it didn't have any representation in the source material. The relevant part is still there. Chomsky's view is appropriate to include because he is an eminent and widely cited political scientist, especially on topics related to conflicts. The recent article that User:Oakwood provided, where Chomsky discussed this incident, got a large exposure due to its publication by CNN, and contributes to describe the multitude of views on the 1999 bombing, with an interesting comparison to the 2015 attacks against journalists and others in Paris. Regarding the previous part - if you find another source with more background info on the apology statement that RTS issued in 2011, I guess it could be constructive to expand that section a bit. - Anonimski (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of target[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits[edit]

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)[reply]

No, no you didn't. You need to get consensus for this material, which probably won't happen since you're 1) removing reliably sourced text and 2) inserting fringe material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There had already been ambulances, tractors, and bridges targeted by NATO bombing, but the TV station bombing was very much a crossing the Rubicon moment in the acceptance of the targeting of civilian assets, especially journalists. What had formerly only been committed by terrorists or irregular guerrilla forces was now to be committed by the armed forces of major powers. I support the addition of the mention of Chomsky's opinions on the bombing. However, some of the other additions seem off-topic, with nothing directly to do with the subject of this article. Some people alleging that some other people are misusing some unspecified aspects of Chomsky's opinions has nothing to do with the bombing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
I also support the deletion for now of the probably extremist position expressed by The Guardian that "It also prompted Nato in 1999 to declare the state TV a legitimate target": the article's wording implies both that it was in some way a normal and natural military decision for NATO to make and that NATO had actually issued some sort of public statement to that effect before the station was targeted. These are extreme viewpoints that require more than one source. I would like to see in the article some contemporary to the bombing media statements which would place any statements made by NATO at the time in context. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
The Guardian is reliable source, it's not "extremist". The Chomsky piece and the Charlie Hebdo comparison are fringe and undue. You can always start an RfC about its inclusion. Rest of your comments boil down to your own personal original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That does not justify the insertion of weasel falsehoods. The Guardian is implying that NATO had issued a statement in advance that the TV station was a legitimate target. It had not (the ICTY report makes that clear). NATO claimed the TV station was a legitimate target only after it had targeted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
I support leaving Chomsky's remarks, though having an entire section dedicated to his opinions is too much and should be condensed considerably. 23 editor (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? There's a brief mention in CNN. That's about it. Not actually notable. BTW, is this Sretenjski orden very notable? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proceed at your own discretion regarding the decoration. I personally think it deviates from the topic of the article. Chomsky is one of the most important public intellectuals of the last century, so yes, his comments are worthy of inclusion (though not to the extent they were earlier—WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK problems). 23 editor (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the most important public intellectuals of the last century" - in some circles. In general? No. And any comparisons to Charlie Hebdo are both stupid and undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky wrote quite a bit about the NATO bombing campaign at the time it was happening - did he write anything specific about this bombing at the time or shortly after? If there was such material, it would be better to place his views re the comparison with the Charlie Hebdo shooting (a recent event) in the context of earlier opinions. To out-of-the-blue compare a recent event with something that happened in 1999 is jarring and doesn't seem that credible a scenario. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
Regarding the undue and coatrack issues. To address those issues, from the original content I have deleted this [7] as being pointless material, this [8] as editorialized original research (the source is a book published in 2008, so it cannot have mentioned a 2015 opinion), and this [9] as coatracking for effect - there is no content in the cited source that says he got the award as a result of making his comparison opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
Volunteer Marek said: "Second these edits are disruptive in that they remove reliably sourced text, give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe views." Reliably text source was again removed. The text addition of which is being discussed was partially included. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In right-wing, warmongering, Republican circles: no, he isn't seen as one of the most important intellectuals. In other circles, yes , he is. 23 editor (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, in non-crazy people circles. And brigaded online polls don't mean crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to initiate an RfC. Just because you are ideologically opposed to a leading intellectual does not make him worthy of outright exclusion. 23 editor (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you Marek dont think someone is important, its only your WP:POV. I also cannot believe we are even discussing this. Chomsky! One of the most cited scholars in history, one of the founders of the field of cognitive science, Professor Emeritus, the father of modern linguistics! Please, lets be serious. That sourced, relevant, important section must be restored to the article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone thinking Chomsky is not an extremely influential intellectual has serious bias issues. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And who might you be? 23 editor (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with removing Chomsky section and replacing with above sentence in reaction-section.--Zoupan 20:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Characterized can be a weasel word that can imply doubt or invalidity - Chomsky in the article states the bombing was "an attack on the press", there is no vagueness in that statement, no characterization. The article also mentions that Chomsky's book A New Generation Draws the Line, from 2001, enquires into the bombing. So, ideally, there should be two parts to the Chomsky content - the first part containing opinions made closer to the event, with the comments he made much more recently as a response to the Charlie Hebdo attack comprising the second part. It is also necessary to give the essence of what the comparison consisted of, this means having more than just "he compared it to the Charlie Hebdo shooting". He is both comparing them, that both were attacks on journalists, and contrasting the difference between them, the difference being in the responses to each attack. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]

Comparisons[edit]

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)[reply]

That is what the above discussion is about. Unfortunately, the discussion seems to have died out. 23 editor (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cycle of deletions and reverts[edit]

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.[reply]

Well, I agree. Do we remove it now or wait a bit more? 91.148.93.114 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think wait a bit and see if anyone wants to defend the content (though, based on the edit comments, I think the reverting was not by editors wanting the content to be there, but editor's objecting to the manner of its removal). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
It can be paraphrased. But not removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the quote is attributed, not "anonymous". It does not "group separate events", it has an actual point. It's not "editorializing" or "pov" - those terms do not apply to sources, only to text or editors. I have no idea why you think "it shouldn't be allowed".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Because you want it in" could be an additional good enough reason. ;) But I have already given plenty of policy-valid or advice-valid reasons. Editorializing should not exist within quotes. Quotes should be for concise summing-ups by authoritative voices or statements made by those involved. That lengthy bit of ranting by an unknown author is unsuitable to have as a quote. And the quote is anonymous because the article is anonymous; it is agency provided - we have no idea of the status of its writer. If it is paraphrased it is no longer a quote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]
The media in the Yugoslav wars definitelly played a significant role. Ever since the begining all sides had their own agendas. Western media tried to emphasize the aspects which were favourable to them, while Serbian media tried to convince people how foreign powers with help of their local agents were working to set a scenario for a blody breaking-up of the country (ironically, they weren't wrong). Yugoslav wars were probably the first mediatic war of the new era. Neither of the sides used neutral free journalism. Press was sent to the field with missions of obtaining specific stories neverminding the actual truth on the field. You have one clear exemple on youtube where a Western journalist mets a Bosnian woman walking on the road carriying her child on he back along with few of her other belongings. Journalists asks in English if she was "escaping Serbian terror", the translator asks her that and she just says she is going to the camp to get some food. The reporter then turns to the camera and speaks in a dramatic tone how Serbs burned her house and killed her housband and how she is now going to the Serbian concentration camp (lady said nothing of that). Lets remind that lady with her daughter was walking to the camp on her own will. So basically entire Western world believed Serbs were bloody butchers that killed her housband and were now going to rape her repetedly plus her daughter at the camp they were going to... when in fact she was a Bosnian woman who was going to a Serbian refugee campo to receve help and some food and water :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Representation of NATO policy[edit]

"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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters&oldid=1212062341"