Talk:Kosovo War: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Choice of photos and some content is quite NPOV, would you agree? |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
I hope I like these photos but I hope none of theses come from an occidental press agency. |
I hope I like these photos but I hope none of theses come from an occidental press agency. |
||
[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] |
[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] |
||
---- |
|||
I feel that the content and the selection of photos is extremely NPOV. It focuses almost entirely on NATO bombing mistakes (which are important, don't get me wrong) but not on the atrocities and genocide committed by the Serbians and the KLA. Can we get a little more balance here? [[User:Chadloder|Chadloder]] 12:14 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:14, 24 January 2003
This is a little controversial look at Kosovo. I took it from something I wrote for something else, so I'm in the process of making it more neutral
- As it turned out I didn't do this. Undoubtedly, someone else will have an easier time making this NPOV then I will. I'm thinking of moving this to Kosovo conflict since it seems somewhat more popular, though on google they yield about the same results.- Eean
- "Kosovo conflict" should cover tensions and trouble between Albanians and Serbians in Kosovo from 1978/80 up until now. "Kosovo war" should cover the full-scale war from march 24th to June 10th of 1999, I think. I'll start reworking Kosovo war now. -Guppie
- Is that just what you think, or actual usage? Sounds to confusing to me - I think we shouldn't make such a differention just from using the word War as opposed to Conflict. Those using Conflict are doing so probably because it was not legally-speaking a war. -Eean
--- This page is awful. I wouldn't know where to start. Last I checked Russia was not part of NATO and they sent peacekeepers. At one point, the UN had 9000 peacekeepers from 47 countries in Kosovo.
- Where does it say Russia is part of NATO? If it does, fix it! There's a History - feel free to edit and remove. - Eean
"the diplomatic options were not looked into enough by NATO" --according to whom? http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Massacres.htm lists several "massacres", may have some useful information --rmhermen
Yeah, especially important for this article to be quite neutral, as it is going to be referenced by people interested in Milosevic's trial and The Hague human rights tribunal.
Contentious. Milosevic made the valid point that the heads of state of the countries bombing and invading Serbia didn't recognize the court, and that Tony Blair or G. W. Bush for instance would not be put on trial no matter how many kids were hit by not-too-smart bombs in AF... since he was put on trial just as that was happening, it's interesting from an international law point of view.
There's at least a "human rights"/moral necessity, a "tribunal"/legal, a diplomatic/military, and economic/ethnic/political angle in this one.
The war also broke up Yugoslavia fairly definitively into Kosovo, and the new "Serbia and Montenegro" - which renamed itself a month or two ago.
Not too many wars create three new countries and get an elected head of state put on trial, so this war needs a particularly careful treatment.
Remember to be Bold. Moving this paragraph here, as I don't like notes within the text. - Eean
Very un-NPOV paragraph, must be reworked: It is unlikely that this is what spurred the war. Many reports of Albanians being slaughtered by Yugoslavia were broadcast by western media creating a popular opinion by the general public. Many of these were later found to be false fabricated claims by separatist Albanians but these new discoveries only surfaced on certain independent media channels.
I don't have time right now, but this article needs major rewriting. It's strictly one-sided, and is hardly NPOV.
also known as humanitarian bombardment ... If any bomb had hit Serbian civilians, that was strictly colateral damage, and appology was issued by "humanitarian worker" Jamie Shea.
- I've removed these two snippets, as they appear to be sarcastic in nature. Certainly the biased reportage of the Western media and attitude of the NATO governments on the war needs to be discussed, but this isn't particularly helpful. --Brion 06:42 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
whoever added these photos, thanks. Vera Cruz
Vera do you think that tv screen photos are copyright free ? Ericd
Serbian TV got bombed by NATO, I don't think they are going to care. Also my understanding is that all of the photos are from the University of Belgrade and in the public domain. If you are referring to adding new photos, no they are not, but I am of the understanding that you can use a tv screenshot under educational and fair use rights. Vera Cruz
I hope I like these photos but I hope none of theses come from an occidental press agency. Ericd
I feel that the content and the selection of photos is extremely NPOV. It focuses almost entirely on NATO bombing mistakes (which are important, don't get me wrong) but not on the atrocities and genocide committed by the Serbians and the KLA. Can we get a little more balance here? Chadloder 12:14 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)