Talk:NATO bombing of Novi Sad

message: Hi, please tell me guys if this disambiguation (which I've just created) is ok (neutral, etc) thanks.--Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? · help! ) 04:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NATO bombings (disambiguation)]] 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/ekocid/ekocid.htm
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:23:27, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/mostovi/prica_o_mostovima.htm
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:23:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/zgrade/stambene_zgrade.htm
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:24:35, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/mostovi/prica_o_spasavanju.htm
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:25:04, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: The general feeling of the article is that it was written by someone directly affected by the bombings or from Serbia who is biased towards the Serbian side. The writer seems to use appeals to emotion where the purpose is to draw sympathy to the Serbian side, highlight the suffering thus proving the NATO bombing unjustified.
There are many articles on controversial bombings that use the proper tone. See for example Bombing of Dresden. This should be used as an example of a proper wiki standard.
To re-iterate: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
===== Examples =====
The bombing of the city caused great damage to local civilians, including severe pollution and widespread ecological damage
* The use of the word severe evokes emotions and bias.
NATO bombed the oil refinery which triggered a large fire and much smoke, which caused serious ecological damage.
* The use of the word serious evokes emotions and bias. Non-serious ecological damage would not be worth mentioning.
NATO finally managed to destroy Žeželj Bridge, the last bridge on the Danube that the city had.
* The word finally evokes a sense of irony and sarcasm. the last bridge on the Danube that the city had. is almost poetic in evoking a sense of despair.
NATO bombed buildings of the Novi Sad Television as well as the civilian residential quarter Ribnjak where two civilians were badly injured.
* The use of badly injured. If injuries were not bad it would not be worth mentioning.
NATO bombed the oil refinery, one civilian was killed, while two civilians and one child were badly injured. The civilian residential quarter Šangaj was also bombed where one civilian, Milan Bajić (42 years old), was killed and several more civilians were injured, while several civilian houses were destroyed. Although, this was the bloodiest day of the bombing, it was also the last.
The civilians of Novi Sad were greatly affected by the bombing of their city.
* What does greatly mean? Leaves too much to the imagination. Say what the consequences were exactly and cite it
Those who were not directly physically harmed suffer from consequences for their physical health caused by ecological damage as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear.
* Strange statement that leaves too much to the imagination. Check the Dresden article, there is no blanket statement about psychological injuries. IF there was a study or assessment it would be quoted and cited directly.
Due to the NATO attacks, many in Novi Sad were left jobless.
* How can this correlation be established. What is many? Seems an appeal to emotions.
Services were restored only after two years, partially due to funding from Britain, one of the countries which sent planes to bomb the city in 1999.
* This seems out of place and some kind of irony statement.
Impact on environment section is in direct conflict with many statement in the article.
Local scientists also studied the impact of the bombing. "NATO didn’t use chemical weapons during the bombing", said Dr. Zorka Vukmirović, a leading environmental physicist, "But indirectly it caused the effects of chemical weapons use. If you release so many hazardous substances, major air pollutants and carcinogens in the vicinity of big cities like Belgrade and Niš, it is obviously a deliberate action against the civilian population".
* This is unnecessary and an appeal to emotions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazytrain411 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Issues with Tone and Neutrality 

message: The bombing of the city caused great damage to local civilians, including severe pollution and widespread ecological damage
* The use of the word severe evokes emotions and bias.
NATO bombed the oil refinery which triggered a large fire and much smoke, which caused serious ecological damage.
* The use of the word serious evokes emotions and bias. Non-serious ecological damage would not be worth mentioning.
NATO finally managed to destroy Žeželj Bridge, the last bridge on the Danube that the city had.
* The word finally evokes a sense of irony and sarcasm. the last bridge on the Danube that the city had. is almost poetic in evoking a sense of despair.
NATO bombed buildings of the Novi Sad Television as well as the civilian residential quarter Ribnjak where two civilians were badly injured.
* The use of badly injured. If injuries were not bad it would not be worth mentioning.
NATO bombed the oil refinery, one civilian was killed, while two civilians and one child were badly injured. The civilian residential quarter Šangaj was also bombed where one civilian, Milan Bajić (42 years old), was killed and several more civilians were injured, while several civilian houses were destroyed. Although, this was the bloodiest day of the bombing, it was also the last.
The civilians of Novi Sad were greatly affected by the bombing of their city.
* What does greatly mean? Leaves too much to the imagination. Say what the consequences were exactly and cite it
Those who were not directly physically harmed suffer from consequences for their physical health caused by ecological damage as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear.
* Strange statement that leaves too much to the imagination. Check the Dresden article, there is no blanket statement about psychological injuries. IF there was a study or assessment it would be quoted and cited directly.
Due to the NATO attacks, many in Novi Sad were left jobless.
* How can this correlation be established. What is many? Seems an appeal to emotions.
Services were restored only after two years, partially due to funding from Britain, one of the countries which sent planes to bomb the city in 1999.
* This seems out of place and some kind of irony statement.
Impact on environment section is in direct conflict with many statement in the article.
Local scientists also studied the impact of the bombing. "NATO didn’t use chemical weapons during the bombing", said Dr. Zorka Vukmirović, a leading environmental physicist, "But indirectly it caused the effects of chemical weapons use. If you release so many hazardous substances, major air pollutants and carcinogens in the vicinity of big cities like Belgrade and Niš, it is obviously a deliberate action against the civilian population".
* This is unnecessary and an appeal to emotions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazytrain411 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples