Talk:Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rehabilitating Ustashe symbols such as the checkerboard flag and historical Ustashe figures???

An attempt to mislead the reader.Croatian checher board(Coat of Arms) was not ressurected.It was used for centuries before ww2 and it was used during communist Yugoslavia.So don't see how it was ressurected and had a nything to do with ww2 and Nazism.

Ustashe symbols were always and are forbidden by law in Croatia. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

it was alleged

because it was never concretely proven. even if it is true, he was not convicted of it.

Because Milosevic died before the end of the trial.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

very one sided article

This article is so one sided and biased that it passes as better propaganda than the serbian propaganda it is trying to describe. There are numerous problems with the article. First of all it relies very heavily on statements and sources from the ICTY. You cannot assume that what the ICTY prosecution presented as evidence against Milosevic is FACT because he was never convicted of the alleged crimes. Aside from that there is huge controversy over whether or not the ICTY is true court of law, or if it is simply a political court. In the article you rely on the testimony of Slobodan Lazarevic against Milosevic however it was proven in court that he was a complete liar who lied under oath and gave false testimony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6T0ZkCSzpQ There is a scene of the cross examination. I know youtube is far from a credible source, however the video will give you an idea and you can do further research on your own. I will certainly not deny that Serbian media exagerated conflicts and presented propaganda, however this was done by all sides in the conflict and is certainly nothing unique. Almost all countries in war time present propaganda to their citizens. I suggest a new article be created called "role of the media in the Yugoslav wars" and merge this article with sections on Croatian propaganda during the conflict, Muslim propaganda as well as perhaps propaganda from outside the region (i.e. Germany, USA etc) Yugo91aesop (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

everyone should read the text above. I dont deny that serbian side used propaganda to fuel the war efforts yet so did the Muslims, and Croats. it's absolutely unfair to have this one sided article. lets create an article called "role of the media in the Yugoslav wars".FC Toronto (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Please, FC Toronto, talk to user:Mladifilozof, as we need some help regarding his one sided editing of Serbia related articles. --Tadija (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
What about western media??? I remember seing around the 4th day of bombardment an american fighter in beween the bushes being called "Yugoslav MiG-21 shot down by brave NATO pilots"... I even spoke with the news editor of the chanal, and she said that they saw it too (the latin English inscriptions on the peaces of the plane...). After that, the repetition of the same report was "edited" and the image, where english words were seen in the airplane racks, were cut! How "fair" was that? Anyway, an entire encyclopedia could be written about the anti-Serb media propaganda. Merkale market bombing is still regarded as Serb attack (when clearly was proven that wasn´t); I have a tape recorded where blue-helmets are saying regarding Croat forces in Dubrovnik: "They are shoting themselfs!..." Or, everywhere in western media, the presence of Al-qaeda is well know that IS present in Bosnia and Kosovo, but when the subject is Serbs, the Serbs fighted civilians, women and children. In western media, you can´t even mention that Serbs foght well organised armies, eventually you are allowed to call them "Freedom fighters". FkpCascais (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: I still can´t see the legality of Mladifilozof article Joint Criminal Enterprise. FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
i absolutely agree with you, NATO ran (like any entity in a war) a propaganda campaign against Serbs in 1999. so, i think that this article should be called 'role of the media in the Yugoslav wars' and it should be separated into four sections: Bosnian, Croatian, NATO, Serb propaganda sections. personally, i hate contributing to these hostile articles since they belittle all of nations involved FC Toronto (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree, much better way of giving an oportunity of writting about different exemples of propaganda in this period. And gives room for way more expantion. Also agree, personally, I edited exclusively only football related articles, but after some time, I just found myself here. :) FkpCascais (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This article should remain called “Role of the SERB MEDIA during Yugoslav Wars” because it was the only media that was vastly analyzed and condemned by the international community and the UN’s ICTY.
And, differently from what people wrote above in the topic, the Markale Massacre WAS COMMITED by the REPUBLIKA SRPSKA Army — and this is not an assumption, but a CONCLUSION of the ICTY, who even CONDEMNED the Serb military commander Dragomir Milosevic to 29 YEARS OF JAIL for the crime. All the rest is pure bullshit and dirt disinformation and historcal revisionism.
And some (Serb-nationalist minded? some Ratko Mladic fan?) is ERASING source links from the ICTY, The New York Times and the BBC News webpages to cover up the evidences and sources from the article. This is bad faith! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.67.239 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Still ongoing?

I´m sorry, but, why is that many editors don´t want even to see open to explore, the other non-Serbian propagandas? Not only they don´t want to see anything written there, but they want to close any chance of even writting anything about it. Did those editors heard about the freedom of speach? Or they are just appologists of "Democracy Dictatorship"? Are they affraid something unpleasent can be said there? Hmmm... makes me think. FkpCascais (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the propaganda of the media in the UK and USA is missing in this article. Without it, Nato could never have launched their attacks on the Serbs. Acorn897 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:EL, the purpose of an "External links" section is not "to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links" related to the topic. It goes further to state that "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." The current EL section is a very lengthy and comrehensive list of links that are much more suitable to be used as inline citations rather than external links. The section was previously deleted by admin Fut. Perf on this edit. It was later added back by a user who edited in a non-cooperative way and was later subject to a topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. I also deleted the links recently and repeated verbatim the edit summary of Fut. Perf. but my removal was reverted without an edit summary at all. I am moving the links from the article to this talk page in hopes that they can be used to expand the article and properly cite newly introduced information. The list has grown to this size due to addition of links uncovered by Google searches; whereas finding such a link through Google should direct one to attempt to extract information into the Wikipedia article and cite the source link, the practice seems to have been to just place any newly discovered links into the EL section without any context. Here are the links, I urge editors to add any useful information from these links to the article.

ICTY

Media

Academic

Other

Video

Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Western Media

Why is "The successful demonization of the Serbs, making them largely responsible for the Yugoslav wars, and as unique and genocidal killers, was one of the great propaganda triumphs of our era." being quoted like its a fact? Furthermore why not mention who said this. Edward S. Herman, a man who seems paranoid of his own shadow.

The Fikret Alic case has already been settled in court. So if you wish to keep that please include the following info. [1] [2]

As for the Kosovo War, the statements of Francisco Gil-White and Edward S. Herman are being presented as conclusive.

I'm not against including this section but I'm against its current state. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward S. Herman is a scientist and a well respected author. FC Toronto (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hardly. The guy has been denounced many times for his denial of the Srebrenica massacre. [3] [4] He has yet to be published in any respectable source, the same goes for Francisco Gil-White. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
refutation are written on blogs by unknown people while Edward S. Herman has a PhD, and has co-written a book by Noam Chomsky, a famous political writer. FC Toronto (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The refutations are written on the same medium used by Herman himself, ZNet. His denial of a massacre that has been identified as genocide by the ICTY is a clear fringe theory. My point is he is not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Tons of other citations in the section you deleted. Edward S. Herman speaks as a proffesor of University of Pennsylvania whos articles are also published by other universities such as University of Westminster [5]. FC Toronto (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The majority are from Herman and can ultimately be traced to Global Research owned by Michel Chossudovsky or ZNet which you yourself called a blog. Both sites are run by NWO nuts. As for your link, an interview with Herman and Chomsky does not equate to having his article published. Your other "citations" are as follows: a response letter written by a fellow named Peter Schwarz whose opinion you represented as fact, a self published source by Francisco Gil-White, and a video based on the findings of Living Marxism. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Edward S. Herman is an academic with a PhD who coauthored a book with Noam Chomsky. Maybe you should made a section were you refute the claims. News articles are valid citations. FC Toronto (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Edward S. Herman is a university professor with strong educational credentials (PhD), co-authored books with Noam Chomsky. The article will benefit if we put arguments, and counter arguments, since this will present both views. do we have an agreement then? FC Toronto (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you have only repeated your arguments, you have yet to respond to the issues I raised. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
your issue: Edwards argument is presented as conclusive. the solution: you add counter-arguments to satisfy your issue. FC Toronto (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"Your other "citations" are as follows: a response letter written by a fellow named Peter Schwarz whose opinion you represented as fact, a self published source by Francisco Gil-White, and a video based on the findings of Living Marxism." ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Lets not start WW3 over this issue. Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University — Mark A. Wolfgram "This article uses the examples of Operation Horseshoe and the fighting at Racak and Rugovo during the Kosovo conflict of 1998 and 1999 to illustrate how democratic governments in the US and Germany attempted to manipulate public perceptions of the Kosovo conflict to justify the 1999 war." [6] FC Toronto (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010

(UTC)

WW3? what nonsense. I'm simply asking you to not return these unreliable "sources", especially the Liberal Marxism "case" that was settled. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
umm i dont get what your saying here. Edward S. Herman is a reliable source, but that aside, its not my job to critises the sources that conform to the wiki rules. im not a mind reader, so give me a list of sources that you personally think that dont conform to wiki rules. FC Toronto (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm telling you your other sources are also unreliable. Since you've only objected to Herman not being a unreliable source, I'm assuming you agree that the other sources are unreliable. LM nonsense = [7], self published = [8], Peter Schwarz? = [9] ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
this source is fine [10], lets start with that. although, I'm not negating the validity of the sources above. FC Toronto (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
How about we keep but rewrite the information that cites Herman and Gil-White, remove information from the Peter Schwarz response letter, include the above source and replace current LM source with the actual article and include my two sources above. Agreed? ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
i want to resist because of the work yet i think its a sensible proposition so i agree. FC Toronto (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

I've protected this page for now, as everybody seems keen to tell each other to use the talk page, so locking the page might hopefully mean that you come to agreement here. GedUK  18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing "Bolno podsecanje" pictures.

I find this pictures here completely unnecessary. Should they represent the Serbian propaganda? Where is the "propaganda" there. The picture from the "news" is clearly represented by the title of the news article itself: "Bolno podsecanje", meaning:"The painfull memories". The news article is about the Serbian boy who´s whole family was killed by Bosnian Muslims, and the article just shows the picture as painfull memories of other times, when Serbs were also killed by Bosnian Muslims. Without actual pictures, the Vecernje Novosti used the picture stating clearly that the image just remembers other historical periods, fair enough. It should be removed then. It is definitly not the best portrail of "propaganda", not propaganda at all. Opinions? Remove it? FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol are you serious? If you read the text its claiming the painting was an actual picture. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you´re right. I could´t read the entire text from the picture, but now, by the external link, I did. My mistake. Good exemple. Keep it. FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It even says the boy is attending Military school in Loznica... no comment. FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

renaming

II see that someone has moved Role of Serbian media in the Yugoslav Wars to Role of the media in the Yugoslav wars. It is good to have one comprehensive article on media role during Yugoslav wars, but it is also needed to have separate articles if there is enough material. Obviously, there is enough material for article on Role of Serbian media in the Yugoslav Wars. It would be much better that concerned user created a new article, than to expand, remove and rename an existing one that is sufficiently extensive and well sourced. This was the last version of the article before renaming.

This is old enough and established article that has many links to it. Renaming of article like this is not legitimate without prior discussion and consensus. You can not simply rename "German war crimes" to "War crimes in the World War II", but you are welcome to create such article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What´s the problem? You can explore your hateriot towards Serbia anyway, but you want to close the dors for others? You have no moral word on any ex-Yugoslavia related articles. Political agendas like yours are not welcome here. FkpCascais (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's not accuse each other of hatred based on discussions about article name. Please focus on the article rather than the editor. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
For now I have no plans in editing here, but I do find freedom important...comparing Serbia with Nazy Germany...I wonder who´s propaganda that guy had for breakfast. FkpCascais (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me reiterate: please do not make any more of such comments about other editors. If you have no plans on editing or contributing, please do not stir the pot, either. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, me, I´m sorry, I can´t say my opinion, and have to shut up reading about this outragious comparation! Please Big Bird, if you have nothing more important to tell me, don´t adress me. I know very well about WP, and I don´t need pseudo-lessons from some editor. FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the renaming of the article to media in Yugoslav war, with a consensus agreeing that this was the best way. A BIG section was deleted in an edit war called "Western propaganda". Unless, you want to create 4 articles called "Bosnian propaganda in Yugosla wars", "Croatian propaganda in Yugosla wars", "Serbian propaganda in Yugosla wars", "Western propaganda in Yugosla wars", then keep this article format. I see not reason to have 4 separate articles. FC Toronto (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to the discussion at hand, I also do agree that the current title is more appropriate for neutral future development. A point was brought up in this AfD discussion that picking one side whose propaganda is to be described will inevitably make an ariticle problematic. When it's all said and done, likely there will be more material and more sources available to show propaganda emanating from the Serbian side but keeping in one article the information showing propaganda from all sides will tend to keep the article neutral, unbiased and in proper context. Currently, there is a serious lack of proper sources for some of the claims made against Croatian and Bosnian alleged propaganda but that should, again, be fixed within the context of the same article rather than a separate one. Or, at least, that's how I perceive the situation. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, everything is legitimate, i didnt know for the previous discussion.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

creation of separate articles

Dear associates, there is ongoing discussion on the creation of separate detailed articles: Serbian, Croatian and possibly others beside this central one. See Talk:Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars.--Mladifilozof (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Absense of link

Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars is not linked, which seems odd.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The article “Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars” *should not* be redirected here

Because differently from any other kinds of real or alleged propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars,. it was the only one to be be classified and defined as a war crime by the ICTY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.206.22 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RTS apology

On 23 May 2011 Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) issued an official apology for the way their programming was misused for spreading propaganda and discrediting political opponents in the 1990s, and for the fact that heir programming had "hurt the feelings, moral integrity and dignity of citizens of Serbia, humanist-oriented intellectuals, members of the political opposition, critically-minded journalists, certain minorities in Serbia, minority religious groups in Serbia, as well as certain neighbouring peoples and states." (text and video in Serbian here) I'd say this merits inclusion here. Timbouctou (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Siroce.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Siroce.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars"

Any objections?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. "Propaganda" sounds a bit narrower in scope and is taken by readers to mean biased reporting which is common in many countries at war. "Role of media" should describe exactly that and should cover not only reports during the war - be it misinformation or outright lies passed off as "reporting" in state-controlled mass media - but also the role of the media in the run up to the conflicts. Without heightened nationalist tensions, incited primarily by the mass media, there probably would never have been a war in the first place. So although your suggestion is appropriate given the article's current content, I think the article needs to be expanded to fit its title, rather than the other way around. Cases like Špegelj Tapes and publications such as Slobodni tjednik had a major influence on the entire media landscape in Croatia and the way the war was perceived in Croatia. The 1989 Gazimestan speech and the way it was presented to audiences via TV and press is also important, as was the structure of mass media themselves. The failed project of JUTEL is also noteworthy, as well as the importance of foreign reporting during the war, especially Fikret Alić's appearance on the cover of TIME magazine. This topic deserves an exhaustive article on a somewhat wider scope of topics, but currently looks like a list of individual cases of misleading reporting, without really giving the reader any indication on how important the individual cases really were. The media played a huge role in the Yugoslav wars - maybe even more so just before fighting broke out - and there's tons of material to write about out there. IMO reducing it to a list of "they said it was black and in fact it was white" cases just dumbs it down. Timbouctou (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There was almost no propaganda comming from sides oposed to Serbs.Serbian hate propaganda and ethnically based propaganda was the only one that was state sponsored and was tried at the ICTY.Serbian propaganda has also led Anders Breivik to commit those terrible crimes and Serbian propaganda which is usually spread across internet is still very alive.It's like the nazi holocaust denial propaganda and anti jewish propaganda but Serb style.This propaganda will cause more deaths in the future,there is no doubt about that 'cause it's goal is to dehumanize Serbian "enemies" and create hatred towards them by inventing stories that never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This comments made by this uneductaed uninformed IP are extremely insulting. This is an encyclopedia, not an nationalistic open forum.
With regard to the move, I beleave the current title gives more amplitude for a deeper analisys of all the media, otherwise renaming it to propaganda we would risk to have just a list of propagandistic episodes, so I beleave it want be good for the article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance of the article

The importance of this article should be raised and updated.This article must be worked on because Serbian nationalists sponsored by their government are still very active.Still spreading hate propaganda and hoping to get more support for Serbia for the wars in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who is the one spreding propaganda and hate here and announcing future wars... Serbs? Doesn´t look so... FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"The media"?

I came to this article expecting to see at least some mention of how the Yugoslav wars were portrayed in the media, and what role that had in their outcome and the eventual war crimes trials. Instead, I was treated to what might as well have been named Serbian propaganda during the Yugoslav wars, with a counter-criticism section at the end saying "There was some Croatian propaganda as well". Overall, you have what looks to be a hit piece with a token couple paragraphs at the end in order to feign some sort of neutrality.

But that's a separate issue. The main problem is that there's not a single mention of how the wars were covered in other media outlets outside of the region, let alone in the NATO countries. Considering the significant aspect of the eventual NATO bombing, you would think the role of that media in shaping opinion prior to the Kosovo War would be of interest to an article titled such as this. For that matter, the lede in Kosovo War states: "The Kosovo Conflict was the center of news headlines for months, and gained a massive amount of coverage and attention from the international community and media.". Either this article needs a serious rewrite, or a significant title change (or both). Vel non (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This article was intended to be about propaganda that distorted the reality and incited or even gave the main motive for soldiers and the people to engage in war and/or commit crimes against the other side. And in that respect, Serbian media easily takes the 1st place. The Croatian media gains the 2nd place, though it is far behind from the Serbian media of that time, whereas I am wondering if the Bosnian media should even be listed in this article. Not a single clear example of Bosnian propaganda was listed.
Of course the Kosovo conflict was the center of news headlines worldwide, but most of them just reported what was going on, without inventing fairy tales. Just two examples: the Serbian media reported that the JNA was not shelling Dubrovnik nor that the Serbs were responsible for the Merakel shelling in Sarajevo - instead, they reported that Croats were "burning tires" in Dubrovnik and that "Bosniaks bombed themselves" in Sarajevo. You really have to look hard to find at least one example, if any, from the West that reported how Serbs were burning tires in Belgrade or were killing themselves during the NATO bombing.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The western media reported that some skinny guy in Bosnia had been beaten and tortured and starved to death and used his picture to fuel hatred towards the Serbs. Watch the documentary "Judgment" and see how all of this way made up. Stop claiming that this is a neutral article, when it is just war propaganda against the Serbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.111.38 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversy about the "skinny guy" and the nature of Trnopolje camp were already discussed six years ago in huge lengths here: Talk:Trnopolje camp. Considering I am not an expert on that particular case (if Trnopolje was a camp or a refugee center), I suggest you go there and discuss it. However, the ICTY judgement says it was a camp and several arguments and counter-arguments on the talk page were very interesting.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The sources (conspiracy theories websites etc.) regarding the alleged Western propaganda (as used by WhiteWriter (talk · contribs) aren't RS..--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Write here problematic sources. We will fix them. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Post war media?

I've read the article and I've read through the talk section and I haven't come to a solid conclusion about the scope of this article, whether it applies to all media surrounding the wars or is restricted to propaganda during the wars. If the scope is all surrounding media I would propose to include a sentence about Oksigen FM, a radio station set up by NATO in 1999 to try to influence young people toward a more tolerant multicultural society. I think it has direct connection to the wars and, if the scope of the article is about all media and not just propaganda, deserves a short mention. Killian441 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Great one, i forgot about that station! Bravo, Killian! --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Useful source?

This source might be useful for the article:

  • Stuart Allan; Barbie Zelizer (2004). Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-33997-1.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

POV removal

Alan.Ford.Jn (talk · contribs) removed a section of article without any reason or logic explanation. This was created with consensus, and it CANNOT be removed without it. If you dont know who someone is, that is NOT the reson to remove data. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The picture that fooled the world

Has anyone more material on this? FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

See Living Marxism article. Timbouctou (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
FkpCascais, please get a grip on your WP:COPYVIO problem. Don't add it to articles, don't link to it. Our policy is simple; you should be able to follow it. I have removed the link, but other editors can decide for themselves whether whatreallyhappened.com is trustworthy. bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Regarding recent article title changes - shouldn't this be moved to Serbian propaganda during Yugoslav Wars? This format - "Fooian propaganda during Foo war" is the one we commonly use for such articles, and 90 percent of the content we have here is about Serbian propaganda anyway. If somebody feels there's enough material to merit separate articles on Bosniak or Croat propagandas, it shouldn't be a problem to create them additionally. Timbouctou (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the current title ("Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars") is fine. Croatian and Bosnian sections are marginal, and splitting them into separate articles would not be beneficial. Of course, should someone expand these, a split would be warranted. GregorB (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the one section that could be expanded is the NATO propaganda during Yugoslav Wars. NATO vs FR Yugoslavia was the heaviest propaganda confrontation that happened. But one obviously needs time to add that section correctly and I still haven't found it yet, but I plan to do it in some near time. I know some authors who wrote some good books about this but will need time to find them online. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that "NATO vs FR Yugoslavia was the heaviest propaganda confrontation that happened", since we have reliable sources showing that media in Belgrade demonised all kinds of enemies, with particular emphasis on ethnic groups within the borders of what used to be Yugoslavia. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Let's keep it neutral

Could you step by step explain the things that you contest here? Using something from 2000 to describe the present state is not an accurate approach. And why are you reverting my link fix to the 1999 RTS attack article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars&diff=643818366&oldid=643811505

- Anonimski (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars. 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 13:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition about Cinema in Bosnian and Croatia

@Sadko: https://www.intermagazin.rs/ is not a tabloid? Look At the headlines on the page. How is it RS? And Uroš Šuvaković, a heavily pro Milosovic supporter who got into altercations with student protesters agains the regime. Surely he can be deemed a biased source. He is used twice as a RS citation to talk about propaganda? Are there no better sources to back the recent edit?OyMosby (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a lower quality magazine with several tabloid traits. More importantly, the author of the article is just fine in every aspect important for the project. Do double check.
UŠ published his works 10 years after the fall of SM. His work was not financed by the same person or anything of the sort, as that would be problematic on some level. It was peer reviewed and the two works are parts of respected publications (Sociološki pregled is top notch). I am aware of his history, sadly it seems that he wrote about things which he previously checked in practice. He is also a university professor and has published numerous works. Prior connection/s in this case are not an argument, as there are several socialist party seniors who are holding important posts in the government and public life. We do not (or should not) blindly put labels on sources or people - on Wikipedia or in RL for that matter. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Section on West's conspiracy against Serbia and Serbs

Entire section is based on, at best, polemical accounts of the apologist for Serbian policies of violence and war-crimes, and, at worst, on fringe and conspiracy theories altogether, cherry-picking and misinterpretation from sources.--౪ Santa ౪ 99° 12:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Empty phrases, without real evidence or explanation. Please provide a better, more serious summary, or I shall remove the tag. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another thing, diffs like this [11] are not acceptable. Even more so, considering that I have edited the page few days ago. Next time I see something like this, various measures will be taken. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Painting the entire section with such a brush is hyperbolic. Legitimate criticism of media coverage, including exposing misleading information, does not equate to defending actual war crimes themselves so that's a leap. If you have examples of conspiracy theorizing and misrepresentation of sources, we can certainly address that. --Griboski (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What criticism? Entire section is one big conspiratorial maneuvering through apologist-denialist bibliography (Herman, Clark, Gibss, Taylor, Boggs, Chandler, Pilger, Wolfgram, Colon; Vuković, Šuvaković; Accuracy in Media, Novosti, B92, Press), with few reliable authors and politicians attached to some irrelevant or cherry-picked statements serves as a decoration.--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You do realise that putting labels on ~10 people and organisations (putting B92 and Novosti in the same basket is laughable) you disagree with will lead you nowhere, on this project and in RL as well? We are still waiting for something of merit and any sort of proof. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
N.Clark [12], [13], [14]
Gibbs [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
Pilger [20], [21], [22], [23]
"Chom", Herman, Pilger, Chandler, Clark [24], [25], [26], [27]--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Blogs are not used on Wiki. I do not see a problem there, people should keep an open mind. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I forgot wiki-revisionists' darling J. Schindler [28], [29], [30]
And do not worry, anyone serious and neutral enough who opens these links will look at authors undersigned and/or "blogs" ownership.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing. "Conspiracy theory" removed! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Santasa99: What do you propose as a solution to your concerns? The section is a recent addition, and as such it can be easily removed entirely. But improving it benefits Wiki more than any other way of action does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a well established fact that in their bid to win over support for intervention and continuation of the bombing campaign, U.S. and NATO officials through the media misrepresented the situation in Kosovo by inflating the number of casualties and claiming genocide was occurring (whether intentionally misleading or simply by propagating unverified information). This has not only been pointed out in those sources you cited above but also in RS publications such as The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Another thing is, if an individual is wrong about one thing, it doesn't instantly mean that he is about another and that his opinion on the issue is invalid. However, I've added Mark Attila Hoare and Roger Cohen's opinions to counter balance the section a little bit. You're welcome to add more counter opinions.
Personally I think that the bit about Hollywood doesn't belong in the section. Most of it is not reliably sourced, exaggerated and undue. It's not like there's a monopoly on Serbian bad guys in Hollywood, there's plenty of different groups that are portrayed in a stereotypical manner. But since Sadko added that part, he can weigh in. --Griboski (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991: it is always the best and most obvious solution to follow the basic policies and guidelines - notability, verifiability and reliability, neutrality. If there are willing editors section could remain, but should be rewritten to reflect mainstream pov, with mainstream media outlets and credible authors used as a source of info.
Here's passage from the Guardian article, used as a source in the section in a cherry-picked manner and out of context:
The fact that far fewer Kosovo Albanians were massacred than suggested by Nato will raise sharp questions about the organisation's handling of the media and its information strategy. However, commentators yesterday stressed that the new details should not obscure the fact that the major war crime in the tribunal's indictment of the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, and four other Serb officials is the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people. When read in context the passage summarize and reflect reality, while the section as it is, at the moment, reflect conspiratorial diatribe by menagerie of characters with questionable motives and credibility.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No one denied the crimes of the Milošević regime, but the existence of these crimes that does not rule out that NATO was conducting its own propaganda and information manipulation. That is well documented. It is wrong to look at NATO as a neutral side, they were active participants in the war.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, point of my posts is that majority of authors used in this section as a source of info were/are deniers, apologists and revisionists.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've already removed some of them. However, the fact that they were criticized by people who think differently, doesn't mean that there were no reverse situations.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the section better now? Can we remove the POV template? Some disputed authors have been removed, some criticisms of the claims have been added, and the section has been expanded with many sources (books and peer-reviewed academic journals articles).--WEBDuB (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate your effort, and you really made a neat contribution on its own, but within the section it's a small change, nevertheless, if it looks as if just makes cover for the POV parts (not to mention that we now, again, have a title "Demonisation of Serbs", even if just for the section). So, I am still against removal, that is, until greater number of editors express their opinions in broader discussion. Sometimes I have a feeling that editors, on the subject of Yugoslav wars and accompanying ideology in particular, who simply search Google for sources using just key words and phrases, rarely understand what kind of scholarship they are bringing into encyclopaedia. That's why the section is still marred with claims, expressions and sources (authors) form the fringe. In this case it brings forth "scholars" who are offshoot and intellectual progeny, or at least admirers of Marxist-radical critique, although, in all honesty, some of them are radical themselves. They're writing for "alternative news" mag'a, hold conferences on their own condition titled like the "twenty years at the margins", for Christ's sake. We can't bring that to encyclopaedia and seek balancing and neutrality against mainstream. Some are outright war-crimes deniers, apologists for '90s Serbia, and so on, and although you removed some, others are still there.--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Santasa99, why do not you remove the content sourced to figures that concern you? Do not expect much attention coming to this article, at least rn. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Which author advocates fringe theories? Nicholas Cull, David Holbrook Culbert and David Welch are historians specializing in propaganda. Jeffery Klaehn is a propaganda theorist often cited on Wikipedia. Scott Taylor is a well known military journalist, while Michael Parenti is a well known political and social scientist. Philip Hammond is a professor of media and communications focused on the role of the media in post-Cold War conflicts and international interventions. David Binder was the Harvard University-graduated journalist who reported on Yugoslav Wars. Mark Wolfgram is a political scientist who has published his work in peer-reviewed academic journals. Noam Chomsky's propaganda model has been confirmed by a number of scholars around the world.
Here we don't list their views on the war in general (although there is also a lot of criticism of NATO's imperialist, aggressor and chauvinistic policy), but the subject of the article is propaganda. The authors' relevance to this topic is difficult to dispute. Furthermore, criticism of their claims have been added. What do you think still needs to be done? Even Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Wesley Clark discussed the “propaganda war” as part of the strategy. There is really no doubt that NATO propaganda is well documented. Are these claims contrary to the mainstream in the Western media? Of course, because it has been scientifically proven that they were biased.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's one glaring example which shows how is this section so terrible - do you realize that, for instance, Klaehn, for all his "unorthodox" views on Balkans, has nothing to do with statements attributed to him in this article?--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991: for now I am not prepared to do more, or to go into remove-revert-remove hassle, especially if other editors aren't eager to join in this debate at this moment - one should choose his battles carefully. For now it is sufficient to place correct template(s) messages at the top of the section, which will appropriately signal its shortcomings to editors and readers alike.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, you know what is the best way of action for you. It is easier to do changes now than might be later when the recently added content has achieved consensus though. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I really think that it is better to remove the content that is disputable than to discretize the entire section and the work of other editors. I've corrected Klaehn/Hale situation (unintentional mistake), but a plenty of well-sourced content and unquestionable relevant authors remain. I think we really need to work together to improve the article, rather than labeling each other’s work.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Santasa99: Can the POV template be removed now? The section has been considerably rearranged, references by esteemed and relevant authors have been added, as well as criticism of their opinions. No one on the talk page made specific objections to the sources and content.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars/Archive_1&oldid=1089786565"