Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. First of all, let me say that I am not Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or of any European ancestry. Anyways, this article was deleted due to NPOV concerns expressed by many of the delete comments. From the comments here, everyone agrees that the existence of Serbian propaganda in the Balkan wars is not in doubt, but the presentation of them in this article is questionable. The most policy-conforming proposals were to delete the article and perhaps rewrite from scratch, or to merge into Serbian nationalism as proposed by User:Dbachmann. By deleting this article, it is hoped that the article conforming with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be rewritten from the ground up. However, if a merge into Serbian nationalism is desired, then anyone can drop a note on my talk page for the contents of the article to be merged.  Kurykh  20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is still a major WP:COATRACK and dumping ground for many things anti-Serbian with much material being copied over from other articles related to Yugoslav Wars that don't really have a lot of context within this article (such as Markale being copied word-for-word from its original article into a section in this article). Since the first AfD which yielded no consensus, no improvement has been made to promote the neutrality of this article and it's still very POV. Most of the material in the article itself has been introduced by editors who are politically rather that Wikipedially motivated. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, just because it has severe POV issues does not mean that it should be deleted. Fusion  Mix  14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was created on December 4, 2007 and the first AfD was closed on December 13. 4 months is plenty of time to fix outstanding POV issues. SWik78 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I think that articles like this are encyclopedic and they should not be part of Wikipedia, regardless who were bad guys. --  Bojan  14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - per fusion --Camaeron (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the article.It shows the tactics of Serbian military intelligence during the Yugoslav Wars.War and hate propaganda against other ethnicities and people's in order to get international support so a genocide could somhow in a sick way be justified.
 * THIS WAS A IMPORTANT PART OF THE YUGOSLAV WARS,BECAUSE THE WAR SITUATION WAS CREATED BECAUSE OF THIS.
 * There are so many academic studies that have coverd this topic.
 * I know Serbian editors are now going to mobilize at least 50 people.
 * Serbian nationalists don't like this article because it shows the other side of the conflict.
 * I think this is an important article from the military point of view and should be known and studied.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, sigh, we might as well WP:SNOW this as no consensus because that's how it always winds up. You have a trickle of uninvolved or semi-involved editors voting delete, and a flood of nationalist editors (half of whom are probably sock/meat puppets) voting DELETE THIS ANTI SERB PROPAGANDA and KEEP THIS VITAL TRUTHINESS, and it closes no consensus. The article's crap, it's never going to get better, see User:Moreschi/The Plague &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment So you think that Harvard and other universities,european and american media United Nations and NATO are all involved in anti-serbian propaganda? LOL These wide-spread false informations were a war tool,a weapon to commit mass-murders and genocides.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but the article has many characteristics of an opinionated essay instead of an encyclopedic article. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * well.noone wants to help,while on pages about Croats,Bosniaks and Albanians Serb editors are more the busy.The only contribution from Serb wikipedians on this article was deleting it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the article and not the editors. SWik78 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the page. — 89.111.207.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - an eventualist approach is justifiable in many situations, however in this case, the article's problems haven't been fixed in over a year. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this reads like an encyclopedic topic to me, even though it is a contentious one I should hope that our editors can meet the standards of neutral point of view. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While some people have a problem with having something they agree with being described as "propaganda", it's an acceptable word for describing the communications issued by any organization. If it can be verified that statements have been made (and in this case, there are plenty of sources), then we can't delete it from the record just because someone might be offended.   Where we're talking about claims that were made by someone else, there will always be some point-of-view observed in the writing.  I'm not sure that someone could write an article about the works of Joseph Goebbels with complete neutrality.  POV problems are not a good reason for deleting factual information.  Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete because it is a point of view (POV) fork article with a lack of full citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 March 2008


 * Fix-up or DELETE already, its been half a year look at this statement "The NATO criminals' officials have admitted in Brussels that their criminal warplanes bombed the convoy of Albanian refugees. Serbian TV, April 16, 1999"
 * NATO bombing of Albanian refugees near Đakovica The claim was true. Also, it was considered illegitimate since it the bombing was against the UN charter Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. This is original research
 * In my opinion, the article has not been updated in a while. So, lets get working, or delete the darn thing.
 * Mike Babic (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, propaganda doesn't have to be false. Propaganda is simply a negatively connoted term for efforts to influence opinion. That's one of the problems with this article - the judgment of what is and is not "propangda" is extremely subjective. There was a tremendous amount of "propaganda" produced, for example, by Bosnian Muslims and their sympathizers in regards to Srebrenica, although of course the basic story was true. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a coatrack article at least in parts, namely where it talks more about the various atrocity events themselves rather than their reflection in propaganda. Delete mostly as per PhilKnight above: the argument "POV problems are not grounds for deletion" is fallacious. Some articles are so problematic in terms of NPOV that we have to weigh the harm they are doing against the likelihood that they will be cleaned up within a reasonable amount of time. This likelihood is too low in this case. I wouldn't be as strongly opposed to a general article about "Propaganda in the Yugoslav wars", dealing with activities of all sides (don't tell me the other parties in the war did not engage in them). Picking out one side as it has been done here will always make an article problematic. Or else, treat notable propaganda incidents (like those that have been discussed in the court cases) in the articles dealing with the respective events that triggered them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The other sides didn't have time for such things.They mostly concentrated on fighting with hunting rifles etc.While Serbia had the 4th army of Europe back then.If there was some propaganda on Croatian,Bosnian of Albanian side,don't you think that it would already be in there?
 * It's impossible to write this kind of article with NPOV.Because this was used to ethnicly cleanse whole parts of countries..--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the above response to Future's reasoning is the perfect example of why it would be impossible to make the article conform to NPOV. It is nearly impossible for an article be written to represent both sides of the story when GriffinSB is basically telling us that the second side to this story does not exist. SWik78 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Addition to last comment An editor who advertises this on his user page might not have neutrality as his principal objective. SWik78 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep- za dišpet! neka se znade istina. — Mortitia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - We all know that Serbian Government during 90's used newspapers and TV-stations, mostly RTS, to feed their people with propaganda. Newspapers such as Politika were very close to the government and wrote the things Milosevic wanted to read portreing Serbs as superior to Albanians, Croats and Bosnjaks. Most Serbs know that RTS during 90's was a mic for the government of Milosevic. The article should stay. --Noah30 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly.Thank you.ICTY also delt with the Milosevic propaganda describing it that everything Milosevic said it automaticlly had to be the official truth.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is,everything that Milosevic and Serbian army were responsible of was called "western propaganda" by Milosevic himself.And that still reflects on the 45% of the Serbian nation who still vote on the most extreme party in Serbia,The Serbian Radical Party and their leader and warcriminal Vojislav Seselj. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - such succesful war propaganda machinery deserves to be recorded in Wikipedia. Zenanarh (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep- Like it is possible to see in December 2007 I have writen my bad thinking about this article . This thinking has not changed but we need to have similar but more neutral article. I do not know if this neutral sort of article will be possible in future but if wikipedia and here administrators are allowing this and this sort of changes and articles nobody can question reasons for keeping this article. I think that this article need rewriting and then it will be OK.--Rjecina (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Criminal_Enterprise
 * "This article looks like it has been written by Vojislav Seselj himself.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the relation of the above link to this discussion? SWik78 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It is possible to write an encyclopedic article on this topic.  However, this article is so riddled with NPOV violations that I do think it can be salvaged.  It would be better to rewrite the article from scratch.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From my knowledge how Balkan related articles work it is not possible to delete article and rewrite the article from scratch. I have tried to do this with another article but it has been deleted because of wikipedia speedy deletion rules. In theory administrator need to see diference between recreated and deleted article but if they are speking about similar things (example:Serb propaganda) recreated article is deleted without discussion.--Rjecina (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article does seem fishy in numerous things, but I will be neutral and not vote since that would be violation of WP:CANVASS, since technically, I have been invited to vote, as there already are invited viotes present in the article right now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve sourcing even further. No valid reason was given for deletion, any possible POV issues should be fixed but Afd is not the place to fix 'em. Hobartimus (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The current article is not only of limited focus and biased, but actually intended to be so, as illustrated by GriffinSB's comment above (08:04, 20 March 2008) . Instead of explaining the topic established in its title, the article basically restricts itself to provide a collection of examples -as far as I can see assorted by the article authors themselves- specifically aimed at showing how bad certain people were/are. It is a classic coatrack article, and as such hopelessly biased from its very inception. Although it is true that a proper and quite interesting encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, the article's development since the last deletion proposal of December 2007 and general experience so far have demostrated that Wikipedia is incapable of maintaining this kind of articles in line with its core policies.  The only possitive outcome of keeping the article is that it may, hopefully, eventually, perhaps, attract the atention of an unbiased and knowledgeable editor willing to fix it. But the drawbacks of keeping it are significant, current and very much assured of remaining with us for a long time: 1. Providing biased and low-quality content to our readership. 2. Exemplifying how our core policies can be blattantly ignored. 3. Disrupting the editing environment with the bad blood and conflicts among editors that this article is sure to generate. 4. Diminishing some good editor's enthusiasm and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia, by showcasing how futile too many attempts at removing biased nationalist content appear to be.  In short, keeping this article would be a net negative to Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia and as a volunteer-based collective enterprise. — Finally, I fully endorse Eleland's comments above (19:31, 19 March 2008) . - Ev (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Whould you please explain how is it biased when everything is sourced by 3rd party and NPOV.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if every individual statement, considered in isolation, was properly sourced and unbiased (they aren't), the resulting "article" as a whole can still be unbalanced, misleading, tendentious and biased. Read carefully our Neutral Point of View policy and the Coatrack essay. - Ev (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely a notable topic.  Needs some major cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - unencyclopedic and definitely not representing NPOV. --Avala (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - That propaganda deserves an article (and more). Great example of propaganda to study. --HarisM (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I was there when Serbian propaganda started rolling, there's no war without propaganda preceeding it. It is important for people to recognize war plans before war starts. — Marcellus2907 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: 1-edit user; administrator attention needed. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per all the excellent arguments. --demicx (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep very detailed explanation of a behaviour among Serbs just before and under the war. — 83.209.134.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Rename proposal I am aware that IPs aren't entitled to vote in requests for deletion but I'd still like to have my say. Personally I think this article oversteps the line on POV and should be deleted.  However I accept that consensus is very unlikely and individual votes will be lost in the middle of those voting pro-Serbian and anti-Serbian messages.  Maybe this article could be renamed to something like "myths of the Balkan wars" and be expanded to include "myths" and unproven facts about Croats, Bosnians and Albanians as well as just Serbs?  The article is not very verifiable and entirely negative and the fact that the article focuses on "propoganda" seems to give editors a license to type anything without significant sources.  217.202.111.99 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC) — 217.202.111.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong KEEP this subject definitely needs to be well documented. If Joseph Goebbels has its page, serbian propaganda machine fromthe 1990's also needs it. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Er, Goebbels was a living person. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. We allready have Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia. "Serb propaganda..." article should be merged into this one. Also, some NPOV parts of the article should be cleaned up. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Many examples it gives are not propaganda at all. For example the Pakrac Massacre - a newspaper reports that it happened, a few days later state TV issues a retraction - what's the propaganda there? General Michael Rose, the British head of UNPROFOR, revealed in his memoirs that three days after the blast he told General Jovan Divjak, the deputy commander of Bosnian Army forces, that the shell had been fired from Bosnian positions.[53] The Serb propaganda supported the claim.[54] - how the hell is it propaganda when media report about a statement from the person who is the authority on the matter? Nikola (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For anyone else who would still like to join the discussion I would just like to point out that voting to keep the article for the reason of the topic is notable or the subject is important is not being very constructive in trying to improve this article. The reason for this debate is that the article is suffering from many problems not related to the notability or importance of the subject rather it is, in my opinion, very poorly and un-objectively written. Since it was created, there have not been significant improvements in its neutrality (or quality in general) even after it was once nominated for deletion where these issues were brought up. These are the things that need to be fixed or, again in my opinion, the article should be deleted if it doesn't stand up to the quality standards of Wikipedia. The Yugoslav wars were important/notable, yes. The Serbian media involvement was important, yes. Those are not things to be discussed here. This article is poorly written. That's what needs to be discussed. Thanks! SWik78 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * this is WP:AFD. Discussions of WP:CLEANUP do not belong here. The sole question to be addressed here is, is the topic notable. If the article is just poorly written or POV, slap it with cleanup tags, no reason to take it to afd. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are incorrect. The article is notable and even I, the nominator who started this debate, do not wish to have a debate about the notability because I agree that it is there so there is no discussion neccessary about that. As far as a cleanup tag is concerned, if you care to take a look at the article itself you will notice that a cleanup tag has been there since the article was created in December of 2007 and the issues have still not been addressed. In the case of an article that is more problematic than the benefit that it provides in being included in Wikipedia, I think it is a very good reason to delete it because it does more harm than good. SWik78 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep, arguably merge into Serbian nationalism. The question of merging does not need to be discussed at afd. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - a number of fundamental problems with this article:
 * WP:POV - to begin with, the very title of the article, "propaganda", is a POV term for organized attempts to influence opinion. Second, a lot of the content is certainly POV.
 * WP:OR - the article is a collection of various incidents which a number of editors believe to be examples of Serbian propaganda. However, the selection is made by the editors and not based on specific study of Serbian propaganda. This is a key fault of the article.
 * In most cases, an article can be salvaged despite these problems. However, in this case the article has become a magnet for various nationalist attacks and is, in my opinion, beyond salvaging. I propose to delete the article and redirect it to the Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia article. It is largely based on an expert report for the ICTY prosecution by French professor Renaud de la Brosse entitled "Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create 'A State For All Serbs:' Consequences of using media for ultra-nationalist ends" and an article by journalist Judith Armatta of the IWPR titled "Milosevic's Propaganda War".CheersOsli73 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I completely agree with the second point made in the above vote. A selective inclusion of incidents being grouped under the same blanket term with the purpose of trying to establish a common goal would be considered OR in my opinion. As an ideal solution, I would like to see an article such as Fut. Perf. suggested that would describe propaganda from all sides involved in the conflict. Barring that, redirecting to Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia would be my next choice. It is a better written article that does not contain any of the fundamental flaws of the currently debated article and it would be much easier to develop that article into something cleaner, more neutral and better overall. SWik78 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep How anyone could dispute that this is an encyclopedic and notable topic is beyond me. Serb propaganda existed and played a notorious role in the conflict, whether some are willing to face this fact or not. Live Forever (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read one of the several instances where I said that the topic is clearly notable to see that there is no dispute about the notability of the subject. We are discussing the article and its flaws (NPOV, OR, etc.), we are not discussing whether or not Serb propaganda existed. SWik78 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I just registered, and simplified a sentence in the article (I hope I didn't break any rule), but I came here to leave a comment, as there is a sign at the top "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page". So let me comment. This article should be improved, the sources are very good, deleting it, would be a major mistake. Propaganda is very interesting topic, and Serbian propaganda is something well-known in Europe. Propaganda shouldn't be compared to media role, nor to Serbian nationalism, it is not the same thing. Propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience in different ways. Media,nationalism,politicians,different strategic plans, military tactics are examples of such ways. That part about Serbian leadership is very well explained based on international justice. That's all for now. Šljkljkž — Šljkljkž (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * strong keep! — 78.3.122.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I !voted keep (well, weak keep) at the first Afd because I wanted to see what the community could do with the article. I now have my answer. Persistent coatracking and NPOV violations continue to afflict this article despite the passage of several months to improve it.  I agree with the editor who wrote earlier that eventualism does not seem to work as well with this type of article. There seems to be a consensus that a proper article on the topic can be written, but is anyone willing to do so? I'll the first to state I am not, and in the absence of someone dedicated to improvement of this particular article, I don't expect the end state of this article to change for the better.  I think at this point the project is better off with no article on the subject than it is with this deeply flawed example. Xymmax (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.