Jump to content

Talk:Neretva

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

Uniqueness, beauty, diversity

[edit]

My edit summary got cut off, but what I was trying to say about my edit is that beauty is subjective and, under WP:NPOV, isn't an attribute that can be expressed as fact in a Wikipedia article. If there are reliable sources (WP:RS) that make it clear that the river is known by many for its beauty, it can be stated that people consider it to be so. As for uniqueness: this is not the only beautiful or diverse river in the world, so calling the Neretva unique for having these qualities is simply false. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced the previously restored uniqueness reference. As I wrote in my edit summary, the fact that someone else fallaciously used the word "unique" doesn't mean that it's factually unique. Yes, it may be unique in the sense that, as Santasa99 said to me, every person is unique, but in that sense, it isn't then worth mentioning. In that case, every article on every river, every country, every forest, every city, and every person could mention that the topic was "unique", but then there wouldn't be any point in mentioning it; it would be like writing somewhere, in every biographical article, "X has unique fingerprints", as though that were interesting. There isn't any point in saying something's unique unless it's unique in the sense that it's different from everything else in some remarkable way. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian

[edit]

There are many "Bosnian language" references in the text. I suggest that we dual-script them to Cyrillic too, and change the language name to BCS or Serbo-Croatian, because Bosnian is not the only official language of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---Bosnian, Sernian and Croatian are the official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbo-Croatian on the other hand, is not.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dam Neutrality

[edit]

The section on the river's dams appear to be a critique of the environmental effects of the dams rather than a description of them. This violates WP:NPOV. While it is reasonable to mention the detrimental environmental effects, such weight is not needed. For starters, the section is entitled "Dam Problems" as opposed to, say "Dam Situation" Alexandicity (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

[edit]

In fact, the entire article suffers from POV language, and I've noted a few such phrases in my edit summary--"still enjoy the unique atmosphere" "the infamous project" "This is a cunning plan of engineers". It's pretty obvious that some editors are greatly interested in the protection of this river (and good luck to them), but it goes at the expense of the article's neutrality. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--This whole section needs to be reworked by someone knowledgeable of the region. It has an obvious tone and message which violates a number of Wiki "rules". Plus it was written by someone who has English as a second language and it shows. I also don't think the biggest section of an article dealing with a regionally important river system should be dedicated to the "evils" of dams and energy companies. Indeed, the whole article seems to be riddled with a tone that glorifies the region and its people. There's nothing wrong with having local pride but such a tone really isn't meant for an encyclopedia and isn't consistent with neutrality or with the way any educational article should be written. I'm going to try to fix what I can but being that I live over 5,000 miles from the area I can't do much. Coinmanj (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Please see File:NERETVA RIVER GORGE BRIDGES.jpg and File:NERETVA RIVER BRIDGES, BOSNIA.jpg as these may be worth including in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Neretva. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Neretva. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neretva. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depth

[edit]

The entry cites a river depth of nearly 4000 feet, well over a kilometer. This must be quite incorrect. That would make it by far the deepest river in the world, more than 3 times the record-holding Congo's depth. The author seems to be confusing canyon depth with river depth. This mistake, which made me say "that can't be right!" when I looked up the river's depth while reading about the famous bridge-diving at Mostar, is now picked up around the editor-free internet. Since the river is classified into 3 distinct zones, a helpful discussion of its depth (and the river's hydrology and ecosystems) would best be separated into those 3 divisions, too. But the depth figure provided is certainly wrong -- by a couple orders of magnitude. Westcider (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neretva&oldid=1212465339"