Jump to content

Talk:Bijeljina massacre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Plavšić photograph

The article mentions a supposed picture of Plavšić kissing Arkan while stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian. I haven't been able to find anything online to such effect. Can someone point me to a link of said photograph? It sounds like a shocking image, surely it would have been included in this album of Haviv's . 23 editor (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from the transcripts of several trials which mention the incident that there were several kisses between the two (perhaps three) during her visit to Bijeljina, but it is also apparent that there are some aspects of the text that accompanies the photograph (when it is tendered as evidence) that are at issue. There are copies of an image of a kiss between the two online like here, which makes one wonder if the "stepping over the body" part was Haviv's description of what she was doing rather than what was actually on film. It is mentioned by several reliable online news sources such as Bill Glauber of the Chicago Tribune here, and at least one BBC article. Those articles have then been used as sources for academic articles like that of Jelena Subotić in Southeastern Europe 36 (2012) 39–59. It is a bit strange that it isn't included in Haviv's portfolio Blood and Honey on his website, given it is so "infamous", but it may not have been a particularly good photograph from a technical perspective, which would explain that. I still think it is a bit odd that a picture of her stepping over a body isn't online anywhere I can find, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Also interesting that the Bosniak journo who was there didn't mention it in his evidence, according to this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The crux of the claim is that that there was a corpse on the ground which the individuals in question cold-heartedly disregarded and ignored like it was no big deal. Perhaps someone meant it figuratively and the story caught on despite not being literal. Also, the image provided doesn't look like a photograph. It looks more like a frame of television footage. Did Haviv photograph a kiss at all? Perhaps that's why it isn't on the site. I'm confused. 23 editor (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that part of the claim is very unlikely to be true. Based on my reading of the transcripts, the Tigers and Mauzer's people had "cleaned up" Bijeljina by the time the delegation arrived. If that was the case, why would they leave a body immediately in front of the municipal building for the delegation to step over? I can see how it may have been said in a figurative sense, but in a physical sense, I doubt it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Then we can agree to leave the bit about "the kiss" and toss away the claim of stepping over dead bodies? 23 editor (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of any direct evidence of it, I believe that is the appropriate course of action. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Not up to us to judge "direct evidence" or lack thereof. For example there is much primary evidence in the possession of the ICTY that hasn't been laid eyes on by the general public, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Indeed according to this [1][2] the photograph was "presented as evidence at the Hague tribunal". We already have multiple serious sources corroborating or repeating that this event occurred. [3][4] We don't just discard them based on our speculation. --Potočnik (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If there was a photograph I guarantee you it would have been made public. Such a picture would have been a propaganda grand slam for the Izetbegović government. It would have been seen on the front page of every newspaper, shown repeatedly on CNN, BBC, etc. Kind of like what happened with the concentration camp photos.
Surely, it wasn't kept out of the public eye for being too violent. This article's infobox photo shows a paramilitary kicking a women to death. You'd think that was more violent than a photo of a woman merely stepping over a dead body. But it's not violence that makes this supposed picture notable, it's the implied blatant disregard for human life. If the photo was so "widely circulated" you'd think one of us would be able to find it on the Internet. Alas, it fails to appear. Also, this article Potočnik has produced says "Plavšić literally had to step over bodies lying on the pavement around her". So was it one body, three or a dozen? How many are we talking about? At the very least, it's obvious the person who wrote this particular piece hadn't seen the supposed photo personally. Surprise, surprise. Neither have we. In the absence of any direct evidence, this claim needs to be tossed into the trash. It's clear the photo/image *as it is described in the article* doesn't exist. 23 editor (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
And that Drakulić piece isn't the only one. See [5] [6] God, how many lazy journalists there are in the world. Do these people fact-check anything? I've found multiple articles that describe Plavšić as posing with Arkan beside the bodies of murdered people. They're supposedly referring to the photograph in question. Posing? This opens a whole new can of worms. Was she posing with Arkan or was she kissing him? Or are there two photographs? If there are, why aren't either of them to be found anywhere? Good questions. The deeper I dig into this, the more I feel some Western journalist was interviewing someone during the war and the person being interviewed took a jab at Plavšić by saying she was walking over the bodies of dead Muslims by visiting Bijeljina (figuratively, as in to say she had blood on her hands). The journalist probably took it literally, included it in an article, and the story spread like wildfire.
Don't get me wrong, she and Arkan did exchange kisses on the cheeks during her visit, and there's video/photographic evidence to that effect. But it's highly dubious there were any cadavers involved. Without physical proof, this story just doesn't hold water. 23 editor (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If you read one of the transcripts, the prosecutor and one of the judges are discussing something that is heard on tape (for which the text was apparently provided), and the prosecutor is careful to steer the judge away from what it said, and ask only that the footage itself is admitted to prove that Plavsic did indeed kiss Arkan. The defence notes that they would be strenuously objecting to the "commentary" that accompanied the footage. I believe the judge or prosecutor says something about "Truth being the first casualty". It is total supposition, but that sounds to me as if the cameraman or someone made a statement about the kiss which was recorded. But the audio is never tendered as evidence of anything. It's not too long a bow to draw, IMO, that someone made a remark about "stepping over bodies", and that's been taken as gospel by some, but not admitted into evidence by the court. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it "obvious" she hasn't seen the image when the author even specifies she's "elegantly dressed as usual, with freshly done hair and in high heels"? Is she imagining the whole thing? You realize you're going to have to go on faith either way? I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that some people still doubted the reality of the concentration camps when those images were released. The fact of the matter is that on one side we have many reliable sources stating the event occurred (be it photographed or not) whether by diligent research or by lazy negligence and the other side only personal suspicions. Which carries weight on Wikipedia? Also a woman who considers others "genetically deformed material" does not need to be vilified she does a good job of it herself. --Potočnik (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, no physical proof and numerous contradictions in the sources you have provided. You're the one insisting on this statement's inclusion when none of us have seen the photo. Perhaps you have seen it? Since you're so insistent, the onus is one you to irrefutably prove that the picture as described actually exists and contributes to a reader's understanding of the massacre. So far, you've haven't been very convincing. 23 editor (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Potočnik, I think I've found your long-lost photo . The sources got it slightly wrong. She's posing with a different leader, but still. 23 editor (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not about me or you viewing primary evidence or providing it. Are you going to tell me that you've looked at every primary evidence mentioned in all the books you've read or cited? If not how can you be so sure they're telling the truth? Sources do the talking not our own speculations and unless you've got some sources that are as reliable backing your claims then there's little to do. That's how Wikipedia works. I'm not buying into your personal view that all these sources are just being delusional and I don't think this is a laughing matter. Were you in Bijeljina in 1992? How can you trust the HRW or the ICTY? Unless you've personally seen the killings they might not have even happened right? Hell Izetbegovic thought the pictures coming out of Bijeljina were a photomontage who's to say they weren't? This is the line of reasoning you're taking here. --Potočnik (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You're completely changing the subject here. We're talking about whether a particular photo exists or not and you're bringing up whether or not the killings occurred. My tongue-in-cheek humour aside, these are two completely different things. The massacre did happen, as both easily accessible and existing photos can attest. No one is denying that by any stretch of the imagination, despite what you may think. What's in question is one particular photo which the article describes as "widely circulated" and "notorious". Again, if it's so "widely circulated", why can't anyone find it? And given no one can seem to find it or agree to what it actually shows, how we can make the value judgment that it's "notorious"? It's a Russell's teapot situation through and through. 23 editor (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm just taking your reasoning to the next level. Your insistence on viewing primary evidence yourself, forming your own opinion on it, and then changing the article in accordance is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Find a reliable source (for the love of god not some Serbian tabloid) that questions the photo's existence and then we can include a line about it otherwise I don't see there being much to do. --Potočnik (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You want a source? Here's the ICTY testimony of Sead Omeragić:
A. I observed at this point Arkan and Mrs. Plavsic, and that's when, as you can see, they kissed. I was there.
[...]
A. Yes. In talking to people that I met with the soldiers, ordinary people, I would learn various things by the way, including the fact that before that, there were conflicts and that there were tens of people dead, that everything took place out in the streets, and the streets -- that the streets were later cleared of the blood from the corpses.
Q. And were the corpses also removed prior to the visit?
A. Yes, as far as I learnt.
What does that tell us? As Peacemaker deduced, it would have been stupid to leave dozens of bodies lying throughout the city for the world to see and the corpses were removed. Circumstantial evidence, but better than nothing (which is what the photo's absence is). 23 editor (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It would have been stupid to let reporters see skeletonizing men in the Omarska concentration camp, but they still did it. Somehow the intelligence of war criminals doesn't enter the equation for me. "Deducing"... you form an absolute opinion that all bodies were cleared from an "as far as I learnt" testimony and an absolute opinion that the photograph doesn't exist because you don't have access to it in spite of numerous reliable sources. --Potočnik (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"...just because you don't have access to it." Alright, do you have it? If so, provide a photo. The fact of the matter is not a single source mentions her stepping over dead bodies prior to 2003, when the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent published articles to that effect. Silber and Little? Nope. Indeed, the BBC, The New York Times, The Independent... Not a word of it. This is not unlike the tale that Gavrilo Princip was eating a sandwich right before assassinating Ferdinand . It's completely false. These stories pop up out of nowhere and spread like wildfire because no one is willing to fact-check them. Wikipedia will not make the same mistake, and if you refuse to budge, I suggest we take this to WP:RFC because you're being completely and utterly unreasonable and refusing to use common sense. 23 editor (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's irrelevant if either us have it. That's why it's silly to demand it. It's irrelevant what your or my opinion is on the photograph. What's relevant is what reliable sources have to say. If you got them then by all means bring them to the table. You've done it for this "Princip sandwhich myth" now do it for this. Wikipedia doesn't discard sources based on your personal suspicions that all these sources were just duped. --Potočnik (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. There isn't one source before that date that even mentions dead bodies. More telling is what many sources don't say. Take this 1997 book by Kemal Kurspahić, Oslobođenje editor. No mention of dead bodies, though the kiss is mentioned. Silber and Little ? No bodies. Armatta ? Nope. The Central Intelligence Agency ?! No bodies. You have a few Western news reports from 2003 forward that mention dead bodies. Are they peer-reviewed? No. The fact of the matter is that the few academic sources that refer to dead bodies are referencing these un-reviewed news reports from 2003 and subsequent reports that are based on those initial ones. For someone who authored an article on the role many Jewish people played in the rise of communism (despite ridiculous claims that this was was anti-Semitic or "prejudiced") you're surprisingly unwilling to use your brain and logical reasoning for this one. Shame. 23 editor (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Also strange is that not every source in the world on the same subject contains the same information. There isn't one reliable source to date that says the photograph doesn't exist and I've asked for it numerous times. You find it? Be my guest and slap it on the article. Yeah and how'd that go? Anyway personal attacks get you nowhere no matter what the circumstances. --Potočnik (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of digging up sources proving that a photograph with dead bodies doesn't exist. As for what I've provided so far, Omeragić's testimony isn't merely an opinion. He clearly says "I was there" when Plavšić and Arkan kissed. The "as far as I learned" part refers to the fact he heard there had been a massacre and corpses had been removed from the town in general. You don't have to use your ears to see a woman stepping over a dead body (or bodies, depending on which sources you believe).
In the meanwhile, this pretty much sums up your argument: I've never seen the photo and neither have you. I can't prove the photo exists, but you can't prove it doesn't. Therefore, I'm right. An argument from ignorance, wouldn't you say? My research results pending, I'd say I'm in the same epistemological boat as of present. More links to come. 23 editor (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the problem with making assumptions. They kissed both on arrival and when they left and Omeragic even refers to it at one point as the "kiss of death". I have sources state that the photograph exists and that the event did occur. You don't have sources state that the photograph doesn't exist and that the event didn't occur. A single editor asking for a counter source is not an unreasonable request. I shouldn't have to type paragraphs to get one. It's basic stuff. --Potočnik (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
A statement like "kiss of death" is so obviously figurative that even a baboon could see it. That is precisely the type of comment that a reporter could misconstrue and misrepresent in a subsequent article. You're just repeating facts we both agree on. They kissed on arrival. I agree, and have never denied that. Do images exist of that kiss? They do. Do they show a dead body? Absolutely not. Come to think of it, this whole conversation has come to whether a photograph/image shows a particular thing or not. Again, an image of Plavšić and Arkan exchanging kisses does exist and Peacemaker67 produced it early on, see here. If this is the image all these people are describing (regardless of whether they've accurately characterized it or not) it most certainly is available for viewing and it does not show what you purport it to. Not a single piece of testimony at the ICTY alludes to her literally stepping over a corpse to kiss Arkan. At this point, the discussion should be over. Yet, you stubbornly insist on claiming there was a body somewhere in there. That is sensationalism pure and simple and is demonstrative of a lack of good will to ensure the article is factually accurate. After extensively combing through the ICTY archives, an image of this woman stepping or otherwise posing with a dead body or bodies is not mentioned anywhere.
  1. Željko Mihajlovic, president of the Executive Committee of the Bijeljina Municipal Assembly, stated in his ICTY testimony that Plavšić and Arkan exchanged kisses on the cheek in front of Bijeljina Municipal Building with Tigers lined up against the wall. He doesn't mention any bodies on the ground, but says that it was recorded by television cameras and a video clip of them exchanging kisses was 'shown around the world'. Note: This is similar language to that used when describing the alleged photograph of dead bodies and the image that Peacemaker provided is almost certainly derived from this clip. (Page 35723)
  2. Here an ICTY prosecutor refers to a clip where Plavsic and Arkan are shown kissing. No dead bodies mentioned. (Page 1507)
  3. As mentioned, Sead Omeragic didn't mention the presence of any corpses during the kiss.
Theoretically, in some alternate universe, there could be such an image. But not in this one. 23 editor (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Just so everyone here remembers, Wikipedia relies on something being verifiable. If multiple, reliable sources say the same thing, then Wiki-editors can write that piece of info into the related articles. If there are only a small number of sources, then Wiki-editors should refrain from mentioning the "fact" whether it is true or not unless it is a "significant minority". This is why I have changed the sentence after it was re-added to "A photograph, described as "widely-circulated" and "notorious", reportedly shows Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian during the kiss.". Until there is actual proof of multiple, reliable sources stating the photograph's existence, then this sentence should not be included per WP:V, and WP:WEASEL. It is not the job of editors to say "no, this doesn't exist because I have [x] sources saying it doesn't" as sources would not mention the photo if it doesn't exist.

There is also the slight problem of this being an exceptional claim which practically demands WP:V be upheld to a higher-than-average standard, and this is without even mentioning WP:BLP since this is about Plavšić's actions which are possibly defamatory despite her other actions, so the burden is on Potočnik to provide "multiple, high-quality sources" or I will remove this on the basis of WP:V#Exceptional and WP:BLP. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC) PS. please remember to indent you comments according to who you are replying to rather than a [x]±1 number of indents, thanks.

(edit conflict) - We do have reliable sources stating the photograph's (it's probably actually a film clip) existence, albeit incredibly contradicting ones whose authors don't appear to have seen the image for themselves. The problem is no one can seem to find it, despite it being supposedly "widely circulated" and "notorious". The reason sources affirm the existence of an image showing Plavšić and Arkan exchanging kisses is because such an image does exist. What it doesn't show is either of them stepping over a dead body, which is the focal point of this disagreement and the crux of Potočnik's claim. Mention of a dead body is in all likelihood due to journalistic incompetence (as I outlined above). Of course, I'm not suggesting we include the WP:OR claim that it is journalistic incompetence in the article, I'm just asking all involved users to use their heads for a minute and balance the likelihood of probabilities. 23 editor (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Also, and I've just noticed this, the BBC article used to cite the supposed presence of a dead body during the kiss doesn't mention Bijeljina at all. It reads: "In 1992, a widely-circulated photographed showed her stepping over the body of a dead Muslim civilian to kiss the notorious Serb warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as Arkan." Alright, but where? So much for that one. 23 editor (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Watch your words and watch your ego I'm getting sick of your childish "brain", "baboon", or "head" comments. If you can't communicate with others in a civil manner then don't at all. Here are the sources you've asked for Doc:

"in 1992, a widely-circulated photographed showed her stepping over the body of a dead Muslim civilian to kiss the notorious Serb warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as Arkan."

  • "Biljana Plavsic: Serbian Iron Lady". BBC. 27 February 2003.

"There is a memorable photo of Biljana Plavsic visiting Bijeljina in the early spring of 1992. She arrived there just after war criminal Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan and his Tigers "freed" this Bosnian town from Muslims by killing them. Plavsic came to congratulate him. Elegantly dressed as usual, with freshly done hair and in high heels, she cordially embraced Arkan and kissed him. She literally had to step over bodies lying on the pavement around her."

"Plavšić is also the star of a notorious photograph taken during the first days of the confl ict in Bijeljina, in which she is shown stepping over the body of a dead Bosniac civilian to kiss one of the most brutal Serbian warlords Željko Ražnatović Arkan."

"She also was photographed stepping over the body of a Muslim to plant a kiss on the face of Serbian warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as Arkan. Later she came to be embraced by the United States as the Americans sought a solution to the conflict."

"During the war, Plavsic defended the mass killings of Bosnia's non-Serbs as ‘a natural phenomenon’. She has been accused of playing a role in the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, where at least 8,000 Muslims were killed. In a photograph presented as evidence at the Hague tribunal, she is seen stepping over a dead body to greet notorious Serbian warlord Zeljko 'Arkan' Raznatovic with a kiss."

--Potočnik (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. BBC—Doesn't mention Bijeljina
  2. Drakulić—Contradictory, body or bodies?
  3. Subotić—Cites Glauber 2002, who doesn't mention Bijeljina at all
  4. Glauber—No mention of Bijeljina (see above)
  5. Uggelberg—No mention of Bijeljina. As stated, no such photo of Plavšić in any location was presented as evidence (which makes this particular assertion patently false), though a still of her kissing Arkan (without the dead bodies ) was .

Hence, do you have better sources or are you going to keep wasting our time? 23 editor (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And finally, after an hour of searching, I've found video of the kiss (9:35–46). No body. 23 editor (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's amusing. You've presented absolutely zero sources that dismiss the matter (you somehow managed it with a sandwhich myth of all things, but not this) and instead shoved your own thoughts on the subject for the thousandth time. What exactly is your argument? Is it that it didn't occur in Bijeljina or that it didn't occur at all? You seem to be throwing whatever sticks. We're discussing a photograph not a video. They kissed when they met and when they left and I don't exactly expect bodies to be levitating. You dismiss what reliable sources have to say since don't fit for you, then you pretend you have all the pieces at hand, and then use your original research as concrete evidence. --Potočnik (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking this to this RFC. You obviously aren't interested in ensuring Wikipedia is reporting facts. Despite tons of evidence, you insist that these individuals stepped over a body even when the sources you have used to make this assertion have been thoroughly dissected and rebuked, and it has been conclusively proven that this did not occur. At this point, I believe you simply don't want to admit you're wrong (za inat, as the saying goes) and stubbornly hold on to the belief that these people did indeed step over a corpse. Here's how things stand:
Arguments for the photo's existence — the facts
For Against
1. Some sources mention Plavšić having to step over a dead body (3 provided don't mention Bijeljina; one mentions multiple bodies, which no other source claims, thus discrediting it wholly, and one claims it occurred in Bijeljina by referencing a news report which says no such thing).
1. None of the editors in question have actually seen the photo. If such a "widely circulated" and "notorious" photo existed, it would (as the value judgement suggests) be widely available and would no doubt have been used for propaganda/PR purposes during the war.
2. Despite claims to the contrary, a still of Plavšić stepping over a corpse has never been presented as evidence at The Hague.
3. Sources used to support the claim of Plavšić stepping over a corpse either don't mention it happened in Bijeljina, are wildly contradictory, or academically negligent/dishonest.
4. Video evidence proves Arkan and Plavšić didn't have to step over anything when exchanging kisses (nowhere are they seen stumbling or otherwise stepping over anything on the ground, and are surrounded by four other people in a space of a little over one square meter, leaving no room for a body to lie.)
5. The ICTY testimony of a half-dozen people unanimously indicates that all bodies were removed prior to Plavšić's visit to the Bijeljina municipal building.
6. The first mention of [a] body/bodies comes in 2003 late 2002, shortly after Plavšić's arrest; all the sources before that mention a kiss but no bodies, including ones that have a vested interest in making Plavšić appear as evil as possible.
7. The editor supportive of this claim's inclusion in the article demands a source that proves such a photo doesn't exist; a source which explicitly says this doesn't exist to my knowledge, but given the precise claim is made in such a small number of admittedly reputable sources, it isn't surprising no one has come forward to debunk it. In any case, consider it debunked.

23 editor (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It's irrelevant whether or not you or I have seen the photo or what our opinions on it are.
2. You've never seen one piece of evidence at ICTY let alone the images presented in the case. How the hell are you qualified to claim that?
3. Not dishonest nor a boogeyman out to get you, the sources were published in BRILL the international academic publisher, BBC national news, and the cultural journal Eurozine. Much more than can be said for your personal observations on Wikipedia. Your definition of what's a contradiction is humorous.
4. We're discussing a photograph not a video. They kissed twice, when they met, when they left. Bodies don't levitate.
5. The man put in charge of collecting the bodies was ordered to do so in the morning of 4 April and worked "until dark" [7]
6. Tinfoil speculated agenda that reliable sources (liable for slander and libel) are trying to make a convicted war criminal (who says others are "genetically deformed material") intentionally look bad and had to make stuff up.
7. There are sources saying something happened. If you want to make the claim it didn't then it's not illogical to ask for sources that say it didn't. Your opinion is not a source. You got a source that debunked the sandwich myth? Great, now find a source that debunks the photograph. Why did someone bother to address that, but not something more important like this? --Potočnik (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Might I ask if you referred to me in your comment as "tinfoil" Potočnik? I seem to be the only one to have raised WP:BLP and the related concerns of slander and libel, rather ironic if you were referring to me or my comment. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to 23 editor's notion that there's a "vested interest in making Plavšić appear as evil as possible" on the part of international news sources and academic publishers as tinfoil. I pointed out that that's unlikely as they are liable for slander and libel. --Potočnik (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I just skipped the table's contents due to the "single argument For, multiple reasons Against" non-neutrality for any form of an RfC statement/proposal/draft proposal. Apologies if I seemed a bit rude, but there's only so many ways to phrase a question and still ask what you want to know. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't debunk the sandwich myth, the article's author (Mike Dash) did. I merely used it as an example of how total BS can leak into texts discussing historical events. Now, if I were to go and write an article on a reputable news/anthropology/history site (of course you wouldn't know it was me), outline all the blatant contradictions, improbabilities and lies regarding this supposed "photo", and then come back here and post it as "proof", then I'm assuming you'd come to and agree the photo story is absolute drivel?? See, that's the problem with not being nuanced and questioning where you get your information (as every good reporter, historian, political analyst, or indeed Wiki editor, should do). Just because some sources say something happened a particular way, doesn't mean they actually did. I have more sources discussing the kiss which don't mention a dead body than you have sources that do.

Take for example the article Petar Baćović about a year ago. There were one or two inconsistencies/questionable assertions, Peacemaker67 and another editor whose name I can't remember pointed them out to me, we discussed it calmly and voila! 'Twas fixed. That's precisely what would have happened here if you hadn't decided to insist on this stupid, unverifiable claim. You, who claim to have sources on your side, don't even want to admit that most of those sources a) don't ever mention Bijeljina (thus, it's baseless for the assertion to be in the article) and 2) the ones that do are either contradictory (Drakulić) or cite an article which, again, doesn't say Bijeljina at all. At the very least, you have to get rid of the BBC, Subotić, Glauber and Uggelberg. Which leaves you with Drakulić, who says bodies (contradicting everything every source has ever said about this supposed incident) yet seems to know exactly what Plavšić was wearing at the time. Artistic license, perhaps? As it stands, and it stands quite precariously, that single source of yours which purports that Plavšić was photographed stepping over dead bodies in Bijeljina is hardly verifiable. And on the topic of slander, the only ones slandering anyone here are those who insist on disseminating demonstratively false information. I, may I remind you, gave Ms. Subotić the benefit of the doubt and suggested it also may have slipped her mind that Glauber doesn't say Bijeljina. 23 editor (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say that my position has clarified somewhat. I agree with the Doc, it is a pretty extraordinary claim, and it needs pretty extraordinary sources. I just don't think what we have justifies its inclusion. If things change, I'm happy to revisit it. I certainly won't be supporting its inclusion on present sources, some of which expect us to assume the location of the kiss, or are clearly based on another source that is too vague. I don't think there is any need for an RfC, and I expect an RfC aimed at its retention will fail on the grounds of needing extraordinary sources. I will continue to improve the article with the aim of taking it to FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Do please define an what "extraordinary source" is if BRILL of all things doesn't even cut it. --Potočnik (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to write anything (indeed I'm tired of your writing). I want you to get a source that debunks the photograph like the one you have found that debunks the incredibly obscure sandwhich myth. I didn't resort to name calling so please don't lecture others on wanting a "calm discussion" and I don't think trying to browbeat someone is a legitimate way to argue. If they don't mention the town in which it occurred (sources corroborate it as being Bijeljina with a body or not) then you're either saying it occurred in a different town in 1992 or the event occurred twice. Where's the evidence to lead to that conclusion? Yes I suppose you could dismiss everything as a "metaphor", "artistic interpretation", "shot in the dark" or even reality as you know it if you wanted to. --Potočnik (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell; a source that is almost, if not, completely irrefutable by reasonable minds. For example, if the picture/photograph/video was found and shown to exist without alteration, then that could constitute an EXCEPTIONAL primary source. As for secondary sources, they are usually few and far between for any topic. I can't honestly say I have seen any, or if I have I didn't realise it.
You may also want to be careful about who are referring to when making comments. You seem to be annoyed at 23 editor and their comments about the "Sandwich Myth", in relation to the current dispute, but you directed your comment to Peacemaker67 who is attempting to keep the discussion civil while editing other parts of the article to improve it's overall quality. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
My mistake this discussion is itself becoming a sandwich of sorts. --Potočnik (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the thing though. Users aren't responsible for hunting down obscure primary evidence cited in reliable sources. It also isn't an editor's place to evaluate that primary evidence and interject his opinion on the matter. --Potočnik (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Potočnik, if we had the photo in front of us and it showed, clearly, that Plavsic kissed Arkan while stepping over a body, would we even be having this discussion or would we be in agreement that the photo was proof enough without other sources? That is what I meant by the photo being an exceptional primary source. If the photo was blurry, did not have a body, was proven/believed to be altered, otherwise unclear or unreliable, then we would have to rely on other, exceptional, secondary sources such as what we are doing now since the photo is currently being debated as "otherwise missing/non-existent" outside the imaginations of false history. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
If we had the photograph the outcome would be the same. Neither my analysis nor yours of it would carry any weight whatsoever. We have to rely on another reliable source stating the counter of what established sources have said. The need for a counter source doesn't just occur if the photograph pops up for the general public. There is no obligation for a user to go hunt it down because someone refuses to believe reliably published sources or have to discard sources based on his personal observations. --Potočnik (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker, with all due respect, and I do respect you for the absolutely outstanding work you've done on Balkans-related article over the last five-or-so years, I'm afraid I will have to drop out of helping improve the article to FA status and oppose FA candidacy if the statement in question isn't removed. It's nothing personal against you, or even Potočnik. All I want on Wikipedia is to make the content conform to the objective truth. That means sources can be questioned from time to time (regardless of how reliable they are). And no, Potočnik, I'm not someone in a tinfoil hat. The "vested interest" comment did not refer to international journalists (who I'm sure did their best to be as professional as possible) but some Balkan individuals who wish to paint the "others" as the devil (misinformation the three sides spread during, and even after, the war is very well-documented). 23 editor (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Issuing ultimatums gets no one anywhere. Others such as Plavsic do a fine job of painting themselves as the devil with their own words and actions. Don't start with The Truth™. --Potočnik (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I won't be taking it to FA with that bit in it. Seems to me there are good grounds for an RfC to remove it on the basis of the need for extraordinary sources for an extraordinary claim given there is a possible BLP violation involved. I shall formulate one forthwith. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bijeljina_massacre/Archive_2&oldid=712127686"