![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
(
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.
( 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)
"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."
"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."
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)"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."
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
(
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.
( 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)
"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."
"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."
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)"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."
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)
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 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)
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)
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)