Talk:Bijeljina massacre/Archive 4

RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"?
Question: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan)?

The current version of the article makes reference to a photograph in the following terms: A photograph, described as "widely-circulated" and "notorious", reportedly shows Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian during the kiss. The kiss between Plavšić and Arkan is not at issue here, there are many reliable sources that mention it, and it has been accepted as an agreed fact in several prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The question of this RfC is whether Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak, or words to that effect, should be mentioned in the article, given that a significant number of sources mention this detail while a significant number of sources do not. If you consider it should be mentioned in the article, please indicate what wording you consider should be used. Plavšić is still alive, so WP:BLP obviously applies. The table below lists sources/quotes that mention the "Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss Arkan " detail in some form, as well as a list of sources/quotes that don't mention any dead body during "the kiss". This is a bit of a contentious and complex RfC, so it would be appreciated if interested editors would do a bit of fact-checking/reading before placing a comment either way. I suggest editors use the terms Include or Do not include along with their comments and/or suggested wording. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Slightly refactored. Table with quotes has been moved below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What we have here is 14 quotes saying quite explicitly that it did happen and 14 quotes which neither mention it nor deny it. Based on that, the only reasonable answer is: Include. (Interestingly, one of the sources that do not mention stepping over the body almost compensates by flatly calling her a Nazi.) Surtsicna (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include & Question - So there are clearly a number mainstream RS's which report this factoid. It's clearly verifiable and thus WP:BLP concerns can probably be ignored. One thing that does bother me though is that I took a quick look for this photo on the internet and couldn't find it. If the photo is "widely-circulated" as claimed by multiple sources, why isn't it readily available? NickCT (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why this RFC was raised to begin with. None of us have have seen it, and no such image was presented at The Hague. 23 editor (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Hmmmm.... Well I can definitely see how that would be disturbing. I think I'd still support inclusion though. To have so many high-quality RS's saying the same thing, it's tough to see how they all got it wrong. I feel like we might be trying to second guess the NYT, the BBC and the Independent here. We shouldn't. It's immodest. The sources are right and we shouldn't second guess them.
 * That said, there is some chance the sources are wrong, but if that's the case, we can probably be forgiven for believing them. Unless of course, there is some really good and non-speculative reason we should doubt the sources. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include dead bodies or Reword to the effect of: "In the 2000s, several media outlets, such as BBC, NYT, The Independent, reported on the photograph of the kiss, including the description that she had to step over the dead bodies, although the outlets did not run the photograph in question. Sources prior to ____ (whatever date) do not mention the dead bodies being stepped over while the kiss occurred. Testimony from a participant of the event stated that the bodies had been removed prior to the politician's arrival." Also, Exclude 'widely circulated' as conjecture. The media outlets are not peer reviewed and have been known to misreport things, so not fully WP:RS in this case.
 * I was swayed by the arguments in the discussions above, including ICTY testimony not mentioning it and no mentions prior to the media reports:
 * "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. 23 editor (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)"
 * In summary, this is an 'extraordinary claim' per WP lingo and should be supported by multiple reliable sources, such as court testimony, government reports, books such as those 23 editor lists above (which omit this fact), etc, and not just by potentially unreliable (in this case) media outlets.
 * At the very least, it should be stated that the sources do not agree on the subject of whether dead bodies were present. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think you and 23 editor may both be a little confused as to how WP:verification and WP:reliable sources are approached on this project. You're both engaged in a great deal WP:original research here by way of WP:synthesis.  This statement is very clearly sourced by numerous high-quality references which more than pass muster for our RS standards.  There is no requirement that sources be "peer review" (indeed, the use of that term in this context is peculiar to point that it verges on nonsensical), nor that sourcing come in the form testimony, government reports or written first hand accounts.  Point in fact, those are all WP:Primary sources and re generally considered inappropriate for sourcing claims in this area or deciding content disputes of this manner.  Insofar as I can seem, the sources presented above are numerous and high caliber in terms of how verification works on this project (and remember, the standard is WP:verifiability not truth), and you would have us set them aside in order to embrace original research conducted by our editors on primary documentation.  That's just not how we operate here.  S n o w  let's rap 08:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't mind a footnote saying some sources mention corpse(s), though an equal number of sources don't and the journalist Lazanski says such an image does not exist. Just as long as the main text omits it. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only just and fair compromise for these two irreconcilable views. 23 editor (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I take the contrary view, I think the number of sources either way means both need to be included and compared and contrasted. Rather than citation bombing, the sources could be put in notes, one for those that include, and one for those that don't. As far as I am concerned, Lazanski is not reliable in this context. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "a footnote saying some sources mention corpse(s)" - That seems reasonable. Mention the corpses in the text then put a footnote in explaining the source issue.
 * - re "number of sources either way means" - What does that mean? The sources only point one way. NickCT (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that a number of sources don't mention the body/bodies. That's weak negative evidence in my view, as they don't deny the body/bodies, they just don't mention any. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Seems like an "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence" argument. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This could also be along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?" – i.e. the event did not occur. This is obviously WP:OR on my part, but so is the suggestion below that the detail may have been "omitted from some sources for any number of reasons, ranging from brevity, to the bias or sensibilities of the author, the context of the publication, the intended audience." In any case, the fact that we have to guess illustrates the problems with assertion about the dead bodies, and should not be included as a statement of fact. My personal WP:OR conviction is that no sane news organisation would have intentionally omitted this fact (or not run the photo if they had access to it), both due to its news value and also because it's genuinely shocking and outrageous. (That's why the picture that's included in the article, of a militant about to kick a dying woman, got such widespread coverage. I was not following the events closely but even after so many years I still remembered it). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reword; it should be mentioned, though it may breach an aspect of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, that there is a major discrepancy amongst the sources about the "photograph/video/art medium" being mentioned and about the date at which point the "photo" seems to have started being discussed. As said above, "the number of sources either way means both need to be included and compared and contrasted. Rather than citation bombing, the sources could be put in notes, one for those that include, and one for those that don't[,]" emphasis added. I feel that there is grounds to ignore WP:OR/WP:SYNTH for this instance, if it is decided to include mentionings of this "photo". A possible rewording may be: "A photograph, described as 'widely-circulated' and 'notorious' by the BBC and the Guardian reportedly shows Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian during the kiss though other sources mention photographs but without the body, or bodies, of any Bosniak civilians, such as the New York Times and Judith Armatta's Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic."
 * Don't know how that will go down with some, but it is an option that satisifies both parties' concerns of the controversy being mentioned due to sources, and the apparent lack of detail not mentioned due to conflicting sources. I also find the lack of any photo being found to be of some concern, since there seems to be an online gallery which does not include such a "famous/notorious/etc." photo. Use  to ping me if you have questions. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

SNOW include. Numerous high-quality reliable sources support this assertion and we have not a single reliable source which challenges the fact or even questions it. All we have casting doubt on the veracity of the statement are personal doubts of some of our editors, which is unambiguously qualified as WP:Original research and has no weight on how we WP:verify content on this project. Further, as has been pointed out by others above, the mere fact that some sources do not mention the body does not in any way suggest that those which do mention a body are inaccurate, as this detail could easily be omitted from some sources for any number of reasons, ranging from brevity, to the bias or sensibilities of the author, the context of the publication, the intended audience, just being unaware of the detail, and numerous other explanations. Honestly this is about as one-sided an issue as they come in terms of WP:V; numerous high quality reliable sources of varying types supporting the claim and not a single one which directly and explicitly challenges it. Such a claim is clearly allowed under our editorial guidelines, no matter how much certain contributors doubt it or how uncomfortable they are with the assertion being presented in our articles. I can't help but think that this would never have gone to RfC if not for the fact that this content area is a continual and raucous area of controversy and content warring. But our policies are pretty clear on the approach we have to take here.

All of that said, I don't think there is harm in K.e.coffman's suggestion that we weight the wording a little to indicate that there is variation in the sources as to the presence of the body, per his suggested text of: "In the 2000s, several media outlets, such as BBC, NYT, The Independent, reported on the photograph of the kiss, including the description that she had to step over the dead bodies, although the outlets did not run the photograph in question." or something along those lines. However, we absolutely cannot include the statement that "Sources prior to ____ (whatever date) do not mention the dead bodies being stepped over while the kiss occurred.", since that too would be unambiguous original research unless we can find a source which explicitly states as much--we would be drawing the conclusion based solely on the sources we have available to us in our capacity as editors, which is textbook WP:synthesis and not allowed. Still, that leaves us some wiggle-room to inform the reader about the variation in how different sources treat the detail of the body without making any overt efforts to read into and present our own opinions about what that variation might mean. In this regard, Doctor Crazy's suggestion looks much closer to what policy will allow here as a reasonable middle-ground solution. As he mentions, even that begins to edge up against synth, but I think it's a reasonable approach for the sake of compromise and utility to our readers.  S n o w  let's rap 09:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include dead bodies. The April 1992 visit of the B-H delegation to Bijeljina was discussed at the ICTY. A witness, a Bosnian Muslim journalist who followed the delegation, testified that Plavsic and Arkan met twice: first in the municipal building, and later in front of the building at the delegation's departure from Bijeljina. And that's when the famous kiss happened: "At the departure, Biljana Plavšić kissed Arkan, which is also recorded in a video footage shown in the courtroom." (Na rastanku, Biljana Plavšić je poljubila Arkana, što je takođe zabeleženo na video snimku prikazanom u sudnici.) The testimony was accompanied by video footages of the visit. If Plavsic stepped over dead bodies, that would have to be mentioned by the witness, or shown in a footage. But there is absolutely no mention of anything like that. Here is a 2010 interview with a leader of Bijeljina's Bosniaks, titled "The Kiss of Death" (Poljubac smrti), referring, of course, to Plavsic's kissing of Arkan in Bijeljina in April 1992. An image of the kiss is included on that site, and there are no dead bodies in it. The site is based in the Bosniak-controlled part of Sarajevo. The interview is highly negative of Plavsic, but it mentions no stepping over dead bodies by her. It is plain stupid to think that it wouldn't be mentioned in a text like that, if it really happened. And if the alleged photo with dead bodies really existed, it would surely be shown there instead of that image. The interviewed Bosniak leader probably did not want to embarrass himself by talking such imbecilities, as Plavsic stepping over dead bodies to kiss someone in front of cameras. But it's not a surprise that such utter stupidities are proliferated by western mainstream media, especially those in English. If you want wikipedia to spread sleazy morbid propaganda, then go ahead and include that sentence. Vladimir (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your arguments here involve numerous WP:unverified suppositions and thus constitute WP:original research on your part that is not supported by WP:reliable sources. No matter how well reasoned or "obvious" you (or even others) find your chain of reasoning, it carries exactly zero weight in a Wikipedia content discussion, which is based on the sources, not our best guesswork based on our own subjective logic as applied to the subject matter.  This is clearly one of those discussions where this basic tenet of editing on Wikipedia will end up needing to be repeated again and again, so you will forgive me if I bold the following early in an effort to make it seen to inexperienced editors or those who might willfully ignore this criteria: We do not utilize our own interpretations of the facts on this project, nor our own best-guess suppositions about what "really" happened, nor any personal perspective in general; we evaluate claims and present them in our content solely on the basis of how they are represented in reliable sources.  Those unfamiliar with these guidelines should read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS to familiarize themselves with these policies and understand why we approach verification in this manner.


 * Now it's obvious you view "western mainstream media" as "utterly stupid", but we're not here to discuss your misgivings or (frankly hyperbolic) universal indictment concerning the state of media in "the west"; for our purposes here it is only important that all of the numerous sources listed above clearly meet the reliable source standards adopted by the Wikipedia community for sourcing material. If you have a source, even a single source, which meets those same standards and which explicitly questions the claim that a body was stepped over without you needing to fill in the gap with conclusions as to what "must have happened, then we can include that source and its perspective in the prose and allow the reader to make their own conclusions about which interpretation is "obvious".  But lacking such a source, your guesswork here carries absolutely no weight in assessing the validity of a well-sourced claim.  S n o w  let's rap 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My assessment of western mainstream media might be a hyperbole, but the alleged photograph is obviously just a metaphor, taken by some media as a solid fact. The "widely-circulated" and "notorious" photograph is nowhere to be found? BBC, The Guardian, and others report about it, but don't show it? Well, I think, it raises some questions... Vladimir (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow you've eloquently put what I've constantly tried to explain prior to the RFC, but I'm afraid it'll be in vain with some people. --Potočnik (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "plain stupid", "imbecilities", "utter stupidities", "sleazy morbid propaganda"... Vlad you're trying much too hard. Enlightened gentlemen only stick to RT right? --Potočnik (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Spot on, Snow. That is why I specifically said that my two cents were based exclusively on what Peacemaker67 presented above. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Snow's suggestion to include additional qualification along the lines of "In the 2000s, several media outlets, such as _____, reported on the photograph of the kiss, including the description that she had to step over the dead bodies, although the outlets did not run the photograph in question." -- as the original 'proposer' (in part). Dr Crazy's version also works. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One quick qualification to that, something I failed to notice when endorsing that wording: we should probably omit the clause "In the 2000's" since we don't know where and when this aspect of the report began and trying to deduce that here from our sources would be OR in itself.  S n o w  let's rap 22:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include as claim of fact as many of the sources provided are "opinion pieces" and not usable for claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice.  And even if allowed as opinion sourced to person expressing the opinion and stated as opinion, we must determine separately whether the matter is of sufficient weight and encyclopedic value to be placed in any article. Collect (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What on Earth makes them "opinion pieces"? I see no "I think", "I believe", "I suspect", etc, in the sentences saying she stepped over a dead body. The sources absolutely claim it as a fact. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Opinion piece" refers to columns which take a definite point of view about a person, that is are editorial rather than reportorial in nature.  Consider a hypothetical column saying "George Gnarph is a mass murderer who ate from the skulls of his enemies"  which is a "statement of fact" if one looks at the wording, but, coming from an opinion column, must by Wikipedia guidelines be considered "opinion."  Collect (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have rather a heavily idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes an "opinion piece", but, in any event, on this project you need to frame your objections to sources according to the community's standards on what constitutes a WP:reliable source. All of the above sources meet our RS standards, and they make the claim about the body being stepped over in a straight-forward factual way, not as a metaphor or means of hyperbolic melodrama as in your hypothetical, which bears pretty much no resemblance to the current sources and circumstances, and is in fact a massive non-sequitur with regard to the current claim under discussion.  Furthermore, even if your arguments were valid policy arguments on Wikipedia, which they surely are not, you stipulate that they apply to "many" of the above sources, not all of them.  In order for a claim to be included in the content of an article, we need only provide sufficient sourcing; we need not judge that each and every source that was provided at some stage of the referencing process be a golden epitome of quality.  That would make no sense and would essentially make no content viable since, for most facts and claims, someone opposing that content could "counter" numerous hi-quality references which also support a claim simply by supplying additional low-quality sources which also support the claim!


 * That's just not how sourcing works on this project. For most claims, a single source will suffice.  For extraordinary claims we sometimes want multiple sources.  Here we have numerous sources supporting this claim, so many that they meet our most stringent sourcing standards and then exceed them several times over; we have fourteen high-quality sources here, and I shouldn't be surprised if dozens more could be supplied if they were necessary.  If you want your opposition to carry any weight in this Wikipedia content discussion, you are going to have to provide an argument based on this community's guidelines for reliable sources, not your own  doubts as to the veracity of the sources; you cannot WP:Censor content just because you personally doubt the veracity of a claim, if the source otherwise unambiguously meets this community's RS standards.  Nor have any of those parties who are uncomfortable with the inclusion of this claim provided so much as a single source which explicitly challenges it.  Frankly, having arrived at this discussion via RfC notice, I personally think the other side of this discussion has made more compromise than was strictly-speaking necessary in how this claim should be presented, but I think you need to face that there's just zero chance, under our policies for WP:verification and the present sources, that it is going to omitted outright.  Certainly not by way of the arguments which have been presented so far, which have no consistency with policy or community consensus on such matters.  S n o w  let's rap 02:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I regret that one editor finds it a holy crusade to combat anyone with a different view of what is or is not an "opinion column" so strenuously that he/she forgets the aim of any RfC is to find a consensus among editors, not to berate anyone who demurs.  Addressing the sources used:  The BBC states "In 1992, a widely-circulated photographed [sic] showed her ..."  It states what the photograph purported to show  (in typo English), but manages not to make the claim of the event as one of fact per se.   Eurozine presents an opinion column by Slavenka Drakulic.  And so on.   The fact is that "reportedly" is a red flag for anything which remotely approaches being cited as fact in any BLP. Collect (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to make you feel berated--indeed, I think you'll find that I said not a single thing about you as a person or an editor--but rather to keep discussion focused on actual policy and community consensus regarding verification and references, rather than idiosyncratic personal opinions about the sources which do not hold any relevance to our WP:V or WP:RS standards. Please do not take it personally that, in this instance, I found your arguments to be invalid and not predicated on the policies which govern the question at hand in a Wikipedia content discussion.


 * Frankly, I am perplexed as to how you'd view Sentence hearings start for "Iron Lady of Balkans (Chicago Tribune), Plavsic retracts war-crimes confession] (Bosnian Institute), Leading Bosnian Serb war criminal released from Swedish Prison (The Guardian),  War criminal freed after six years' jail (Sydney Morning Herald), Early Release in International Criminal Law (Yale Law Journal), or indeed literally any of the above sources as "opinion pieces" since they are all either A) news items of major newspapers which are published outside of their editorial sections, or B) works of empirical research in international law review.   But honestly this bizarre manner of framing these sources is largely irrelevant, since the dichotomy you are suggesting, whereby opinion pieces would be prohibited as reliable sources, does not exist anywhere in Wikipedia policy.  Even if we all accepted your classification of the works involved here, it would still make no difference here, since the statements made are clearly not opinions, but statements: "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."; "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."; Plavsic, an extreme Serbian nationalist who was notoriously photographed embracing the late warlord Arkan alongside dead Bosnian Muslims at the beginning of the war..."; "Few can forget the woman, who was once shown on local TV, stepping over a Bosniak corpse to kiss and congratulate the Serbian warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as, Arkan."  However much you doubt their veracity, these are statements of fact, not opinions.


 * In any event, I am not on any sort of "holy crusade" here. I arrived at this discussion via RfC, having no pre-existing opinions on the content or the involved editors. My comments have been entirely focused on the application of policy to the content question at hand and the sources which inform it. So I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish by making hyperbolic comments of that nature and needlessly personalizing a discussion that had been entirely predicated on the content up until that point, aside from the fact that you seem to have taken my critique of your policy rationale to be a personal slight, rather than just a part of the process by which we operate here.  But regardless of why you made that leap, what do you say that we keep discussion here firmly based on said content, the sources, and policy, rather than throwing about theories about bad-faith motives, which I will remind you, can constitute a WP:personal attack on this project.  And quite aside from this being a basic matter of WP:civility, editorial decorum, basic respect for fellow collaborators and maintaining objectivity, this is also a matter of "people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones", since I have neither expressed, nor otherwise demonstrated, any strong personal opinions on this subject matter (outside of how policy applies to it), wheras I note that you have an extensive history of sanctions arising out of topics in the vein of nationalistic politics and war crimes.  So, again, I would appreciate it if, in responding to my posts, you would keep your comments constrained to substantive matters of content and policy and away from accusations involving unspoken motivations, because the last thing we need is to have that manner of disruptive behaviour and personalization brought into a discussion that has, up until your entry, been a collegial (if divisive) discussion.  Thank you.  S n o w  let's rap 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to read claims into my "block log" which simply ain't there.   As such, I respectfully ask you strike your claims that I have been blocked for edits about nationalism and war crimes as being unsupported by any reading of fact. Collect (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying then that you haven't been TBANned from topics involving the politics of specific nations? Or that you haven't been blocked and otherwise sanctioned repeatedly for disruptive behaviour in those fields? Because WP:Arbitration Enforcement and WP:ANI  contain a lot of evidence to the contrary.  I probably should have said "crimes against humanity" rather than "war crimes" specifically, but other than that, I see nothing in my observations which isn't supported by a voluminous record of the community dealing with your disruption in areas relevant to this article.  But this is really not the place to be having this discussion.  If you really object to my observations and want to pursue the issue further, please feel free to message me on my talk page or ping me to yours.  I'd just as soon have no discussion on the matter, as you and your relationship with the project are not what I came here to comment on, but as a matter of courtesy, if you feel I've misrepresented you here, I'll hear you out.  Regardless, let's end this navel gazing here and return discussion to the only issues that should have been raised here in the first place: the content issue and how it should be resolved according to policy and the sources.   S n o w  let's rap 04:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I note you are quite desirous of having all these sidetracks remain on this RfC - I fear my position is that comments should actually relate to the stated query at the request for comment and not run away on sidetracks attacking any editors at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re "as many of the sources provided are "opinion pieces"" - Which sources are opinion pieces? When I look at the high-quality, mainstream journalism outlets, I'm not seeing opinion pieces. Even if there are opinion pieces in the mix, does it really matter if we have several high-quality RS which all say the same thing? NickCT (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to stifle useful discussion, but in my experience, long and acrimonious comments during RfCs can tend to discourage other editors from contributing. I'd encourage those that have had their say to give it a rest for a bit so we can get input from some other editors. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude entirely, as a WP:BLP violation. This is not the first time Wikipedians have faced the embarassing situation where a claim is circulated by what appear to be (formally) "reliable" sources although it can be easily shown to be a simple factual error. There is never an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with such situations under WP:V and WP:OR, but the least damaging way is to simply omit the claim. Stating it as a fact in blind adherence to WP:V is out of the question, as it would mean knowingly perpetrating a falsehood. On the other hand, reporting it but hedging it so as to insinuate its falseness will always scrape dangerously close to WP:OR. Just omit the thing. I've checked the sources cited above and searched far and wide for that "photograph". It's clear that none of the sources that assert the existence of a photo involving dead bodies present any evidence of it; to the extent that they cite any sources at all, they are all merely citing each other (either the BBC's "Serbian Iron Lady" piece from 2003 or the "Sentence hearings start" piece from Chicago Tribune 2002). All the sources that include such citations are law journals, whose scholarly focus is on legal evaluation of the ICTY proceedings, not on fact-checking of historical details of events. The "stepping over dead bodies" claim is a case of an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinarily good evidence", and the simple fact that no physical evidence of such a picture can be found on the web even though the sources that claim its existence describe it as "notorious" and "widely known" should serve as a warning. The only visual evidence I could find is the video included here (around 00:09:37). It clearly shows a kiss, and equally clearly shows there couldn't possibly have been "dead bodies" being stepped over (Plavsic is in the middle of half a dozen people milling around the same spot, including several photographers and camera men, and clearly none of them is "stepping over" any obstacle or seeing anything interesting on the ground.) I think it's quite safe to conclude the "dead bodies" thing is a simple error produced through sloppy journalistic reporting. It's not just that we don't know whether it's true: we know that it's not true. Coming to this conclusion and to the consequence of omitting the claim from the article isn't "OR", but sensible use of editorial discretion and responsible scrutiny of facts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Sorta amazing that when folks can't find stuff on Google Images, they immediately assume it doesn't exist. The basic fact is that there are several mainstream, high-quality RS that say this thing exists. Calling all the sources "sloppy journalism" and saying that they are "merely citing each other" seems like pure speculation. Do you have anything to support those those assertions or are you just guessing that Google Images is smarter and more accurate than the good folks at the Times, the BBC and the Independent? NickCT (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully what I wrote: I said that those authors that cited any sources at all invariably just cited one of the other journalistic pieces. The journalists themselves, of course, didn't explicitly cite anybody, as is their habit. From a serious academic treatment that did actual historical fact-checking, I'd expect a citation of the actual photographic source, the actual protocol of when it was mentioned in the court proceedings or something of that sort. As for judging the absence on Google, it wouldn't be an argument if the alleged picture was something that might have been hidden in some unpublished archive or some print-only publication – but the picture was allegedly "widely circulated" and "notorious", and for something nororious and widely circulated not to be reflected on Google in this day and age is pretty much inconceivable. Finally, there is no longer any need for speculation: we have in fact now seen the footage. We know the scene of how Plavsic greeted Arkan in front of the townhall of Bijeljina. We know there were no bodies lying there. Either the claim about dead bodies is wrong, or there were two encounters between them in front of the town hall of Bijeljina – but that again would contradict the sources, all of which present that encounter as something that happened only once. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of those three outlets mentioned by NickCT, only BBC is indicated above as spreading the "news" of the alleged photo with dead bodies (in 2003). Vladimir (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm a bit confused how the presence of a video with them kissing without bodies is evidence refuting the existence of a picture of them kissing with bodies. Is the assertion that these people could have only kissed once? Saying you are fact-checking and consequently refuting the RS in this matter is essentially WP:OR. The journalists in question don't need to cite anyone. They could have seen the photo themselves for all you know. We believe them because they are reliable sources. Unlike the folks contributing to WP. NickCT (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that many people would have strong reaons to present the picture-with-bodies in their publications (on the web or elsewhere) as evidence of the atrocities, if it existed, but nobody has apparently ever done so, while at least some (few) people have presented this footage, it is safe to assume it's the only such footage that exists. Sometimes, as a matter of common sense, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No. The article should not make reference to a claim that is not supported by extraordinary evidence. As per Fut.Perf., it is an erraneous report.--Z oupan 12:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment G'day, I need to correct the record here. According to testimony at the ICTY, Arkan and Plavsic exchanged kisses at least twice, possibly three times, during the visit. Certainly once on arrival and once on departure. So, your observation about speculation is not quite as open and shut. On the other hand, some indicate she was greeting Arkan when the alleged incident occurred, which could only have occurred on arrival, but we don't know at which "kiss" the video you refer to was taken. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we have a link to those testimonies? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There might well have been another instance of them kissing, but every time Plavsic is shown kissing Arkan in a documentary or TV report it is the footage of them in front of the municipal building (which contains no bodies). Also, just for the record (and ICTY testimony aside), it makes no sense for them to have kissed twice on the same occasion. In the Balkans people usually kiss on the cheeks upon greeting but not upon saying goodbye. The only conceivable way for them to have kissed on the cheeks two or three times is if they met on three separate occasions (which is totally possible). 23 editor (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * some of the relevant transcripts are here, on departure and here on arrival, and here, which mentions three kisses. There are other mentions of the kiss(es), as Arkan's actions have featured in several trials. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. The one at is indeed pretty clear: journalist Omeragic, who was accompanying Plavsic's delegation, saw them kiss both on arrival ("in front of the municipal building") and on departure ("in the park"), and says that the video clip that was being shown in the courtroom was the one on arrival. The clip we've seen on the web is also clearly in front of the municipal building (easy to identify the buildings in the background), and matches the courtroom descriptions (two men with backs turned to the camera in the foreground etc.). In any case, in all of this, it is absolutely inconceivable that not a single one of the participants in the trial, on any of the occasions the clip was shown and the kiss was discussed, said anything about dead bodies lying there if indeed such were visible on the material shown, or that the witness in question could have failed to mention them if he saw them at the time. At least one of the "reliable" sources cited above explicitly makes the claim that the alleged picture where she is "seen stepping over a dead body" was "presented as evidence at the Hague tribunal". We can get an exhaustive list of all occasions where the scene with the kiss was mentioned in court by searching for, and not a single one of them mentiones dead bodies. That's pretty conclusive proof that at least that source is wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "I think it's quite safe to conclude the 'dead bodies' thing is a simple error produced through sloppy journalistic reporting. It's not just that we don't know whether it's true: we know that it's not true." But do we really?  I personally don't find your conclusions as iron-clad as you seem to.  But it doesn't really matter since, in a wikipedia content discussion, neither one of us should submit this manner of WP:Original research with regard to the facts and expect it to influence the outcome. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not a principle enshrined anywhere in Wikipedia policy or WP:Community consensus with regard to verification or BLPs.  It is in fact a great principle to adhere to for those who are attempting to determine the truth of a matter, but its one of the most basic tenets of participation on this project that Wikipedia editors do not attempt to determine the factual truth of claims using their own subjective and idiosyncratic logic, no matter how airtight they believe it is; rather we instead only report what WP:Reliable sources say on the matter.  The standard is WP:Verification, not truth.  We use this approach for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is to avoid loggerheads when editors disagree on the "obvious" truth of the matter, and just generally to avoid the potential complications of the Dunning–Kruger effect, confirmation bias, or indeed any of the other myriad types of bias which can skew our coverage of important topics when the editors of an encyclopedia forget their role and begin to assess content as if they were authoring a primary or secondary source.


 * The standard that this community has adopted for BLP claims found controversial between its editors is "exceptional sourcing" not "extraordinary evidence", for the reasons discussed above. In this instance we have exceptional sourcing many times over.  That's case-closed/WP:SNOW as far as I am concerned, no matter what some of us may personally feel about the facts.   S n o w  let's rap 01:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have stated your views about WP:V eloquently, a number of times; there is no need for repeating them in so many words again. We have understood you. But you are misinterpreting WP:V. We had the big debate about rewording that policy a few years ago, and decided to get rid of the "verifiability, not truth" slogan, exactly because of the problem of how to deal with statements that are covered by seemingly "reliable" sources but still demonstrably false. Such situations exist, although they are fortunately fairly rare, but this is one of them, and the consensus from those debates is that it is not the correct application of our policy to blindly follow sources that are erroneous. It is also not "OR" to use our own powers of reasoning in talkpage debate in order to assess whether a claim is credible. What would be OR is if we then proceeded to argue our case in the article, telling the world the claim is false. Simply deciding to not say something is not OR.
 * I also strongly object to your claim we have "exceptional" sourcing here, let alone "many times over". Sure, several of the sources cited are decent enough for routine use, but none of them is truly good. Remember that even "good" sources need not be equally reliable in all aspecs of their coverage. None of the sources deals with this particular detail beyond mentioning it in passing, in a context that is primarily about something else. None of them gives us reason to believe they spent any particular amount of energy on fact-checking this detail. As I said, if they accounted for their own sources of information at all, it was invariably just pointing to some other journalistic coverage. None of the sources actually demonstrated they saw that picture, or indicated they knew where it was to be found. In general: never trust journalists writing about history. Journalists for good papers have techniques of checking the correctness of incoming news as they develop, but their techniques of dealing with historical facts don't go much beyond "somebody else reported it, so I can report it too". Same goes for political scientists and legal scholars. An "exceptional source" would be an historian writing specifically and in detail about the events of April 1992, documenting all his sources according to academic standards, which would of course require accounting for where exactly that image can be found. Or: a good journalistic source from the time of the event, focussing directly on the meeting as its main piece of news, and carrying the picture. None of our sources is anywhere near that level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) This is the first time I've responded to your numerous comments at all, and I'm aware of no community standard that limits the number of times I can counter a redundant argument that I feel is being furthered quite blatantly in conflict of our most basic policies. Further, it seems a little like baiting to suggest someone back off the conversation, only to then go on at some length about the same issues. 2) You may feel that there should be exceptioal circumstances empowering for the disregard our normal sourcing procedures but surely you see that you are taking that approach to an overbroad extreme?  Why is this case so "demonstrable", aside from your speculation and faith in your ability to account for every interpretation of the sources? This isn't some case of our having one or two vaguely worded milktoast sources.  We have (at the least) 14 high-quality mainstream WP:reliable sources (and probably scores more if we care to dig them up...) And yet not a single source which suggests support inside a source for the conclusions which you find so "obvious".  Many of your fellow editors here do not accept many of the assumptions which you have reached in coming to this "demonstrably false", which illustrates why we use verifiability and not subject argumentation as our content standard here.  And yes, it absolutely is a kind of OR mentality to attempt to WP:SYNTHESIZE conclusions not explicitly made in any of our sources, whether you are using those decisions to try to justify adding or removing content. 3) You're going to have to be more clear about the sources you find unacceptable. Which sources suffer from which deficiencies, and by deficiencies, I mean qualities which are mandated by WP:RS, not the vague assertion of general doubt in "western media" and in journalists in general which have popped up repeatedly here.  There have been a lot idiosyncratic classifications in this discussion to try to mark these sources as low quality, or attack them through synth-generated assumptions of low editorial standards that we can't possible be in a position to know about or judge.  But I'm still waiting for one actual reference of one specific principle of community consensus and how one of these sources violates it.  I'm sorry, I'm just honestly not seeing anything that compels me, as a wikipedia contributor to dismiss these sources, whatever I feel about the claim.  S n o w  let's rap 10:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not my ambition to convince you personally. I've made my opinion clear, so have you; if neither of us has been convinced by the other, we'll just continue to disagree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on that point. Certainly if you don't feel swayed by anything I say we're likely to remain on opposite sides of this considerable divide as to what is appropriate here. That being said, I'm still deeply concerned that you've said that "this debate is essentially over" and threatened to block one potential, and arguably probable, outcome to this discussion, when we are still in the middle of trying to forge consensus.  Are you sure you don't want to strike that comment, which can only serve to stifle discussion, make positions more entrenched and become a bone of contention no matter how the consensus turns out?  S n o w  let's rap 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The only thing that could change the situation here is if the sourcing situation were to unexpectedly change radically: if, that is, the "exceptionally good source" were to turn up at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see...I'm very disappointed to hear that. I've always had a good impression of you as a contributor, so it will be disappointing that this is the first situation in my years of editing that I had to open an ANI thread about rather than ironing out. But I view this behaviour as a blatant abuse of administrative privileges and that's a major issue. I hope you understand there is nothing personal here in my seeking community review of your actions in this regard.  S n o w  let's rap 11:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, include. The article should mention stepping over the dead body due to the significant number of credible sources saying so. The ones that make no mention don't negate it. The net outcome is positive for inclusion. I can also see a compromise of including the disclaimer that many sources fail to mention the body in the photo. This seems best as it withholds no information from the readers. Maxforige77 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not include. Summoned by bot. I was going to use the exact same "Snow include" phrase as, but the fact that this "widely distributed", "memorable" and "notorious" photograph can't be found anywhere is more than disturbing. Effectively it seems like we would be repeating some kind of urban legend. At the very most, if mention of the photo is included, it should be accompanied by the proposed caveat that many sources make no mention of bodies and that the photo, if it exists, is not publicly accessible. -Darouet (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

An attempt to bring some order to the chaos above (and a much needed arbitrary section break)
The way I see it, most people in this discussion have expressed a fundamental first-order desire that encyclopedia be basically factual and neutral. But we seem to disagree on how to best accomplish that task in general on this project, with the particular recurring question of whether that is best accomplished by removing ourselves as thoroughly as we can from the process of the judgement of facts, or by inserting ourselves into that process when we have personally classed a fact as particularly doubtful. That's a really reasonable question for reasonable people to have differing opinions on, but there's not even a shadow of a question that the former of those approaches is the one which is overwhelmingly embraced through policy and broad and longstanding community consensus. And I think that is because the next obvious question is, how do you draw the line between what is a "reasonable" amount of original research without descending into into discussion boiling down to a war of subjective "truth" between editors, one of the core issues this line of policy is meant to address? But in any event, both sides here have become so entrenched, I feel there is a span of middle ground solutions that might be employed here.

We can start by deciding on whether to mention the body at all, before proceeding to the question of how to contextualize it. This is essentially a straight up-and-down WP:verifiability discussion (or at least should be), no matter how offhandedly some have attempted to place this pillar policy aside as incidental. No party which has objected to the inclusion of this material has either A) put up a single source which explicitly contradicts claim found in a large collection of mainstream WP:Reliable sources, nor B) provided a single quote from the relevant polices WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, which provides a framework for why we should ignore these reliable sources and basic editing principle with regard to them. So, long-term, there's not much question to my mind as to whether we can mention the detail of the body.

But that still leaves a lot of area open for negotiation for how we present it. Myself, pointing out the report of the body and then adding that reports on photographs of the two around the visit are not consistent as to mentioning the body is acceptable. The second point without a doubt steps straight into WP:OR territory by way of WP:Synthesis, but as a reasonable middle ground solution, which addresses concerns of both sides of this dichotomy, wouldn't it do? What do people think: can we agree at least to something in this area? Because this is likely to drag on and stall further progress on the article, otherwise. Thoughts?  S n o w  let's rap 04:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, let me get this straight: We will not mention the claim at all, period. And I will invoke BLP enforcment in making sure it stays out. So the debate is essentially over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Uh that would be a rather blatant violation of both the wording of WP:BLPADMIN and WP:INVOLVED broadly. If you attempted to leverage your mop to subvert the consensus making process here to force your preferred outcome in a discussion in which you took part, I would feel compelled to take the matter to WP:ANI.  S n o w  let's rap 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will again propose that we can add a footnote saying a body is mentioned in some sources, just not in the main body of the article. While I almost completely agree with Future Perfect, I can't help but wonder what we are going to do when Plavsic dies (she is 85 after all). We're obviously not going to cite WP:BLP. Then what? The claim is still clearly wrong. 23 editor (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've followed the discussion with interest and also learned a lot. A few points:
 * As an FYI, the Biljana Plavšić article contains the statement on the dead bodies
 * I believe FPAS has made a convincing case for omitting the 'dead bodies'; after all, Wikipedia won't be harmed if this information is simply not presented. Should the photo (or extraordinary sources on it) turn up, the statement can always be added, so no harm done
 * The issue of omission seems minor overall, as the fact that Plavšić is a convicted war criminal is a matter of public record, so Wikipedia won't be drastically changing any perceptions by omitting this particular claim.
 * I am looking forward to the eventual resolution on this. As I said, it was instructional to follow. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above,. She is a convicted war criminal and adding or omitting this troublesome assertion won't "salvage" her reputation or her legacy one bit. And besides, there are dozens of photographs of the killings in Bijeljina. One most certainly doesn't need this piece of unverifiable sensationalism to demonstrate that some atrocious human rights abuses were committed in the town. One only needs to look at existing photos as evidence. And just for the record, the statement on dead bodies over at Biljana Plavšić was added by the same user who posted it to this article. 23 editor (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that even in apparent retirement, Producer is a lightning-rod for controversial discussions! Though that's as much attributable to the content area as anything in this instance. I still strongly disagree with the outcome here, and how it was reached, but at least the issue will no longer be a road block soaking up inordinate amounts of editorial involvement. It's been a divisive issue given just how little content was held in the balance, so I'm glad that most who participated were able to remain dispassionate and as objective as they may, given the subject matter.  S n o w  let's rap 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

AFAICT this is all haggling over a meaningless distinction. An embrace of a well-known criminal means stepping over dead bodies anyway. So this seems like an emotional talking point that I would certainly expect journalists to strive for, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT. There's no real benefit to the massacre article to mention how a politician may or may not have specifically stepped on a dead body, it does not affect the interpretation of the events which is already overwhelmingly clear. This whole uninspiring discussion would make more sense in the article on Biljana Plavšić, though it would have to be phrased carefully to avoid violating WP:BLP - make sure to use sources that e.g. talk about a widespread perception of being callous rather than focus on easily disputed factoids. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "no real benefit" - Agree with you partly. Doesn't really add much. But at the same time, saying something has "no real benefit" is a dangerous game, because ultimately you could probably scrap half of the material on WP because there's no obvious benefit to it. If several journalists at several mainstream, high-quality news outlets thought there would be benefit to their readers in mentioning it, why wouldn't we?
 * I wish we'd pay a little more attention to 23 editor's suggestion. Why not include the "bodies" mention, then just put in a strongly worded footnote? That strikes me as a good compromise. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wondering what you mean by "strongly worded"? 23 editor (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose it, but I suspect others would and I doubt many readers would see it.  S n o w  let's rap 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because we have the benefit of seeing the preponderance of sources and the apparent ambiguity over whether the literal jumping part is artistic license of the reporters? Writers like to embellish, it happens a lot. For example, between the 80s and the 2000s, the "Butcher of the Balkans" was Andrija Artuković, started by an American prosecutor who wanted to make a point, and reported by all the mainstream press. Then, various journalists and authors started using the same title for a variety of individuals. Now we have a whole laundry list over there, all 'blessed' with the same epithet. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you Joy; the fact is much more pertinent to the BLP than here. But it didn't really matter where we had the discussion because you can bet the editors who opposed its entry here will almost certainly do so there, most feeling that keeping it out is doubly-important in an actual BLP.  S n o w  let's rap 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy applies equally to all relevant articles (and also to talk pages etc). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, though I feel it is being applied inaccurately here. I'm just pointing out, in response to your statement that the fact was not most relevant to this article (which assumption I agree with) it would nonetheless face the same evaluation on the BLP, provided the same editors were involved.  Further, as to why people went to the mat on what you view as a minor issue (and I agree also that it doesn't substantively affect the tone of the article as a whole, given just how brutal and ugly the subject matter is), try to remember that many (most?) of us who took part in thsi discussion arrived via RfC notice, so we come with no particular attachment to the content, but a willingness to try to explain how we feel policy/community consensus applies to it.  When long-time contributors think that basic editorial principles are being trampled on, they are not likely to view it as a "minor" issue even when the ultimate difference in content might be small.  What we have here is a case where we have fourteen high-quality on RS supporting unambiguously supporting a claim while on the other hand we have a whole lot of OR speculation on the part of some of our editors based on questionable assumptions they've made by synthing together the details of other sources which do not not explicitly make reference to the issue at hand at all.  In supporting this synth approach, these editors have ambigously invoked "BLP!" as a buzz word, but not one has quoted a single statement from that policy to explain just where and how it overrules our pillar policy, WP:V, in the extraordinary way that they say it does, empowering them to ignore it in cases where the fact doesn't seem "likely" to their subjective assessment. I can't speak for others who opposed that approach but I, for one, find it deeply problematic and it makes me concerned for the efficiency of our consensus-making process that it was allowed here (especially given how discussion has now been shut down by declaration, mid-process)--that's why I spoke up on the matter at length.


 * Others may vary in how seriously they view that situation, but I don't think the implication that either side was making mountains out of molehills is really fair: both sides, I believe, want what is best for the project and generally want it to be as factually accurate as possible. We just have a philosophical divide as to how that is best achieved.  I personally feel that we accomplish that best by keeping our own perspectives as far removed from the process as possible, even when we suspect (or even know!) a particular claim to be incorrect; I believe that approach leads to the smoothest editorial process and the highest over-all degree of accuracy and neutrality in our content.  Others here feel that if they see something they really suspect to be false, they are compelled to try to keep out of the prose altogether, whatever the sourcing says.  I disagree with that approach, because I believe on the balance that it leads to more intractable debate as people push their personal perspectives and that (big picture) the project's neutrality and reliability suffers -- but, even so, I can see that the impulse comes from a good-faith outlook. That's also why I thought this discussion was probably headed to a reasonable compromise solution, before we were told by an involved admin that it didn't matter what the editors here determined was best for the article.  Anyway, as Fut. Per. says below, we're at an impasse here.  He's said that he will use his privileges to keep the claim out, no matter what consensus lands on here and while I contemplated ANI to address that stance, I don't view it as likely to do anything but increase the acrimony already plaguing this discussion, which has held up other improvements on the article long enough, I rather expect.  Some other party is welcome to take the matter to a central discussion forum (WP:VPP, WP:RSN, WP:CD, WP:BLPN are all possibilities); perhaps Fut. Per. will reconsider his promise to veto in light of broader consensus.  But I can't say as I would expect the discussion to go much easier than it did here--so in light of that cost-benefit analysis, I will not myself be pursuing the matter to that extent, though the way this discussion has been approached (and then ended mid-process) troubles me considerably.  If further discussion does take place in another space, however, any party can feel free to ping me about it.   S n o w  let's rap 23:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, I apologize, but I don't have enough time to read all of what you've written. Please understand that we're all volunteering our time here, and that can be a fairly scarce commodity.
 * I sympathize with your complaint that too much editorial discretion has been used in order to evaluate the sources. It would certainly be much better if people were to draw upon a secondary source that specifically says "there's word of a photo, but no proof of it" so none of us have to infer it. But the circumstantial evidence can't be dismissed out of hand, otherwise we wouldn't be editors, rather small automated scripts that just cite reliable sources :) The point someone made about ICTY proceedings reviewing the video of the event seems rather straightforward and sound - surely the prosecution would have noticed at the time how the defendant was literally walking over dead bodies. It's the kind of thing that would be expected of them. Their omission indicates that either there was nothing to that effect on the video, or that they found the detail irrelevant compared to the general culpability -- none of which supports the inclusion of the claim without disclaimers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * With respect, all supposition, any one or all of which could be incorrect for any number of reasons. I could provide alternative assumptions for each of those points that strike as just as likely, but the point is neither one of us meant to in the course of evaluating Wikipedia content. It doesn't make us automatons in how we approach the material, it just means we work within the constraints of what the sources explicitly say, not the synth conclusions we feel they imply. But I suppose that's the nature of the difference of opinion here. :)  Of course, reasonable people can have a reasonable difference of opinion as to which is the more sensible solution, but I also know which perspective has been overwhelmingly endorsed by this community and enshrined in its polices.   S n o w  let's rap 06:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The blade of WP:SYNTH cuts both ways - a neutral reader could easily say that the combination of two sets of sources, with one set conspicuously including the gruesome part, and the other conspicuously excluding it, as incoherent writing and improper synthesis. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you need to review that policy if that's what you think WP:SYNTH. Genuinely meaning no offense, but that is completely and utterly nonsensical. That logic would make virtually every single claim in every single article on Wikipedia synthesis, since every source for a given topic is distinct from another, including in the details they choose to cover. Here is the actual reading of SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here"  Synth is a combination of facts not explicitly stated in any given source, not the reporting of a fact that is reported in numerous sources, just because it is not in others.  It is however, unambiguously synth to rule out some of those sources, if they are otherwise RS, because you, as an editor, think you see a pattern hidden in the details of those sources which amounts to some assumption, but that assumption is not explicitly stated in any of them: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."  Which, is exactly what is going on here with regard to people divining some hidden meaning about the existence/non-existence in the body which is not explicitly stated in any article.  Again, genuinely not meaning to make this non-collegial, but that assertion of yours is just a ludicrous reinterpretation of policy and community consensus on the meaning and purpose of that policy... I don't like to use the word guaruntee here too often, but I can fairly well guaruntee that if we took that notion to Wikipedia talk:No original research, WP:VPP, WP:CD, WP:RSN or any other relevant discussions space, you'd get an avalanche of responses telling you that you've gotten the application of that guidelines just completely backward with such an assertion.  S n o w  let's rap 23:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, no, because I think you're missing how selective a reading of sources this looks like. If you have a source explicitly describing a relatively short event in considerable detail, then it's conventional to assume that its description of that event is supposed to be inclusive. That it omits a significant factoid is not necessarily a trivial omission. Moving forward, and deciding to trust only other descriptions of the event which do include a factoid, but continuing to use the other descriptions and acknowledge their reliability (as opposed to, say, declaring them to be unreliable sources), is basically to imply a new conclusion supported by an arbitrary assortment of sources. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * - I don't know. Just brainstorming - While the photo in question was reported by several sources, after some research, the photo itself could not be recovered, causing some to question its existence and the integrity of the initial reports? Ultimately, I'd defer to someone pushing the "don't include" position to write up the footnote. That way, everyone gets to have a say. NickCT (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "I actually agree with you Joy; the fact is much more pertinent to the BLP than here. " - Sure. It's an important question here, and at the BLP. Perhaps the right thing to do is 1) Close this RfC as no consensus, and 2) re-hash the RfC with the options "Include", "Do not include", "Include w/ Footnote". NickCT (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLP enforcement issue I stated above of course applies to the biography article at least as much as to this one. As for your suggested wording: it fails on WP:NOR. We can argue here on the talkpage why we know the claim is wrong, but we can't possibly argue that case in the article (and certainly not ascribing the argument to a WP:WEASELy "some"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - People who just say "no" eventually get worked around. If you don't like "some" or other wording in the footnote, why not suggest an alternative? NickCT (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I? My position is still that WP:BLP requires that the thing be omitted completely. And, as I said, I'm fully prepared to use administrative measures to keep it out, if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you? Perhaps because you recognize the errors of your crypto-BLP fascist opinion and want to be helpful for a change? You might even recognize those errors before others make you recognize them that is. I'm not sure what you feel administrative measures entitle you to. I can guarantee you though, they do not entitle you to overturn consensus.
 * I understand your concerns and I partially share them. That said, this factoid pretty clearly meets our highest standards for WP:V as required by WP:BLP. Your concerns are reasonable, but you've got to admit that your assertions about the sources getting this wrong are clearly WP:OR. NickCT (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, and I have explained why. We are going round in circles now; that's not useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, there. You still haven't answered my question about what's to keep it out once the subject dies. The claim is still factually incorrect, alive or not. 23 editor (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True. Nothing will change, if Wikipedians will be clever and continue to use editorial discretion wisely and appropriately. It's always a legitimate editorial decision not to say something; no WP:V consideration can ever force us to report something when we agree it's wrong. The only thing that may change, unfortunately, is that it will become more difficult to enforce that good editorial judgment if other Wikipedians decide to make a fuss about it, but well, such is life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not require us to say anything which all editors agree should not be included, but in instances where editors disagree over whether the information is appropriate (clearly the case here), it directs us to go with what the sources say, not our own impressions about the claim. Actually, that principle applies even in BLP circumstances--I'm still waiting for any party who opposes inclusion here to provide us with an actual statement from WP:BLP or any policy that supports the extraordinary exception to WP:V that is being advocated in this case, rather than invoking the term "BLP" like it is a talisman and nothing more need be said--it's just that once the subject dies, even that figmentary objection will be removed, and there will not be more basis for objection to using Wikipedia's standard verification approach.  Not that I feel there is even a real reason to do so now, but that is neither here nor there.  S n o w  let's rap 00:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I haven't been following this discussion since my last post due to a family break but we, as editors, have seemingly digressed in this issue into an Admin's misuse of the mop and what to do when Plavsic dies, though my understanding was that BLP applied even in death even if only out of respect for the dead/remaining family. Anyway, I read far above that wished for a 'statement opposing the existence of the photo' (paraphrased) which is a ridiculous request to make when dealing with a potentially fictional item, it's akin to saying "prove that this sword exists without showing the actual sword nor record of production" - you can't, you can only report on people discussing it, which doesn't prove its existence though it makes it more likely. We can most likely agree that trying to argue along those lines is only going to cause contention while we discuss the photo's existence if editors are forced to try and find an evidence of absence without breaking OR and SYNTH. However, as recently discussed above this comment by, we can simply choose to leave this information out of the article regardless of if the information is true or not; I don't think anyone here is being strong-armed to include nor exclude this, but this presents the easiest and simplest solution to the current debate and is well within all policies and guidelines as far as I am aware. The way in which this was recently implemented may be controversial due to the nature of the user and relevant policies/guidelines but it does solve the actual debate over the ex-/in-clusion of the information regarding the photo and possible wordings of the statement if included. To answer concerns about "an actual statement from WP:BLP or any policy that supports the extraordinary exception to WP:V that is being advocated" is far too easy. While Wikipedia is "based" on the WP:Five pillars, it is actually based only on one singular, override pillar: WP:IAR, which states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" though I understand that this is typically an argument used only as a last-resort or for clear-cut cases. I have also quoted WP:V's WP:EXCEPTIONAL on the grounds that we have sources on both sides that are equally reliable that are essentially disagreeing with each other over whether dead bodies were present and stepped over or not, hence my desire for a source/s that are able to actually settle this dispute ... such as the original photograph taken that is so "notorious", "infamous", etc. that it should have been splashed across even the most sensitive of tabloid papers and easily found, unless it doesn't actually exist and is only conjectural or fictional. As it stands however, the easiest compromise solution - without creating a false balance - is to simply present both sides with the most reliable sources for both included inside a reference tag. If anyone wants to reply to me, ping me or I'll probably miss your response. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A) "Snow Rise wished for a 'statement opposing the existence of the photo' (paraphrased)" is a pretty poor paraphrase of my objections in this area. I'm saying that if you have numerous high-quality WP:RS which explicitly support a claim, you need more than original research and synthesis of the sources if you want to oppose it ground of sourcing.  No amount of "obvious deduction" from the remaining materials will be as compelling an argument as one single source explicitly supports your position (or at least raises the issue of certainty!)--none of which exists in this case.
 * B) You haven't really made clear why you view the solution of 'just take it out' as the "easiest and most simple solution" over 'just leave it in' or any nuanced position in-between.  Indeed, I supported the more nuanced approach you endorsed early on as the best alternative. In any event, it is not, to my mind anywhere near the approach that is most consistent with policy or community consensus on this matter, and a majority of those who have commented here agree that it is problematic.  If it were taken to a broader community forum, I think the ratio would be even more striking.
 * C) I don't think it's asking too much that, if BLP is going to be cited at length as the reason we should ignore WP:V somebody, just once in this voluminous discussion, cite the actual bit of community consensus formalized in that policy that supposedly allows for this approach, so discontogous as it is with the usual Wikipedia verification process and neutrality principles.
 * D) With respect, IAR is uncompelling non-argument when it is not paired with a more substantive explanation as to the need to change things up. IAR is there to remind us that we made our guidelines as a community and we can always change them as one.  But that's not what is going on here.  This discussion has not been nearly broad enough to give it the currency to empower us to ignore basic tenets of neutrality and sourcing for this project.
 * E) "I have also quoted WP:V's WP:EXCEPTIONAL on the grounds that we have sources on both sides that are equally reliable that are essentially disagreeing with each other over whether dead bodies were present and stepped over or not..." No, actually we absolutely do not have that.  We have a number of RS which support the claim to body, and some which do not refer to it, but we have not a single source arguing that there was no body or even raising doubt as to that issue.  As I've said a few times now, if we had even just one source which did my perspective on this matter might be altered some.
 * F) These are all nitpicks just to make sure my positions are not misunderstood. I happen to agree with your ultimate conclusion. We should be showing both sides.  It involves some OR to be voicing our doubts at all, but it's a reasonable compromise.  One I was trying to push both sides towards and still wish was an option.  S n o w  let's rap 07:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "No, actually we absolutely do not have that." - Ditto! DrCrazy, could you please point to a single RS that explicitly refutes the existence of the photo? If not, could you retract your statement?
 * This conversation is getting nutty. The only "evidence" I've seen presented that the sources got this wrong, was a video from Fut.Perf. showing the pair kissing without bodies. This seems like a hugely speculative and fallacious "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" debate. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, first, I was really only meaning the paraphrase as a general statement of your objection, not your entire argument which was well said and I should have explained it in more detail, so for that I apologise.
 * Second, it should be easy to see how it is the "easiest and simplest solution" though I wish to point out that I did not say it was the "best solution", but I'll explain it in more detail as you have requested; by removing the mentionings of a minor detail that does not affect the image of, nor public sentiment towards, Plavsic and the Bijeljina massacre we solve this dispute in a crude but simple manner. I do not say it is the best method to solving the dispute, but it does solve the dispute since the crux of the dispute is "should we include or exclude the detail?" which is solved by removing the entire sentence without actually having any major impact on the article nor Plavsic. To be honest though, I always saw the sentence as a bit of controversial trivia information thrown in rather than being actually encyclopedic in nature despite the obvious reactions it has garnered from editors, not to mention readers' reactions. However, that is my view on the sentence itself though it seems to be shared by based on their comment, However, there is no mention of the kiss at the time of writing in either article. and  (rather self-evident by this stage, yes?).
 * Third, understandable and I kind of missed that when I wrote my response, so thank you for clarifying. There is an element of WP:IAR (Wiki's basic policy) at play here because we are trying to improve the article, but this little nugget has a very controversial nature to it because it is mentioned in news sources (about half the tabled sources) that refer to dead bodies being stepped over while the ICTY case, in which at least one source has stated it was brought to, does not make any mention of such a significant fact that could (metaphorically) crucify Plavsic and Arkan to the global and Serbian public. It is a big detail to miss in such a court case and does affect the reliability of the information presented by the sources since the court case does not make reference to any "photo" presented that includes dead bodies being stepped over. However, for actual policy, we have WP:V supports the Include mention of dead and no dead bodies with the lead line When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. but that is a general rule, for general articles and general information. This article is a BLP-affiliated article, with discussion of a potentially libellous piece of information which would require WP:Exceptional sourcing to put this in Wiki's voice. As the statement stood, it failed the very simple test of WP:V's lead sentence. I would like to clarify that I wholeheartedly support including mentions of "a photo of Plavsic kissing Arkan after stepping over dead bodies" provided we contextualise, say who said it, and that not all the sources mention this crucial detail of the kiss; but it is far easier and much more verifiable to say "Plavsic kissed Arkan" since all sources mention "a photo of Plavsic kissing Arkan" just not necessarily with dead bodies being stepped over. Which also leads back to the simple, but crude, solution of remove the sentence as a whole, though I do not support that as strongly as a simple rewording of the sentence to remove an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. (Probably a 9 for rewording vs. a 7 for removal on a "scaling of support")
 * As for your comment - no retraction, I stand by my words that we have sources that are disagreeing with each other over what happened because there is such a major discrepancy over such an easily verified detail (if we had access to the alleged - and reportedly "notorious" and "infamous" - photo/visual medium, or the ICTY's Ref 683 " Kljuić, T. 6176-8; Omeragić, T. 11974-7; P300 (Video clip, no date). ").
 * I now wonder if we should perhaps "reword" the options for the RfC into "contextualise and cite specific authors" or "remove detail/sentence"? A shout-out to, and of course  for input.
 * As before, please ping by using the highly reliable U ping template to produce . I hope I have answered all/most of the questions, both voiced and unvoiced. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, can you point to a single source that explicitly refutes the claim that the picture exists? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one has presented any proof that the image even exists in the first place. Just as no one has presented a photo of bombs being planted ahead of time in the WTC towers, but some folks "allege" that bombs were used.  This sort of claim is one where positive affirmative proof must be presented, else we could be quite inadvertently be promoting a political hoax.  Collect (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the "proof" business. We're an encyclopedia. Our job (and our standard of verification) is based on reporting what reliable sources say, not in generating our own primary research into what we think "really" happened.  Maybe the media got this one wrong and just maybe a collection of overconfident editors here are constructing a tenuous tower of assumptions.  But we are not supposed to be giving any such assumptions (not explicitly stated in one of the sources) any kind of WP:WEIGHT in how it influences our content, as we would for opposing claims found in multiple sources.  If any claim could be held up until all editors were happy that something the question was "proven" to them, nothing would every get published on Wikipedia! I understand that you doubt the veracity of this detail.  Maybe, between you and I, I'm not entirely certain about it, either.  That's not the point.  "Proof", as analyzed by our subjective logic, is not the way we operate on this project, nor our means of gaining reliability--WP:Verifiability via independent sourcing is.  S n o w  let's rap 01:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Care citing the policy that uses your "positive affirmative proof" language? Or are you making it up as you go along? Something is "true" on WP if it is verifiable. It is verifiable if it appears in reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Care to stop wikilawyering ? Also, can you explicitly point to a source that isn't using tabloid language about an alleged photo as well as tell us why the kiss has any factual use, and/or provides any improvement to the Bijeljina massacre page through its inclusion? Also, check the link as it provides the policy behind the "positive affirmative proof". Finally, the ICTY, an international court tribunal concerning the Bijeljina massacre, reports a VIDEO portraying the kiss; a video certainly isn't a photo but it would certainly show Plavsic stepping over any dead bodies that may or may not have been there ... and yet ... this detail is not mentioned anywhere in their findings. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 07:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * re " Care to stop wikilawyering" - Policies exist to prevent folks from arbitrarily creating rules for why material should be excluded or included.
 * re "it provides the policy behind the "positive affirmative proof"" - No it doesn't.
 * re "to the Bijeljina massacre page through its inclusion" - So you don't object then to putting the info on the subject's BLP article?
 * re "isn't using tabloid" - Ummmmm... The NYT, the Independent use "tabloid language"?? Really? The BBC? The BBC is the fricking epitome of well-spoken English, and you're gonna accuse it of "tabloid language"? Perhaps you'd better go back to school and study English a little more.
 * re "reports a VIDEO " - OK? Who cares? That doesn't change the fact that multiple high-quality RS reported there was a photo which makes the fact verifiable. Are there any RS's which specifically refute the existence of the photo? NickCT (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , first, I understand that policies exist and the various reasons why - but constantly asking for them and only basing changes and edits off the policies is not helpful to Wikipedia nor to solving this dispute. They can obviously, and do, provide help in resolving disputes but should not be used as a "Gospel truth"-esque reasoning as arguments in and of themselves. Second, WP:ONUS does provide the policy-based reasoning for removing this information since WP:Verifiability "does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article[,]" which is something you should know since you seem to love throwing around the "WP:Verifiable is the truth" argument. I would like to state again that I don't think the "supervote" as a WP:BLPAdmins was the right move to make, though it does solve the crux of the dispute. Third, as I stated earlier "". I also fail to see what that has to do with this article and its content. If this was a major detail in Plavsic's life and it can be verified reliably with the actual medium showing the kiss or extraordinary source, then go for it but otherwise I have the same position as here; state that there is a discrepancy between sources over the detail of dead bodies being stepped over or don't mention the detail of dead bodies. Fourth, I would expect that you at least have some civility about a user's competency, but since you evidently don't - based on your comment above - then I will elaborate; Find a source that does not say "notorious", "infamous", "widely-circulated" in relation to the alleged photo and yet still manages to discuss the "photo" of Plavsic kissing Arkan by stepping over/around dead bodies and then I may be satisfied that there is at least one extraordinary source for the statement in question. Fifth, the media type in question actually does play a major role in this discussion because if Wikipedia says "this was a photo" but it is actually a video, then Wikipedia rightly deserves its reputation of false and ignorant articles. This also calls into question the reliability of the sources discussing the photo since we have at least two sources stating that there were recordings taken, i.e. video footage:


 * Janine di Giovanni's Madness Visible: A Memoir of War on p. 253 (published by A&C Black (2012) ) stating During the trial of Dusko Tadic, one of the Bosnian Serbs convicted by The Hague in 1998, the prosecution showed footage of Plavsic congratulating and kissing Arkan after the massacre of Muslims in eastern Bosnia. Photos can't present footage, videos present footage.
 * Kemal Kurspahić's As Long As Sarajevo Exists on p. 118, published by Pamphleteer's Press (1997); On that day in Bijeljina, when the cameras were recording the kiss Ms. Plavsic bestowed upon the notorious war criminal Zeljko Raznatovic-Arkan in the presence of high-ranking JNA officers, Vlado Mrkić was taken away for questioning by Arkan's men. Photo-cameras don't "record" things, video-cameras record things.
 * This leads on to Daniel Uggelberg Goldberg's Plavsic retracts war-crimes confession published by the Bosnian Institute (2009) stating: 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. despite the two sources above and the ICTY's source 638 from their summary stating that it was Video evidence that was presented. This is showing a clear discrepancy between sources when we have the tribunal's findings and releases being mischaracterised.


 * Finally, as I said earlier in this longer-than-expected comment, I don't agree with a complete removal being the best solution to this dispute and would like to offer a replacement solution in a few minutes since there is obvious discontent over the "supervote" solution. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "constantly asking for them" - I don't constantly ask for them. I only ask for them someone makes up some ridiculous standard like Collect's "positive affirmative proof" and pertends it's a real rule.
 * re "should not be used as a "Gospel truth"-esque reasoning as arguments" - Sure. That's why we have things like WP:IAR.
 * re "all verifiable information must be included in an article" - Sure. But if we agree something is verifiable, then it becomes the job of those wanting to exclude to explain a convincing rationale for exclusion. I haven't seen that.
 * re "I don't think the "supervote" as a WP:BLPAdmins was the right move to make" - Luckily you don't have to worry, as there is no such thing as a supervote.
 * re "it can be verified reliably with the actual medium showing the kiss or extraordinary source" - Again, that seems like a standard you guys are pulling out of thing air. We don't need to see the picture. We only need to know reliable sources have said the picture exists.
 * re "there is a discrepancy between sources" - There is no discrepancy. There are no sources which refute the fact.
 * re ""notorious", "infamous", "widely-circulated" - It's your assertion that these terms represent the "tabloid language" Collect was talking about?
 * re "least two sources stating that there were recordings taken" - I don't take that point. The argument seems to be, "because there was a video of the kiss, there couldn't have been a photo". Why couldn't there have been both? Couldn't the photo have been a screen shot or something? There are lots of ways to explain why a video and photo of the thing might exist, and both might have been presented. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for a late reply but I have been busy and you have been exceedingly annoying in your last response to me.
 * In regards to the "constant policy requests"; it seemed that your last few comments were specifically requesting policies to back up reasoning, and then when presented with said policies you seemed to be rejecting them as almost 'invalid' policies.
 * In regards to WP:ONUS, do not MISQUOTE either another user, and most definitely not a POLICY. It makes you seem sneaky and underhanded. The full policy section, of which I used only that which was relevant, reads as "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (Emphasis added) This is the complete opposite of what you have said is policy. The onus is on you to prove that this should be included. The policy section also means that if there is an unclear consensus, then the disputed material should be removed, in this case, the mention of 'dead bodies being stepped over'.
 * In regards to the "supervote" comment I made, I was using reference to the action taken by  with the reason of WP:BLPADMINS being given, hence the Admin "supervote" outvoting "normal-votes". You seem to have been confused by the redlink which was my fault for misspelling the wikilink, as well as using another editor's term for the action. So it is still something to worry about, but it is small chips in comparison to what we have. I am also aware that you replied to Peacemaker67 with the same response you gave me ... not helpful, since we both used the term as a colloquialism for Fut. Perf.'s action.
 * Again with the misquoting, jeez, you must have either had problems reading my post on the 8th or you are doing this purposefully. I added the caveat of "... or an extraordinary source" basing my response to your question on WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which is what my position here is based on, i.e. actual policies, not "WP:V says the truth is what the sources say if we have enough of them" which WP:V doesn't even imply since it includes the caveat of WP:ONUS. While WP:V does state that verified truths are able to be written in Wiki's voice - on Wiki - it does not state that such 'verified "truths"' should be reported on Wiki.
 * I presented the discrepancy in my last response, if you cannot understand that Giovanni (2012) and Kurspahić (1997) both state that there is some sort of "recording" or "footage" that was taken, with Giovanni stating said footage was presented at the "Hague" (i.e. the ICTY tribunal), and that Goldberg (2009) says that a photo produced - and when there was no such photo included in the ICTY's references of material, but a video recording was included (reference 683) - then you are clearly missing the point. We have sources that are disagreeing (through discrepancy and direct statements of what medium was presented) over whether there was a photo or a video presented, with the ICTY referencing only a video. Considering that this was the 1990s, it is conceivable that someone may have mistook the video as being a photograph if learning about it second-hand, however that is beside the point of the sources actually contradicting one another over what was presented to the Hague (ICTY) in regards to the kiss between Plavsic and Arkan.
 * How about you just ask about it since only they will know if that was what they meant by tabloid language, though it should be self-evident to anyone that has more than a basic understanding of English that such words are tabloid language.
 * See my last response and 5), especially inside the collapsible box of my last response. Also, the ICTY report only makes reference to a video, not a photo, so it would be OR on our part to say that the photo was a "screenshot" of the video presented, as well as failing basic WP:BLP.
 * I don't think we are having any useful dialogue here, especially since you either started misreading what I wrote or purposely misquoting what I wrote to suite your own agenda. I'd say "cheers" but it wasn't. If you did misread in good faith, then this could continue to be productive in butting heads over what is and isn't agreeable. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Attorneys-at-Wiki" see Evidence of absence. If investigators have not found evidence of the existence of the photo, and, as we have established, no one has produced the photo. There have, in fact, been a large number of "political hoaxes" in this world. See also such hoaxes as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the category for the "Priory of Sion" hoax, etc. If no one has ever produced the "well-known photograph" and no one can find the "well-known photograph" it is likely that the "well-known photograph" des not exist other than in people simply asserting its existence. Just as people asserted that the "Protocols" existed as a fact. Collect (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm having trouble understanding your contention here. Are you saying that journalists at the BBC, the NYT and the Independent conspired to perpetrate a hoax? NickCT (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said nothing remotely near what you assert, I think your discourse here is of nugatory value. If there is a "widely circulated photographed(sic)" then it ought to have been widely-circulated enough to be findable somewhere on the Internet or in some newspaper archive.  As soon as we can see that there is, indeed, a "widely circulated photographed" then we can assign higher weight to those claims - but where others do not appear to corroborate the claim, that does not mean we should present anything as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice.  Just as we do not assert that the bombers at the Boston Marathon were the ones in the initially "widely circulated photograph" of perpetrators.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Collect, your argument here is both a non-sequitor (the situations are not parallel; other than the fact that photograph is in some way involved in the situation, the circumstances and policy considerations are completely non-analogous) and a strawman argument (as you are refuting a position that no one has endorsed).


 * Actually, your discontiguous analogy argues rather persuasively against your position here and provides further evidence of how far out-of-whack it is with the standard Wikipedia approach, since the editors of the article on the Boston Marathon bombing took very much the opposite approach to what you are suggesting we do here. That article does mention the photograph (point in fact, it has a a whole section largely devoted to it).  The wording of that article doesn't avoid mentioning it (nor does it avoid mentioning that the two men in it were initially reported to be sough by authorities); rather it contextualizes that image based on what reliable sources say about it.   We cover the mistaken reporting in that instance in the same way, because that element of the story also appears in reliable sources--not because we fact checked the New York Post ourselves... S n o w  let's rap 23:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "As I said nothing remotely near what you assert" - Ummmmm.... You very clearly did. You compared the photograph to a hoax. I asked if you were suggesting the photograph was a hoax. You're either not reading what you're righting, or you seem to be confusing yourself.
 * re "If there is a "widely circulated photographed(sic)" then it ought to have been widely-circulated enough to be findable somewhere on the Internet or in some newspaper archive." - Look. I agree. That's true. I find it suspicious. But just because we're suspisious of something that reliable sources are telling us, we can't just override the sources. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Verb. sap.:   Trying to accuse all the other editors who demur as to your desired edit of being "out of whack" is unlikely to sway anyone's opinions at all, and verge on simply being attacks for the sake of attack.  Amazingly enough, we all have made our points, and you clearly lack the required positive consensus for your desired edit.  In such a case, a cup of tea is highly recommended, along with a rest from this talk page and article.  Warm Regards. Collect (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I said your interpretation of the policy was out of whack with actual wording of those policies, not "you are out of whack" or anything remotely similar. Please do not quote me out of context in order score points here by making it look like you are being attacked.  What does that help? There's nothing remotely incivil or non-collegial in pointing out that you are trying to utilize your personal perspectives in place of Wikipedia's community verification standards here.  And this is not the first time you have attempted to personalize this discussion by suggesting you are personally under attack, as opposed to just having the flaws in your analysis brought under a microscope, which is just something you have to be prepared to tolerate if you want to contribute here.  Wikipedia thrives on vigorous discussion and if you can't participate without taking it personally, I regret that you take offense, but I won't alter my approach to speaking plainly about the policy in order to accommodate those hurt feelings-- not when I've said nothing incivil, unfriendly, or otherwise out place for a policy discussion regarding the relevant content, and you seem to be going out of your way to construct an insult in my comments that was obviously never there.


 * As for our not having "positive consensus", I personally read the comments in the discussion above as generally favouring inclusion of this material in some form (i.e. a "consensus", which need not be absolute on this project), with you and Fut. Per. being the vocal exceptions. However, one of you is an admin and has decided to invoke their privileges to force the minority view. So the situation is a stalemate at the moment (and maybe a waste of time as Peacemaker suggests below) but that doesn't mean discussion cannot proceed, nor that any party has to ignore an argument being put forth that they feel makes no sense (as was the case with your post, which I was merely responding to).


 * So you can save your (frankly passive-aggresive) attempt to generate the impression that others are being content warriors here, especially in light of the previous tone of some of your comments. If you wish to disengage, by all means, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and no one is asking you to keep commenting if you view this as a deadlocked issue.  But your comments look to me to be an elegant attempt to paint yourself as the "relaxed" party and your opposition as zealous "aggressors". so I suggest that you contribute when and where you wish on the project, and save the "helpful advice" for others, at least when it is directed at people you have recently been disagreeing with.  It looks rather hypocritcal for you to continue to forward your own analysis of the content issue up until your last post and then, when other editors respond in good-faith, you level an implication that they "can't let it go".  In that context, it just looks disingenuous posturing, which isn't helping the discussion here.  Double that for quoting someone out of context to make it look like they were insulting you. That's my two cents, anyway.  S n o w  let's rap 00:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just called by the RfC bot, have zero dog in this fight, and deeply care that reliable sources are held above people's political views. I also don't approve of the original research that comes with trying to trump sources with personal opinions. However, is simply pointing out that the "widely-distributed... infamous... memorable" photograph all these journalists reference can literally be found nowhere, not even in the fairly recent articles they wrote that include photos of the kiss. Doesn't that strike either of you as odd or suspicious? I think that some WP:COMMONSENSE is merited. I was going to say "of course include the incident" when I began reading the long discussion above, but red flags went up everywhere when I realized that this photograph cannot be found and... well, obviously might not exist. -Darouet (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Darouet. Yes that issue is one to take note of.  Enough that I could be won over to the notion of contextualizing the statement by reporting variances in the sources, even though that my observation is technically OR in itself and would otherwise be unreasonable (were we not seeking a reasonable middle-ground solution here).  But enough to completely omit reference to a fact cited in 14 reliable sources and not objected to any of the other numerous RS we have on the topic? Sorry, no, that's just injecting ourselves too much into the role of the authors of primary sources, not the editors of an encyclopedia (and, in any event, not this encyclopedia, if its community standards for verification and sourcing are followed).
 * WP:COMMONSENSE is a great way to argue that point, and it brings almost everyone who has participated in this discussion half-way, to the point of wanting to qualify that statement. Not the point of WP:CENSORing this detail, which is essentially what we would be doing by not reporting on a widely-reported detail without any explicit evidence in the sourcing suggesting it might be untrue, only our suppositions.  Note that even the people who want this detail to be treated skeptically are not doing any favours to the like-minded amongst our reader-base; if this absence of the photo is such an obvious issue, then our readers might reasonable want to read about the matter here and investigate the sources themselves.  Hiding this from view on our own impetus and without having a whiff of doubt cast by even a single reliable source which explicitly casts doubt on a widely covered claim is as counter-intuitive to our goals here as it is inconsistent with basic policy, (and WP:COMMONSENSE incidentally ;).   S n o w  let's rap 05:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * everything you write is quite reasonable. I would not object to wholly omitting the issue, but mentioning the face that some sources reported this and others didn't, and including the fact that the photograph can't be found, could also work. Readers wouldn't necessarily be led in we wouldn't have the issue of editors repeatedly appearing, finding the information absent, and trying to insert it. -Darouet (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "Doesn't that strike either of you as odd or suspicious?" - Yes. Very suspicious. The two counter arguments are this, 1) even though it is suspicious, it's a poor argument to say "b/c I can't find the picture on Google Images, maybe the picture doesn't exist". That type of thinking is very short-sighted. In reality, there are probably millions of examples of photos/images that have been written about, that can't readily be found on the internet. 2) Regardless of how suspicious we feel it is, we still have several RS saying the picture exists, and 0 RS refuting that assertion. On WP, we follow RS. We don't inject our own original ideas or research. We follow the RS. The RS in this case is clear and one-sided.
 * Honestly, I was a bit surprised when I looked at this too Darouet. And you're definitely right. It's suspicious. But ultimately, in our "Verifiability, not truth" world, our suspicions are irrelevant. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Evidence of absence.  If I found twenty sources saying they had seen a photo of bombs in the WTC towers on 9/11, then the fact that no one can prove the photo does not exist is not a reason for us to affirm in any manner that the photo does exist where no one has shown it online whatsoever.    Further that since the photo here is alleged to be "widely circulated" suggests that the clear lack of evidence of such a widely circulated photo is, in itself, suggestive that perhaps the photos which do exist and which do not show bodies are the actual photos.  As a result, it would require a strong positive editorial consensus for us to assert in any way that the photo exists. Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Again, you seem to be comparing the photo to a known conspiracy theory. Quit the straw man argument.
 * You're right though, if we did have 20 reliable sources saying there was a photo of bombs in the WTC, we'd have to include it. Of course, you don't have 20 reliable sources saying that, because that photo doesn't exist. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree Collect's comparison isn't apt, and see we both agree this photograph's existence may be dubious. However, I disagree with your assertion that many other recent, newsworthy, infamous and memorable photographs would be difficult or impossible to find online. That might be true for 1910, 1950 and possibly even 1970 (though the Vietnam war's infamous catalogue of photographs belie this assertion)... but 1992? More plausible is that someone's easily understandable hyperbole/metaphor was misinterpreted and then abundantly reprinted as a juicy detail in this story. I know the WP:V policy, but we're editors, not robots, and I'm not going to turn off my brain and abandon WP:COMMONSENSE: that's why we sometimes WP:IGNORE all rules. - Darouet (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - I think it's just patently false that images that have been reported on are always going to be available on the internet. You care to test this? Look at the "American Sniper" trial for example. Photo's of Chris Kyle's body were shown to the jury, and those photos got widely reported on (ref). You can find those images? The fact is, there are a bunch of images shown at trial that might not make it into the public domain.
 * re "easily understandable" - I think that's plausible. But remember, the folks at BBC/NYT & Independent are professional journalists. They have their job b/c they're good at what they do, which probably means they understand the risk of simply "reprint"ing reports. Now I understand that bad journalism happens, but you're basically accusing the reporters at these prestigious reporting agencies of bad journalism. You, Collect and Futr Perfect are basically assuming you're smarter than them.
 * I agree we shouldn't roboticly follow WP:V as the end-all and be-all. That said, if we're going to reject WP:V, we need argument that is a lot better than "I can't find the picture on the internet, so the sources must have got it wrong.". NickCT (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I don't think intelligence is the correct focus here. Rather, after reading what sources have to say on the matter and being unable to locate the notorious photograph, we simply doubt its existence, and the veracity of ordinarily reliable sources. I believe you concerning the Kyle trial, however I think there are a number of important differences. First, we do have a photograph of Plavšić and Arkan meeting and kissing - broadcast around the world - without any bodies. Considering the language "memorable, notorious, widely-circulated" doesn't it seem that this is the photograph in question. Second, I can't find any record in Plavšić's trial related to a photo of her stepping over bodies to kiss Arkan. Am I wrong about this? If so this would be crucial, but so far anyway I don't see it in the discussion above. If there was a photograph shown only in the trial, why is it described as widely circulated? Lastly, good and intelligent people make mistakes. So yes, it may very well be possible that we have, here, spent far more time and energy looking into the veracity of this photograph than the professional journalists who described it. And that's OK: we're editors and it's not our job to report, but it is our job to evaluate reports and make editorial decisions. -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment People, you are wasting your time. Fut.Perf. (as an admin) has essentially supervoted over the top of this RfC by invoking BLP and warning other editors not to revert. Unless you can find an admin willing to close this RfC as Include and overturn Fut.Perf.'s supervote, any further discussion is pointless. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Don't worry. There's no such thing as a supervote. Read WP:BLPADMIN. Fut. Perf has a record of trying to make the rules up as he goes along. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Second break and a proposed wording with references for those still interested
I have stated before that I would prefer inclusion over complete exclusion, though both can be supported by various policies and policy sections. For that purpose I would present three possible solutions based on the feedback that has been received and points of contention. Feel free to critique but don't get caught up in the wording just yet. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC); PS my referencing system is "manual input" so feel free to fix the citations. 06:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep as is but with context and lots of references per WP:EXTRAORDINARY:
 * A photograph, described by several sources as "widely-circulated" and "notorious", reportedly shows Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian during the kiss.
 * 1) Keep but expand to include "no mention of bodies" sources
 * A photograph, described by several sources as "widely-circulated" and "notorious", reportedly shows Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian during the kiss. However, these details and reported photograph are not mentioned by other sources including the ICTY's trial judgement report, a CIA report from the Office of Russian and European Analysis, and several news reports of various outlets.
 * 1) Keep but separate "dead bodies"
 * After Plavsic's arrival to Bijeljina following the deaths, she approached Arkan to congratulate him and, in the process, kissed his cheek. Some sources describe a photo that reportedly depicts Plavsic kissing Arkan while near the dead bodies of civilians.
 * 1) Remove entirely - current status due to BLPAdmins action by 

Responses

 * Strong support for 1 in particular, but I can see myself agreeing to any of the first three options as a matter of settling a divisive issue. I doubt that most who have participated above will re-assert their positions here, but I think it's obvious from the above discussion that most favour a solution somewhere in this area.  There are now other obstacles to applying any consensus decision arrived at here, but since a party has framed the discussion in these terms, my !vote, for the record, is for some variant of the middle-ground solution of mentioning the claim of the body and then carefully attributing it, allowing for some statement of the lack of universal reference to the body in some other sources concerning the event of the kiss (or kisses).  S n o w  let's rap 05:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've just put up the middle two drafts (option 2 and 3) as well now - though I'm still working on the "sources with no bodies mentioned" draft (option 3). Not sure if you wanted to check the drafts out as well and offer advice/suggestions/etc. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP cited as non-negotiable policy No claim about any dead bodies in a photograph be used, and no source which is quoted claiming such as a fact should be used absent actual consensus here, and demonstration that the "widely circulated" photograph exists.  Not a matter for an add-on RfC at this point at all. Collect (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to quote the actual section WP:BLP that says what you claim it says here?  S n o w  let's rap 04:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support for 1 - For many reasons given above that I don't want to rehash here. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait, there should be some rephrasing of the options since: some claim "a (one) body", some "bodies", and some do not claim it at all (?). Did she step over a (one) body, several bodies, or simply walked a pathway surrounded by bodies, towards Arkan? Btw, are you guys not seeing the red-flag fact laundering crazyness? There should be no bodies since this is an extraordinary claim not yet proven (please take a careful look at the sources). Could someone send a mail to ICTY?--Z oupan 22:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, . The only way we're going to get this mess sorted out is if someone sends an e-mail to the ICTY and asks where things stand. 23 editor (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that the ICTY is going to answer an informal request to classify or describe a piece of evidence (that's just not how courts operate, as a general rule) but if anyone wants to try, there's no harm in it--only potential (if unlikely) benefit. Note, however, that this would not be a valid and binding means of sorting the issue, since correspondence on the part of our editors would still constitute OR.  Nevertheless, as many here have based their decisions on this content on the basis of their personal doubts and assumptions, rather than the sourcing, it could nonetheless end the protracted argument.  S n o w  let's rap 04:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support for 1 - Per Snow and NickCT. --Potočnik (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any reason why Drakulic is used twice (2009, 2013) as a reliable source? Note that Blee&Deutsch cite Serbian Iron Lady (2003). This gives the impression of several independent sources, when in fact, they cite eachother. I would have another, most important, option added: According to Tribune staff reporter Bill Glauber (Glauber 2002) ... stepping over a body ...--Z oupan 23:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was going to write "tenacious support for options 4 or 2", and if option 2, I think you need to go further and note that the photograph cannot be found. However, I should point out that you have posted an RfC above, and it'd be worthwhile to let that finish before you begin a whole new section with voting for various options. At this point it's not clear who actually responded to the RfC, who's here for other reasons, who's participating in this second "poll" of sorts, and what the implications of various poll votes are anyway. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Table of sourced statements
I have moved the table of sources down to its own section below, both because I think it may be useful for reference as discussion moves farther down the thread, and also so that we needn't constantly scroll through it on the way to said discussion. Anyone who feels it disrupts the integrity of previous discussion is free to revert insofar as I am concerned.  S n o w  let's rap 04:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)