Talk:Bosnian mujahideen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request

I would urge all editors here to stop reverting and/or making significant changes. As Osli73 has done below, please propose any significant changes here on the talk page. If any changes you make are reverted, please do not escalate the matter into a revert war. Instead, raise the issue on the talk page for discussion. Also, everyone should avoid making comments about other editors, but instead stay focused on polite and calm discussion with an eye towards reaching agreement. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

suggested changes to the article

I have a couple of changes I would like to make to the article. Your comments please:

1. the intro: it presently states that the Bosnian mujahideen are "officially titled in Arabic as Kateebat al-Mujahideen, Battalion of the Holy Warriors; known unofficially in Serbo-Croatian as El-Mudžahid". However, I think these were only the names used in some cases or for some or a unit of the Bosnian mujahideen, not necessarily applicable to the entire phenomenon. Also, I find no source for the statement. I would like to remove this or change it to "Also known in some cases as..."
2. Abu Abdel Aziz: the article currently reads "They were under the command of Sheikh al-Mujahideen Abu Abdel Aziz, also known as "Barbaros", a senior recruiter for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network". In fact, he was a commander of one/some of the Bosnian mujahideen units, not all of them. This should be taken out alltogether.
3. Iranian Rev. Guards: it currently reads "there were also several hundred Iranian Revolutionary Guards supporting the Bosnian government during the war". While this is true, it should be clarified that they are generally not considered as part of the "Bosnian mujahideen". This should be clarified.
4. Nature of Bosnian mujahideen: I would like to add, somewhere in the intro, a sentence or two clarifying that the Bosnian mujahideen refers to a number of special Islamic/Muslim units fighting on the Bosnian govt side during the war, often with a large number of foreign volunteers in them. This to clarify that they were not one single military unit.

In addition to these points which I would like to change, I would like some assistance with the following (mainly from Vassyana above):

1. Links to Islamic terrorism: this section is a mix of quotes. I would like to clarify this and provide a more unified text.
2. War crimes: I agree this section read poorly with too many bullets and would like to have a more well written text.

Any comments on the above? CheersOsli73 (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the Al-Qaeda reference. It makes all of the fighters seem like terrorists by defenition which is POV. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

@OSLI73 ur version is POV cause you deleted relable sources such as Radio Free Europe, u said it's "Bosniak nationalistic page"?!. Just compare the current version and yours. Grandy Grandy (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GG, could you please discuss the actual points raised above.Osli73 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is necessary

This article should be restored to the version preceding the recent edit war. Reverts should be accompanied by talk page posts clearly and politely explaining the reasoning. Reverts should generally be avoided. Significant changes to previously standing material should be discussed first in order to generate material acceptable to most everyone. Pushing large changes without discussion and reverting without discussion may result in blocks and sanctions, such as being prohibited from mainspace editing on certain articles or topics. Please calmly and politely discuss the issues here to avoid further edit wars and conflicts. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, could you please make that revert to the original version since I really would like to reduce confrontation by making it. Also, could you please also take a look at the Bosnia section of the general Mujahideen article, which is very much linked to this article. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello all.

I was responsible for the edit yesterday about the prescence of Al-Qa'ida in Bosnia. I apologize for breaking protocal, but that was my first edit. - I do not have a user name, so how do I get one? -

No problem! We all take a bit of time to get adjusted. You can create a username by going here. Have a lot at Wikipedia:Introduction and feel free to drop a line on my user talk page if you have any questions. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits

First of all, @VASSYANA reverted to the version suggested by @OSLI73, which was not compromise of any kind (there were two different POVs about the issue). And it was just a version of one side in the dispute:

Let me explain my changes:

Intro

I wrote introduction based on relaible sources (mainly ICTY), unlike sources presented by @OSLI73 such as:

They were under the command of Sheikh al-Mujahideen Abu Abdel Aziz, also known as "Barbaros", a senior recruiter for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

The above sentence could be taken as a fact just if it was validated on a trial, but @OSLI73 wrote it as a fact.

Let's see his "source". It is alleged interview with "Barbarosa" [1], without validation. Actually there is a note about "original text in Arabic" which goes like this: Contact al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem for the original arabic text. URL: "http://www.assirat.org/mag/". If you go to the URL you will get "Gallery specializes in the sale & purchase of paintings by Jacque".

So please try not to make fun of Wikipedia.

Second, the numbers. @OSLI73 included again the same kind of "information" (mailing list) and excluded Radio Free Europe research calling it "Bosniak nationalistic page".

Incidents

I wrote a section called Incidents based on the facts from the trial, instead of "war crimes" section written by @OSLI73 which was collection of individual incidents including some events that are questionable in their designation as war crimes. I also included the cause of the their arrival and propaganda which is very important information. So please, next time, first read this version then compare it with @OSLI73 version and try to be neutral. Grandy Grandy (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Samnite Gladiator (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, March 11. I posted an edit under Al-Qaeda Speculation offering a different POV, which was sourced, that Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups were present in Bosnia and committed massacres against both Serbian Christians and Bosnian Muslims. This edit was deleted due to the fact that I hadn't put it on the talk page first. Again, I apologize for breaking protocol, but that was my first edit. It is my opinion that both sides of the argument should be represented here. All I see is that the Serbs are evil, the Serbs are evil, the Serbs are evil. The atrocities committed by Bosnian mujahidin are largely ignored and left out. -- Samnite Gladiator

revert 13 March

Hi, again, I have reverted the article back to the 'old' consensus version prior to User:Grandy Grandy's edits/reverts. In addition to the arguments/explanations I have given above for this I will set out some new ones and reiterate a couple of the old ones below:

1. Official name: I have removed the info. about their official name since to my knowledge there wasn't any 'official' name. The El Mujahid were just one Bosnian mujahideen unit, bar far not the only one.
2. Commander: Abu Abdel Aziz was only the commander of one of the Bosnian mujahideen units, not of all of them. Therefore I have removed this. The ultimate commanders of the Bosnian mujahideen were the Bosnian army/government (at least after they were officially incorporated into their structure).
3. Numbers: the 4,000-7,000 figures are based on an article in the LA Times (copied into a mailing list since the LA Times archives are a pay per view service) and 1996 book on the topic by Yossef Bodansky. According to an interview with Vlado Azinovic (a senior editor with Radio Free Europe's South Slavic and Albanian Languages Service and author of the 2007 book "Al-Qaeda In Bosnia-Herzegovina: Myth Or Present Danger?") gives a range of 3,000 to 4,000. A report by Anes Alic in the Global Terrorism Analysis (supported by the Jamestown Foundation) quotes the Bosnian Foreigin ministry as providing a figure of 6,000 foreign volunteers. Please note that these figures are for foreign volunteers only and do not include the local Bosniacs who fought alongside them in the mujahideen units set up by the Bosnian army.
4. Incidents: not only is "incidents" a complete misnomer for these acts. GG's presentation of the events does not reflect the ICTY judgement. Finally, although I agree that the original/current "War crimes" section should be rewritten to flow better it should not try to whitewash the war crimes committed by the Bosnian mujahideen. The present set up with a large number of bullets on specific war crimes was to ensure that the text was as true to the sources as possible.
5. Propaganda: I have no problem mentioning that the Bosnian mujahideen figured in Serb (and Croat) wartime propaganda. However, first of all this needs to be properly sourced (today it is only based on the self-published writings in Serbocroation on an Islamist website by a Predrag Matvejević, and by a number of Serbocroatian language websites, which, given the controversy surrounding this, is not sufficient). Second, it really only needs to be mentioned very briefly. Please note that none of the Enlglish language sources which specifically deal with the issue deal with their use in Serb wartime propaganda.
6. Al Qaeda: given the number of sources confirming the links between the Bosnian mujahideen, Bosnia and Al Qaeda, it is misleading (indeed a weasel word) to call this "speculation".

If you do not agree with the above or my edits, please address each of the above points specifically before reverting/making any major edits. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Samnite Gladiator (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with any of the edits you made and I think they are a good step toward honest and balanced information about the Bosnian mujahidin. -- Samnite Gladiator

Thanks Samnite! I have been planning to improve on the war crimes section for a while but haven't gotten around to it - if you have the time and inclination...Osli73 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Samnite Gladiator (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I may be able to help out with that. It will take some time though -- I am going to have go through a book I just read read and see if I can find the author's sources online. The book is called "Unholy Terror" by John R. Schindler. I would like to post some information about his book in the article, so I will probably do that tomorrow. If you want a personal review of the book, head to Wordpress.com and look up Samnite Gladiator and scroll down until you hit "Bosnia Revisited" - Samnite Gladiator

Comment

1. There is a common name used in documents, which isn't "Bosnian mujahideen".
2. Why did you remove the cause of their arrival? The massacres committed by the Serbs is direct cause of their arrival according to their statements in ICTY cases.
3. Bosnian army was not "the ultimate commanders of the mujahideen". You removed that part: According to the Arab fighters who testified as the prosecution witnesses at the trial of Rasim Delic, the El Mujahid Detachment was only formally part of the Bosnian Army chain of command. All decisions were taken by the emir and the shura, the Mujahideen commander and the Mujahideen supreme council respectively. This was because the ‘Army couldn’t be trusted’.- ICTY: MUJAHIDEEN DIDN’T TRUST THE ARMY.
4. Why did you remove the number of foreigners by Radio Free Europe resarch? It isn't "Islamist website", which is a common Serb propaganda "argument".
5. "GG's presentation of the events does not reflect the ICTY judgement." This statement is false, here is the link to the source [2] The real fact is that your presentation of the events doesn't reflect the ICTY judgment. For instance Music School, Motel Sretno and some individual incidents isn't related to Mujahideen at all. There is not need to spread propaganda here.

If you do not agree with the above or my edits, please address each of the above points specifically before reverting/making any major edits. Grandy Grandy (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to GG's points above:

1. Official name: I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The issue is not the name of the article (we've been through that before) but rather if there is an 'official' name for the Bosnian mujahideen. The name "El Mujahed" used in the ICTY case refers to the specific mujahideen group which the defendants in that case belonged to. The terms are not necessarily applicable to all Bosnian mujahideen units. That is why I delted them.
2. Cause of arrival: their cause of arrival is a POV, especially how you represented it, is a very clear POV. I prefer to simply say that they fought on the side of the Bosnian government. Otherwise we could say that Arkan's Tigers (a Serbian paramilitary group responsible for war crimes in the Bosnian war) came to defend the Bosnian Serbs population against massacres by Muslim extremists (which is what they would claim).
3. Command responsibility: the Bosnian mujahideen certainly were part of the command structure of the Bosnian Army. Please take a look at the sources: the American Conservative writes "According to a UN communiqué of 1995, the battalion was “directly dependent on BiH staff for supplies” and for “directions” during combat with the Serbs." If you read the ICTY judgements of Kabura that will be quite clear as well (especially after 13 August when the El Mujahed unit was officially formed as part of the 7th Mountain Brigade of the 3rd Corps of ARBiH).
4. Number of foreign volunteers: I have provided a range based on the most common estimates made in the various sources provided. The Radio Free Europe site you claim as a source appears to be empty. Also, if the Bosnian government claims to have deported 500 of its foreign fighters after the war and it is widely conceded that a large number remained, then certainly the number of foreign volunteers must have been more than 500? Also, since the Bosnian mujahideen were not only foreigners, but also locals, then it's important to note that the figure only refers to the foreigners.
5. War crimes: I'm not quite sure what you're claiming here. The crimes set out in the ICTY's judgement against Kabura and Hadzihasanovic refer to war crimes committed by the 7th Muslim Brigade and the El Mujahed detachment under their command. Both units are known to be part of the Bosnian mujahieen units, which is also stated clearly in the court's judgement.

Finally, I cannot see that you have answered the points I raised above. It would be much more helpful if you could answer them specifically. CheersOsli73 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Samnite Gladiator (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Muslim mujahidin militias present in Bosnia were ultimately commanded by an inner cabal of radical Islamists topped by Alija Izetbegovic. The foreign mujahid didn't "trust" the army because, in some respects, it was still a secular holdover from Tito's era. The Bosnian Army wasn't deemed Islamic enough. However, as I said, they mujahidin were still controlled by Alija Izetbegovic. My source is "Unholy Terror" by John R. Schindler.

Gladiator, in such a controversial topic I believe it is best to simply state the fact, that the Bosnian mujahideen were formally incorporated into the Bosnian army and part of its command structure. Information such as that which you site above is best referred to citing the specifc source (to make it clear that it is an 'opinion'). CheersOsli73 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

71.179.181.52 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Good enough. When the dust settles on this a little bit, I'd like to submit a piece about the book.

Suggestions

Let's stay focused on discussing the content and working towards building up solid reliable references for use in the article. I have created sandbox versions of the article, one based on each of the major current versions of the article. Let's work on the sandboxes and see what we come up with. (/sandbox001 and /sandbox002) I have a list of ideas below (borrowed from an earlier list) about how to work forward towards improving the article:

1. Pre-war situation. What's the background for this area that made the overall situation possible? What's the background of Islam in the area? The breakup of Yugoslavia should be touched upon briefly, but (appropriate to this article's subject) the section should focus mainly on the cultural and religious dimensions.
2. The war. The number estimate from the lede, as well as the mention of Iranian fighters, should be in this section, rather than placed and supported in the lede. A brief introductory paragraph summarizing the situation previous to the arrival of foreign volunteers would be helpful to provide context to the matter. If acronyms are going to be used (HOV, ABiH, etc), the article should state what they stand for (and literally translate to) on the first usage. Otherwise, the use of acronyms is confusing to the reader.The fourth paragraph of the section is unreferenced and needs reliable sources. The closing paragraph claims that the effectiveness of Muslim participation is disputed without reference, the remainder of the paragraph reflecting the point of view that they were effective (supported by a reference). The section does not address where the Muslim units were mainly active or what battles they played a key part in, but it should for completeness. The "Relationship to the Bosnian government army" seems redundant with material that precedes it (specifically the fourth paragraph). That material should be merged, dropping the direct quotation (which is unnecessary), using the references of that section to revise and reference the unreferenced paragraph. A small subsection covering the distinction between the foreign fighters and the 7th Muslim Brigade should be included, as this is often a confusing point to many readers. The section should use a {{seealso}} link to point a reader towards the 7th's main article for further reading.
3. War crimes. This is largely a collection of individual instances, including some events that are questionable in their attribution as "war crimes" (though no less repugnant). This section should focus on the overall prevalence of war crimes and war crime accusations. This topic has been written about heavily, so references addressing this issue in an overview fashion should be available. If there are one or a few particular instances which received wide notoriety or condemnation, those specific instances would merit direct mention. This suggestion is based on the general best practices of other articles and reference materials handling "war crimes".# After the war. Obviously, there is disagreement among the numbers provided for those remaining in the area. A decent selection of various estimates should be provided, including explicitly attributing those numbers to their sources (such as "XYZ Commission states there are ABC foreign fighters who have settled in Bosnia."). Also, the last impact (both political and cultural) of the involvement of the mujahideen should be touched upon in this section.
4. Interactions between foreign fighters and locals (not currently a part of the article). There was a large degree of tension and conflict between the native Muslims and foreign fighters. In particular, the locals were not in harmony with the faith and ethics of the Afghan/Saudi backed/connected Salafi and Wahhabi. This cultural gulf, and any lasting impact, should be discussed in the article. Some of the sources used already discuss it, and even focus heavily on it (such as the second reference from the third paragraph of the "Role during the Bosnian War 1992-1995" section.
5. Links to Islamic terrorism. This section is very messy with a hodge-podge of quotations. Select the most reliable sources and simply report the majority view of the matter. Significant minority views can be addressed by paraphrasing with direct attribution of the source.
6. The lead. After the rest of the article is handled, the lede should be rewritten to provide a summary overview of the article.
7. Other articles. Mujahideen#Bosnia and Herzegovina should be rewritten as a summary with a {{main}} link to this article after the issues and conflicts are resolved in this article.

Just some thoughts. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator adviced me to not edit, until he check on me, because user Blanchardb accused me to be a sock puppet, which I am not. I waited conclusion of case me being accused, it is over now, and I want to improve article. I agree with many of your thoughts, but problem is in Osli, he don't want to implement that. He don't want to implement your thoughts, he put lies in article and delete other sources. AhmadinV (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arab view on this topic is missing

I read all discussions. I think this is not all right to have just Serb POV. I compare 2 versions you are discussed about. It should be joined two version. Salam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/88.198.45.143 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From Philip accusation:

As I wrote above, I suspect that AhmadinV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a newly created sockpuppet of user:Grandy Grandy/user:The Dragon of Bosnia see first edit to Bosnian mujahideen‎ with the comment "again" and compare it with the last edit of user:The Dragon of Bosnia to the same page. user:The Dragon of Bosnia/user:Grandy Grandy has been banned from editing see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#March 2008 - May 2008. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

False accusation. I write my suggestion in talk. I write "again" because I forgot to sign in first time [3] and after that, Clue Bot immidiately revert my edit: [4], so I created account to save my edit again:[5]. Ahmadin.

Quite frankly, Ahmadin, deleting half the article will not gain you any friends, nor will it make us assume good faith. For the time being, I'm through with reverting vandalism here. Yes, deleting half the article is vandalism, not to mention that the deleted part contains <!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled -->. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

POV and refimprove tags

Could whoever put the POV and refimprove tags on top of the article please explain, precisely, what they refer to. Otherwise, they should be removed.Osli73 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The tags have been inserted by Ronz (talk · contribs) and probably refer to the still ongoing dispute with The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs), as they were inserted right after Ronz reverted one of Dragon's edits. (Thank God for edit histories...) --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Blancarhdb, thank you for looking into the background. However, I still feel we need to have a specification of the supposed POV and refimprove issues if we are going to keep the tags. I'll give it another day or so (if no one disapproves).Osli73 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will now remove the tags since no justification/specification was forthcoming.Osli73 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This existing version of article is collectio of thoughts of Osli. Osli don't include any other version, any other source, any other suggestion, except pure falsification.

I support neutral version of article whith this points:

1. Introduction. Must be neutral. Without speculation. Must include information about reason of Arabs came in Bosnia.
2. Background. Must explain why Arabs decided to come in Bosnia, and how they come in Bosnia.
3. War crimes rename to Incidents as it is in neutral version. Vassyana made a good point about it. That section "is largely a collection of individual instances, including some events that are questionable in their attribution as "war crimes"" Some source is not even related to Arabs.
4. Units. There was one Arab unit, even accodrding to Osli source. Other units are not Mujahideen, not even exist, just in propaganda maybe.

AhmadinV (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:AhmadinV above:

First of all, it is not a "collection of thoughts" since the text is thoroughly sourced and referenced. Now for the specific issues you raise:

1. Introduction: it does state why the Arab volunteers came to Bosnia - because they were "coreligionists". If you can find good sources for anything else, please let me know.
2. Background: first comment, see no. 1 above.
3. War crimes: well, these "incidents" are all examples of war crimes prosecuted by the ICTY. Calling them "incidents" is a complete misnomer. I'm not sure which source you mean isn't "related to Arabs". Please let me know. Though, you should bear in mind that "Bosnian mujahideen" isn't necessarily synonymous with "Arabs" since they were often mixed units and ultimately under Bosnian government command for most of the war.
4. Units: again, see no. 3 above. The Bosnian mujahideen aren't necessarily purely ethnic Arab but refer to specific Muslim volunteer units, though often with Arab participants. As for the existence of these units, the source for this information appears to be based on a very credible source.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected the page to stop edit warring. Leave a message on my talk page when there is agreement to unprotect the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get serious

Osli, I think the real problem is in your attitude. There are obviously two different versions, two POVs of this article, but you keep reverting just yours. I had to write longer post, because we must solve this once and for all, use right sources and etc.

I don't care about your fight with sockpuppets, that doesn't make you honest in your edit wars because you were also sockpupet once (and I think you are still the one/ e.g. Jonathanmills, someone should check on you), I condemn them as well as you, but they made some very good point about your persistent deletion.

• (1) Intro: You removed this sentence: "Mujahideen came in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war after the massacres committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians.They intended to vage a holy war against the perpetrators." They didn't come from Mars just like that, they came according to this ICTY source:[6]to "fight against Serbian agressors", not Serb, but Serbian and agressors. This is ICTY conclusion. You misrepresented the above sentence with your version: "Foreign mujahideen arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping their Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) coreligionists against the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat forces." This is a clear example of sneaky vandalism, because you misrepresented the source. You missed to write why they came, you missed the point of their arrival, ICTY said clearly against Serbian agressors, not forces, because if you say forces you change the nature of the conclusion. And they didn't come to fight against Bosnian Serb, but Serbian agressors.

Good points. However there is some uncertainty in the sentence that you are citing. The ICTY article often qualifies Serb with Bosnian, but not always e.g. "Numerous witnesses have stated that the dwellings of the Croats and Serbs in the region had been searched and that ABiH soldiers loaded property from the dwellings onto trucks." I do not think this use of Serb does not mean Bosnian Serb, do you agree or do you think this mean that these houses belong to Croats and Serbs who's main residences were in other countries? Secondly the sentence "The evidence shows that foreign Mujahedin arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping their "Muslim brothers" against the Serbian aggressors." is written from the perspective of the foreign Mujahedin to explain their reasons for coming and does not mean that was true even if they thought it, and "Serbian aggressors" does not mean "Serbian mass murders" hence not massacres. However given that the text can be read several ways it is probably better to do as you suggest and include it in the introduction. But the first sentence of the version you reverted to "Mujahideen came in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war after the massacres committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim" is not supported by this text and I think that the original first sentence is better. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your statement:

"I do not think this use of Serb does not mean Bosnian Serb, do you agree or do you think this mean that these houses belong to Croats and Serbs who's main residences were in other countries?"

Using your logic, in this source "Bosnian Mujahideen" is never used at all, but the name of this article (mentioned many times within article too) is Bosnian Mujahideen, instead of "foreign Mujahedin" as it is used in source. Do you agree the name of this article is incorrect based on your logic about the name of Serbs?

Regarding this sentece:

""The evidence shows that foreign Mujahedin arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping their "Muslim brothers" against the Serbian aggressors." is written from the perspective of the foreign Mujahedin to explain their reasons for coming and does not mean that was true even if they thought it, and "Serbian aggressors" does not mean "Serbian mass murders" hence not massacres."

That is ICTY conclusion. That is within the judgment. It doesn't say according to foreign Mujahideen. It clearly says: "The evidence shows ... of helping their Muslim brothers against the Serbian aggressors."

Of course it does not mean Serb mass murders, but it means aggressors, and agressor is attacker.

But the statement could be supported with another source. For example this short documentary (on youtube) contains statement of Arab commander, called Abu Hamza where he explains the reason he came to fight:

• [7] - Veterans Siege of Sarajevo part

1

• [8] - Veterans Siege of Sarajevo part 2

It is in the second part of this documentary. I put both parts because of context, and because it is very short documentary.

Abu Hamza says in the second part of this documentary he came after he met the 13 year old girl whose mother was killed and she was raped. You can watch his statement from the 7 min :45 sec of the second part, but i recomment you to watch both parts. My question is: Is this documentary a relaible source to support the claim that foreign Mujahideen came to fight after they became angry seeing some terrible atrocities on Muslim civilians, women, children in the heart of Europe, and noone from the international community seemed to care including England and France? --HarisM (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• (2) Propaganda: Let's go to the real important part. You REMOVED the whole propaganda section which is based mainly on ICTY findings. Come on Osli, the whole section? And you want to discuss about something?!
• (3)Numbers: Regarding the numbers, you removed such source as Radio Free Europe (academic research), and replaced it with www.balkania.net (doesn't exist), including some parts of Yossef Bodansky political views (and he is very biased because he is a politician, and he is from Isreal not very fond of Arabs at all). You replaced this sentece: The number of volunteers is estimated by some newspaper reports to have been about 4,000, but some recent research discards such claims estimating 400 foreign volunteers. With your sentence (based on biased or unrelaible sources, at least not relaible according to WP:RS): The number of volunteers is estimated to have been between 3,000 and 7,000. At least you could write: between 400 to whatever...
• (4)Bosnian government command responsibility: And again another lie: On 13 August 1993, the Bosnian government officially mobilized the Kateebat al-Mujahideen ("Battalion of the Holy Warriors") or El Mudžahid, on the personal orders of Bosnian president Alija Izetbegović, to whom the unit was directly responsible. The ICTY found that El Mujahid wasn't even part of 7th Muslim Brigade and not even under Amir Kubura command, but you wrote about "direct orders from Alija Izetbegovic", a president of the state?! This is another example of clear propaganda.
• (5)War crimes: The section regarding war crimes is just a coatrack, which misrepresents the source (ICTY). You wrote: "According to the ICTYs indictment in Delic case..." and you deleted the part: "According to ICTY judgment"?! (you did that many times not just here but also in Bosnian War article). Indictment is not the fact, but judgment is the fact. War crime is defined as a punishable offense under international law, and you presented Motel Sretno beatings as a war crimes which is not according to international law, it is an incident, very bad, but not a war crime. You wrote: "16 Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Serbs civilians were taken to the Motel Sretno where they were beaten several times until the next morning" But according to ICTY it was like this: "The 16 Croats and Serbs were detained in Motel Sretno which housed the 3rd Battalion of the 7th Brigade. The Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the 16 persons taken to Motel Sretno on 18 May 1993, who were taking no active part in the hostilities, were beaten several times until the next morning, 19 May 1993, when they were set free". Which means this "war crime" was not committed by Mujahideen, but by 3rd Battalion of 7th Brigade, which has nothing to do with El Mujahid unit. Not to mention that they were set free, and those were soldiers, except one.
• (6)Names of units: Regardin the names of the units: You wrote about alleged Handzar Division (I think you missed the war, it was a unit in WWII), again based on political comments made by Isreali politican, not verified by ICTY.

I can do this sentence by sentence, and I will show you that you based your edits on pure sneaky vandalism. --HarisM (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Haris, could you please structure your arguments (pref numerically, see how I've done on the Bosnian war Talk page) and address the specific diffs between the two versions of the text. What you have done above is very confusing. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, i will not restructure it. I structured my arguments very well, but you avoid to answer it, which means you don't care about arguments. That's is exactly what is this all about. I showed that you cheated, that you misrepresented the sources, I compared the sentences, and you say I didn't structure my arguments well? Wow. --HarisM (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Haris, please calm down. I was merely asking you to number your arguments to make it easier for you to see which ones I was replying to. As it is now it will get a bit confused and we will most likely be speaking past each other. Please reconsider. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, I've taken the liberty of structuring them for you. Please don't be offended. It just makes it easier for us to discuss. I will reply tomorrow.Osli73 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the version that you HarisM are reverting to is one that was constructed by a now banned user. So what I would like to suggest is that you re-introduce the changes you think should be there one at a time. I suggest doing it section by section, but if you prefer do it point by point as you have listed them above. When one has been worked out then move on to the next one. That keeps the difference in the text manageable and it is much easier to discuss such changes in a constructive way. If you can agree to do that then I'll unprotect the article page and you can make your fist edit. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Haris, I will reply to the, as I understand it, six, points you raised above in relation to the version I supported. The replies will mostly be copy pastes of what I have replied to User:Grandy Grandy before, since it is largely his version which you are now suggesting we revert to.

1. Cause of arrival: the text you are suggesting is a very clear POV. There is no clear source of why they came to fight on the side of the Bosniaks. I prefer to simply say that they "fought on the side of the Bosnian government". Otherwise we could say that Arkan's Tigers (a Serbian paramilitary group responsible for war crimes in the Bosnia in war) came to defend the Bosnian Serbs population against massacres by Muslim extremists (which is what they would claim themselves).
2. Propaganda: I have no problem mentioning that the Bosnian mujahideen figured in Serb (and Croat) wartime propaganda. However, first of all this needs to be properly sourced (today it is only based on the self-published writings in Serbocroation on an Islamist website by a Predrag Matvejević, and by a number of Serbocroatian language websites, which, given the controversy surrounding this, is not sufficient). Second, it really only needs to be mentioned very briefly. Please note that none of the Enlglish language sources which specifically deal with the issue deal with their use in Serb wartime propaganda.
3. Numbers: the 4,000-7,000 figures are based on an article in the LA Times (copied into a mailing list since the LA Times archives are a pay per view service) and 1996 book on the topic by Yossef Bodansky. According to an interview with Vlado Azinovic (a senior editor with Radio Free Europe's South Slavic and Albanian Languages Service and author of the 2007 book "Al-Qaeda In Bosnia-Herzegovina: Myth Or Present Danger?") gives a range of 3,000 to 4,000. A report by Anes Alic in the Global Terrorism Analysis (supported by the Jamestown Foundation) quotes the Bosnian Foreigin ministry as providing a figure of 6,000 foreign volunteers. Please note that these figures are for foreign volunteers only and do not include the local Bosniacs who fought alongside them in the mujahideen units set up by the Bosnian army.
4. Command responsibility: the Bosnian mujahideen certainly were part of the command structure of the Bosnian Army. Please take a look at the sources: the American Conservative writes "According to a UN communiqué of 1995, the battalion was “directly dependent on BiH staff for supplies” and for “directions” during combat with the Serbs." If you read the ICTY judgements of Kabura that will be quite clear as well (especially after 13 August when the El Mujahed unit was officially formed as part of the 7th Mountain Brigade of the 3rd Corps of ARBiH).
5. War crimes: not only is "incidents" a complete misnomer for these acts. GG's presentation of the events does not reflect the ICTY judgement. Finally, although I agree that the original/current "War crimes" section should be rewritten to flow better it should not try to whitewash the war crimes committed by the Bosnian mujahideen. The present set up with a large number of bullets on specific war crimes was to ensure that the text was as true to the sources as possible.
6. Name of units: I have simply used the names by Yossef Bodansky in his book. Given his academic credentials and background as an adviser to the US government (which is hardly pro-Serb or anti-Bosniak) I see no reason why he should not be a realiable source.

I hope I have answered all of your questions. CheersOsli73 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

replacement source

As a replacement for the removal of one unreliable source[9] perhaps this article will do: Al Burke All quieted on the World Front 78 APPENDIX: ITEM 7 Page 78 (Edward S. Herman’s response to Leif Ericsson’s "Denying Guilt") Copyright © 2005 by Nordic News Network.

Fifth, it is now very clear that in the early and mid-90s, with U.S. and Saudi help, thousands of mujahadin and Al Qaeda warriors were brought into Bosnia from Afghanistan and elsewhere to help the Bosnian Muslims fight for their territorial claims. Osama Bin Laden was among these guests, and he also visited the allied KLA in Kosovo. These fighters were aggressive and vicious and their jihadist cruelties were described in the Serb documents mentioned earlier, but almost never in the Western media. The Al Qaeda continuing presence in Bosnia and Kosovo is troublesome to the Western powers, but I suspect that their history in Bosnia and Kosovo will not show up in Ericsson’s common narrative.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting this text as a reliable source shows a profound lack of understanding of wiki policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS . Just as important, describing the text as coming from an "article" is misleading at best. This text is not from an article. It is from a "letter to the editor" appearing in the Swedish Ordfront Magazine http://www.ordfront.se/ in which Edward Herman attacks another author and defends his own work. Letters to the editor do not represent a news organization's views nor does the news organization by publishing the letter convey upon the claims of the letter any credibility whatsoever. For example, here at the Anchorage Daily News opinion page http://www.adn.com/help/v-letters/ as with every other opinion page, one will find disclaimers of this sort: "Opinions expressed here do not represent the views of the Daily News." The fact that this text suggested here by Philip B.S. was in a letter to the editor says nothing about its credibility. It does not meet the standards put forth by wiki policy describing reliable sources. Furthermore, the claims in the above text are in no way substantiated in the "letter to the editor". No evidence is provided to support the claims. Fairview360 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This quote is full of contradictions. It says:

"it is now very clear that in the early and mid-90s, with U.S. and Saudi help, thousands of mujahadin and Al Qaeda warriors were brought into Bosnia from Afghanistan and elsewhere to help the Bosnian Muslims fight for their territorial claims."

According to whom is very clear that "thousands of Al Qaeda and other warriors" came in Bosnia? It is not clear according to ICTY, it is not clear accoring to any relaible source (this is just an article, and we don't know author's motive for that claim). The second part of the quote says: "to help the Bosnian Muslims fight for their territorial claims." Muslims didn't fight for territorial claims, because they fight to survive. Bosnian government controlled just 10-15% of Bosnia in 1993. The rest of the country was controlled by the Serbs and Croats, and they expelled all Muslim population. But let's go to the main contradiction:

"Osama Bin Laden was among these guests, and he also visited the allied KLA in Kosovo."

Wow. Bosnian war lasted from 1992 to 1995, and KLA was formed yet in 1999 as a resistance Albanian formation in Kosovo after massacres committed by Serbs in Albanian villages. So it is impossible that he was among these guests in Bosnia in 1992-1995 and also visited "allied KLA" in Kosovo, because KLA didn't exist in 1992-1995.

Regarding this sentence:

These fighters were aggressive and vicious and their jihadist cruelties were described in the Serb documents mentioned earlier, but almost never in the Western media.

According to ICTY those Serb documents very mostly propaganda, the problem is, Osli removed that part from Grandy's version. But let's first finish introduction if we want to write neutral and valid article. --HarisM (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is it clear too? It is clear to the author Edward S. Herman. There is no reason why Osama Bin Laden could not have visited the region more than once. The author is not claiming that OBL visited the both at the same time. The point is not that it is true (not something we are qualified to judge) but that it is from a reliable verifiable source. Or do you think that the source is not reliable? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Does Philip B.S. really want to claim the author is making such a limited qualified subjective statement?? Is Edward Herman really only saying "it is clear to me"? Really? When an author writes "it is now very clear", he or she is making a very strong statement that, objectively speaking, there is a preponderance of evidence showing that something is true. Does Philip B.S. really not know that? Haris M. is asking where is the preponderance of evidence? Obviously from Haris M's statements, he does not believe Edward Herman is a reliable source. Fairview360 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One can not know from the statement that it is clear to everyone. Herman my think it is clear to everyone, but he has not stated that. You drawing that inference from the sentences construction. As to your other point the Appendix is not a letter page open to the public, but a series of letters selected by the author of the piece from a people involved in an academic/media dispute. AFAICT There is nothing to say that these letters or this article were published by the Swedish Ordfront Magazine [10] They are just a selection of opinions from the radical left. Now I do not happen to think that the website is a particularly reliable source but the author of the letter is because he is a published academic with publications about the political conflicts in the Balkans.

I would not expect you to agree with his POV, which is one he shares with a cabal of left wing academics and hangers-on (I do not know his personal politics, just those statements he has made in a couple of articles,) who think that there is a right wing American establishment conspiracy that has subverted a willingly compliant Western press to portray the political complexities of the Balkans in a way that supportive of the foreign policy that the American establishment has adopted in the area. To show you that he is a notable source here is an academic article by Martin Shaw at the University of Sussex heavily criticising a book about Kosovo which Herman co-authored. (MS is a name you may remember from the talk pages of the Bosnian Genocide article) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps user: Philip B.S. is not a native speaker of English. When an author states "it is now clear", the author is not saying "it is clear to me". The author is not saying "it is clear to everyone." When an author states "it is now clear", the author is saying that, objectively speaking, there is a preponderance of evidence showing that something is true. There is no comment above claiming the "clear to everyone" interpretation. That is entirely a figment of Philip B.S.'s imagination.

The question was "to whom is it very clear" and the answer to that is it is very clear to the author. It may be clear to others as well but one can not assume that it is from the sentence the author wrote. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If Philip B.S. is going to continue to argue the statement by Herman was a purely subjective statement making no claim of objective evidence, then why on earth did Philip B.S. propose the statement as a reference for this article? Fairview360 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360, you go attributing arguments to me that I have not made. I have no idea if his statement is very clear to any other another person, the question I answered was "to whom is it very clear". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, HarisM was asking Philip B.S. to justify his choice of Herman as a source and to offer the basis for the claim "it is now very clear that in the early and mid-90s, with U.S. and Saudi help, thousands of mujahadin and Al Qaeda warriors were brought into Bosnia from Afghanistan and elsewhere to help the Bosnian Muslims fight for their territorial claims." HarisM pointed out that it is an inflated claim,POV language that portrays Bosnian Muslims as aggressors. Philip B.S.'s response has been lacking, throwing out a rhetorical response "it is clear to the author" and then claiming that the fact Herman is published is justification enough. Hardly. Fairview360 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, HarisM asked one question and made a number of points. Do you really think that this type of conversation helps to build consensus on the project? I don't think that they do. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Philip Baird Shearer really think that he is seen as a disinterested third party possessing the necessary neutrality to play a constructive role in mediating this content dispute? Fairview360 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If Philip B.S. wants to use specific statements from Herman, Philip B.S. is going to need to find a reputable news organization that gives credence to those specific statements or find those specific statements after they have been vetted by the scholarly community. There needs to be a reliable third party that gives credence to those statements.

I don't want to use the sentence in anything what I wrote was "As a replacement for the removal of one unreliable source perhaps this article will do" I had assumed that the editors involved in this article were trying to write a balance NPOV article and that they would find a source from an academic who writes about this region a useful subsitute to support the text already in the article now that a former citation has been removed with the comment "16:52, 17 April 2008 JzG (remove unreliable source per WP:RS)". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In search of a "neutral point of view", Philip B.S. proposes a person who claims the entire western media establishment has become a pawn of an American conspiracy? Surely, one can find a better source than that. Fairview360 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does one have to find a better source than a professor who has published academic works about how recent American foreign policy has effected the Balkans? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Radovan Karadzic was a published professor. Does that alone then make him a qualified source in support of the main thesis of an article? Fairview360 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you intending to use articles by Karadzic as a source? Do you think he is a qualified source? If not why not? How are your questions relevant to this pointless discussion? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer needs to ask why Radovan Karadzic would not be considered an objective source for a Bosnia-related article?? The point that was lost on Philip B.S. is that being published alone does not necessarily qualify a person as an objective source. Fairview360 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Philip B.S. would benefit from reading wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources which start with these two sentences: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Philip B.S. seems a bit confused about what constitutes a reliable source. He defends Herman as a reliable source saying Herman is a "notable source". That is irrelevant. Notability is relevant to whether something is a worthy topic of a wiki article, not whether something constitutes a reliable source. Furthermore, Philip B.S. seems to be saying that Herman's ideas depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. If that is the case, once again, he ought to read wikipedia's policy regarding fringe theories. That would inform Philip B.S. as to the unsuitability of using Herman as a source supporting the main thesis of an article.

Do you honestly think that I have not read the policies and guidelines? Sources also means the author of the piece see WP:V:note 4. I think that a letter from a professor who writes and is widely published on the political conflicts in the Balkans and American foreign policy is a notable source. His views are minority but they are not fringe views. His views are published in academic articles and both commented on -- as they were by Martin Shaw in his critique above -- but also cited in a positive light as they are on page 127 of The Sixth War: Israel's invasion of Lebanon THE MIT journal of middle east studies, by Yasser Munif in an article called Media is the continuation of war with other means, The New York Times coverage of the Israeli War on Lebanon "The first dimension affecting the NYT’s reporting is the political economy of the media. In a seminal study, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman^{(Noam Chomsky, and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent: A Propaganda Model, (New York,1988))} demonstrate how imperatives of profit-seeking push corporate media to filter, censor and distort the information that reaches the audience." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If Philip B.S. has read wiki policies, why does he keep arguing notability as if that establishes reliability? Furthermore, Philip B.S. seems to be contradicting himself. He apparently believes that he supports wiki guidelines and yet simultaneously wants to claim that Herman is not a proponent of fringe views but rather is a reliable source. Wiki guidelines on reliable sources specifically refer to The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press as "high value". Yet, Philip B.S.'s proposed source Herman claims that these "high value" sources are none of the kind but rather are "a willingly compliant Western press" who have been "subverted" by a "right wing American establishment conspiracy." So Philip B.S. supports wiki policy which considers the Washington Post to be a reliable source. And Philip B.S. supports Herman as a reliable source who claims the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please tell us when this is supposed to make sense. Fairview360 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people on the left of politics take the view that the established media has a right wing bias, just as many on the right of politics thinks it has a left wing bias. There is no contradiction is considering a person who considers the established western media to be bias with them being a reliable source.[11] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between noting bias in media and claiming the entire western media establishment is a willingly compliant pawn of a right wing American conspiracy. Fairview360 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that your own opinion or do you have a source to back it up? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that Philip Baird Shearer's opinion or does he have a source to back up that you need a source to back up statements of the obvious? Philip Baird Shearer has taken to arguing ad absurdum. Fairview360 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure we will ever be able to agree on this issue if your reading of WP:NPOV is so far from mine. I do not read WP:NPOV that says that all sources included in Wikipedia must only express a neutral point of view as in many political fields there is no such in thing, (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). What is needed in a Wikipedia article is a balanced overview which includes all significant points of view. One does not have to agree with Noam Chomsky, and Edward S. Herman to appreciate that theirs is a minority point of view in the English speaking world but it is a notable one, and not a fringe view.

The issue is Philip B.S. pushing either a minority point of view or a fringe point of view in the main thesis of an article. Furthermore, once again, if Philip B.S.'s approach to editing appears to be giving undue weight to a minority or fringe point of view, it is inappropriate for him to be adding even more undue weight to his POV by using his administrative powers on this article. Fairview360 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have used the word fringe repeatedly, do you have a source that states that Noam Chomsky, and Edward S. Herman are authors of fringe views? It seems to me that you have wasted an an lot of time on an issue. It also seems to me that phrases like "The issue is Philip B.S. pushing" is a personal attack. I would appreciate it if you would construct you arguments in a less personalised way, because it makes it very difficult for me to reach a consensus view with you. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360 IMHO the whole tone of your comments here have been moving further and further from discussing the sources and closer and closer to discussing my motives and accusing me of bad faith. Please stop as it is not constructive as a confrontational style of discourse leads to disharmony and makes it more difficult to come to a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If Philip B.S. wants to build good faith, all Philip B.S. needs to do is give a good faith answer to the question as to why he is using his administrative powers on an article in which he is also an involved editor defending editorial choices strongly opposed by other editors of the article. If he continues to refuse to answer the question, it will inevitably breed resentment and thereby lead to disharmony and make it more difficult to come to consensus Fairview360 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated that questions about editorial powers are "off topic about a discussion of a possible replacement source on the talk page." I repeat: Fairview360 IMHO the whole tone of your comments here have been moving further and further from discussing the sources and closer and closer to discussing my motives and accusing me of bad faith. Please stop as it is not constructive as a confrontational style of discourse leads to disharmony and makes it more difficult to come to a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, Philip Baird Shearer is respectfully invited to read and respond to the duly titled section below Fairview360 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Philip B.S. ought to also read wikipedia's policy that restricts administrators from using their administrative powers where they are also an involved editor. Fairview360 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is off topic about a discussion of a possible replacement source on the talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather interesting that each time Philip B.S. has been confronted with his having a potential conflict of interest (being an involved editor while using his administrative powers), Philip B.S. has avoided responding to the issue. It would be far more productive for Philip B.S. to state that a) he does indeed believe that it is appropriate for him to be both an involved editor and use his administrative powers and then b) state why exactly he believes that it is appropriate. If we created a new section for him with the specific title "Philip Baird Shearer: involved editor using administrative powers", would he then answer the question and stop trying to dodge it? It is not that difficult. First question: Is Philip B.S. an involved editor of this article? Second question: Is Philip B.S. using his administrative powers on this article? If Philip B.S. sees that the answer to both is yes, then why does Philip B.S. believe that this is not a conflict of interest? Fairview360 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Any response from Philip B.S.? Fairview360 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On topic: Philip Baird Shearer's potential misuse of administrative powers

According to Wiki policy, misusing administrative tools is considered a serious issue.

Administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even the termination of one's administrative privileges. Common situations where an administrator should avoid using their administrative tools is where there is conflict of interest or non-neutrality. Administrators should not use their tools in a content dispute where they are also an involved editor. In other words, if mediating a content dispute, the administrator must be an "uninvolved editor". According to wiki policy, if an administrator has been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, or were involved in revert wars, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

A review of Philip Baird Shearer's behavior as an editor on this and other Bosnia-related articles shows that Philip Baird Shearer is very much an involved editor. On this and other Bosnia-related articles, Philip Baird Shearer has engaged in revert wars and strenuously argued his own interpretation of source material.

And yet, even though Philip Baird Shearer is an involved editor, he has blocked this article and forced editors to accept his role in mediating the content dispute. Philip Baird Shearer's behavior does not appear justified according to wiki policy.

Wiki policy states that if an administrator appears to be misusing his administrative tools, those concerns should be addressed directly to the administrator in question. A number of times, Philip Baird Shearer has been confronted with concerns about his behavior, yet to date, he has not explained why he believes his behavior is appropriate. Philip Baird Shearer is once again now being given an opportunity to address these three questions: Is Philip Baird Shearer an involved editor on Bosnia-related articles? Is Philip Baird Shearer using his administrative powers on those very same articles? If Philip Baird Shearer acknowledges that he is an involved editor, how does Philip Baird Shearer justify his using his administrative powers?

Wiki policy states that in most cases when there is a question of a conflict of interest or non-neutrality, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the proposed administrative action. In the past, other administrators who have edited Bosnia-related articles -- actually much less than Philip Baird Shearer -- have expressly refrained from using their administrative tools to mediate content disputes. When they have perceived a need for such, they have referred administrative action to independent uninvolved administrators. Has Philip Baird Shearer considered doing the same?

To all editors of this article, please be advised that if two or more editors believe that Philip Baird Shearer is acting improperly and refuses to address the concerns expressed here, the suggested next step is to request comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_admin . Fairview360 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Qaeda in lead

"including persons and organizations later connected with Al-Qaeda[12]"

Why include something like this? Those are details, something for in the body of the article. By placing it in the lead it obviously creates a prejudice since everybody hates al-qaeda. On top of that it's AFTER the the formation "bosnian mujahideen" existed and thus not really about the batallion, but the aftermath. Sure keep it in the article, but its not very encyclopaedic to put in the lead. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pietervhuis, I have three comments:

1. the Bosnian mujahideen were not "batallion" but is a name applied to groups or formal units in the Bosnian war which labelled themselves "Islamic", "Holy warriors" (ie mujahideen). To begin with these were largely loose groups of, mostly Arabic, volunteers. As the war progressed they were more formally organized within the regular army and included more local Bosniaks.
2. if a reputable source claims that the Bosnian mujahideen (or members of them) were connected with OBL (or Al Qaeda) then I don't see why this cannot be very briefly mentioned in the intro, given that such a connection would be something that would interest many readers (the connection with Al Qaeda / Islamic militants in the Middle East/Afghanistan is also one of the reason why western observers/media have become interested in them).
3. if a reputable source cannot be found to support the claim, then we should either not include it at all in the article or just mention it towards the end, making it clear what these allegations are based on.

How about that, does it seem reasonable? CheersOsli73 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Osli thanks for your reply. I know what the mujahideen stands for and I see parallels with the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets. Thing is, someone could wants to read about this, like me, who doesn't know much about the balkan wars, and instantly reads that some of the forces were 'later' connected to the most brutal terrorist organization in the world then it kind of creates a dislike for the forces right away. I'd prefer to have a lead, larger then the current one which is a bit too short, that simply describes when the forces were created, by who, in which battles they participated and how they were honoured/dismantled. Something like connections with future terrorist organizations, which I have no trouble believing, is better to have its own paragraph later on in the article. I find it unfortunate that here I don't read about their successes and failures in their military campaign and such, and instead read about terrorist links and a giant section about war crimes. Cheers. - PietervHuis (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pieter,

1. I agree about most of what you are saying about the intro. Also, it doesn't have to contain a lot of text saying that the mujahideen in Bosnia were members of Al Qaeda
2. However, I do feel that it is worthwhile to state, in the intro, given that we have good sources, that the Bosnian mujahideen (or elements of them, or something to that affect) have later been connected with terrorism. Again, the reason for this is that this is a reason for a lot of the subsequent western interest in the Bosnian mujahideen. For example, the one of the main sources on the Bosnian mujahideen, the paper and book by Kohlmann, is concerned with the role of the Bosnian mujahideen in European terrorist networks as opposed to their role in the Bosnian war.
3. If links between the Bosnian mujahideen and Al Qaeda/terrorism predispose readers to form a negative opinion of the Bosnian mujahideen is, in my opinion, not relevant.
4. The reason you don't read much about their successes/failures and military campaigns is that there isn't much material on it available and has not really been the subject of the vast majority of the writing about them, which has focused on the two issues of war crimes and links to Islamic terrorism. In line with Wikipedia policy, the article reflects the prioritizations of the existing written sources as opposed to making its own prioritizations (please read WP:OR). Please don't get me wrong, if there was a lot of good materail on the combat history / campaigns of the Bosnian mujahideen, then we should definately have a section on that.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it interests the west to read about links to terrorism, especially these days, but this isn't just an encyclopedia of present-day facts, but also about military history. If something like that is in the lead it puts a huge emphasis on it which likely creates a prejudice. A military force of 3,000 to 7,000 volunteers is likely to have a number of fighters who aren't the sweatest people in the world, and will later turn to dark paths. I just wanted to express my personal opinion on this, regarding WP:Lead which states "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." Something like that should be more explicitly elobarated upon, such as how the majority of its veterans does not support Al-Qaeda (I assume?) or did not fight just because their opponents were christian, and for such reasons could better have its own paragraph later on. Again, just my personal opinion, I'll let others express theirs and won't edit anything myself. - PietervHuis (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the lead on May 18, 2008

This change has been made to the lead by someone at 85.158.33.49, who cited this discussion as support for having done so.

Does this change really improve anything? The original text seems better-written and more informative to me. And I do not see any particular bias, any irrelevant or superfluous "links to terrorism," or any violation of WP:LEAD or any other WP:MOS issues, either.

I say: restore the original!

Is there any good reason not to do so?

—Wikiscient— 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

False 3rd Corps

The section on units. It is stated that the 3rd corps is known as El Mudzahid, which is false. The El Mudzahid detachment was part of the Bosnian army 3rd Corps, like a brigade would be, example 17th Krajina Mountain Brigade under the command of Fikret Cuskic, 317th Brigade under the command of Fahrudin Agić "Pajo" and Enver Zejnilagic, 314th Mountain Brigade (Zenica)under the command of Dzevad Smajlagic so was the El Mudzahid detachment under the command of Ebu Abdel Ezizom THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED ASAP

Hi Djamo, I agree. The trial and appeals court judgements in the Hadzihasanovic and Kabura cases clearly state this. The "El Mudzahidin" part should be removed. CheersOsli73 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Still no change. This is a ASAP change. This must be done sooner than later. There will be more people that read this and think 3rd corps was mudzahedin, which is false, so please change it. Bosnian mujahideen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

mediation for Bosnia section of Mujahideen article

Please note that I have requested mediation for the Bosnia section of the Mujahideen article regarding the interpretation and editorial consequences of the Kabura appeals judgement: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-28 Mujahideen. I am posting a notice here as it will (should) also be of interest and have consequences for this article. CheersOsli73 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On topic: Philip Baird Shearer's potential misuse of administrative powers

According to Wiki policy, misusing administrative tools is considered a serious issue.

Administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even the termination of one's administrative privileges. Common situations where an administrator should avoid using their administrative tools is where there is conflict of interest or non-neutrality. Administrators should not use their tools in a content dispute where they are also an involved editor. In other words, if mediating a content dispute, the administrator must be an "uninvolved editor". According to wiki policy, if an administrator has been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, or were involved in revert wars, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

A review of Philip Baird Shearer's behavior as an editor on this and other Bosnia-related articles shows that Philip Baird Shearer is very much an involved editor. On this and other Bosnia-related articles, Philip Baird Shearer has engaged in revert wars and strenuously argued his own interpretation of source material.

And yet, even though Philip Baird Shearer is an involved editor, he has blocked this article and forced editors to accept his role in mediating the content dispute. Philip Baird Shearer's behavior does not appear justified according to wiki policy.

Wiki policy states that if an administrator appears to be misusing his administrative tools, those concerns should be addressed directly to the administrator in question. A number of times, Philip Baird Shearer has been confronted with concerns about his behavior, yet to date, he has not explained why he believes his behavior is appropriate. Philip Baird Shearer is once again now being given an opportunity to address these three questions: Is Philip Baird Shearer an involved editor on Bosnia-related articles? Is Philip Baird Shearer using his administrative powers on those very same articles? If Philip Baird Shearer acknowledges that he is an involved editor, how does Philip Baird Shearer justify his using his administrative powers?

Wiki policy states that in most cases when there is a question of a conflict of interest or non-neutrality, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the proposed administrative action. In the past, other administrators who have edited Bosnia-related articles -- actually much less than Philip Baird Shearer -- have expressly refrained from using their administrative tools to mediate content disputes. When they have perceived a need for such, they have referred administrative action to independent uninvolved administrators. Has Philip Baird Shearer considered doing the same?

To all editors of this article, please be advised that if two or more editors believe that Philip Baird Shearer is acting improperly and refuses to address the concerns expressed here, the suggested next step is to request comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_admin . Fairview360 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

ICTY - Appeals Chamber: Mujahideen not subordinated to Bosnian Army

According to the final judgment about Mujahideen, they were not subordinated to Bosnian Army, which is suggested by the current version of this article. Alleged foregin units incorporated in Bosnian Army, mentioned in the article are just speculation based on weak unrelaible sources. The judgment just mentions one unit called El Mujahedin.

• ICTY - APPEALS CHAMBER - Hadzihasanović and Kubura case

The Appeals Chamber noted that the relationship between the 3rd Corps of the Bosnian Army headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mujahedin detachment was not one of subordination but was instead close to overt hostility since the only way to control the detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.49 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)