Talk:Bosnian mujahideen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Page move protected

When this page was moved to Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 19 August. Another editor created a cut and past copy of this page at the original name. An edit war then enusued over two pages with the replacement of the text with redirects to the respective pages. Yesterday I moved the page Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina back to Bosnian mujahideen with the comment "reverted move. place a WP:RM for a move as we now have two articles with the same name. This move will delete the cut and paste version on the original page". Today the page was moved again to Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina so I have reverted the move and page protected this page from moves for a month. If user:Kruško Mortale you wish to move this page to Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina then put in a WP:RM request. The admin who closes the debate can unlock the page and move it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of those facts. I just thought it would be more accurate to user both Bosnia as well as Herzegovina in the title. --Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging two competing versions of the article

hi! I have now reverrted rhe article to the old consensus article title and text. However, user krusko seems intent on changing both the title and content to what can only be labelled a very pov text (just read the intro and compare to the original to get a general idea). I think it needs to be krusko who explains him/herself. Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.119.194 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There has now been a slow revert war going on on this page for weeks, with only the one comment about it on the talk page (immediately above this one) so I have protected the page for a week to give the participants a chance to discuss their differences. For the person using the broadband IP address in Scandinavia please read Wikipedia:Why create an account? and consider creating an account as it will be confusing for other editors to converse with you as you are using a dynamic IP address. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I realized there is a pattern in anon's behaviour. Anon from Scandinavia is editing just two articles: Bosnian mujahideen and Alija Izetbegovic - with different IPs.

• 85.224.135.70 (Stockholm)
• 64.72.116.208 - Proxy - a revert to the version by 85.224.135.70
• 85.224.132.168 (Stockholm)
• 85.224.133.98 (Stockholm)
• 79.102.119.194 (Sweden)

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kruško Mortale please explain why you think the version you have been reverting to is more accurate that the one you have been reverting from. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can go in details if you like (row by row), but isn't it obvious? Let's compare it from the very first sentence ->

According to Swedish guy ->

Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid) is the term often used for the Muslim volunteers to fight on the Bosnian government side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.It is estimated that the number of volunteers numbered about 4,000[1] with the majority coming from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia.

According to the version I have been reverting to ->

Mujahideen[1] were Islamic volunteers which 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 wage a holy war against the perpetrators. (ICTY conclusion, with the quote after this part) The number of volunteers is estimated by some newspaper reports to have been about 4,000,[2] but some recent research discards such claims estimating 400 foreign volunteers.[3]

• First of all, Swedish guy claims that Bosnian Mujahideen is the term often used to describe Muslim volunteers, which is wrong. This term is not used at all (not even in his own sources) which means that someone wants to promote this title (original research) based on his political goals or smth else. In the version I have been reverting to, it is simply said that Mujahideen were Islamic volunteers which had come in Bosnia during the war.

• Second of all, he claims that the number of volunteers is estimated to 4000 based on POV source - Nettime mailing list archives (if it's the source at all?). Anyway I didn't have problem with it, but the problem is he also deleted the second source - Radio Free Europe book: [1] which is alternative view. In the version I have been reverting to both sources are placed in introduction:

The number of volunteers is estimated by some newspaper reports to have been about 4,000,[2] but some recent research discards such claims estimating 400 foreign volunteers.[3]

But the above is just a small problem. The real problem is, anon deleted half of the article, and as I can tell, all sourced.

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there are plenty of problems with the version supported by KM, namely:

1.stating that the BM came "after the massacres committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians" is not a neutral way of presenting the BM. Instead the text should just state that they were volunteers who fought for the Bosnian government against the Serbs/Croats.

I think BM is wrong title. It is original research in order to promote new term, based on your political views. Could you show me any source which support the term? I think it should be renamed into Mujahideen in B&H. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on this below --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it. But it's not reasonable. Do you two somehow cooperate in this issue (by email, or in any other way)? Anyway, let's first resolve the question of their arrival:

The reason of their arrival was agony of Bosnian Muslims. Here is the testimony of Aiman Awad, the last prosecution witness at the trial of former Bosnian Army commander Rasim Delic -> source: HUMANITARIAN WORKER TURNED MUJAHIDEEN [2]

"Describing his journey from his home country, Syria, to BH, Awad noted that he lived in Croatia from 1982 to the beginning of the war. He spent his time in Zagreb and Rijeka, where he studied medicine and physiotherapy. When the conflicts broke out in former Yugoslavia, he joined Muvafak, a humanitarian organization. In January 1993, Muvafak sent him to Zenica to 'gather information' about the humanitarian needs of the population there."

There is also interesting ICTY conclusion (Kubura case) deleted by anon -> source: Kubura judgment [3]:

"The evidence shows that foreign volunteers arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping their Muslim brothers against the Serbian aggressors."

Furthermore here is the short documentary related to the veterans of the Bosnian war where Mujahideen explain their arrival -> source: Part I [4], Part II [5]. The statement of Mujahideen arrival is in the second Part (from the 7th minute), but you can watch both parts if you wish. The reason of their arrival according to their statement is the rape of little girls committed by the Serbs. My question is, why these facts are constantly deleted by anon? Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2. The number 4000 is stated to be "estimated by some newspaper reports" as a means to demean it. In fact, it is the figure given in quite an extensive article on the subject in the LA Times, which is a high quality US paper. The 400 figures is presented as "recent research" but is in fact based on a SerboCroatian language interview on Radio Free Europe. I can't read what the article says, but 400-500 is generally the figure given for the number of BM who stayed on in Bosnia after the war ended in 1995. This article in [The Guardian ] talks about "estimated 3000" mujahideen. This article in the [American Conservative] also talks of "some 3000" foreign volunteers. It should be remembered that his only the refers to the foreign element of the Bosnian mujahideen corps., ie not including the local volunteers.

You are wrong. The research is much more relaible source than newspaper articles. The number of 400 fighters is not referred as you suggested to the number of M who stayed in Bosnia, but to the number who fought in Bosnia. I am sorry that you can't read Bosnian language, but it is not an excuse to delete the source, leaving those unrelaible ones. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply stating that the interview in Serbocroatian with a Croatian/Bosniak novelist is not a sufficient source for the claim that there were only 400 BM. Especially since other sources cite 3000-4000 foreign volunteers alone.

Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake BBC, 15 October, 2001. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this BBC source, the claim of about 400 M is true. But let me correct you (Anon). You said the claim was from the interview in Serbocroatian with a Croatian/Bosniak novelist?! First of all, the novelist isn't Bosniak/Croat, but Serb. His name is Vlado Azinovic, and it wasn't an interview but a research produced by Radio Free Europe. According to his research (I already placed the source in my first comment), Serbian propaganda made the number of foreign fighters bigger than it really was. He investigated official documents, and correspondance with Bosnian institution and found there were just 400 M. Deleting this source (and leaving mailing group post) is nothing but vandalism. Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

3.I took out a large background section on the Bosnian war which is not really needed here, better to just refer to the main article. Especially since the topic is very contested and best described in the main article which is more closely monitored. The intent of the text mainly seems to be to provide an excuse for the arrival and behaviour of the BM (note the POV use of language - they were "helping" and "defending").

The point of background section in all articles on Wikipedia is to describe background. If that doesn't match your political agenda, I can't help you. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a brief / concise background section. However, the text you proposed was both too long and, as I showed, heavily POV. To avoid conflict I suggest just referring to the main Bosnian war article. That should be sufficient for any reader wishing to have an understanding of the general background to the arrival of the BM.

4.The text in the section on Mujahideen units is appalingly POV "Although it is alleged that there were a number of mujahideen units in the Bosnian government army (mostly by the Serb and Croat propaganda including some Anti-Islamic Western authors)[17], the ICTY found that there was just one unit, called El Mujahid established on August 13, 1993, by the Bosnian Army which decided to form a unit of foreign fighters in order to impose control over them when the number of the foreign volunteers started to increase.[18]". Yossef Bodansky is a respectable scholar used by the US govt. and hardly "anti-Islamic" or a tool of "Serb and Croat propaganda". The ICTY did not find that there was "just one unit". However, the ICTY court case referred to does deal with responsibility for crimes committed by one of the BM groups. That does not preclude that there were other, nor does it state that.

You are wrong. Yossef Bodansky is Israeli-American politican not very fond of Muslims. On the other hand, ICTY referred to the same thing as Predrag Matvejevic and Vlado Azinovic in their research. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, Bodansky is not a "politician". Second, whether he is an Israeli and/or US citizen (I don't know) shouldn't matter. Finally, I don't know that he is anit-Muslim. I do know that he has been used by US government (see the source) in research on this topic. Hence I thought his work would be a good source of information. Finally, I don't know what you mean that the ICTY referred to. please point out that document/text.

He is a politician. Furthermore he is a former senior consultant for the U.S. Departments of Defense and State. American POV about Muslim fighters, in the light of war on terror, is surely not neutral. Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

5.The section on Proganda based on an article by a local author (Predrag Matvejević) is hardly credible. Also, it is in Serbocroatian so not possible for most readers to verify.

Predrag Matvejevic is not a local author but Italian. His father is Ukrainian, and mother Croatian. How come an Italian author is not credible, and Isrealian is?! Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. Yossef Bodansky, politician and Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism is relaible, and Predrag Matvejevic isn't. At least you shouldn't delete the source you don't like, and leave both POVs. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm simply saying that Bodansky is an established academic, used by the US congress for research on this topic. He should be a good source. Mr. Matjevic is a "Yugoslav essay writer", whos claim to fame is the book "Mediterranean Breviary: A Cultural Landscape". He is hardly an authoritative source on this topic.

Read my previous comment. Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

6.War crimes: the outcome of the icty court cases was not to find that the BM were not responsible for war crimes, but that the two commanders charged with the crimes could not be found guilty on all accounts. It was never contested that these units committed these crimes, only that the link to the two commanders in question was not strong enough for a conviction.

I hope that the above points should make it clear that the text supported by KM is completely inappropriate. Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.135.15 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You deleted very important fact. ICTY made conclusion there were no links between M and two commanders. 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. Can you tell me, why did you delete this fact? [6] Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What the ICTY found was that at the time in question it could not find a sufficient link between the two commanders and the BM. This refers to the period prior to the BM being formally incorporated into the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no question that they were subordinate to the ARBiH after their formal incorporation.

That's not true. It was the conclusion by the Trial Chamber. But there is a final conclusion by the APPEALS CHAMBER, which was delivered a few months later -> source: [7] Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that anon with many IPs is vandalising this article, so I suggest to admins, to revert to POV version. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is always the The Wrong Version --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for another week as the progress on building a consensus on this page is glacially slow. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are very unfair regarding this article. I left my first comment on 8 September 2008, and waited for ten days to get an answer, by anon who has btw different IPs, I cant even be sure I speak with the same person?! Just after his comment you wrote: "I have protected the page for another week as the progress on building a consensus". This is really funny, because there is no progress just a manipulation. It is obvious anon wrote this article and now, with different IPs he is trying to conserve it, with your help. What is next? I'll have to wait for his next answer by Sep. 25th, and you'll again protect the page. Kruško Mortale (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is always The Wrong Version. Anon posted a message on the 5th you waited until the 8th before putting expressing any thoughts on the article, you can complain about the version but Anon was the first to revert and post a message to the talk page, but a better solution is to concentrate on reaching a compromise on the wording. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The two of you will have to compromise. For example we do not discuss terms (and it was agreed when we moved the article from "Bosnian Mujahideen" to "Bosnian mujahideen" that it was descriptive not a name) and as the frequency of the use is OR -- unless a source can be quoted -- a better introduction would be:

Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid) were foreign Muslim volunteers who fought on the side of Bosnian government during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.

Notice that the title is no in bold because it should not be if it is a descriptive name (See WP:MOS#First_sentences), but one can go further and not include a descriptive name in the introduction:

Foreign Muslim volunteers fought on the side of Bosnian government during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. ...

Now for one the other way, when Anon made his/her first bullet point above, Kruško Mortale you in no way addressed his/her point. What you need to do is either say "well this source XYZ confirms this statement so it should stay as it is", or "well this source XYZ confirms this statement perhaps we could re-write it "...Bosnian war. XYZ states that they came 'after the massacres committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians'." or "although it is correct there is currently not reliable source so it can be dropped how about ..."

The above are just examples and not meant to be a solution. Both of you please try to suggest compromises so that you can agree on a structure and I can unprotected this article with confidence that the edit war over with two different versions of the article, with no changes to either version, will not resume. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• So you admit it is the same anon! I mean this one: 79.102.119.194 who left his comment on 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) and 85.224.135.15 dated on 23:14, 18 September 2008? Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

KM, my replies to you recent post below 1)I still find no evidence that anyone (credible at least) states that there were only 400 BM (if there is such a source, please provide me with the specific link to the text so that I can at least have it translated somehow). However, I don find plenty of (English language, major media) sources which cite the figure 4000 foreign mujahideen (implying that the total number of BM was higher).

This becomes ridiculous. I don't see why you participate in the discussion when you skip other comments. Philip Baird Shearer gave you a source Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake:

"The government has reviewed its records on the 11,000 people naturalised as Bosnian citizens during and after the war - about 420 originally came from Islamic countries."

"There are mujahideen in Bosnia - no one knows exactly how many. Estimates range from several dozen to 400 or more."

Regarding Radio Free Europe research: [8]

"Nema jednog čistog izvora iz kojeg bismo mogli izvoditi takve zaključke. Ne postoji nikakva centralna evidencija. Ono do čega sam ja došao je brojka od nekih 400 osoba koje su različitim kanalima komunicirale sa lokalnim vlastima, tražeći, naprimjer, ovjeru svojih pasoša i drugih ličnih dokumenata. Dakle, to bi bio jedan od mogućih kriterija. Drugi od mogućih kriterija jeste spisak vojne jedinice El Mudžahid. Međutim, i ta vrsta evidencije je nepouzdana, jer većina tih osoba nije ni vojnim ni civilnim vlastima otkrivala svoj pravi identitet. Tako da ne znamo ni koliko ih je bilo, ni ko je sve ovdje bio," ističe Hećimović." (Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian)

Another source about the number: source -> A foreign fighter testimony in ICTY - We fought with the Bosnian Army, but not under its command [9]

"The number of foreign fighters in BH fluctuated between 300 and 1,500, he said." --Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are talking at cross purpose. Many more foreigners would have made up the mujahideen than were there at any one time. It is likely that the turnover of men could explain the difference between the figures. I.e. if 5% of the contingent changed every month then in a force of 900 (the average between 300 and 1,500) then that is about 45 as month, or 540 men a year (I chose 5% because that was considered by the RAF to be the highest casualty rate they could sustain and remain an effective fighting force). So the different sources are not necessarily contradicting each other. For example one could construct a sentence that said "Between 3,000 and 4,000 mujahideen fought in Bosnia during the war (citations), with between 300 and 1,500 fighting in the conflict at any one time (citations)." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Phillip, I think Radio Free Europe book explains it all. The research has shown there were 400 volunteers based on offical documents. When those fighters came in Bosnia, they tried to get some documents, IDs etc, so they communicated with the institutions. Based on that communication, the reasearch has shown there were around 400 fighters. It should be noted that some of those people had many different names, but the author of the reasearch investigated the situation. Here is the quote in Bosnian from that book (you can ask someone "neutral" to translate it for you, if you have any doubt in my comment):

RFE Book

"Nema jednog čistog izvora iz kojeg bismo mogli izvoditi takve zaključke. Ne postoji nikakva centralna evidencija. Ono do čega sam ja došao je brojka od nekih 400 osoba koje su različitim kanalima komunicirale sa lokalnim vlastima, tražeći, naprimjer, ovjeru svojih pasoša i drugih ličnih dokumenata. Dakle, to bi bio jedan od mogućih kriterija. Drugi od mogućih kriterija jeste spisak vojne jedinice El Mudžahid. Međutim, i ta vrsta evidencije je nepouzdana, jer većina tih osoba nije ni vojnim ni civilnim vlastima otkrivala svoj pravi identitet. Tako da ne znamo ni koliko ih je bilo, ni ko je sve ovdje bio," ističe Hećimović." (Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian)

Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2)Would you please accept that Mr Matvejevic is not a credible or even usable source for this article. He is a novelist (regardless of his nationality/citizenship), not an expert on this field.

He was primarily talking about Serb propaganda regarding M. I don't see why he as a literate and writer can't talk about propaganda? And he is not the only one. Vlado Azinovic (Serb) in his own research talks about it as well as F. Kohlmann. --Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing about this source as there is a BBC and an ICTY sources confirms the numbers why not use those as sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

3)I don't see what the fuss about my id is. Does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.135.205 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about that, there are admins and rules for such matter. --Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it matters is because of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia and attempts by editors who have been banned from editing Balkans articles using IP addresses to bypass those bans. You are much more than a passing reader who edits a page occasionally, if you are editing this article in good faith please create a user id and use it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale your version currently has "after the massacres committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians." It is also true that England and Argentina are football rivals and the Falklands War started after England beat Argentina in a match at Wembley in 1980. Do you have a reliable source that shows the foreign mujahideen came because of the massacres and not just after the massacres (I don't see how this can be known unless a survey of the men who came is available) as people participate in foreign wars for lots of different reasons. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They came because of the massacres (or different war crimes committed by the Serbs). I have a relaible source, a documentary I posted in my earlier comment. You can watch the statement of Abu Hamza, the leader of Mujahideen in Bosnia, and the reason he came. I would kindly ask you to watch this short part of the documentary from 7:40 minute [10]. For other questions I'm going to give my comment later. Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Structured discussion

KM, I find it a bit difficult to have a structured and fruitful discussion with you if you keep inserting your arguments/replies into my text. That is the reason why I may have missed some of your replies. I'm sorry (I'm viewing/editing these on a mobile device, so it's a bit tricky). So, I'll restate my arguments below and kindly ask you to reply to them (feel free to copy past) point by point below them.

1. Reason for 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. Your use of Predrag Matvejević (who is prosaist and all around 'intellectual' and by no means an export on the topic) as a souce, especially one in Serbocroatian on an islamist website, is not a sufficient/appropriate source.
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: your text is misrepresenting the ICTY judgement. It did not find that the BM had not committed war crimes. What it found was that it could not prove a sufficiently strong link between the units in question and the ARBIH commanders formally responsible for them at the time. Please if you doubt me.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.134.142 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I've already answerd twice to your questions. I am not going to repeat it once again. So if you want to participate in the discussion show some respect. Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement

From my talk page:

Hi Phillip. I left my comments regarding Mujahideen article. As you suggested to merge two versions I reverted to the version with the parts deleted by anon (background section). If you have time, I would like you to review current version, and include or exclude parts you think doesn't belong there. I think I gave very good arguments with the links for the current version, anon just repeated the same questions, for which I think it's just the way to prolonge discussion without any progress. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite my request that you work this through on the talk page, User:Kruško Mortale and what you wrote on my talk page (copy above) above all you have done is revert to the last version that you reverted to before I protected the page -- the only alteration was a couple of further reading entries deleted -- (difference between Revision as of 06:48, 5 September 2008 and Revision as of 21:17, 27 September 2008). I expect you to make a major good faith edit to meet Anon half way in the next 24 hours or I am going to revert your edit and protect the page until you reach a compromise on this talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is now very good compromise, per above discussion. If you think anything else should be changed please tell me. The problem is, Anon just deleted a huge part of the article (background), and didn't respond to my comment. For other questions I changed intro per discussion.Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above with the Anglo-Argentinian Football rivalry and the Falklands war, [11] Kruško Mortale, you are assuming a causation without a reliable English language source to back it up -- it is a violation of WP:SYN. As it is clearly a contriversial issue (which has been mentioned by the Swede) if you have a source then formulate the sentence "XYZ" says "ABC" and if it is a foreign language source provide the original of the translation at the end of the citation so others can check that the translation is correct. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale can you not see that this sentence "It is even estimated by some newspaper reports to have been about 4,000,[8] but some recent research discards such claims estimating 400 foreign volunteers." is bias (non NPOV). I explained above how both numbers can be true: see I think you are talking at cross purpose.... The BBC article (Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake BBC, 15 October, 2001.) does not support the 400 level. It says 400 settled (which if they are all men implies a minimum of 400 not a maximum -- many more would have been killed, gone away after some months or left after the war ended.

As both issues appear in the lead, and I think are a violation of WP:NPOV, please address both of these points ASAP. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you review it now, please. I provided the quote from the research (it's the same quote I posted a few times in the above discussion), which I adjusted to the article style, I also edited other sentences according to your suggestion. Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use bullet point as it messes up the indentation. Can you pleas address the WP:SYN issue about the massacres, also the fact that the term mujahideen is used implies holy war. Do we need to state it? "but the number of passport or other offical document requests towards Bosnian institution by foreign volunteers, can serve as a rough approximation." How do you come to that conclusion? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed the issue in the above section "Merging two competing versions of the article" (do you want me to paste those sources here again?). Maybe the proper word is not massacre but war crime, because there is a statement by a leader of foreigners, who said he came because he was shocked with the rape of a little girl and her mother. The same thing was brought up during the ICTY trial by Aiman Awad, the prosecution witness (not defence) at the trial of Rasim Delic (I also posted the source named HUMANITARIAN WORKER TURNED MUJAHIDEEN). Similar conclusion was presented in Trial Chamber judgment: foreign fighters came to fight Serbian aggressors. I was waiting for you to reply. Regarding your second question, it was conclusion withing the RFE research I quoted, I just adjusted the quote to fit the article sentence. I also included the quote within ref tags. It's not my own conclusion. Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the motives as the come from biased sources, should be dropped from the lead and put into the main body of the article. But I am not going to edit the article as that would make me a party to the dispute. If "but the number..." was the conclusion of RFE the sentence needs to be clarified to show it is their conclusion as it was not clear to me that it is. Also please provide, in a new section on this talk page, a translation into English for the quote in footnote 10 for the source "Vlado Azinović: Al-Kai'da u Bosni i Hercegovini - mit ili stvarna opasnost?". After that I'll leave it to Anon to add to the conversation if he/she is not satisfied with the current version. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation for quote

• Vlado Azinović: Al-Kai'da u Bosni i Hercegovini - mit ili stvarna opasnost?

Original quote

"Nema jednog čistog izvora iz kojeg bismo mogli izvoditi takve zaključke. Ne postoji nikakva centralna evidencija. Ono do čega sam ja došao je brojka od nekih 400 osoba koje su različitim kanalima komunicirale sa lokalnim vlastima, tražeći, naprimjer, ovjeru svojih pasoša i drugih ličnih dokumenata. Dakle, to bi bio jedan od mogućih kriterija..."

Translation

There is no reliable (pure) source we could make the conclusion (related to the numbers). There is no central evidence. I found (the researcher) that there were 400 persons who communicated with the local authorities in different ways (channels), asking for example passport verification or other personal documents. This could be one of the criteria (to determin the number of foreign fighters)...

Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading lead

Sorry for the pun; however, this article's lead is misleading. It conveys the idea that the term "mujahideen" is specific to the Bosnia War, which is not true (see Mujahideen). Please give your input. Thanks, momoricks ^talk 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It is conceivable that if mujahideen were capitalized, the scope of what would then be a proper name might be misunderstood; but it's lower case, and the misunderstanding seems unlikely anyway. Does Bosnian Serb imply that Serbs are specific to Bosnia? No. So why here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Momoricks. "Bosnian mujahideen" is almost never used (in 99% of sources, nor in common speach) unlike "Bosnian Serb" which is a common term, not produced by Wiki users such as BM, (or by a Wiki user who is presistant in promoting his original research if you look at the history of this page). The proper name should be: Mujahideen in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

More sources

Some more sources -- found using a Google book search on Bosnian Mujahideen Here are links to the text available on the first page returned by the search. Some of the information particularly that of the most reliable sources (University publications and Academic publishers) that is not already in the article should probably be included.

University publications.

• Charles R. Shrader. The Muslim-Croat Civil War in Central Bosnia: A Military History, 1992-1994, Texas A&M University Press, 2003, ISBN 1585442615, 9781585442614. pp. 51-53
• Adam LeBor, "Complicity with Evil": The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide, Yale University Press, 2006 ISBN 0300111711, 9780300111712 pp. 250,251

Academic publishers

• Beverley Milton-Edwards, Islamic Fundamentalism Since 1945 Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415301734, 9780415301732 pp. 99,100
• Gus Martin Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, SAGE, 2006, ISBN 1412927226, 9781412927222 pp. 292,293

Other publications

• Michael C. Ruppert, Catherine Austin Fitts (editors). Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers, 2004 ISBN 0865715408, 9780865715400 pp. 134-136

Also there are 8 books returned by a Google book search on "Bosnian Mujahideen" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to be so pedantic as to include Herzegovina - no one will expect an article on Herzegovinian mujahideen, surely; if we go with the official name, we are then faced with the annoying question of which official name (e.g., do we include Federation?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And there are 640 results on El Mujahid by google book (El Mujahid). What I want to say is that "Bosnian mujahideen" is NOT a common term, it's just used on Wikipedia and very very occasionally somewhere else. So if we have situation like this (descriptive name) it is better to describe it properly, to use Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

refining the search to ["El Mujahid"] [12] returns "85 on "El Mujahid"" but there are false positives in that number eg page 9 in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay by Asiatic Society of Bombay. So refining the search to ["El Mujahid" Bosnia] returns 8 on "El Mujahid" Bosnia which was according to those sources a brigade or unit of that name in the 7th Muslim Brigade which as the link shows already has a link. This article is not about the 7th Muslim Brigade but about Bosnian mujahideen. As Septentrionalis point out it is not common to use "Bosnia and Herzegovina" it is frequently shortened to "Bosnia". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian language sources

I think we should include other sources as well, not just English ones, because there are really good books, worth reading, because local authors are much more familiar with the subject than foreigners. I recommend book by a Bosnian general Hasan Efendic who wrote it from military POV, with plenty of details (it is pretty new book):

• Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina - fighters or terrorists ISBN: 9789958928642, November 2007.

Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSUE in WP:V. As there are plenty of Reliable English language sources that have not been used, I doubt if the level of detail that this article needs to go into justifies using foreign sources. However it should be decided on a case by case basis. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ch-ch-changes

To the one or more editors who are editing using IP addresses all based in Sweden. Please create accounts if you are going to repeatedly engage in revert warring or I will semi protect the page against IP editing.

To the editor who made the last revert using 85.224.135.2 (Sweden Stockholm B2-bisp) with the comment in the history of the article "Krusko, pls see the Talk page discussion - there was no consensus to make the massive changes you are insisting on". It is up to you to engage in showing that there is not a consensus for the changes that Kruško Mortale on this talk page. As you have been absent from the discussion on the talk page since the 19:49, 25 September despite Kruško Mortale making several comments since it is reasonable to assume that silence equals consent. Kruško Mortale changes remained on the page from 27 September until you reverted them on the 12 November, so can you show that there is a consensus for your reverts? --PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you attempt to come to a compromise on this page and do not engage in a revert war. If there are any simple full page reverts by either party (Kruško Mortale or an IP address or what I judge to be a meat puppet) after this posting I will revert the revert and protect the page. --PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale did you read the above before reverting? The revert that you made was not to the last version before the recent revert by 85.224.135.2 (which was an edit by user:Journalist 007) instead you reverted to your last version of 12:00, 14 November 2008. Kruško Mortale if someone else (unsolicited by you) had made the reversion to your favoured version after my statement above, then I would have considered that acceptable, because I put he above restriction in place in the hope that this edit war would stop and still allow development of the article to continue. The idea was that you Kruško Mortale and IP 85.224.135.2 could make incremental changes and come to a compromise over the text. Something that is not happening with a simple revert war.

So I am now going to revert the revert and protect the page. I will expect good faith discussions to take place on this page to resolve the issues. Hopefully more editors will join in. Sweedish IP if you do not take part in the discussion I will take your silence as agreement with Kruško Mortale and revert the page to his/her last revert and then you will have to make incremental changes to that version of the article. --PBS (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous, because I gave a great contribution to that article providing relaible sources not just mailing list comments. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting to his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Just to add, that PBS's statement in edit summary as justification for revert and protection is false: "Two editors reverting to two different copies of the article with no imtermediate edits to reach a compromise version." I included anon's sources and adjusted introduction as well as other parts (he did nothing), so my version isn't with no imtermediate edits. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is one more important thing to say. First time when PBS protected the page, he protected it with the last version (anon's version), he didn't revert it to previous version [13]. Second time, he prepared well structured justification and then protected the page, but not with my version which was the last one, but first he reverted it to anon's version [14] and then protected the page [15]. Unbelievable. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#Bosnian mujahideen -- PBS (talk)

Points which I would like KM to answer

Hi, since its creation there have been continuous attempts to revert the article to different versions of what is now supported by KM. A number of reasons have been given and, in my opinion, never really answered/disproven. Therefore, I will repeat these here again and ask KM (and others supporting his version) to please reply to them (below, for simplicity).

1. Name: KM's version has dropped "Bosnian" from "Bosnian Mujahideen" in the intro. This despite the fact that the article is about Bosnian mujahideen and not mujahideen in general. It should clearly state "Bosnian Mujahideen".
2. Foreign: KM's version defines them as "foreign" when in fact the Bosnian mujahideen were a mix of foreigners and local Bosniaks (which is quite clear in the sources).
3. Motive: KM's version states that they came "after the war crimes committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians". Again, this is not clearly stated in the sources and is, I believe, KM's interpretation of why the foreign volunteers came. The wording is more related to a POV characterization of the Bosnian war rather than the Bosnian mujahideen. I prefer the more neutral version to state that they foreign volunteers arrived to fight on the side of the Bosnian government against the Serb and Croat forces. What is wrong with that version? This type of speculation is again used in the end of first para: "When scenes of devastation and war crimes began to air on BBC television broadcasts, many British Muslims were shocked that such horrific events could take place in the context modern Europe without any Western intervention. It gave sudden and unexpected credence to the calls of violent radicals who suggested it was time for Muslims to start taking their personal security into their own hands. Dr. Zaki Badawi, the principal (at that time) of the Muslim College in London, acknowledged in early 1992, "Bosnia has shaken public opinion throughout the Muslim world more deeply than anything since the creation of Israel in 1948." [12]". This is OR and in my opinion not NPOV.
4. 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. I do not see how the Bosnian language source is a good enough source to be given such weight in light of the other sources.
5. Bosnian War: KM's version includes a long and, in my opinion, very politicized/POV version of the Bosnian War. I prefer to include a link to the article on the Bosnian War and then going directly into the description of the role of the Bosnian mujahideen. No only is this more concise it also avoids having conflicts (in this article) about how to describe/characterize the Bosnian war. Better to refer readers to the relatively well edited article Bosnian War.
6. Selective use of sources: KM's version picks selected quotes from the ICTY judgement to push his/her opinion that the Bosnian mujahideen were merely a few foreigners who were not under control of the Bosnian government and generally disliked by the Bosniak population. In fact, this is a selective use of the sources.
7. Name of units: I simply suggest we use the names used 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.
8. 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 the novelist 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.
9. Command responsibility: again, KM's version downplays the links between the Bosnian mujahideen and the Bosnian government (on whose side they fought during the war). 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).
10. War crimes: KM's version skips these by misrepresenting the ICTY judgement. 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. Also, the outcome of these trials does not preclude othe war crimes committed by the Bosnian mujahideen.

If KM insists on massive changes to the article, I would much appreciate if he/she could reply to these points below so that we can have a meaningful and ordered discussion about them. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.135.2 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 November 2008

Your questions were already answered here a long time ago, so I expect from you to continue the discussion, not to prolong article protection once again repeating the same questions and leaving the discussion when you are unable to answer. Now you have to propose your adjustments to my version, I will wait 24 hours, and start another Wiki incident request if you don't, because PBS is helping you a lot, you are using multiple IPs, which means you already have an account (which I am going to figure out), but you are breaking Wiki rules with sockpuppetery. Regards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

KM, the reason I am raising the same points as before is that you are trying to make the same changes to the article as before. Last time there was no agreement and you chose to not continue the discussion. If you now wish to try to make the same changes again, the points I raised last time are still valid. Please focus on the discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 24 November 2008

Oooo, hellou Osli73. So you are the anon guy. The discussion is not over, you can't just start new discussion from the beginning when ever you think it is best for continuing article protection. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you both will be able to agree all the points at once. Why not take Osli73's first point and see if you both can agree a form of wording for just that one to begin with? Please bare in mind WP:MOS#First sentences, when considering this issue. --PBS (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, since the creation of this article, it has been the target of repeated deletion, vandalism and wide ranging reverts. I have repeatedly tried to engage in discussions, tried to involve outside editors and initiated informal and formal conflict resolution processes. Unfortunately, none of these seem to have changed the views of the editors opposed to the existence/content of the article. I am open to further discussion/conflict resolution processes.Osli73 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I note that KM has again reverted the article to his preferred version without any more detailed motivation or answering any of the arguments I put forward (see above). It should also be noted that he has done the same in the Bosnia section of the main Mujahideen article. Any comments on how to proceed on this without ending up in a revert war? Osli73

Kruško Mortale did not revert the page it was done by user:Journalist 007. But see User talk:Kruško Mortale#Bosnian mujahideen. --PBS (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies regarding KM making the edit. However, I still think we should ask people making edits/reverts (I can't see that User:Journalist answered any of my points above). Finally, given both KM's and Journalist's apparent unwillingness to participate in discussion and answer my points above I don't see it as very likely that we'll be able to come to an agreement. Osli73

Edit intro

Hi, I've made a number of changes to the introduction text. Most notably:

1. I've taken out "foreign" as the all BM were not. They comprised foreign volunteers, but also local Bosniak Muslim volunteers
2. I've taken out the motive for the arrival of the 'foreign' volunteers since it is pure speculation
3. I've replaced the 300-400 figure for the no of volunteers (for which there is no source, the SENSE source does not support that figure and Matvejevic is not a good source). I've replaced these with the 4000 figure from the LA Times article.
4. I've removed the comment by Dr. Zaki Badawi, a principal at a Muslim college in the UK, as being completelely irrelevant to the topic

Osli73 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a change at all. You just reverted to your version. The number of volunteers is pure speculation, not the motive. Motive is explained in ICTY. And there is a source for the 300-400 figure. I see no reason why you removed the comment by Dr. Zaki Badawi, I mean I know why, because it's the motive. Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the source for the 300 figure: [16]. Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 slow down

user:Osli73 please wait between changing sections and give user:Kruško Mortale more time to respond, so that a consensus can be reached a section at a time. --PBS (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you please read WP:3RR to rephrase it "Contributors must not perform more than one revert on this page within a a week, whether or not the edits involve the same material,". I am not going to wade through all the changes that you both are making, so I expect that if you think the other party has infringed the 1RR rule then you will inform me of the specific edit and text and I will consider if a time out would be appropriate. --PBS (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I think Osli73 is not ready to edit Wikipedia in honest way. He is dedicated to spread Serb propaganda. For example he is deleting those parts he doesn't like in other articles: [17] saying "this is hardly relevant" although Reuters, DW, RFE and many other media reported about the part he deleted. On the other hand he is replacing relevant information here with some irrelevant, saying "this is not good source". That's the reason I've reverted article to my version. Journalist 007 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Also what Osli73 does or does not do in other articles is not relevant to his edits in this article. Please explain in detail why you reverted Osli73's edits to this page. To do this it would probably be easier for everyone if you would do so section by section, so that you and other editors, including Osli73 can reach a consensus over this article. --PBS (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I read both versions. If you compare the two [18] Osli excluded bunch of relevant sources:

• ICTY: Summary of the judgement for Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura
• SENSE TRIBUNAL: HUMANITARIAN WORKER TURNED MUJAHIDEEN
• SENSE Tribunal:ICTY - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND
• Radio Free Europe (2007) - Vlado Azinović
• Evan F. Kohlmann - The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe
• ICTY: Milomir Stakić judgement - The media
• ICTY - APPEALS CHAMBER - Hadzihasanović and Kubura case

etc.

I think this is quite good reason to revert to better version. Journalist 007 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)