Talk:2001 insurgency in Macedonia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mujahideen

it is unnecessary for the Mujahideen to belligerents in war, although a Mujahideen is an Arabic word mujahideen refers to any person performing jihad. it is not an organization, albanians who performed the jihad were still part of the NLA. Edison18273 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see above for the active discussion on this topic. --Local hero ^talk 02:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the discussion above to this section, as it makes more sense to have a separate discussion concerning Mujahideen in one section rather than involving a largely unrelated thread from a year ago. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Edison18273 multiple academic sources mention the participation of Mujahideen, so it's clearly notable to mention them. Furthermore according to the second source I've presented down bellow, which is backed up by another source within the work (i.e Shray's book), we can deduct that they weren't just Albanians, but "from Albania, Bosnia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, all of whom participated in the fighting" (quote from the source).

Hence why when you stated that they were part of the NLA, I moved them to be a subcategory in the infobox. Thus I am still inclined to believe that they must be mentioned in the infobox, as a sub-part of the NLA (the edit which you reversed). Also they should be mentioned in "Strenght" category, with the number being the estimation of around 150 Mujahadeen.

Hopefully this clears up some things. Kluche (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kluche Could you please provide any actual sources for this QaifarShqiptari (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello QaifarShqiptari, three-four sources have already been presented further downwards in a different comment in this talk, I'll cite them here again - "The 2001 Conflict in FYROM: Reflections" (which is contradicting itself, although the section in green in the other aformentioned comment talks about al-Qaeda, the source confirms the presence of Mujahedeen ), "THE SPREAD OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA", "Assessing Islamic terrorism in the Western Balkans: the state of the debate" and "Islamic Terror and the Balkans" (by Shaul Shray). All of them are academic sources, all of which written or supervised by foregin researchers. Hope this answers your question. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kluche thank you for providing the sources however from what i have collected reading them i notice that they seem very biased, on the account that most of them were written by macedonian writers, and they seem really blunt and vague in their statements on reports of mujahedeen groups in the NLA. Personally i could not find macedonian sources of the time of the insurgency backing up these claims, could you help me with that too? QaifarShqiptari (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

QaifarShqiptari firstly, it is incorrect that most of the listed sources are written by Macedonian writers - only the first and second source are written by Macedonians, the other two are written by international writers (one of them Greek and at the hight of the dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and the Hellenic Republic).

Secondly, they are absolutly not vague - they clearly state that Mujahadeen participated in the conflict, and give the estimate of around 150 fighters. I have to restate that these sources are to be used for confirmation of Mujahadeen presence and numbers, and not activites, in detail.

Thirdly, in the first part of your comment you discredit Macedonian authors on this topic, yet later you demand sources from during the conflict from Macedonian authors?

I have to restate WP:RSAGE, which state that breaking-news sources can be unreliable. But if you insist on Macedonian media sources from that period on the Mujahadeen, you can see the general outline in the first source I cited, and in general secondary and tetriary sources are preffered by Wikipedia. Regards. Kluche (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kluche Thank you for your answer.

If it seemed as if i was discrediting macedonian writers, i apologise, i am simply talking about the fact that it would be biased if we take only sources from one side of the conflict, albanians completely deny mujahedeen involvement, so it cannot be stated as a proven fact if one side denies it and there is not concrete proof to back it up. Concrete proof in this case would be war or news reports dating to the year 2001, not later. QaifarShqiptari (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also by "vague" i mean not really backing up their claim and just stating that 150 mujahedeens fought for the NLA QaifarShqiptari (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

QaifarShqiptari, I cited a Wikipedia guideline/rule which states that breaking news reports (the ones which you propose to use i.e which you ask of me to give) are not reliable in some cases such as this one. I kindly suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines, policies and rules.

While it is true that Macedonian sources claim and Albanian sources refute Mujahadeen presence during the conflict, I cited two independent, third-party, academic sources which claim there was Mujahadeen involvement.

Might I add that you have yet to present any source supporting your position regarding this issue, non-biased or not. Kluche (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I do want to note that, irrespective of whether Mujahideen should be mentioned, it is highly unusual that they're mentioned in the infobox but not the article body. If there is ultimately consensus for inclusion, DUE material about their presence and relevance to the conflict should be added somewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Question. How come it must be stated on the Infobox that there was Mujaheddins when they're presence was so insignificant during the war? While on the Bosnian War infobox, on the belligerents, it is not stated that there is Mujaheddins when they're presence was way bigger then in the NLA. PrincLeka1914 (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

PrincLeka1914, I'd like to firstly remind you of WP:OTHERCONTENT. Now, on to your question - while Mujahadeen involvement in the NLA is not large, the sources which do support such claims give the figure of around 150-200 fighters, which given the NLA's size, is not an irrelevant amount. Furtheremore, there are sources, such as "The 2001 Conflict in FYROM: Reflections" state that it is, and I quote, important to note Mujahadeen participation in the conflict.

For the current proposed solution for this issue (backed by myself and another 2 editors), see this comment. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Edison18273, I'd like to give my imput on this, especially with the given sources. First of all, al-Qaeda most likely did not participate in this conflict. That does not mean that Mujahedeens did not participate in the conflict.

The most quoted source in this talk has been "The 2001 Conflict in FYROM: Reflections", which is contradicting itself - on p.19-20 it states:

According to the assessments of foreign and domestic military analysts the total number of NLA fighters was not more than two or three thousand, and the brigades were most numerous just before the end of the conflict in the second half of 2001. Among them were a few hundred so-called “dogs of war”, who had gained experience at the fronts in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Most were Kosovars, former or current members of the Kosovo Protection Corps, KPC, who had been trained and armed by foreign advisors before and during NATO’s war against Milosevic’s regime. They also included a group of Mujahedins who had been in the Balkans for a long time. These extremist formations were highly mobile, equipped with sophisticated western arms. They were the most dangerous adversaries for the Macedonian security forces but they also intimidated those Albanians in the occupied parts of Macedonia who did not agree with the NLA goals or methods.

The same source also states:

The terrorist attacks against the USA on 11 September 2001 heralded a new phase in the media war. The Macedonian language media began uncovering “links” between Osama Bin Laden and the NLA, usually based on information from “anonymous foreign intelligence sources” or unnamed sources in the Macedonian Intelligence Agency. In some cases journalists admitted the absence of hard evidence, noting that it was “difficult to prove the links between Osama Bin Laden and NLA terrorists” or assuring their audience that “the ministry of interior is striving to find a link between al-Qaeda and NLA terrorists.” Nevertheless, an overall impression was created that Macedonia was a chief target of the new international public enemy number one. [..] In the battle between journalistic standards and sensationalism, sensationalism usually triumphed. [..] Overall, it is clear that with notable individual exceptions, the media in Macedonia failed the country’s citizens during the conflict. A lack of objectivity and professional standards in reporting destroyed the media’s credibility.

It clearly contradicts itself. However, the presence of Mujahadeen has been confirmed by other sources, including the number which has been floating around (150) is present in other sources too, such as and . Actually, the second source I've listed ("The spread of Islamic extremism in the Republic of Macedonia") quotes Shaul Shray and his book "Islamic Terror and the Balkans" p.114 on the number and involvement of Mujahadeen during the 2001 conflict. The editorial board of the "Research Institute for European and American studies" of Greece reccomends his book.

I am inclined to believe that they must be mentioned in the infobox, as a sub-part of the NLA (the edit which you reversed). Also they should be mentioned in "Strenght" category, with the number being the estimation of around 150 Mujahadeen.

I hope that other editors will also voice their opionion on this topic. Kluche (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are several sources talking about these fighters and no convincing arguments as to why we should not mention them. Alaexis_¿question? 11:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I removed Mujahedeen from belligerents cuz they were incorporated in NLA army, and they hadn't on own army. So I think is better to but Mujahedeen on strenght section. I wish that you will be agree with my decision. GinoCarino GinoCarino (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello GinoCarino. Before taking action it is advisable to seek consensus first. Furtheremore it seems that you have blatenetly ignored to all that has been mentioned here i.e since multiple sources state that there was Mujahadeen involvement, it is notable to mention them as a subbelligerent of the NLA (the edit which you reversed). I am afraid that I do not agree with your decision, and I hope that you will address the things which have been brought up here about the Mujahadeen involvement, as per Wikipedia policies. Kluche (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Academic sources published by reliable publishers explain that the presence in Macedonia of members of Mujahideen groups is a unproven claim made by Macedonians [1][2]. As such the claims of their presence could be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not in the infobox. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

And yet sources listed above (and others like this and this), don't characterize it that way. --Local hero ^talk 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That is the point. If sources disagree with each other, then it has no place in the infobox. It is one of the article's sections where both views should be explained: the view that the Mujahideen were involved in the conflict and the view that their involvement is an unproven claim made by (Slavic) Macedonians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The Neofotistos source does not deny that there were Mujahideens involved; it describes instances rumors of Mujahideens being involved and reactions to those rumors. I can't see any content in the other link. And, as stated, you have no consensus for removing from the infobox while it is being discussed here. Its inclusion is backed by sources, though they should probably be added to the article... --Local hero ^talk 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, per WP:WEIGHT and the fact that your second presented source does not directly refute Mujahadeen claims, it is absolutly undeniable that the changes which you reverted (going against the already established consensus) must stay. Currently there is one source which refutes claims of Mujahadeen involvment (the first one you presented) and 5 sources which support claims of Mujahadeen involvment ( "THE SPREAD OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA", "Assessing Islamic terrorism in the Western Balkans: the state of the debate" and "Islamic Terror and the Balkans" (by Shaul Shray) and the two sources listed by Local hero i.e this and this). I think it's pretty clear, and I will be reverting your changes, unless you support your claims with other reliable sources. Kluche (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

• Comment: These are very contentious subjects which require broad consensus which doesn't seem to exist for this edit. Shaul Shray is not a reliable source(WP:RS) and I disagree with its inclusion in the infobox per WP:UNDUE as sources discussed above make it clear that In most ways, the NLA was similar to the KLA, espousing a nationalist irredentist ideology far removed from Islamic theology or agendas. However, it is important to note that some 150 mujahedin did fight in its ranks but played a minor role. After the end of the ethnic conflict and signing of the Ohrid framework agreement on 13 August 2001, FYROM has been mostly far removed from fundamentalist Islamic influences. and The terrorist attacks against the USA on 11 September 2001 heralded a new phase in the media war. The Macedonian language media began uncovering “links” between Osama Bin Laden and the NLA, usually based on information from “anonymous foreign intelligence sources” or unnamed sources in the Macedonian Intelligence Agency. In some cases journalists admitted the absence of hard evidence, noting that it was “difficult to prove the links between Osama Bin Laden and NLA terrorists” or assuring their audience that “the ministry of interior is striving to find a link between al-Qaeda and NLA terrorists.” Nevertheless, an overall impression was created that Macedonia was a chief target of the new international public enemy number one. [..] In the battle between journalistic standards and sensationalism, sensationalism usually triumphed. [..] Overall, it is clear that with notable individual exceptions, the media in Macedonia failed the country’s citizens during the conflict. A lack of objectivity and professional standards in reporting destroyed the media’s credibility. If sources discuss as a subject as minor and overall as something which is mostly a narrative which was created by the media of one faction, then it can't be part of the infobox.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit would refer to the edit to remove it from the infobox. The quotes you present do not support this removal (at least one supports keeping it in there). Whether you find the Macedonian media at the time to have "a lack of objectivity and professional standards" or not, this is backed by non-Macedonian sources as well. --Local hero ^talk 21:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, the quotes you've mentioned in your comment don't seem to support you position - the first one literallh confirms Mujahadeen presence, no one has claimed thay the NLA was influenced by Islamic fundamentalism. Hell, the quote given states that it's "important to note" Mujahadeen presence.

The second one talks about Al-Qaeda and not the Mujahadeen, as well as Macedonian media reports, which aren't present in the sources I've mentioned above.

Third quote talks again about Macedonian media, which is again irrelevant since foregin sources back up claims of Mujahadeen involvement. I'd like to note that another editor (QaifarShqiptari) had charecterized such reports as WP:RS, despite being informed that they are not.

So per WP:UNDUE, it's clear that the infobox edit should stay, and as another editor mentioned, the Mujahadeen participation in the conflict should be mentioned in the main article body a bit more in depth per the given sources.

I'd also like an explination as to why Shray is not WP:RS. Kluche (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

These walls of text serve for nothing. The issue is very simple: only a part of the sources treat the Mujahideen involvement as a fact, others consider it a claim made by the Macedonian side of the conflict. Infoboxes are not to mislead readers that challenged claims should be treated as unchallenged facts. It is a waste of time to discuss such a simple thing, ofc assuming that there is no nationalist bias in the desire to portray the Albanian side of the conflict as collaborating with Islamists. Sth like that has been tried in vain by fringe Slav Macedonian nationalists, the very same who claim that Alexander the Great was a Slav. I hope that is not the case here. Best focus on improving the article in general. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 I'd like to kindly remind you of WP:NATIONALIST and MOS:MAC. I agree that the issue is very simple: there's 5 (or 6 if you consider "The 2001 Conflict in FYROM: Reflections", which states that it's, and I quote, "important to note" Mujahadeen involvement, but refutes Al-Qaeda involvement; Mujahadeen ≠ Al-Qaeda) reliable sources, majority of which non-Macedonian, confirming Mujahadeen involvement in the conflict (and estimating it as minor, only 150 fighters). On the other hand there's the two sources that you have presented (i.e "Wahhabism in the Balkans" and "The Risk of War: Everyday Sociality in the Republic of Macedonia") which talk about Macedonian media reports about Mujahadeen involvement during the conflict. The first source doesn't refute Mujahadeen involvement, while the second source talks about, again, Macedonian media reports on the Mujahadeen - such reports have not been cited or presented by me (and to my knowledge other editors) in regards to Mujahadeen involvement - only academic sources have been presented.

So, per WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE it is safe, reliable and neutral to state that Mujahadeen fought as part of the NLA during the conflict, although their role was minor. There are 6 sources which confirm Mujahadeen involvement in the conflict, and no sources refuting it (unless you consider "The Risk of War: Everyday Sociality in the Republic of Macedonia"'s statements as refuting, in which case there is only 1 source refuting Mujahadeen involvement).

I'll restate my support for Rosguill suggestion i.e Mujahadeen involvement should be mentioned somewhere else in the article body as well. I have intent on creating such section, although I think it should be created after this question is closed. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

van Meurs 2013 [3]: Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.

Kenneth Morrison 2008 [4]: The picture, however, is less clear in Macedonia, which has a significant Muslim population and a recent history of armed conflict. Macedonian-language media have, since 2001, consistently reported that Islamic extremists have been active in Macedonia, even alleging that the ANA (Albanian National Army; not to be confused with the armed forces of the republic of Albania) possessed concrete links with Osama bin Laden and Mujahedin.

Neofotistos 2012 [5]: Rumors concerning Serbia's purported involvement in the crisis in Macedonia and the alleged presence of foreign mujahideen fighters in the country spread widely.

Human Rights Watch [6]: Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, the Macedonian government repeatedly used anti-terrorist rhetoric, invented threats to score political points, and raised the specter of Islamic fundamentalism among Macedonia's Albanians. After police shot and killed seven foreign men on the outskirts of Skopje in March, the government cast the incident as a thwarted "terrorist attack" on Western embassies in the capital. The Ministry of the Interior attempted to link the men with the NLA and al-Qaeda, and called them "mujahideen" fighters. Suspicions emerged when official versions of the incident changed, and the ministry rejected a request for international forensic experts to examine the bodies. The Wall Street Journal later reported that the victims were Pakistani and Indian migrants traveling to Greece to seek employment. The government continued, however, to label them "terrorists."

Canadian Institute of International Affairs 2002 [7]: Whether or not there were any mujahedin soldiers of fortune fighting in Kosovo or Macedonia , these wars were certainly not part of a jihad.

The sources refer to the claims of Mujahideen involvement with words such as "alleged", "speculating" and "allegations". They do not treat them as a proven fact. Anyways, weeks of edit warring to add allegations to the infobox of an nationalistic battleground conflict without any NPOV elaboration, point out to a need to seek admin attention at AE. This is a behaviour issue more than just a content dispute. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 I'd like to firstly issue a friendly reminder about WP:CIVILITY. I reitarate that during this converstaion I have assumed WP:GF. I thank you for providing sources backing up your claims, although the second one talks about the ANA (not the NLA, for which the sources supporting Mujahadeen claims talk about) and the fifth source seems to be irrelevant - no one claimed that the Insurgency was part of a jihad. Links to the sources which you have presented would be greatly appretiated and would make integrating these sources in the article much easier.

As for the edit-warring - prior to your comments, no one provided reliable sources which refute Mujahadeen claims, therefore treating them as fact when the presented sources point to it as such is logical. The edits removing the Mujahadeen from the infobox were done without explination, and when asked for one or for sources, the previous editors did not present any reliable ones backing their claims and actions.

Now, I'll take the initiative and present a solution - for the infobox, I suggest a small text in bold saying "Alleged:" followed by the Mujahadeen flag - 6 sources still support claims of Mujahadeen involvement, after all. I propose the same for the "Strenght" section, as the sources presented give estimates ranging from 150 to 200 fighters. I also suggest a separate (sub)section be added titled "Mujahadeen involvement" in the main article body, which would delve further into the issue, presenting both sides of the story, backed up by the reliable and relevant sources mentioned and presented in this talk.

I look forward for your thoughts on this matter. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not breached the civility policy, and suggesting that admin attention is needed is not at all a breach of WP:Civility. You are a new editor, and need to learn some things gradually. To return to the content dispute. The last source is not irrelevant, because it says "Whether or not there were any mujahedin soldiers of fortune fighting in Kosovo or Macedonia" i.e. the involvement of the Mujahideen neither can be proven nor can be rejected. A subsection in the article can be dedicated to the various views on the issue. Also a sentence or two can be added to the lede. On the infobox, controversial alleged things are not added. The infobox is to give readers a quick summary, and such contested stuff without elaboration can mislead readers and breach WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I never claimed that you breached a civility policy?

About the last source - it neither claims nor refutes Mujahadeen involvement - it is speculating on their involvement.

I'll ask again - could you provide links to the above-mentioned citations from sources? Also, since I am a new editor, could you also provide a rule/policy/guideline on alleged information being prohibited from infoboxes, as WP:NPOV makes no mention of infoboxes at all.

I'll reiterate again that despite the sources which you have presented, there are more sources backing claims of Mujahadeen involvement. So proportionally, the majority of sources claim there was Mujahadeen involvement. I still stand by my propositon. Kluche (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that at this point this dispute should be resolved by WP:RFC or WP:DRN, as it seems unlikely that the editors already active at this page are going to reach consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kluche You have such a weak understanding of the policies. 6 vs 5 sources are not "a majority", they are treated as equal. Even 6 vs 3. Hence it is very difficult and time-consuming to discuss with you. Now, tell me some infoboxes of conflicts that contain "alleged" participants. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I'd like restate (not implicate you of breaking!) WP:AGF. I'm sorry if my inexperience is tiring you - no one is forcing anyone to participate in Wikipedia.

This will be the third time me asking you if you could provide links to the sources you've mentioned above.

Now, what you are asking me to do might be WP:OTHERCONTENT, but, since you are the more experienced editor, I will oblige - March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, Nojeh coup plot, Somali Civil War (2009–present) and Kivu conflict are some examples of alleged participants and supporters included in an infobox. I ask again for a policy/guideline in regards to this issue. Kluche (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, I have no reason to oppose your proposal for a WP:RFC or WP:DRN on this issue, although I do have limited experience in participating in such activites. Kluche (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, unfortunately the policy on infoboxes does not say anything about "alleged" participantsin conflicts. The examples you provided concern "alleged participants that could give a major contribution like the US or other countries' armed forces. On the other hand even if involved, the Mukahideen in Macedonia could not be more than a minor force as pointed out by the US government. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the links to the sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, could you, again, provide a policy/guideline supporting your position? If you examine the examples I gave above (which were requested by you), you can deduct that many of them do not elaborate on the size of the alleged participation. And I'd like to thank you for providing links after I asked thrice for them. Kluche (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: RfCs are reserved for issues which don't allow for clear decisions based on relevant policies. This is not such a case. Bibiliography doesn't even describe such a force as an entity which was definitely a participant in the war or one which had some substantial role which justifies inclusion in the infobox. If all sources which were listed by Ktrimi991 were to be added in the article, then this would have to be immediately removed from the infobox because it wouldn't reflect what the article discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maleschreiber a RfC is not the only solution proposed by Rosguill - WP:DRN covers issues like the current one. Furthermore, as Ktrimi991 pointed out, we are unaware of a policy regarding infobox inclusion of alleged participants in a conflict, so indeed it could fall under RfC jurisdiction.

I'd like to also remind you that while one side claims there were no such fighters, the other side claims there were and even gives numbers - all backed up by reliable sources. Hence why I suggest that the compromise I proposed (suplemented with Local hero's suggestions bellow) is the most fair, balanced, reliable and neutral solution. Kluche (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Kluche The DRN is useless, only RfCs can help solve content disputes. And I am not saying there were not Mujahideen fighters in Macedonia, I am saying their presence has neither been proven nor rejected. It is an "open issue". In any case, their contribution was minor if they were involved. Hence adding an "alleged" participant with a minor contribution to the infobox does not make sense. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, an admin reccomended we should explore the possibility of going to a DRN.

I'd also like to reffer to Local hero's comment on the sources you've presented - hence why I still stand that my proposition is very resonable and generous, when we look at the presented sources. I also still fail to see a reasoning or rationale as to why the inclusion of "alleged" next to the Mujahadeen in the infobox is a problem - you requested examples (which, again, may be WP:OTHERCONTENT) and I provided them. Kluche (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't write "an admin" in bold text. I have experience enough to know that the DRN is useless. However you are free to go to DRN and waste your time there. You provided examples, and I responded why the Mujahideen stuff does not belong in the infobox. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just wanted to underline that fact, to my knowledge there is no guideline/policy prohibiting such writing. You can reffer to another one of my comments on why this dispute might fall under the jurisdiction of a RfC i.e as you yourself pointed out we are unaware of a relevant policy regarding infobox inclusion of alleged participants in a conflict, so indeed it could fall under RfC jurisdiction. Either way, I still view that your rationale regarding this issue is not compatible (again, I want to underline that this should not be considered as a personal attack or any other guideline/policy-breaking action). Kluche (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Enough experience to disparage the process, but apparently not enough experience to know that DRN is optional and only possible if both sides of the dispute agree to participate. In my experience, while it's rarely the final step in dispute resolution, DRN does a good job at a) teasing out the core issue at hand for complex disputes (not really the case here) and b) getting participants to focus on policy-based arguments that are actually relevant. At this point, RfC seems like the best way forward, as the locus of dispute is clear and it should be straight forward to frame the question in a manner conducive to broad participation (i.e. Should the infobox include mention of Mujahideen in the belligerents section). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I'm absolutly for some sort of third-party mediation. Although, I don't know why my latest reply was removed? Kluche (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The removal was an accident due to an edit conflict, I've restored it now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, I know very well how DRN works. Both sides of the dispute agree to go there, respond to some questions from a "moderator" and then ....nothing happens. I have seen it happening many times. OK, in some rare cases DRN helps find a solution, but why try sth that has a tiny possibility to help? Not to mention that single question disputes are supposed to be addressed via RFCs. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 really tried to minimize arguments in this discussion by pulling out of left field something about Alexander the Great being a Slav... then they honed in on the age of Kluche's account, using that to portray Kluche as having insufficient understanding of policies. Next, they claimed that editors involved in this have "behavior issues". Stripping that chunk of Ktrimi991's comments away, there isn't much substance to support removal from the infobox.

Beginning with the van Meurs text, it does not state that Mujahideen were not involved in the conflict (discusses Al-Qaeda and Taliban, neither of which have been added to the infobox). The Kenneth Morrison text does not state that Mujahideen were not involved in the conflict (addressed by Kluche; it discusses Macedonian media alleging the ANA was tied to Mujahideen). As already stated about the Neofotistos text, it does not state that Mujahideen were not involved in the conflict (it describes the situation of rumors at the time). The Canadian Institute of International Affairs text, clearly, takes no stance on whether there were Mujahideen fighters present or not. The Human Rights Watch source is probably the best one for the remove-from-infobox side. However, it apparently discusses a specific event and does not rule out Mujahideen being present at all in the conflict.

If this is a numbers game, here's another and another. From the sources that confirm Mujahideen participation, we can glean the rough number of fighters, the lead organizers, and the overall role played in the conflict. Kluche's proposal is reasonable and we could also include a note directing readers to the future section about Mujahideen fighters in the conflict. --Local hero ^talk 02:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources last added by Kluche are academic and WP:RS. One is a WP:TERTIARY, non-academic publication by think tank American Foreign Policy Council and the other - non-academic source - lists in its bibliography for the claim an org known as the All-Serbian Patriotic Assembly. One of the sources which the article uses for this claim is Michel Chossudovsky, a non-academic sources which is involved in multiple controversies and by definition is not WP:RS. The article will have to be tagged for pushing a very specific POV if this claim is not moved from the infobox to the main body, where it can be discussed in a proper context. Readers cannot be subjected to content by figures like Chossudovsky and various very specific "think tanks" as if their work represents any mainstream viewpoint.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

The first source is Nigel Thomas's The Yugoslav Wars which unambiguously mentions Mujahideen on page 53. Are there any problems with this source? Alaexis_¿question? 21:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Maleschreiber I'll assume WP:GF i.e that you mixed me up with Local hero. My proposal and the arguments for it still stand. Kluche (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, the section is so long that I couldn't find your proposal in it. Maybe you could add it below, or edit the article so that we have a version we can reference? Alaexis_¿question? 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, sure, no problem: my proposal is that the Mujahadeen are included in the infobox as alleged participants, the likes of March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, Nojeh coup plot, Somali Civil War (2009–present) and Kivu conflict (examples I've given by the request by another, more experienced editor above), and their (alleged) number be put at aroubd 150-200 (per the given sources). A seperate section also should be created, going in detail about the Mujahadeen participation in the conflict. A note could also be attached to the Mujahadeen in the infobox, linking to this section. That is my proposal. Kluche (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case I fully support your proposal. Alaexis_¿question? 09:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Move/rename page to 2001 insurgency in North Macedonia

Per the recent name change by the country's government. CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC. --Local hero ^talk 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't be retroactive. If anything, the title of the article should be "2001 insurgency in Macedonia" because there was no other insurgency in any other Macedonia that year (WP:PRECISE) and most English language news sources from the time just used plain "Macedonia" when referring to the then-ongoing conflict (MOS:COMMON). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The name change happend in 2019 not in 2001 it makes no sense Walter white502930291 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

Add Russia on side of Macedonia because they helped them by sending tanks https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/07/30/skopje-sends-t-72-tanks-ukraine/ here is the source Corrector MK (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, greekcitytimes is not a reliable source for such claim. M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Mujahideen is not a beligerent

the sources refer an amount of volunteers who joined this war due to religious reasons. this is not a "belligerent" as they were members of the NLA. during the Bosnian war, there was an entire mujahideen battalion. yet it is not listed as a belligerent as it was not. a unit/reason for fighters to fight a conflict is not the same as a belligerent. Durraz0 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Durraz0, see this section for further clarification about this dispute. Furthermore your argument presented here is WP:OTHERCONTENT. I'd like to note that the Mujahadeen were specifically mentioned as a sub-belligerent of the NLA - I've already elaborated this twice in the above mentioned section - multiple sources mention them, one even stating that it's, and I quote "important to note" their presence. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kluche. They were not a sub belligerent, they were members of the NLA. there was never a Mujahideen sub group inside of the NLA like there was a brigade of mujahideen Bosnia. the only source I could access [8] does not state that they were a sub belligerent. I can not access the other sources, but this one [9] is written by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and alleged pro Russian propagandist Michel Chossudovsky. Durraz0 (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Durraz0, as mentioned in the previous discussion, there are 6 sources (5 ignoring Chossudovsky) which confirm their presence. One which states that it is important to note said presence. I'll reffer to this comment i.e proposed solution which I made. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

there was no NLA during the bosnian war the nla was created in 2001 and https://balkaninsight.com/2014/05/16/macedonia-press-review-may-16-2014/ says 150 mujahideen where in the war helping the nla there are several videos of mujahideen leaders with NLA soldiers and spurces like http://realitymacedoniaarchives.blogspot.de/2001/10/nla-mujahedeens-commited-vejce.html http://realitymacedoniaarchives.blogspot.de/2001/10/nla-mujahedeens-commited-vejce.html say they where involved in the vejce massacre Locallocallocal (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Botushali, I've restored information based on a reliable source. Nigel mentions a unit of mujahedin in his Yugoslav wars, p. 53 ("There was also an independent unit of 150 Mujahedin from Afghanistan, Bosnia and Turkey under Selim Ferit.") Alaexis_¿question? 05:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's you who made the most reverts recently. Please be aware of the WP:3RR rule. Alaexis_¿question? 05:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis More proof of Mujahideen involvement is required to include the Mujahideen as belligerents. 150 self-proclaimed mujahideen who may or may not have actually participated (since the NLA and the KLA were reluctant to associate with extremist organisations and there is a lack of reliable sourcing that describes this supposed unit as an organised force rather than a conglomeration of Muslim foreigners) does not qualify the Mujahideen to be added as belligerents. Multiple units of foreigners from Georgia, the USA, Chechnya and more serve in the Russo-Ukrainian War, yet they are not listed as belligerents. The NLA and the KLA distanced themselves from Islamic extremists, and that whole section on the mujahideen is made up entirely of allegations and rumours (those are the exact words used, in fact) from Macedonian media and the like. If concrete evidence of widespread and intensive Mujahideen involvement in the conflict can be reliably cited from scholarly works, than fair enough, but as of now (and most likely the future because it is simply not true), they most definitely should not qualify as belligerents. Botushali (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact there are two more sources that mention the mujahideen, so you can't say it's only one source. None of the three sources (Nigel, Tucker-Jones or Tziamparis) describe the presence of mujahideen as rumours, they mention them without any caveats whatsoever. There is a consensus about mentioning them which is reflected in the stable version of this article, so the burden is on you to prove that they should not be mentioned. Alaexis_¿question? 06:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Some weeks ago I posted several RS saying that the Mujahideen thing was an unproven claim from the Macedonian side of the conflict. Whoever wrote the section should add them. I do not have time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to Wahhabism in the Balkans by Kenneth Morrison and The Risk of War: Everyday Sociality in the Republic of Macedonia by Vasiliki P. Neofotistos. I cannot get my hands on the former, so could you provide the citation from it?

As for the latter, it does say there there were rumours about foreign mujahideen fighting on the Albanian side but it says nothing about whether these rumours were unfounded or based on reality (this doesn't interest the author who wrote a book about the "practices and performances of everyday life"). Bottom line, this doesn't refute what the other sources say. Alaexis_¿question? 09:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Since I added this section, I'll elaborate my views - there are reliable sources talking about Mujahideen presence as fact. This cannot be denied nor can it be minimized. There are also sources which state that it is important to note such presence. They are presented in the section.

There are also sources which talk about Macedonian allegations of Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Mujahideen connections with the NLA and ANA. Those have also been added, although the bulk talk about allegations of ties with the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, not the Mujahideen.

Furthermore, the Mujahideen are presented as a sub-belligerent (not belligerent) of the NLA, as all RS confirming their presence talks about them being part of the NLA.

Since I've seen arguements that "x doesn't mention them in the infobox, so they shouldn't be mentioned here", I'll like to bring attention to the fact that there are pages which do mention alleged belligerents, which I've listed above, per the request of Ktrimi991 - those are March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, Nojeh coup plot, Somali Civil War (2009–present) and Kivu conflict.

The edit which was reverted had the Mujahideen as a sub-belligerent of the NLA, with text in brackets saying "Alleged" and a note leading to the section elaborating more on their presence. It is without a doubt the most neutral solution, since the fact that multiple reliable sources consider their presence as fact cannot be minimized, nor can the fact that a few reliable sources also consider their presence as allegations. Both viewpoints have been presented. Regards. Kluche (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexios, they are 5, not 2. Neofotistos says the Mujahideen presence was an "alleged presence" i.e. it is doubtful they were. The Mujahideen presence is possible but unproven.

van Meurs 2013 [10]: Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.

Kenneth Morrison 2008 [11]: The picture, however, is less clear in Macedonia, which has a significant Muslim population and a recent history of armed conflict. Macedonian-language media have, since 2001, consistently reported that Islamic extremists have been active in Macedonia, even alleging that the ANA (Albanian National Army; not to be confused with the armed forces of the republic of Albania) possessed concrete links with Osama bin Laden and Mujahedin.

Neofotistos 2012 [12]: Rumors concerning Serbia's purported involvement in the crisis in Macedonia and the alleged presence of foreign mujahideen fighters in the country spread widely.

Human Rights Watch [13]: Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, the Macedonian government repeatedly used anti-terrorist rhetoric, invented threats to score political points, and raised the specter of Islamic fundamentalism among Macedonia's Albanians. After police shot and killed seven foreign men on the outskirts of Skopje in March, the government cast the incident as a thwarted "terrorist attack" on Western embassies in the capital. The Ministry of the Interior attempted to link the men with the NLA and al-Qaeda, and called them "mujahideen" fighters. Suspicions emerged when official versions of the incident changed, and the ministry rejected a request for international forensic experts to examine the bodies. The Wall Street Journal later reported that the victims were Pakistani and Indian migrants traveling to Greece to seek employment. The government continued, however, to label them "terrorists."

Canadian Institute of International Affairs 2002 [14]: Whether or not there were any mujahedin soldiers of fortune fighting in Kosovo or Macedonia , these wars were certainly not part of a jihad.

The sources refer to the claims of Mujahideen involvement with words such as "alleged", "speculating" and "allegations". They do not treat them as a proven fact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources says that there were no mujahideen in Macedonia at that time. It's true that the Macedonian government exaggerated their role and claimed they were involved in the incidents when they were not. We should probably explain it more clearly in the article.

We have three reliable sources (Nigel, Tucker-Carson and Tziampiris) who say that there were mujahideen. Therefore we should not use "alleged" when describing their presence.

Finally, the stable version of the article mentioned the mujahideen in the infobox and there is clearly no consensus for removing them. Alaexis_¿question? 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources says that there were no mujahideen in Macedonia at that time And also they do not say there were Mujahideen involved in the conflict. They treat that as an unproven claim. Hence when multiple RS question the Mujahideen presence, that presence can't be treated as an unquestionable fact. On the "stable version", there is no "stable version". Since the Mujahideen were added, they have been continuosly removed and readded. That is not a "stable version". Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, while talking about the "stable version" you have made 3 reverts today, another one would breach the WP:3RR. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kluche: I have expanded the section that you created about the Mujahideen etc. I think we should agree on what that section should say (if you have anything against my edits there) and then return to what the infobox and lede should say or should not say. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 it seems that you've just copy-pasted some text directly from the sources. I do not agree with your edit, as such in-detail descriptions go against WP:NOTEVERYTHING - which stipulates that content on Wikipedia should be a summary of all reliable knowledge on a subject, not copy-pasted knowledge directly from the source.

Furthermore, the section now looks like "he said, she said" statements.

Hence why I suggest the following formulation - There have been claims that 150 Mujahideen fighters participated within the NLA, only playing a minor role.

During the conflict, various rumors arose of Al-Qaeda and Taliban presence among the NLA, primarly from Macedonian media and the Macedonian government. Some alleged that the NLA had ties with Osama bin Laden. This speculation further grew after the September 11 attacks.

This is as neutral as it can be in my opinion, as well as being a summary on all knowledge on the subject. I'm fine with adding the speculations of Serbian involvement and/or Tziampiris's statement regarding the non-influence of the Mujahideen on NLA ideology.

Best regards. Kluche (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, do not cite WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That is sth other that what you seem to think it to be. The section can't have only 3 or 4 sentences as you propose. Sections are supposed to elaborate on a certain issue or topic. I added "according to" and "he notes/adds" because they are just opinions, not necessarily facts. Controversial articles have such wording. Btw, can you provide a quote from Anthony Tucler Jones? A quote could help editors amd readers to verify what he says. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyways, I am Ok with having a shorter section. I will remove some content and then see if it is OK for all of us. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 I have not mentioned said policy anywhere else in this discussion, although I still think it does apply. By the looks of things some of your edits have been flagged as a copyright infrigement and have been subsequently deleted, making the text focus on one incident. The text bases itself of the Human Rights Watch source. I've done a little digging, and by the looks of things it talks of an incident/case after the conflict i.e March 2002, after the NLA disbanded. Hence why I'm still supporting the rendition I proposed above. Regards. Kluche (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, you have wrongly cited WP:EVERYTHING on other articles (regarding some defter data etc) and have been told there that you have misunderstood that guideline. Yep, some of the content I added was removed due to copyright issues. While trying to "not lose any detail", I almost copy-pasted the source. Anyways, I will make the section shorter when time permits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You've continuously claimed that I misunderstand the guideline, yet to my knowledge you have never elaborated on that.

I still stand that the current shape of the sections focuses too much on one incident after the conflict. Furthermore, it goes in-depth about Russia's supposed involvement, while citing only one source. Kluche (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I readded some content from van Meurs, half the length of the previous version. I will take a look and reduce the content sourced to HRW too later when I have more time available. I also added some content on Russia's stance. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Information which isn't supported as a certainty in bibliography should stay out of infoboxes because it doesn't help readers, but causes more confusion. It is methodologically more pertinent to write the section itself and then move on to such details like infobox structure.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd second this, if the emerging consensus is that the mujahideen role is either disputed or minor, including them in the infobox is not appropriate. Infobox inclusion really only becomes appropriate if they played a major or autonomous role, and no one seems to be making such an assertion at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As @Kluche: has pointed out (with March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, Nojeh coup plot, Somali Civil War (2009–present) and Kivu conflict), including Mujahideen in the infobox despite a minor (or even alleged) role is neither unprecedented nor against policy.

As @Alaexis: has already pointed out below and previously, no source presented has denied the involvement of Mujahideen. The revert-first tagteam has only presented sources that state that Islamist group involvement was leveraged by the government for fearmongering - this does not refute the sources which confirm the presence of Mujahideen.

And lastly, where is the consensus to remove Mujdahideen from the infobox? Why does the revert-first tagteam insist on refusing the follow the appropriate process by initiating an RFC to remove it? I am going to reinstate this longstanding content to the infobox and maybe, just maybe, the revert-first tagteam will instead try to achieve a proper consensus for removal. --Local hero ^talk 19:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I share the exasperation regarding people's use of reverts rather than discussing for the infobox question, I think it's pretty clear that there is no basis for its inclusion in the infobox given the current balance of coverage regarding mujahideen presence and activity, and that its reinstatement at this time is veering into WP:POINT territory and I'd encourage you to self-revert. And I say this as someone that had previously reinstated it on the basis of quelling an edit war. Minor, non-autonomous groupings have no place in the belligerents field of an infobox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think reasonable people can disagree about it. We have one source explicitly saying that their role was minor and numerically they constituted less than 10% of the NLA forces. On the other hand there is nothing in WP:INFOBOX that prohibits including this information. Alaexis_¿question? 19:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The relevant part of INFOBOX would be WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which explains that infoboxes are intended as summaries of key facts of the article; if we don't even currently have wikivoice claims that mujahideen were present in the conflict, let alone that they comprised an autonomous or major component of the conflict, including it in the infobox is contrary to summarizing the article. And this is already cited by Maleschreiber above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's true. I've opened an RfC regarding mentioning them in wikivoice, we can discuss the infobox once it's over. Alaexis_¿question? 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point Rosguill and maybe it'll be agreed to remove it. The problem is the revert-first (discuss seldom) tagteam. It took a whopping 16 mins for a semi-vandal to revert me and we have yet to see this individual participate.

Thanks for initiating this RFC, Alaexis. I'm sure we won't see the revert-first tagteam initiate one for the infobox piece, despite the burden being on them. --Local hero ^talk 19:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"Claims" about 150 mujahideen

It's wrong to say that there are claims about the presence of 150 mujahideen as we have 3 sources which mention 150 mujahideen without any caveats

1. The Yugoslav Wars (2): Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia 1992 -2001 by Nigel, p. 53: There was also an independent unit of 150 Mujahedin from Afghanistan, Bosnia and Turkey under Selim Ferit.
2. The Rise of Militant Islam by Tucker-Jones: In Macedonia, about 150 Mujahideen from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Turkey ... supported the activities of KLA
3. Assessing Islamic terrorism in the Western Balkans: the state of the debate by Tziamparis, p. 218: However, it is important to note that some 150 mujahedin did fight in [the NLA] ranks but played a minor role

The Macedonian government's scaremongering and false claims of Al-Qaeda involvement do not in any way disqualify these sources. Alaexis_¿question? 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Alaexis, when will you stop reverting? There is a clear consensus, i.e. supported by a strong majority of the involved editors, that the involvement of the Mujahideen is a matter of dispute among RS. 8 or 9 editors (I, Botushali, AcEagle12, Kluche, Maleschreiber, Uniacademic, Lezhjani, Durraz0, apparently Rosguill too) think the Mujahideen involvement is a claim supported by some RS and questioned by others. Only you and, apparently, Local hero, disagree. With such numbers there is consensus that the article should treat the Mujahideen involvement as a claim, not as an unquestionable fact. In this context, I am thinking about seeking admin intervention if you keep edit warring against the obvious consensus. For an editor who has been editing for over 15 years, it would be silly to get involved in such a situation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you can't provide a single source which denies their involvement. But you're right, we need an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What is "unfortunate" is that you do not see the RS that describe the Mujahideen involvement as "alleged". Nobody can deny or confirm with certainty their involvement. You are asking for the impossible. Anyways, feel free to open an RfC and seek consensus to change the article. Your right to do that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This too should be added among the sources: According to some Macedonian politicians and Macedonian-language media, this possibility is already a certainty. Wild and unproven allegations linking the local ethnic Albanian rebel force, the NLA, with bin Laden and 'mujahidin' were published and broadcast in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks (page 21). Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor role

While we are at it, who said that the mujahideen played a minor role in the conflict? Can you provide the citation for that? Alaexis_¿question? 09:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Tziampiris states, and I quote: "However, it is important to note that some 150 mujahedin did fight in its ranks but played a minor role". Kluche (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 18:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus for removal from infobox

I propose that Mujahideen be removed from the infobox. In the absence of any RS alleging more than a minor, non-autonomous role at most, it is absurd to include in the infobox. I honestly don't think that we should need an RfC for this question, as removing it is plainly the correct decision from a guideline perspective. Pinging involved editors Local hero, AcEagle12, Gugrak, Uniacademic, Maleschreiber, Durraz0. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is a consensus and I think we should wait until the RfC is over - so far we haven't received a lot of outside feedback which is the purpose of RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 06:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

8 vs 2 editors is a very obvious consensus. WP:CONSENSUS says that a consensus does not need every single one editor agree. Whoever is unhappy with the result of the discussion above, needs to get a new consensus through the RfC. Until that new consensus is achieved, the current one is that the Mujahideen thing is too disputed among RS and too minor for the overall conflict to be in the infobox. And the article should reflect that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

8 is an obviously misleading number. With the notable exception of Rosguill, those users are all Albanian POV editors who agree with each other on every dispute every time. So, it's more like one non-Albanian POV editor supporting removal and one non-Macedonian POV editor opposing removal. --Local hero ^talk 22:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, the concern is that there is zero remaining basis for inclusion in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, and the article as written clearly does not justify inclusion in the infobox. If you have a cogent argument for why it should still be included please present it, because otherwise you're stonewalling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I listed this in the conversation just above but, again, inclusion of this in the infobox is not unprecedented and not against policy. We see it done on March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, Nojeh coup plot, Somali Civil War (2009–present) and Kivu conflict. --Local hero ^talk 22:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that including Mujahideen in the infobox, without any qualification, is an accurate summary of the article at this time? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be listed with a note. This note would direct readers to the relevant section of the article. I wouldn't be opposed to also adding verbiage to the note itself. --Local hero ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Many readers do not read notes, hence a controversial claim about an alleged Mujahideen group with a minor role can't stay there with the assumption that a reader will not be misled. The reader needs to be explained that: 1. the Mujahideen involvement is alleged but not accepted by all scholars 2. those who accept their involvement say they had a minor role. A reader who does not read the note is going to be misled that the Mujahideen presence is an unquestionable fact and a major force in the conflict. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes are typically used for further information and wikilinks, not to provide other views. One can't have one POV in the infobox and the other POV in a note. In that case the POV in the infobox is very visible while the other POV can be read only if the reader cliks on the note sign. That is not in line with WP:DUE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If the outcome of the RFC (after input is received from uninvolved editors) is that the presence is not certain, I would be fine with putting "(Alleged)" beside it, as seen in the articles I've just linked. --Local hero ^talk 03:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

mujahideen involvment

https://balkaninsight.com/2014/05/16/macedonia-press-review-may-16-2014/ says 150 mujahideen where involved in the conflict Locallocallocal (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Such extraordinary claims require better sources than Balkan Insight. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ok then http://realitymacedoniaarchives.blogspot.de/2001/10/nla-mujahedeens-commited-vejce.html http://realitymacedoniaarchives.blogspot.de/2001/10/nla-mujahedeens-commited-vejce.html i also have macedonian sources if you want i will send you them to and also whats wrong with balkan insight? Locallocallocal (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:RS to see what kind of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, because the sources you are proposing are unreliable. Also, I suggest actually reading through the very lengthy discussions above regarding the same topic surrounding mujahideen involvement and seeing the conclusion. Botushali (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Mujahideen in the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to use the wording, "There have been claims that..." to describe the 150 mujahideen claim. As there are reliable sources that seriously contest the claim, it should not be treated as fact per WP:WIKIVOICE. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Should we say in wikivoice that about 150 mujahideen participated in the conflict on the side of NLA or use the wording "There have been claims that..."? Alaexis_¿question? 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• State in wikivoice, as there are three reliable sources which mention 150 mujahideen and no sources which deny their presence. It is true that the Macedonian government exaggerated their role and invented Al-Qaeda links (the article describes it in detail) but it is irrelevant to this question. Alaexis_¿question? 19:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There are sources which deny the claim, refer to them as claims and even refer to them as Wild and unproven

• According to some Macedonian politicians and Macedonian-language media, this possibility is already a certainty. Wild and unproven allegations linking the local ethnic Albanian rebel force, the NLA, with bin Laden and 'mujahidin' were published and broadcast in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks (page 21).
• Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.van Meurs 2013 [15] Durraz0 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The claims of NLA's links with Ben Laden and Al Qaeda are indeed false. Wild and unproven allegation indeed were published. However since then we have RS which tell us that while there were no links with Al Qaeda there were some mujahideen fighting of the side of NLA. Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This claim is not contested thus is should be in wikivoice. --Local hero ^talk 19:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The claim is contested by several sources. with one even referring to them as wild and unproven. Durraz0 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Which sources assert that these reliable sources are making "wild and unproven" claims? Would love to see those. --Local hero ^talk 02:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Mujahiden were fighting with the NLA was referred to by ICG Balkans Report N° 119 P. 21 as wild and unproven. therefor the claim is contested and should not be stated in wikivoice as a fact. I never said that a specific source spoke about the other sources which claim that mujahiden fought with NLA. I assume you misunderstood and that you did not mean to strawman me. Durraz0 (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That report was published during the conflict. The RS which assert that the Mujdahideen was present were published in 2010, 2009, and 2006, years after the end of the conflict. --Local hero ^talk 22:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Opppose There are indeed sources which contest these claims such as page 21, [16], these sources specifically deny the claims of mujahidin participating in the war and refer to the claims as unproven and "wild".

According to some Macedonian politicians and Macedonian-language media, this possibility is already a certainty. Wild and unproven allegations linking the local ethnic Albanian rebel force, the NLA, with bin Laden and 'mujahidin' were published and broadcast in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks page 21

Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.[17].

when there are sources which deny these claims we should not state them as the RfC suggests in wikivoice. instead we should keep them as allegations. Durraz0 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose wikivoice That is against the policy. WP:WIKIVOICE says that claims and that are not supported by all the reliable source and claims that are described by some sources as unproven allegations should not be stated as an unqestionabke fact in wikivoice. That is also against WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. As stated zillions of times above, there are several reliable sources that question the allegations about Mujahideen involvement. They also point out that hardline nationalist Macedonian politicians and press made those allegations to lower the international community's resolve to implement the Ohrid Agreement which cemented the status of Macedonia as a multiethnic state. Such RS include:
• According to some Macedonian politicians and Macedonian-language media, this possibility is already a certainty. Wild and unproven allegations linking the local ethnic Albanian rebel force, the NLA, with bin Laden and 'mujahidin' were published and broadcast in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks (page 21).
• Meurs 2013 [18]: Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.
• Neofotistos 2012 [19]: Rumors concerning Serbia's purported involvement in the crisis in Macedonia and the alleged presence of foreign mujahideen fighters in the country spread widely.
• Human Rights Watch [20]: Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, the Macedonian government repeatedly used anti-terrorist rhetoric, invented threats to score political points, and raised the specter of Islamic fundamentalism among Macedonia's Albanians. After police shot and killed seven foreign men on the outskirts of Skopje in March, the government cast the incident as a thwarted "terrorist attack" on Western embassies in the capital. The Ministry of the Interior attempted to link the men with the NLA and al-Qaeda, and called them "mujahideen" fighters. Suspicions emerged when official versions of the incident changed, and the ministry rejected a request for international forensic experts to examine the bodies. The Wall Street Journal later reported that the victims were Pakistani and Indian migrants traveling to Greece to seek employment. The government continued, however, to label them "terrorists."
• Fraser [21]: The Serb and Macedonian authorities are also fond of referring to their rebellious Albanian minorities as 'terrorists' - obviously more so since the events of 11 September 2001 in New York City. They have even suggested that there are links with Osama bin Laden and profess to be bewildered that the international 'Coalition against Terrorism' is not supporting them in their efforts to deal with these Albanian terrorists. Whether or not there were any mujahedin soldiers of fortune fighting in Kosovo or Macedonia , these wars were certainly not part of a jihad. Albanians, in general, are indeed Muslims, but Islamic fundamentalism is, for most of them, a foreign concept. Their struggle has been inspired by nationalism, not religious zeal.

It is not surprising that among around 10 editors involved in the content dispute, only 2 want the allegation be treated as a fact in wikivoice. It is impossible to tell with certainty whether there were Mujahideen fighters or not in the concflict, hence many RS treat that as an allegation. Even the sources that claim they were present say they played a minor role. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of regurgitation in Durazz0's two posts and Ktrimi991's. Starting with the obvious, that Fraser sources says "whether or not" (as you highlighted), thus it doesn't disprove the presence of 150 Mujahideen. The other sources you list support that the government exaggerated and leveraged the presence of Mujahideen and this should be reflected in the section (I think it already is), but it simply does not refute the sources that tell us how many Mujahideen there were, where the Mujahideen came from, and who the Mujahideen fought under. None of the sources you list disprove those assertions. --Local hero ^talk 21:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

They do not disprove the claims, they say the claims are allegations. The Mujahideen claims can't be proven or disproven. And as such should they be treated in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources supporting the presence of Mujdahideen do not base their assertions on government claims. They make these assertions unqualified. --Local hero ^talk 21:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. But on the other hand, there are sources which describe the Mujahideen presence as a allegation by the Macedonian part of the conflict (or parts of it). As such there are two views: 1. around 150 Mujahideen took part in the conflict 2. the Macedonian government and press alleged that Mujahideen fighters were involved in the conflict to damage the reputation of the Albanian side of the conflict. Neither view can be presented in the article as a fact in wikivoice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That second view never asserts that there was no Mujahideen presence. --Local hero ^talk 02:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And it also never asserts that there was a Mujahideen presence. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We have other sources that do that. --Local hero ^talk 22:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources presented, and I'd like to state the fact that the first one almost certainly goes against WP:AGEMATTERS and the second one has been published by a think-tank, something which has been seen as negative. Kluche (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ofc you have reviewed the sources, because it was you who wrote the section and agreed to not have it in wikivoice. WP:AGEMATTERS applies only when what a source says is rejected by all other sources published later. About the think tank, the second work was published by Springer, an academic publisher, not a think tank. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The second source was first published by a think-tank, and on of the think-tanks's founders, Weidenfeld, wrote the preface of the document you've presented. Kluche (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as it has been published by Springer, an academic peer-reviewed publisher, it does not matter if a think-tank has published it too. It can be published by a forum, blog, a political organization, whatever. As long as it has been published by Springer too, it is reliable. Btw, it was you who wrote the section and agreed to not have it in wikivoice. Have you changed your mind? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that I verified your claim, SSOAR is not a random think-tank but a database of scholarly articles. It is not the publisher of the work, but it just has a copy of the work in its database. It took its copy from an academic article published by the University of Munich. That is written on the very first page in your link. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The CAP (Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung), which originally published the work in November 2002, is a think-tank, whose founder is Weidenfeld. This is acknowledged on their site.

As for your other comment - I did not write what is currently in the section regarding the incident sourced by HRW, nor the connections with Russia. I've decided to abstain from voting. Regards. Kluche (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The publisher was the University of Munich but anyways it does not matter as expalained above. I am not talking about the HRW or Russia, but for

your creation of the section where you described the Mujahideen thing as an allegation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose In cases where no consensus in bibliography exists, Wikipedia describes the debate between reliable authors as it is reflected in reliable sources. In other words, Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Wikipedia's aim is to include all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. As such, per WP:WIKIVOICE: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. In this case, the statement about mujahideen involvement in the 2001 events is heavily contested which means that it can't be presented as a direct statement in wikivoice.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As has been presented above by numerous other editors, the presence and participation of 'mujahideen' combatants on the side of the NLA in the 2001 conflict is highly contested and dubious, and thus should by no means be directly included or stated if we are to follow the guidelines of WP:WIKIVOICE. The claims that such combatants participated arose in a - quite frankly - Islamophobic context and have no real evidential basis, at best, they can merely be treated as suspicions or allegations. This being reflected in a number of RS publications on the issue. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose At this point, this is just long. There is a multitude of sources that use words such as "alleged", and allegations do not equal proven fact, yet some people just simply refuse to accept this. The inclusion of the Mujahideen in the infobox by the same editors that are pushing this narrative was already blocked as it violates WP:INFOBOX, and now this current push violates WP:WIKIVOICE. We must keep an article in accordance with NPOV, and the NPOV is that the involvement of an organised Mujahideen force is heavily debated and based mostly on allegations. Perhaps a few Muslim foreigners participated in the conflict believing that they are fighting a Holy War, but does that constitute a Mujahideen force? No. In both the conflict of Kosovo and Macedonia, these Muslim foreigners were all labelled Mujahideen as a tactic for scaremongering and alienating the Albanian cause from the west. Botushali (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  When you state that inclusion of this in the infobox was "blocked", it was actually *removed without consensus* and this removal has been supported by the tagteam of revert-first editors. It was actually added to the infobox by an Albanian editor and had since become stable via implicit consensus. Rather than initiate an RFC like this one to gain consensus for its removal, the tagteam is simply keeping it out of the infobox by force. --Local hero ^talk 02:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  So if multiple editors disagree with your addition, it is automatically considered tagteaming? You keep talking about tagteaming, it's bordering WP:ASPERSIONS. Nonetheless, the consensus of the majority of editors, including an uninvolved admin, is that their inclusion in the infobox is unnecessary and incorrect. This RFC is unneeded - if people would actually look at sources in an NPOV fashion and not ignore the evidence in front of them, none of this would have to occur. Botushali (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment on conspiracy theorist One of the sources used to back the Mujahideen involvement allegation, Michel Chossudovsky, is a well-known anti-West and pro-Russia conspiracy theorist. Note that the article already says that Russia started a disinformation campaign by accusing the Albanian side of the conflict of being Islamists and the West of supporting them. Citing that source in wikivoice is a ridiculous idea. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that said source has not been used in the section in question. Kluche (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It was added to the infobox. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I said section, not infobox. The RfC is primarily concentrated on the section. Kluche (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not need you to teach me what the RfC is about, especially given the fact that you are an editor with little experience. That is one of the sources that have been used to claim that the Mujahideen involvement is an undisputable fact by the editors who push that POV. One of them attempted to add it again earlier today. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the fact that you stated that the section on which the RfC is based on was written by me, and the fact that you stated that one of the sources used is Choussudovsky, I wanted to clarify to all editors - Choussudovsky, a Russian propagandist, was/is not used as a source to back up Mujahideen claims in the section which concerns the RfC.

I want to clarify that I have no intentions of lecturing anyone, or being condescending in any way. Regards. Kluche (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The RfC does not concern a section only, but also the infobox (where Choussudovsky has been attempted to be used) and the lede, as they summarize what the article says. The section is part of the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a separate discussion above for the infobox piece. This RFC is about the section, per nominator. --Local hero ^talk 22:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose In cases where no consensus in bibliography exists, Wikipedia describes the debate between reliable authors as it is reflected in reliable sources. per Maleschreiber and the existence of any meaningful force is clearly disputed among WP:RS. Also endorse Botushali's comment that In both the conflict of Kosovo and Macedonia, … Muslim foreigners were all labelled Mujahideen as a tactic for scaremongering and alienating the Albanian cause from the west.. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Both: include the claims from both sides, with due weight for each Jack4576 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not an adequate response to the question here. The question is whether to state in wikivoice that mujahideen were present: either it's stated in wikivoice, or it's an attributed claim. In principle we could treat both sides as attributed statements, but then that's not wikivoice for both, that's attributed for both eg. according to XYZ there were 150 mujahideen...this claim is rejected by ABC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support wikivoice. Widely covered in multiple reliable, high quality sources. Khirurg (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting to see you here after the recent edit wars on other not-so-related articles. Nonetheless, it is also widely covered in multiple reliable, high quality sources that the Mujahideen were not involved. Seems you simply didn't bother to actually read the whole disagreement. Big surprise. Botushali (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  None of the sources presented here categorically deny the presence of Mujahideen. Perhaps you should read them again more carefully. Btw you might want to want to tone down the snark and bad faith assumptions. This is not the first time. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I will not be lectured on "snark" by you - nonetheless, I am not making WP:ASPERSIONS, I am simply commenting that it is interesting that you have voted here considering you never involve yourself in these types of articles. Nothing wrong with that, you are free to vote wherever you like, that's what Wikipedia is for. Anyways, what is wrong is your logic in the vote, as there are plenty of sources that describe the Mujahideen claims as dubious allegations, hence why the presence of the Mujahideen cannot be confirmed either. If you scroll up, you just might be able to find them, and read them very carefully and slowly so you can truly grasp what they're saying. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is you who needs to read them, because none of them deny that there were mujahideen. There is a difference between "there were allegations of mujahideen" and "there were no mujahideen". And casting aspersions is exactly what you are doing, and you need to stop that. You should also read WP:BLUDGEON while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I don't see how the three sources listed are unreliable, especially Nigel. The sources clearly state that the unit fought independent of the NLA, not as a subgroup or division of the NLA. The notion that this theory is fringe doesn't have any weight as a simple Google search has unearthed two further articles [22][23]. The fact that the weight of all the articles mentioned in this discussion are in favor of the fact support its addition as a clear statement. As a precedent, Tajikistani Civil War and 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes are good examples of Mujahideen groups worked into the infobox. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Although the sources may not be unreliable in general, the claims themselves are dubious; the mujahideen claims arose from Macedonian media. There is also a considerable amount of sources challenging the mujahideen presence, too. As per WP:WIKIVOICE: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Also, in regards to your examples, those infoboxes are rather messy, complex and difficult to read. Plus, none of them specifically reference the Mujahideen, but rather Islamic Movements within the countries those conflicts took place in. Botushali (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you don't like those examples, I'll again provide Somali Civil War (2009–present), March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, Nojeh coup plot, and Kivu conflict for infoboxes that work in "alleged" actors. However, this RFC is specifically about the wikivoice piece and if we all agree to use wikivoice, we wouldn't need to have "alleged" written in the infobox.

  As has been pointed out previously and again by Khirurg today, there is a key difference between sources talking about Mujahideen fearmongering in the Macedonian media and sources talking about actual Mujahideen presence. No sources tell us that there were flat out zero Mujahideen participating in this conflict. That's the simple bottom line. --Local hero ^talk 03:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to clarify that yo my knowledge none of the sources backing up Mujahideen presence use Macedonian media as their source.

  This has been repeated multiple times in discussions above - yes there were/are unreliable Macedonian media claims of radical Islamist presence in the NLA (Taliban, Bin Laden etc.), but none are used here, only foreign reliable sources which don't connect their claims with Macedonian media claims.

  Hence why framing Mujahideen claims as arising from Macedonian media is false and unsubstantiated.

  Regards. Kluche (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose wikivoice Per arguments above, especially Pincrete. WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements". Some RS describe the Mujahideen presence as a fact, other RS describe it as an unproven allegation. Since there are two views we can't have wikivoice, but present with due weight each view in the article. Truthseeker2006 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments above.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Describe minor role of mujahedin and broader context of scaremongering in wikivoice - Going through the bibliography assembled for this discussion, I find the case for inclusion in wikivoice to be stronger, provided that the presence is described as minor and the broader context of false allegations of Al-Qaeda and Taliban ties in Macedonian media is included. The main sources that make the case for inclusion are Thomas (2006) and Tziampiris (2009), which do not appear to equivocate at all on the presence of mujahedin fighters, while describing their role as minor and rejecting further links to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Among the sources making the case against inclusion, I don't see anything that directly undermines these sources: The ICG paper (2001) is outdated, van Meurs (2013) is focused on rebutting claims of a link to Al-Qaeda/Taliban and the perceptions of US/EU policymakers vis-a-vis the Balkans, Neofotistos (2012) speaks to the general environment of paranoia in Macedonia but does not speak directly to the actual composition of NLA forces, the HRW source (2003) specifically denounces the description of seven suspects killed by Macedonian police as [linked] with the NLA and al-Qaeda, and called them "mujahideen" fighters but does not address the composition of the NLA, and Fraser (2002) explicitly equivocates on the question. So, absent top-quality RS postdating 2002 that directly dispute the presence of 150 mujahedin fighters (whether by stating categorically that there were no mujahedin or by stating that their existence is not known or cannot be verified) or valid concerns regarding the reliability of Thomas and Tziampiris, it seems appropriate to include in wikivoice both the presence of a small mujahedin detachment and its lack of ties to Al Qaeda/Taliban, as well as the misreporting of the Macedonian media regarding the latter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill: you make a good point that RS elaborating on the organization and structure of the NLA itself are needed. You are actually the first to note that in this discussion. From a quick search, I found Koksitidis & ten Dam (2018) [24] elaborating on the NLA: It is highly unlikely that the NLA exceeded the 3000 active combat- ants at its peak.92 A more moderate estimate speaks of 1,000 to 1,200.^3 The rebel group probably consisted of at least six brigades. It is doubtful whether these so-called brigades fiilly submitted to a higher authority. However, given the post-crisis influx of NLA veterans into Ahmeti's political party DUI (Bashkimi Demokratik per Integrim - Democratic Union for Integration), most regional commanders probably paid alle- giance to Ahmeti. The NLA also attracted a number of mercenaries, former 'professional' combatants from Kosovo, Bosnia and the Presevo Valley. The FYR Macedonian security services claim involvement of Mujahedin fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The mutilation and desecration of eight soldier's bodies at the Skopje-Tetovo highway massacre in Aug. 2001 indicated Mujahedin involvement as Albanians are not known for such cruelties at least up till this point. State security officials claim that the rest of the NLA comprised of local Albanian fighters who were paid or forced to participate but this allegation remains contentious. They say that the NLA was mostly local Albanians. They mention the presence of mercenaries from nearby Balkan countries. But on the Mujahideen presence, they treat it as a Macedonian claim for which the indication is the mutilation of some bodies. If such an elaborated source on the organization and structure of the NLA does not treat the Mujahideen presence as a fact, how can the article do the opposite? The article could also benefit from this source's elaboration on the total numbet of NLA's fighters. Durraz0 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  This would appear to be the strongest source opposing inclusion thus far, and if additional similar sources can be identified I would anticipate changing my !vote. As it stands, the comparative hedging of the mujahedin claim--note how it is given credible supporting evidence, in contrast to the claims of Albanian forced conscripts which are dismissed by the authors--makes me disinclined to dismiss the case for wikivoice on the basis of this source, although it does seem like a solid source for further claims regarding the composition of the NLA. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Durraz0 and Rosguill, Koksitidis & ten Dam is a good source that can be used for several things in the article. Koksitidis 2019 is even better, as it a whole study dedicated to the NLA only. If you want I to use it I can send you a copy via email (it seems to not be online without paywall). Koksitidis 2019 elaborates on the origin of the NLA, its organization and structure, links with organized crime, sources of funds and weapons, goals and strategies and so on. On the structure of its fighters and leadership, Koksitidis says: By 2000, the period when open hostilities broke out between the KLA and the Serbian forces, the KLA had grown into a large and organized militant formation with an effective logistical and financial network, thousands of new recruits, an abundance of imported weapons, and a relatively strong chain of command that united the loose association of clans forming the backbone of the guerrilla force, allowing thus for an efficient coordination of military activities beyond Kosovo. There are strong indications that the NLA drew on existing resources relating to the Kosovo conflict, providing rebels with a large pool of weapons and war-weary recruits (Heinemann-Grüder & Paes, 2001; Lund, 2005; Ripley, 2001). A high-rank state security official in the Republic of Macedonia explained that: "weapons were transferred to Kosovo after 1996—following the collapse of the Albanian pyramid investments—and then transferred to Macedonia. In 1998, small terrorist incidents (by Albanian extremists in Macedonia) included attacks against police stations and the Supreme Court. Half of that group was arrested; the other half went to Switzerland". The NLA drew heavily on connections with the former KLA, and however large the stockpiles of the NLA were, it is clear that connections to former KLA stockpiles and an extensive and active funding network provided them with many sources of weapons (Grillot, 2004). Several reported incidents and multiple arrests and weapons confiscations followed the subsequent stepping up of KFOR’s actions to seal the border with the Republic of Macedonia, thus confirming the suspicions that Kosovo was a major pool of combatants and equipment for the NLA (Koktsidis, 2014). The NLA’s ranks were comprised of a mixture of veterans and local Macedonian Albanian volunteers, adjoined by a number of mercenaries — mostly ‘professional’ combatants from Kosovo and Presevo. He then cites a regional analyst: According to UNDP regional political analyst S.O.:. . . "the force of the Albanian rebels never went more than 1,200 people. They had five so-called brigades, but the fighting force never went more than several hundreds. A 30 to 40 per cent were mercenaries from outside, mostly people who came from Bosnia and Kosovo; people whose profession was war, and who were paid for participating in rebellions. The majority of the rest 60 per cent were Albanians who fought in Kosovo, and of course some Albanians from Macedonia." Next he gives more elaboration on the role of the KLA: In our interview sessions, government officials suggested that practically the entire NLA has been made up of former KLA and UCPMB fighters. A senior government official confirmed that ‘Presevo fighters came in Macedonia … the NLA in Macedonia was a spillover result of Kosovo’s and Presevo’s exported conflicts’. The ethnic Albanian Helsinki Watch representative shares the view that the conflict in the Republic of Macedonia was, at least partly, encouraged by Kosovo radicals: ‘At the very beginning of 2001, rebels were small groups of Albanians who were born here and who later became part of the KLA in Kosovo’. However, he mentions that ‘these groups did not enjoy widespread support by the local Albanian population’. The participation of numerous leading figures among the extremists in Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia, and southern Serbia confirms the strong links between militant and radical political actors in the region. A high-rank Macedonian Slav diplomat observed that: "the logistic support came from Kosovo as people there were trained and armed. A number of people did not have jobs and the Kosovo conflict was over while reforms and progress were too slow in Macedonia, providing a fertile context for exporting rebellion." Then he elaborates on the role of the organized crim for funding and organizing the insurgency, the role of Albanian diasporaetc. Nowhere does he mention any Mujahideen force. As noted, Koksitidis & ten Dam 2008 describe the Mujahideen presence as a Macedonian claim indicated by a bodies mutilation incident. Koksitidis 2019's conclusion is that The NLA’s ranks were comprised of a mixture of veterans and local Macedonian Albanian volunteers, adjoined by a number of mercenaries — mostly ‘professional’ combatants from Kosovo and Presevo.. Why do not such detailed RS on the NLA say that the Mujahideen were part of the insurgency? Because indeed it is an unproven allegation. As Botushali and Pincrete above noted, some scaremongers described as "Mujahedeen" every foreign fighter with a Muslim background, regardless if they really had an Islamist agenda or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Koksitidis' conclusion on the NLA's composition that they were a mixture of Kosovo veterans, local Albanians and mercenaries from Kosovo and Presevo is supported by Peshkopia (2015), another source with an in-depth analysis of the conflict: Sometimes, authors use the mysterious term “foreign mercenaries” to refer to members of UÇK/KLA and UÇK/NLA; yet, during my frequent contacts with political and military leaders of both UÇK/KLA and UÇK/NLA, they have credibly dismissed any involvement of foreign fighters in the Albanian insurgency in both Kosovo and Macedonia [25]. Peshkopia dismisses the involvement of non-Albanian fighters in the conflict. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

With the addition of Peshkopia (2015) to consideration, I think I would flip over to attribute claims regarding presence/absence of mujahedin or other foreign detachments to their individual authors and include wikivoice coverage of the broader context of scaremongering. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: No reason to hide a well-sourced statement which is also essential to the context here. The closing admin should also check votes as this one [[26]] (account was 're-activated' after 9 years just to vote here)Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you’re trying to insinuate here. I’ve been continuing to read Wikipedia and decided to return before I even looked at this page. You’re literally the only user here I recognize and you’re still being a tendentious editor taking anti-Albanian positions as always even after a decade. If anybody’s voting pattern should be looked into here, it should be yours. —Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

account was 're-activated' after 9 years just to vote here Alexikoua, the editor had returned to editing before this RfC was open. Btw, before "voting" make sure you understand what the RfC is about. It is not about "hiding", but whether the Mujahideen presence should be in wikivoice or attributed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

According to this conribution log [[27]] his last edit on a wikipedia article was back in Feb 2014... This should be definitely be checked by a closing admin. I don't know what Ktrimi is trying to hide here. Even old retired accounts are allowed to contribute in wikipedia but going straight into a voting proccess after 9 1/2 years this is definitely something that should be taken into consideration.Alexikoua (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying “hide”. WP:ASPERSIONS. I’d caution you against continuing to make further claims in an attempt to discredit Ktrimi or any other editor. Botushali (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor had returned to editing on May 10 [28], this RfC was opened on May 16. going straight into a voting proccess This is not a "voting process", we are not "voting" here and the conclusion of the RfC is not decided by counting "votes". The consensus is based on the strength of arguments based on relevant policies. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per arguments presented above. AlexBachmann (talk)
• Oppose wikivoice Per WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Not only some RS describe the Mujahideen presence as an allegation, but an elaborated RS like Peshkopia, who was recently presented, entirely dismisses the presence of foreign (non-Albanian) fighters. Uniacademic (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

92.53.57.136 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The albanian NLA had around 400 dead soldiers you can confirm this by going on their 2001 conflict graveyards in Aracinovo, Grusino and Kicevo.

 Not done, you need to provide an adequate reliable source to support your suggested changes. Your anecdote regarding graveyards is not sufficient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This whole post is nonsense and lies, they never destroyed a mi 24 they only retreated 185.100.244.15 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)