Jump to content

Talk:Bosnian mujahideen/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

January 2009 text edits

Number of edits. Here are the main arguments:

Title

There is a disagreement over the title:

As I disagree with Osli about the title, it should be Mujahideen, and as I found this introduction much better, and as this article is not just reserved for Osli and his sockpuppets, I will propose my first line of introducion and include it into article. I don't understand why you, PBS, let Osli edit introduction, though I disagreed with his claims, I found he was not telling the truth, as I showed above, once again. Kruško Mortale (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Title: the article is about the Bosnian mujahideen, not mujahideen in general. As I have explained before (see above) this is in line with "Afghan mujahideen" as well as the title of Kohlmann's paper and book on the topic. Osli73 (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The title Bosnian mujahideen is blatantly wrong, it gives the false impression that the Bosnians are the mujahideens being talked about and not the foreign Muslim volunteers that the articles actually about, the article should be renamed Mujahideen in Bosnia. PRODUCER (TALK) 17:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Producer:
  1. The article is about the Bosnian mujahiden, not mujahideen in general or mujahideen who operated elsewhere (eg Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iraq och Chechnya).
  2. The title Bosnian mujahideen is taken from Kohlmann's article The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe and the book with the same title. It is also used in other articles, such as the piece by O'Neill, The taint of association in The Guardian.
  3. The logic in the title is in line with the "Afghan mujahideen" who were not necessarily of Afghan nationality but operated in Afghanistan.
  4. The article (and the articles by Kohlmann and other on the topic) deals with all mujahideen, ie including locals and not just foreign volunteers.
Osli73 (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Response
  1. The title Mujahideen in Bosnia is specific and portrays that.
  2. The ICTY doesnt use the Bosnian mujahideen title.[1]
  3. Afghan mujahideen links to Mujahideen#Afghanistan, it doesn't have its own article.
Look at Indian Mujahideen, its a group calling itself that actual name, by contrast the Mujahideen in Bosnia called themselves el-Mujahid, Bosnian mujahideen is misleading and gives the impression that its the official name. PRODUCER (TALK) 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Producer:

  1. Yes, but so does the title "Bosnian mujahideen". And since we are talking about both local Bosniak and foreign mujahideen, I believe the title "Bosnian mujahideen" better portrays the nature of the
  2. "Bosnian mujahideen" is in line with Kohlmann's article and other sources.
  3. "Bosnian mujahideen" is in line with "Afghan mujahideen", "Iraqi mujahideen" and "Chechnyan mujahideen". These are not necessarily Afghans, Iraqis or Chechnyans though they are still referred to as such.
  4. That the Afghan mujahideen don't (yet) have their own article doesn't mean the Bosnian mujahideen cannot.
  5. Use by the ICTY isn't a prerequisite for an article in Wikipedia
  6. Again, "Bosnian mujahideen" refers to both foreign and local Bosniak mujahideen, hence "Bosnian mujahideen". In addition, these units were integrated into the regural ARBiH and many of the foreigners were given Bosnian citizenship by the Sarajevo government after the war, further strengthening the case for making them Bosnian mujahideen
  7. To me, Mujahideen in Bosnian sounds more like a description rather than a title.
  8. Article titles aren't exclusively for proper names. Nowhere does the article state or imply that "Bosnian mujahideen" is an official name. In fact, mujahideen is spelled with a small "m" specifically because we are not dealing with a name of an organization. Finally, I'm not even sure "el-Mujahid" was an 'official' organization. Sounds more like an English translitteration of "the mujahideen" from Arabic.Osli73 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore I believe Bosnian mujahideen is the most suitable title for the article.

Response
  1. Bosnian mujahideen falsely implies to the average reader that the mujahdeens were exclusively Bosnians, discarding the fact that majority of them were from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey and Albania. No other article uses this type of title "form" besides the official Indian one.
  2. Nor is Kholmann, but I think I'll side with the ICTY when it comes to wording rather than a random author.
  3. A lowercase m hardly differentiates.PRODUCER (TALK) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Producer:

  1. Nationality of: The article clearly states in the first sentence that the Bosnian mujahideen included foreign volunteers.
  2. Kohlmann and ICTY: Kohlmann is a reputable researcher, publisher of the only book on the topic and a much cited paper. The ICTY does not chose another wording, I assume that since it is obvious they are talking about Bosnia they don't need to call them Bosnian mujahideen to differentiate them from say "Afghan mujahideen" or mujahideen in any other countries.
  3. Lowercase: Yes, in English the lowercase "m" definately does imply that it is not a proper name, in which a capital "M" would have been used.Osli73 (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "Bosnian mujahdeen" implies to the to the average English speaking monoglot reader that the mujahdeen were exclusively Bosnians, because mujahdeen's popular meaning in English is summed up by the ICTY source "The foreign Mujahedin differed considerably from the local population, not only because of their physical appearance and the language they spoke, but also because of their fighting methods." --PBS (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do about the title, the intro and the range for the number of mujahideen? My proposal is the following:

  1. keep the title
  2. add the range 400-20,000 with a footnote outlining the sources of the different numbers.Osli73 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Introduction: the text you are suggesting is a very clear POV. There is no clear source of why they came to fight on the side of the Bosniaks. I prefer to simply say that they "fought on the side of the Bosnian government". Otherwise we could say that Arkan's Tigers (a Serbian paramilitary group responsible for war crimes in the Bosnia in war) came to defend the Bosnian Serbs population against massacres by Muslim extremists (which is what they would claim themselves).Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

From a reply posted on the talk page now in the archive by From Kruško Mortale's reply to this issue 11:27, 8 September 2008. "Swedish guy" means Swedish guy who was editing under Swedish IP addresses at the time. --PBS (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all, Swedish guy claims that Bosnian Mujahideen is the term often used to describe Muslim volunteers, which is wrong. This term is not used at all (not even in his own sources) which means that someone wants to promote this title (original research) based on his political goals or smth else. In the version I have been reverting to, it is simply said that Mujahideen were Islamic volunteers which had come in Bosnia during the war. --Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 reply to KM: I disagree.

  1. The sources (which you do not contest or mention) do specifically refer to the "Bosnian mujahideen". In particular the choice of article name is based on the research paper and [http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaidas-Jihad-Europe-Afghan-Bosnian-Network/dp/1859738079 book] with the title "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" by terrosism expert Evan F. Kohlmann (published, among other things, in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs) on the Bosnian mujahideen and their connection with global terrorist networks.
  2. However, I agree that the exact term "Bosnian mujahideen" is not very common, but I find it to be the best possible description of the mujahideen, foreign and local, who fought in Bosnia on the Bosnian government's side in the war. This would be analogous to e.g. "Afghan mujahideen" who were not necessarily Afghan nationals. I do mention that the Bosnian mujahideen are also referred to as "El Mujahed" etc.
  3. Finally, dropping "Bosnian" would exclude the local Bosniak volunteers who participated in these units.Osli73 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "is a term used" that removes the "often"? --PBS (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Osli73 do you agree with the removal of the word often? -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Osli73 reply to anon: Absolutely, I think we should drop "often". My preferred version is that BM "is used to describe the...". Or how about a version in line with "The Bosnian mujahideen were religiously motivated Muslim volunteers, foreign and domestic, who fought on the Bosnian government's side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.". How about that.
  • First of all it puts it in past tense, since it is really a historic phenomenon.
  • Second, it explains that they were both foreign and domestic
  • Third, it clarifies that they were religiously motivated. Maybe we could even state that they were self-styled "Muslim holy warriors".
Any thoughts?Osli73 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, I left some of Osli introductio, and included some of mine. it looks ok now. Historičar (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See the numbers section motives section for a comment on motive and below that for a comment on numbers --PBS (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bosnian mujahideen, as the term is used by Kohlmann and others, refers to both foreign and local Bosniaks.Osli73 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Motives

Kruško Mortale's version contains:

They started to arrive in Bosnia after the war crimes committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians. They intended to wage a jihad against the perpetrators.3 Some of them were humanitarian workers .4 (such as Abu Hamza 5, one of the leaders), and some of them were criminals, but most of them were just fighters.

citations for the above:

As far as I can tell the first citation does not cover the sentence as it does not give section or paragraph it is difficult to tell. The closest, I could find was:

The evidence shows that foreign Mujahedin arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping their "Muslim brothers" against the Serbian aggressors. Mostly they came from North Africa, the Near East and the Middle East. The foreign Mujahedin differed considerably from the local population, not only because of their physical appearance and the language they spoke, but also because of their fighting methods. Initially, the foreign Mujahedin gave food and other basic necessities to the local Muslim population. Once hostilities broke out between the ABiH and the HVO, they also participated in battles against the HVO alongside ABiH units.

But for this to cover the motives would they not have had to come after "hostilities broke out between the ABiH and the HVO" not before? Also the source does not use the term jihad. Now they may all have come for that reason, but others may have been attracted for other reasons and to claim jihad is like claiming that those foreigners who fought with the HVO and in the paramilitary groups did so because they were on a "crusade".

I have made the point before that the first sentence is WP:SYN as it is also true that the foreign fighters arrived after many other events for example they arrived after the 1990 FIFA World Cup. However there is a quote in holy warriors in Bosnia (pdf), by Evan F. Kohlmann, on the website of Swedish National Defence College that shows that the motivation for at least one of the participants

One student, a classmate of several men who had left to seek training in Afghanistan and Bosnia, saw nothing wrong with taking up arms against the “enemies of Islam”: “You cannot turn a blind eye when Muslims are being massacred, because what will you do when it is happening on your doorstep?

Kohlmann cites Aydintasbas, Asla. “Why they can’t turn their backs on the veil.” The Independent (London). April 28, 1994. Page 22.

Perhaps the sentences could be rewritten using Kohlmann as clearly some foreign fighters arriving later to support the Bosnian Government may well have been motivated by the atrocities which were widely reported in the international news media. These details do not neccerily have to be in the lead though they could be put into the body of the article. --PBS (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with what you write above. No need to include the motive in the lead since we don't really know what motivated them. Basically, I've always assumed that they came to fight for their coreligionists / fellow Muslims in what many perceived as a war of religion. Hence the reason why the units they formed were termed "mujahideen" (ie holy warriors).Osli73 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


"Mujahideen arrival is a consequence of genocide and ethnic cleansing committed by Serbs and Croats in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 on Bosnian Muslims." Historičar, what is your source for this statement? See my comment[7] on genocide currently at the end of this page before you reply. --PBS (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not for the article to speculate about the inner motives of foreign mujahideen. We should just state that they were there to help the Bosnian government in what they believed to be a religious war.Osli73 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit duplicitous. We should just say what their motivation was but not speculate on what their motives were? Saying that they believed it was a religious war is breaching the subject of their motivation. There is no avoiding that their motivation is an inherent part of the article. But what is the contradiction here? One side is arguing that they arrived because they believed it to be a religious war. The other side is saying they arrived because there was a genocide against people of a particular religion. Seems both sides should be able to find common ground. Fairview360 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. I cannot see that we have any real information on their motives, so we should be careful about speculating.
Does Osli write that while holding his hands over his eyes so it is technically true?
  1. Mujahideen are religious warriors per definition. Given the religious nature of the Bosnian war it is a safe conclusion that they arrived for religious reasons. That is a safe NPOV comment.
So let's label Osli biased and then say by definition he is not objective and leave it at that.
  1. To state that they came to stop Serbian genocide of Bosniaks is (1) not supported by the sources I have seen and (2) if there were to be any sources stating precisely this, then we need to phrase it in such a way that it is clear that it was a matter of their opinion.
  2. In relation to point 3 above, should we state that Arkan's Tigers were motivated by (a) "protecting the Bosnian Serb minority from fundamentalist Muslims", (b) "protecting the Bosnian Serb minority from a perceived threat from fundamentalist Muslims" or c) simply state that they "fought on the side of the Bosnian Serbs"? I see no real difference.Osli73 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"that I have seen" tricky tricky...
or d) personal profit 89.146.178.165 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Motives of Arkans Tigers [8][9][10] PRODUCER (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Numbers: the 4,000-7,000 figures are based on an article in the LA Times (copied into a mailing list since the LA Times archives are a pay per view service) and 1996 book on the topic by Yossef Bodansky. According to an interview with Vlado Azinovic (a senior editor with Radio Free Europe's South Slavic and Albanian Languages Service and author of the 2007 book "Al-Qaeda In Bosnia-Herzegovina: Myth Or Present Danger?") gives a range of 3,000 to 4,000. A report by Anes Alic in the Global Terrorism Analysis (supported by the Jamestown Foundation) quotes the Bosnian Foreigin ministry as providing a figure of 6,000 foreign volunteers. Please note that these figures are for foreign volunteers only and do not include the local Bosniacs who fought alongside them in the mujahideen units set up by the Bosnian army.Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

From Kruško Mortale's reply to this issue 11:27, 8 September 2008

  • Second of all, he claims that the number of volunteers is estimated to 4000 based on POV source - Nettime mailing list archives (if it's the source at all?). Anyway I didn't have problem with it, but the problem is he also deleted the second source - Radio Free Europe book: [11] which is alternative view. In the version I have been reverting to both sources are placed in introduction:

The number of volunteers is estimated by some newspaper reports to have been about 4,000,[2] but some recent research discards such claims estimating 400 foreign volunteers.[3] --Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording from Kruško Mortale's preferred version:
The number of volunteers is still disputed (BBC - Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake [12]), from around 300 (SENSE Tribunal:ICTY - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND [13], and "Predrag Matvejević analysis".) to 1,500 (SENSE Tribunal:ICTY - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND [14]) or even more (Bosnia Seen as Hospitable Base and Sanctuary for Terrorists).
I would suggest that the number is given as a range from whatever reliable sources state. Eg "estimates vary greatly on the number of foreign Mujahideen who volunteered from 4,000 to 300." As I have pointed out before,[15] the numbers are not necessarily contradictory because during the conflict a relatively small unit may have many times that number of volunteers because of attrition rates (either a casualties or simply because the average volunteer does not stay long), so the sources are not necessarily measuring the same thing. --PBS (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Osli73 reply to the points made above:

  1. I cannot find the figure 300 in any of the links provided by KM. The link to the Bosnian Free Europe website does not include that number.
  2. Mr. Matvejević is NOT a credible source. First of all, he is not even remotely an expert in this field (he is a novelist). Second, the article is not published in a reputable publication (in fact, it appears to be a Bosniak Islamist website). Third, it is in SerboCroatian and therefore not accessible to non-speakers (such as me).
As so often in the past I find that it is worth the effort checking Osli73's assertions against real-world information. Predrag Matvejevic is Professor Predrag Matvejevic, Professor of Slavic Studies at La Sapienzia University, Rome. He is a renowned social, political and cultural commentator on European, Mediterranean and Balkan affairs, honoured by among others the French and Italian governments. Semper eadem. Opbeith (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. The LA Times article is a good source: it is an in-depth article published in a reputable newspaper. The reason for the link is because the LA Times archives are a pay-per-view service. This does not diminish the article as a source.
  2. I have nothing against quoting a range for the number of foreign fighers (provided by reputable sources). However, it is important to distinguish whether or not the figures refer to foreign mujahideen or local. Also, as PBS stated above, the higher figures I refer to include all volunteers who at one time or another fought in the Bosnian mujahideen and not at the number who fought there at any given time.Osli73 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. There was an article in The Guardian (The taint of association, Monday 14 January 2008) last year dealing with the Bosnian mujahideen. Amongst other things, it refers to the estimate of 3,000 foreign fighers (ie not including the local Bosniaks who participated in these units).Osli73 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


One of the BBC articles puts the low number at 420 visas give out "But some of those records may be less than complete". ( Alix Kroeger, Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake BBC, 15 October, 2001). So a high of whatever and a low of 400 should cover it.
This Sense Tribunal article "'Some other' Mujahideen" put the number of foreign fighters in one incident at 200 + other groups in the theatre ("According to the witness, some two hundred Mujahideen fighters from Abu Zubeir’s unit fought in Vozuca in September 1995. On 11 September 1995"). So it seems likely that the number was higher than 300 throughout the war, but without a source to back that up it is WP:SYN to use the information that way. --PBS (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The guardian article (The taint of association, Monday 14 January 2008) is an opinion piece and is not the most reliable of sources, particularly as it does not give a source for the number of 3,000 but seems to pick it out of the air. However the article includes several links to other documents one of them is holy warriors in Bosnia (pdf) (on the website of Swedish National Defence College and as such is a reliable sources) it says on page 4 "In December 1995, these terrorist commanders further profited from NATO’s interest in expelling the foreign mujahideen from Bosnia. Hundreds of veteran fighters, accused of brutal wartime atrocities and expertly trained in urban warfare, were readily granted political asylum in a collection of European countries, Australia, and Canada." This would suggest that the minimum number of fighters must have been greater than those who stayed behind in Bosnia as reported by the BBC ( Alix Kroeger, Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake BBC, 15 October, 2001), I searched the Swedish National Defence College articles but could not find the estimated number of foreign fighters in that paper.-- PBS (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
For a minimum number how about "Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake BBC, 15 October, 2001." which was 420 + 200 the minimum from Kroeger "Hundreds of veteran fighters" call it "between 600–maximum" but footnote it and mention in a footnote that several sources says between 3,000 and 4,000 and explain in another footnote the maths for the minimum number is from the BBC stay behinds pluss Kroeger's hundreds relocated. Then if we have a better source we fettle the numbers. Kruško Mortale please add your thought on this as the range ought to be one we can build a consensus over using reliable sources like the BBC etc. --PBS (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it to a range. However, I think we should try to find additional/alternative sources for the lower number. The BBC article isn't very specific.Osli73 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


New source: This article Challenges to International Security: The Case of Bosnia‐Herzegovina (published in the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy's Working Paper Series) by Vlado Azinovic, Senior Editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and author of Al Qaeda in Bosnia: Myth or Present Danger? (Sarajevo/Prague: Radio Free Europe, 2007), was presented at the Second Annual Conference on Human Security, Terrorism and Organized Crime in the Western Balkan Region, organized by the HUMSEC project in Sarajevo, 4-6 October 2007. It clearly puts the number of foreign mujahideen between 3,000-4,000. Furthermore, it writes that "The boldest estimate puts the number of foreign mujahideen in Bosnia at 15,000 to 20,000, but there is a consensus among the experts that the claim is highly exaggerated". Based on this I would propose to change the range to 3,000-4,000 with a more detailed discussion in the footnote. The 400 figure seems more and more like a WP:OR /deduction rather than a properly sourced figure.Osli73 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The article that is cited in Challenges to International Security: The Case of Bosnia‐Herzegovina for the numbers has a URL: Yossef Bodansky Some Call It Peace see the section The Islamists' Peace. Bodansky wording uses bias language. eg "Altogether, in late 1995, between 4,000 and 6,000 Islamist terrorists" so does that mean there were even more who were just combatants and not terrorists? --PBS (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply to PBS above:
  1. Bodansky states that the 3-6,000 figure Bodansky is "on top of the mujahedin forces in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim Army". So clearly, this figure does not refer to mujahideen soldiers.
  2. He then goes on to provide a figure of 15-20,000 for the number of foreign volunteers in the fighting mujahideen units: "the majority of the 15,000 to 20,000 foreign volunteers were already fully integrated into the key Bosnian Muslim units".
  3. It is this figure which Azinovic calls "exaggerated" when he cites the consensus range of 3,000-4,000 ("The number of mujahideen who fought in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 is estimated to be be-tween three and four thousand")
This means that the only really reliable specific range we have is 3-4000, supported both by the Azinov paper (the only 'academic' paper we have on the topic) and the LA Times article. In my mind, both should be regarded as good sources for this information considering that they are reputable and deal specifically with the topic (rather than providing us with tidbits which we then try to draw our own conclusions from).Osli73 (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Osli73 said: "I cannot find the figure 300 in any of the links provided by KM." Here is the link:

I cannot find the figure 300 in any of the links provided by KM. THE HAGUE, 09.09.2007. - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND - The number of foreign fighters in BH fluctuated between 300 and 1,500, he said.

I also disagree with his other claims. He is just repeating himself. Kruško Mortale (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, please read this introduction and compare it with Osli's:

Mujahideen[2][3] were foreign Muslim volunteers who fought on the Bosnian government side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. They started to arrive in Bosnia after the war crimes committed by the Serb forces on Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians. They intended to wage a jihad against the perpetrators.[4] Some of them were humanitarian workers [5] (such as Abu Hamza[6], one of the leaders), and some of them were criminals, but most of them were just fighters. The number of volunteers is still disputed[7], from around 300[8][9] to 1,500[10] or even more.[11] According to the Radio Free Europe research there are no precise statistics dealing with the number of foreign volunteers, but the number of passport or other offical document requests towards Bosnian institution by foreign volunteers, can serve as a rough approximation. According to that approximation there were 400 foreign volunteers during the Bosnian war. [12] They came mostly from North Africa, the Near East and the Middle East. When scenes of devastation and war crimes began to air on BBC television broadcasts, many British Muslims were shocked that such horrific events could take place in the context modern Europe without any Western intervention. It gave sudden and unexpected credence to the calls of violent radicals who suggested it was time for Muslims to start taking their personal security into their own hands. Dr. Zaki Badawi, the principal (at that time) of the Muslim College in London, acknowledged in early 1992, "Bosnia has shaken public opinion throughout the Muslim world more deeply than anything since the creation of Israel in 1948." [13]

  1. ^ http://www.un.org/icty/hadzihas/trialc/judgement/060315/hadz-sum060315.htm
  2. ^ Also spelt Mujahedin in a minority of articles
  3. ^ Also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid due to the fact they were organized into the El Mujahid unit during the course of the Bosnian war
  4. ^ ICTY: Summary of the judgement for Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura - [1]
  5. ^ HUMANITARIAN WORKER TURNED MUJAHIDEEN [2]
  6. ^ Veterans - Siege of Sarajevo (Part II) [3]
  7. ^ BBC - Analysis: Bosnian stability at stake [4]
  8. ^ SENSE Tribunal:ICTY - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND [5]
  9. ^ "Predrag Matvejević analysis".
  10. ^ SENSE Tribunal:ICTY - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND [6]
  11. ^ Bosnia Seen as Hospitable Base and Sanctuary for Terrorists
  12. ^ "Vlado Azinović: Al-Kai'da u Bosni i Hercegovini - mit ili stvarna opasnost?" (HTML). Radio Free Europe. Nema jednog čistog izvora iz kojeg bismo mogli izvoditi takve zaključke. Ne postoji nikakva centralna evidencija. Ono do čega sam ja došao je brojka od nekih 400 osoba koje su različitim kanalima komunicirale sa lokalnim vlastima, tražeći, naprimjer, ovjeru svojih pasoša i drugih ličnih dokumenata. Dakle, to bi bio jedan od mogućih kriterija. Drugi od mogućih kriterija jeste spisak vojne jedinice El Mudžahid. Međutim, i ta vrsta evidencije je nepouzdana, jer većina tih osoba nije ni vojnim ni civilnim vlastima otkrivala svoj pravi identitet. Tako da ne znamo ni koliko ih je bilo, ni ko je sve ovdje bio," ističe Hećimović." (Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian)
  13. ^ The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe, by Evan F. Kohlmann

As I disagree with Osli about the title, it should be Mujahideen, and as I found this introduction much better, and as this article is not just reserved for Osli and his sockpuppets, I will propose my first line of introducion and include it into article. I don't understand why you, PBS, let Osli edit introduction, though I disagreed with his claims, I found he was not telling the truth, as I showed above, once again. Kruško Mortale (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See the section above #Title--PBS (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Osli also wrote: "Bosnian mujahideen describes the Muslim volunteers ...". It doesn't describe anything, neither in the sources, nor in the common speach. It's simply Mujahideen that came in Bosnia...Kruško Mortale (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Krusko, I disagree with both the content of your arguments and the style of your edits:
  1. Title: the article is about the Bosnian mujahideen, not mujahideen in general. As I have explained before (see above) this is in line with "Afghan mujahideen" as well as the title of Kohlmann's paper and book on the topic.
  2. Numbers: You have not adressed any of the discussion on this topic or the sources presented (see below).
  3. Style: Again, you make controversial edits without presenting presenting any arguments or participating in any discussion. This is especially inappropriate in a situation where we are trying to have a structured and sensible discussion/process. You don't present any structured arguments for your edits, just general statements like "I found this introduction much better", "this article is not just reserved for Osli and his sockpuppets" and "he was not telling the truth".
I'll leave it to others to deal with your edit/behavior and focus on the discussion for now.Osli73 (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you avoid anything not according to your vision. You said: "I cannot find the figure 300 in any of the links provided by KM." Now I am giving you the link THE HAGUE, 09.09.2007. - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND and the quote about the numbers- The number of foreign fighters in BH fluctuated between 300 and 1,500, he said. and you repeat the same story again; and I am sorry but you cannot talk "This is especially inappropriate", because you are the one who edited this article with user:Erikarver and a number of other IPs. Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Osli73 For points other than those to do with the numerical range please discuss them in the appropriate sections this section is here to focus on the numerical range.
User:Kruško Mortale, I too could not find the 300 because if you look at the URL under the two footnote above that start "SENSE Tribunal:ICTY - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND" http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=10225&kat=3 and the one you give above for "THE HAGUE, 09.09.2007. - WE FOUGHT WITH THE BH ARMY, BUT NOT UNDER ITS COMMAND" just before the quote is http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=10209&kat=3 (note the difference pid=10225 and pid=10209. They are different pages which is why Osli73 could not find the number.
So now that we have a minimum number of three hundred Osli73 will you accept that as the minimum number for the range and will you Kruško Mortale accept the 4000 for the upper limit? --PBS (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Replies to KM and PBS:
  1. Title: KM, you still have not replied regarding your motives for change of title from "Bosnian mujahideen" to just "Mujahideen". If you recall the WP:DEL discussion back in early 2008 the outcome was to keep the title as "Bosnian mujahideen".
  2. Numbers: Yes, now that we have a source I think we should have the range. However, if we are to include the lower end of the range we should also include the higher end of the range (15,000-20,000 provided by Bodansky). The footnote could then set out the different figures and what the sources for them are.
  3. Style: First of all, KM, why the deletion of the entire intro just recently? Second, KM, will you agree to the current editing process? Otherwise there really is no point in trying to have a discussion. Moreover, the basis should be the original version of the article, or at least the last version submitted to Wiki peer review during the WP:DEL process in January 2008.Osli73 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Title: I havent changed the title. You created that title, it didn't exist before that. It's original research. Provide me any relaible source to support your title before the date of creating this article. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Numbers: Disagree. You said for Predrag Matvejevic, he was NOT a credible source. Based on what? According to your logic, I say, Bodansky is NOT a credibal source, he is politician with biased Israeli-American POV. And we have seen recently how America made up a reason for the war in Iraq, based on terrorism allegation. The attack on Gaza was based on the same terrorism allegation pattern. Propaganda is the problem, to quote Predrag Matvejevic. That's the only reason you said he was NOT a credible. Serb propaganda, even American anti-Muslim propaganda is something we have to avoid here. Juan Carlos Antúnez in his 2007 report wrote: Bosnian Serb and Serbian media outlets regularly misappropriate such reporting, and the information is generalized to the point of suggest that Bosnia-Herzegovina is a significant threat to ethno-national security because it allegedly harbours foreign Islamic terrorists. [16]. Vlado Azinovic said the same thing related to foreign fighters. Predrag Matvejevic said the same thing. If I understand your contribution here, your main goal is in line with Serb propaganda. So, I can say the same thing as you said, you still have not replied regarding YOUR motives here. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Style: The basis should be the current article, because there is no "original version". When I started to edit this article I started to change the version which was actual then, so your proposal doesn't make any sense. Articles change all the time. I don't understand what do you mean about deletion of the intro?! You deleted very good introducion and replaced it with a few unreliable sentences? Why did you delete the introduction (the one I copied above)? Which part was wrong? Please explain me that? Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to KM above:

  1. Title: The title is used by people such as Kohlmann and in line with the logic in terms such as "Afghan mujahideen" or "Iraqi mujahideen". I feel it is an appropriate title for an article about a subset of mujahideen in a specific country.
  2. Numbers: Matvejevic is a novelist while Bodansky is a researcher used by the US government. I agree that terms such as "mujahideen", "nazi" and "chetnik" were used/exaggerated for propaganda purposes during the Bosnian war. That does not mean they did not exist.
  3. Style: all I am asking is that you try to engage in a discussion and try to cite real sources (ie not statements by a fiction novelist on a Bosniak Islamist website) instead of opinions (eg "serb" and "anti muslim propaganda"). I have explained above why I edited the introduction.Osli73 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Historičar You added to the article "There were probably around 300 Mujahideen[2] or some more." Why do you emphasise the lowest number you could find, and not put in a range? Please read the conversation above and the sources provided and see if you could come up with a more balanced sentence and add it to the article.--PBS (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Ok, I have adjusted the introduction, including the numbers/range.

  1. I have used a small "m" in mujahideen to signify that it is not a proper name
  2. I mention the figure 4,000 in the text as it appears to be the figure used by most sources on the topic
  3. In the footnote I provide the range 400 mentioned by the BBC in relation to how many were allowed to stay on after the war as well as the 15-20,000 figure cited by BodanskyOsli73 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Historičar how do you justify 300-1500 when other neutral sources like the BBC that suggest that the minimum was 400? Where does the 1500 come from and why have you not put in a higher number given in other sources? --PBS (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the text regarding numbers to state that most estimate the no of foreign mujahideen to have been about 4000 (but that the figures are uncertain). Further estimates are provided in the footnote. It is based on the following:

  1. Bodansky states that the 3-6,000 figure Bodansky is "on top of the mujahedin forces in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim Army". So clearly, this figure does not refer to mujahideen soldiers.
  2. He then goes on to provide a figure of 15-20,000 for the number of foreign volunteers in the fighting mujahideen units: "the majority of the 15,000 to 20,000 foreign volunteers were already fully integrated into the key Bosnian Muslim units".
  3. It is this figure which Azinovic calls "exaggerated" when he cites the consensus range of 3,000-4,000 ("The number of mujahideen who fought in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 is estimated to be be-tween three and four thousand")
  4. This means that the only really reliable specific range we have is 3-4000, supported both by the Azinov paper (the only 'academic' paper we have on the topic) and the LA Times article. In my mind, both should be regarded as good sources for this information considering that they are reputable and deal specifically with the topic (rather than providing us with tidbits which we then try to draw our own conclusions from).Osli73 (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yossef Bodansky, Research Director of the International Strategic Studies Assocation (ISSA), has described the figure of 7,000 deaths in the Srebrenica genocide as "disinformation" and claimed that "all independent forensic evidence points to Muslim casualties [at Srebrenica] in the hundreds".

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/issa091803.htm and elsewhere.

I suggest that any reference to Bodansky as a source worth referring to where numbers are concerned is mere time-wasting. It doesn't take much more than a couple of moments to check out where people are coming from and how reliable they can be considered, so why is there so much willingness to factor nonsense into Wikipedia discussions? Opbeith (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Bosnian War: The first two paragraphs are a diversion into the background of the Bosnian War (which diverts in important points from the main article text and is full of POV commentary). This is covered better in the main article (which there is a link to). Comments such at that by general Stjepan Šiber are unsourced and Predrag Matvejević is not a reputable source (he is a novelist/fiction writer, writing an opinion article on a Bosnian Islamist website).Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


I've made some edits to the section with the following motivations:

  1. 1st para: I've deleted the entire first para about the origin of the Bosnian war. There is no reason to expound on it in this article (especially since there is a link to the rather good Bosnian war article). I cannot see that it improves the reader's information about the Bosnian mujahideen.
  2. 2nd para: I've deleted this as well. It is mainly a continuation of the first, listing Serb (and Croat) misdeeds with no relation to the Bosnian mujahideen. Somehow you get the feeling the first two paragraphs have been put there to 'justify' the Bosnian mujahideen's consequent actions. It's as when Serb nationlists feel the need to bring up Bosniak SS Handzar and Croat Ustasa crimes during WWII to justify their actions. Please, let's stay focused.
  3. 3rd para:the text states that the foreign mujahideen came to help the Bosniaks "defend themselves". First of all, we don't know why they came, even if they themselves believed this was the case, we cannot state it as a matter of fact and third, again, this seems to be more about justifying the Bosnian mujahideen misdeeds/existence in the war.
  4. 4th para: although I have no problem about mentioning the difficulties in integrating the Bosnian mujahideen in the ARBiH, this needs to be balanced, especially considering that by 1993 they had been formally integrated into the Bosnian army.
  5. I have shortened the background information in the section considerably (it's all in the Bosnian war article) and focused the text on the date of arrival of the foreign mujahideen, how they were organized (first informally and then formally as part of the ARBiH) and the including a short comment on their military effectiveness by Holbrooke.

If you have any comments to this, please respond here on the talk page.Osli73 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mujahideen units

Mujahideen units: the statements in this section are completely unsourced/is all original research.Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have deleted this section. Two reasons:

  1. It somehow writes off Bodansky, who provides quite extensive information on Bosnian mujahideen units, as "anti-Muslim" without any evidence at all.
  2. It claims that the ICTY found that "only one" Bosnian mujahideen unit was formed - the El Mujahed. However, the source does not at all state that, it just talks about the Bosnian mujahideen unit involved in the war crimes which the case relates to: "The Appeals Chamber found that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hadžihasanović had effective control over the El Mujahedin detachment. It accordingly found, contrary to what had been pleaded in the Indictment, that he could not be held responsible as a superior for the crimes committed by the members of the El Mujahedin detachment. As part of its reasoning, the Appeals Chamber noted that the relationship between the 3rd Corps headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mujahedin detachment was not one of subordination but was instead “close to overt hostility since the only way to control the … detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force”." Osli73 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

Propaganda: I have no problem mentioning that the Bosnian mujahideen figured in Serb (and Croat) wartime propaganda. However, first of all this needs to be properly sourced (today it is only based on the self-published writings in Serbocroation on an Islamist website by a Predrag Matvejević, and by a number of Serbocroatian language websites, which, given the controversy surrounding this, is not sufficient). Second, it really only needs to be mentioned very briefly. Please note that none of the Enlglish language sources which specifically deal with the issue deal with their use in Serb wartime propaganda. Your use of Predrag Matvejević (who is prosaist and all around 'intellectual' and by no means an export on the topic) as a souce, especially one in Serbocroatian on an islamist website, is not a sufficient/appropriate source.Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some changes:

  1. I have taken out the long discussion about Bosnian Serb and Croat villification of Bosniaks before and during the war. Again, we should focus on the Bosnian mujahideen not the war in general.
  2. Matvejević is not a credible source (he is a fiction novelist, for God's sake). His views really are WP:OR.
  3. I have added the information about Bosnian Serb use of the mujahideen for political purposes below the section commenting on their military effectiveness: Although their military effectiveness is likely to have been limited their existence were often used for political purposes by Bosnian Serb media, which often referred to "mujahideen" and "Green Berets"Osli73 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to the Bosnian government army (ABiH)

Relationship to the Bosnian government army (ABiH): the Bosnian mujahideen certainly were part of the command structure of the Bosnian Army. Please take a look at the sources: the American Conservative writes "According to a UN communiqué of 1995, the battalion was “directly dependent on BiH staff for supplies” and for “directions” during combat with the Serbs." If you read the ICTY judgements of Kabura that will be quite clear as well (especially after 13 August when the El Mujahed unit was officially formed as part of the 7th Mountain Brigade of the 3rd Corps of ARBiH).Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources presented do not support your assertion that "the Bosnian mujahideen certainly were part of the command structure of the Bosnian Army" what they show is that as the war progressed some elements --possibly most-- of the foreign fighters were under the command structure of the Bosnian Army, but it is not clear that they all were, or if in some cases their intergration was ever more than nominal. The best source to support what I am saying -- although it does not cover the whole period -- is the Summary of the judgement for Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, but a number of other detailed sources presented on this talk page also say the same thing. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to PBS above: Of course we cannot be 100% certain that some Bosnian mujahideen did not continue to fight outside of the control of the ARBiH. However, after it appears the vast majority were integrated as early as by late 1993. Azinovic writes this in the Humsec paper I refer to above (see Numbers section). He writes "Initially, they were not under the control of the Bosnian military, but fought alongside Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims); however, in September 1993, the mujahideen were integrated into the Bosnian Army’s 3rd Corps under the name El-Mujahideen Unit." The court's findings Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura case does not negate this as it concerns itself with the degree of Bosnian government control before September 1993. What it finds is that although the mujahideen units cooperated with the ARBiH they were not under their full control. The degree of control after September 1993 is not in question. I would also urge you to read Ch. 3, Part I of Yossef Bodansky's book "Some Call it Peace" on the presence of the mujahideen in the ARBiH.Osli73 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

War crimes investigation

War crimes investigation: the text is misrepresenting the ICTY judgement. It did not find that the BM had not committed war crimes. What it found was that it could not prove a sufficiently strong link between the units in question and the ARBIH commanders formally responsible for them at the time. Please if you doubt me. If anyone disagrees/has any comments, pls add these below.Osli73 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

I reverted to the version befor Osli made changes, because it is proven that user:Erikarver which edited this article as well is Osli73's second account. According to Osli's log, he was already blocked once because of sockpuppet accounts, he also used different IPs in edit war, after that he made another account which is blocked?! And he is now supposed to be co-operative?! Come on?! Kruško Mortale (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For more information -> Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Osli73_(2nd). Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale Comment on the text not the editor, the comments such as you have made above are not justification for reverting an article. FYI using a number of addresses is not banned. The use of multiple addresses as sock puppets is -- i.e. to deceive other editors -- that is to use multiple addresses in polls or as a tag team either to circumvent the 3RR rule (or similar) or to make it appear that there is more editors than there are taking a similar position in the edit history or on the talk page. --PBS (talk)
Osli73 created account Erikarver he used in this revert war [17], which means he should be blocked. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, you just repeat the same questions without answering mine, cause I already answered yours [18]. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi KM, I can't see that you've answered any of these points. If you have, please feel free to copy-paste those below in order to justify your preferred version of the article. Untill you do so, I can't see that there is any argument for keeping it (ie your version).Osli73 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Kruško Mortale The earlier discussion is confused and all jumbled up. I have put Osli73 questions into sections. You can all ways cut and past answers in if you want to if you feel that point is answered already answered, and please add any additional points you think need discussing in a new section between the sections War crimes investigation and Other comments (this section). --PBS (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am aware you are trying to help Osli73 as you did before all the time, but isn't it obvious now, come on PBS, he was using account Erikarver here to deceive other editors i.e. to make it appear that there is more editors.
Regarding your suggestion about discussion, I think that is just another justification for status quo. I can't see that there is any argument for keeping Osli73 version, because this one is much better, it is well explained in the discussion, Osli73 just has to continue it, not to paste the same questions over and over. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Krusko, a couple of points:
  1. simply writing that you "can't see that there is any argument for keeping Osli73 version, because this one is much better" is not a sufficient answer. Please engage in discussion instead of avoiding it.
  2. I'm sorry if you feel frustraded - believe me, I do to. However, we have to try to create a structured discussion.
  3. Focus on the text - play the ball, not the player!
Osli73 (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You both (Osli73 and Kruško Mortale) could be considered to be in breach of the 1RR rule as it is partial reverses of another editors edits not just all of the edit. So rather than block you both, I have reverted the changes to the first one that Osli73 made at 10:03, 11 January 2009 but with the correct template. I will consider all the other edits since that initial edit null and void. Kruško Mortale I expect you to engage in a good faith discussion of the changes to the lead/introduction made by the 2009-11-01-10:03 edit and not simply revert them. Osli73 I do not expect you to make any other changes to this page until you have given Kruško a day or so to engage in a conversation about the changes you have made. Kruško please do not start another section but address you concerns in the section above 14.1 Introduction --PBS (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, since neither KM or PRODUCER seem interested in a structured discussion I will assume that they do not have any arguements. So, if you do, please comment a s a p. Otherwise, I see no reason not to edit the article in line with my arguments here.Osli73 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Osli73 there is no point going back to an earlier protected version, as that just gets us back to where we started particularly as the last protected version is one of two that have been edit warred over for months, and inevitably the last protected version is the the wrong version. I suggest that instead of doing that you incrementally change the version we have. For example expand the range as you suggested in the numbers section above. If you edit constructively, I will consider you edits at 06:06 and 06:08, 28 January 2009, null and void as far as the 1RR is concerned. --PBS (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RV

Hey! Is there any admin alive?! I've just seen the guy (osli73) who is trying to destroy articles he dislikes, he'd deleted half of introduction in Bosnian War, he moved to another article where he'd done the same thing, and another, and now this one...Historičar (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you pls stop your personal attacks whenever someone does not agree with you. I have explained why I have edited the article intro.Osli73 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I waNT to inform community, User:Osli73 deleted article 7th Muslim Brigade and redirected it to Bosnian Mujahideen. He said those are the same thing, which is false. 7th Brigade is regular brigade in Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mujahideen were not regular soldiers. Every one knows taht! Stop your lies, please! Historičar (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

this ICTY source contradicts your statement, but please keep these arguments in the appropriate sections above. --PBS (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also decided to make some edits here. I think it must be mentioned WHY mujahideen came in BOSNIA. AND THEY CAME BECAUSE SERBS STARTED A GENOCIDE ON BOSNIAN MUSLIMS!! Historičar (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are sections above for discussing the different section in the article, please use them. You have added "Mujahideen arrival is a consequence of genocide and ethnic cleansing committed by Serbs and Croats in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 on Bosnian Muslims." Please source it with reliable non biased source, or remove it. For example this ICTY source says "The evidence shows that foreign Mujahedin arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping their "Muslim brothers" against the Serbian aggressors." which is a long way from coming because of genocide (the only generally accepted genocide happened at Srebrenica in 1995, which was towards the end of the war) --PBS (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I included your suggestion about agressors, as well Osli's intro sentence. Osli is reverting back to his version just in different way. He goes section by section copying his parts. I can do the same if you want me, but it isn't the right logic, is it? I want that we go step by step.Historičar (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are sections above for discussing the different section in the article, please use them. --PBS (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the text and sources in the section are quite clear in that there were links between the Bosnian mujahideen and Islamic terrorism. The report (and book) by Kohlmann is even clearer on this (please read the article). So, I would like to find a heading which is a bit more certain the "speculation" given the amount of evidence on the matter. That some of these links have been exaggerated by some for political purposes is another matter (which could also be explained).Osli73 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Untitled

explicitly agreed not to use IP addresses when editing Balkans articles.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 this page is protected from editing by new users and unregistered uses for six months -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 - February 2009

Numbers

For previous discussion see /Archive 4#Numbers
So then what does wikipedia do with sources like MacKenzie? Fairview360 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Predrag Matvejević

By what criteria is his opinion relevant??--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of background material

I've reverted BobbytheMazarin's undiscussed deletion of the background to the arrival of the "mujahideen". Information about Bosnia and the Bosnian Muslims being the target of the Greater Serbia project and Croat opportunism and the the impact of non-intervention by the international community is crucial to the context. I agree that some careful rewriting and thoughtful abbreviation would be useful but nevertheless the background information is essential. Opbeith (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lull in the discussion

The following are current discussions. One should not archive discussions with recent comments. See archive policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page

"It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large.

Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus for each case. If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in discussion, thus maintaining the context of a discussion by not cutting it off in progress."

Archiving discussions that are obviously active without consensus is not consistent with wiki policy. Fairview360 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As user:Osli73 is no longer involved in these discussions.[19] I have archived the page as there is little point in continuing the previous sections which were structured to try to reach a consensus between his POV and those of some other editors. The cleanest thing to do was to archive the page those still involved in editing this page can start new sections as they become necessary. --PBS (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS has no right to unilaterally archive active discussions. There is obviously not a consensus on archiving these discussions. The page, as is, is not too large. It appears Osli73 is not banned from discussion pages but rather editing and may wish to continue these discussions. Even if Osli73 is not interested in these discussions, other editors may wish to continue these discussions. Fairview360 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Until such time as Osli73 agrees not to use IP addresses I would not consider it appropriate for him to edit Balkans article talk pages.

Besides as no one but you have posted to this page in the last few days and no one has posted a reply to your question there clearly is a lull in the discussion. clearing the page and starting a new discussion makes it more likely that your question will be spotted. So I am yet again removing the archived text. --PBS (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Osli behavior does not change truth of his words. Philip Baird Shearer and all editors here are against him. But they can attack the way he acts but not erase what he says. Fairview is fool but now he says right thing. Philip Baird Shearar have no reason to delete Osli edits or put them where no person look.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.104.254 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 February 2009
I am neither for or against Osli73. The talk page was twice the size of the recommended size for a page, so it was time it was archived. Osli postings are not erased they are archived. If anyone wants to continue the discussion they can do so by linking to the old section in the archive and making a new point, but talk pages get archived and there is no reason why this one should not be. --PBS (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, why do you act so arbitrarily? Fairview360 made a perfectly reasonable comment. I haven't been able to visit here recently. Now I have to go digging in the archive to find out what's gone on. You didn't have to archive everything, that's just inconsiderate. Opbeith (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No reply, either. Opbeith (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Still not bothered to reply, another year later. Opbeith (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PBS writes, and having writ, moves on. Another year and a half. Opbeith (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin & motives

Currently the article states that "some" of the mujahideen were humanitarian workers or criminals. A bit odd to only state the exceptions on not that most were "foreign volunteers from Europe seeking to wage a jihad, or “holy struggle”, against the Christian Serbs and Croats." (According to an article by Kohlman on the topic which i found) http://www.aina.org/reports/tabmnie.pdf Bobbythemazarin (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Shia involvement

There's an constant act on this page by the people who non-stop remove information on the Shia involvement in the Bosnian War. We all understand that the Saudi wahhabism spreads like a wildfire across Bosnia nowadays, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be censored too. Sourced fragment that is constantly removed:

Aside from the Sunni and Wahabi mujahideen, Shia Iran was one of the very first Muslim countries to provide support for besieged Bosniaks (predominantly Sunni Muslim, and ascribe to the Hanafi school of thought). Iran supplied two-thirds of the total received in weapons and ammunition by the Bosnian Muslim forces during the 1992-95 war. From May, 1994 to January, 1996, Iran transported over 5,000 tons of weapons and military equipment to Bosnia.[18] Iran not only sent much needed supplies but also fighters. Lebanese Shia Hezbollah had also its fighters in the Bosnian war. Robert Baer, a CIA agent stationed in Sarajevo during the war, later claimed that “In Sarajevo, the Bosnian Muslim government is a client of the Iranians . . . If it’s a choice between the CIA and the Iranians, they’ll take the Iranians any day.” By war’s end, public opinion polls showed some eighty-six percent of the Bosnian Muslim population expressed a positive attitude toward Iran.[19] All Shia foreign advisors and fighters withdrew from Bosnia at the end of conflict.

Sources include:

[18] http://serbianna.com/blogs/savich/archives/56

Serbianna is a blog by the Carl Kosta Savich, a Serbian-American historian whose work has been cited on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website in Washington DC and the Holocaust and Genocide Studies website of the University of Minnesota, among some. His approach towards the topic of Croats, Albanians or Bosniaks can be biased but he has no reason to favor any Islamic school over different, moreover, articles criticizes Iran's involvement in the Balkans.

[19] http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/iran-balkans-history-and-forecast

World Affairs Journal is a US based, highly respected, scholarly magazine that takes no sides.

As per Wikipedia's rules. If information on the Shia involvement will keep being constantly removed without giving any credible justification, then the article should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Savich's Serbianna blog is not even worth discussing. But nice try. Yes, World Affairs is respected, but it doesn't prevent its editors from writing opinionated/editorialized pieces. That is quite often the purpose of magazines. Gordon N. Bardos operates on the hypothesis, or P-O-V, that Iran maintained intimate connections with the Bosnian government, and that is entirely fine. But until he publishes a recognized and substantiated systematic analysis of such an hypothesis (i.e. a reliable source) his claims only remain a personal view, and is of little to no relevance to an encyclopedic article, alike Robert Bauer's statement. Opinions and personal beliefs are in fact a dime (you'd be suprised by how many columnists there are out there), but completely irrelevant if not somehow related to a scholarly analysis. Or do you want to write "Bardos of World Affairs thinks the Bosnians collaborated with the Iranians, and therefore quotes CIA agent Bauer as saying "If it’s a choice between the CIA and the Iranians, they’ll take the Iranians any day"..." You've proved absolutely nothing, but simply given two POVs. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 03:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Youtube as a source?

The source for several claims about Abu Hamza Rabia, is a Youtube of an Al Jazeera documentary (I didn't have time/wasn't willing to watch all of it). A Google search of 'Abu Hamza Rabia Bosnia' had two hits that actually mentioned 'Bosnia', both of them WP pages. Doesn't such a claim need better sourcing? Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've left an enquiry here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_online_video_as_source_on_Bosnian_mujahideen there are other issues with this text as we are linking to the dab Abu Hamza which could mean Abu Hamza Rabia OR Abu Hamza al-Masri, who is a BLP, though unlikely to complain about being portrayed as leader of Bosnian mujahideen.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update, for the time being, I've removed the offending text, until we at least know WHICH Abu Hamza and whether there is better info.Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen - event sequence and bias in article

Article states that "Following the declaration of independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs attacked different parts of the country." But there was a event on day of declaration of independence that preceded Serbs reaction. Muslims members of Green berets paramilitary Islamic formation attacked wedding ceremony on 01.03.1992. attended by Serbs and killed one Serb and wounded Serb orthodox priest. This was a first killing that led later to full scale war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After that came talks between Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic and Serbs uprising that in first moment was consisted with various political declarations and setting up barricades in order to protect predominantly Serbs neighborhoods in big cities and villages with Serbs that bordered villages with Muslim population. No attacks by Serbs was carried and there is no mention that author of Islamic Declaration who led Bosnia Muslims rejected all plans even one that he signed that could lead to peaceful resolution of crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina prior declaration of independence that led to thousands of mujaheddin flock Bosnia. Role in inviting foreign fighters by author of Islamic Declaration and his stances about other factions in Bosnia war is very little explained. All crimes commit-ed by mujaheddin in absence of ICTY stronger verdicts and trials are explained in article section called "propaganda". If no indictment by any court in world automatically means that there is no crime then something is wrong with such approach. On numerous occasion ICTY has shown biased approach against Serbs to such extent that they had to remove their own judges in some proceedings. No verdict doesn't means there were no crimes or how to explain that there is not a single indictment against Belgian King Leopold II or for criminals who were cutting organs from Serbs in Kosovo (court for war crimes in Kosovo still is not formed and no one is sentenced despite criminals are known) and many others cases. There is no mention in this article how Islamic Declaration written in last century late 60' inspired mujaheddin around the world and why many of terrorist including Islamic State is using many postulates from that declaration as their view of Islamic world. There is no mention in article prior to so called "Serbs attacked different parts of the country" Muslim Patriotic league had 120.000 members divided into paramilitary brigades. Or what Muslim and Croats did to Serbs in WWII a one major event that was in memories of many Serbs living in Bosnia when Muslims started to do everything that is needed to again provoke war.

A reader of this could conclude that cutting heads of Serbs and Croats and numerous other crimes by Mujaheddin and their supporters in Bosnia despite many evidence and documentary videos made by many televisions or mujaheddin while committing war atrocities and all other findings are pure propaganda and never happened because they lack a verdict.

Article in start obliviously intend to present that Serbs attacked different parts of Bosnia without any reason and on very biased ways. Like there was not any previous events that led them to defend their life's in country they lived because they with reason feel threatened and even murdered. There is no mention that in Bosnia Serbs where constitutional nation and without their approval any declaration of independence was illegitimate.

This article in way it is composed when you start to read it leads a reader in such way they is clearly not neutral and is following one pattern - that Serbs stated war without reason and Muslim was only a victims that need to defend themselves and Mujaheddin are some innocent faction of people because they are not indicted.

I tried to balance such approach in this article by changing part of article by citing facts about events sequence and give different view of court procedures in light of existing facts about crimes committed - all with appropriate references - but article was always for different reasons revised to previous state and never was discussed here what was inappropriate in my edits or references. 178.149.27.251 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bosnian mujahideen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLE and specifically WP:NAMINGCRITERIA

WP:TITLE and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA

My question would be simple and in the spirit of neutrality: were these people Bosnians and are they still present there in a same role they played during Bosnian War? If "no" is the answer to my first question, another follows: why is this article then titled "Bosnian Mujahideen", since the name is extremely suggestive and could mislead readers to conclude they were/are Bosnians them self indeed, which, then, is by itself problematic regarding WP:NPOV, WP:TITLE and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, among other. There is no previous history of the phenomenon in the country and among its Muslim population - as suddenly appeared during the war they disappeared afterward. Title which tries sneakingly to insert suggestion that they were Bosnian phenomenon is highly contentious and can't help the cause.--౪ • • • ౪• • • 99° ४ 21:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Santasa99, this is your second undiscussed move of the article. Please request a move as per process.--Zoupan 09:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

3rd Corps and 7th Brigade

Re this edit. The text says explicitly that the mujahideen were not in any sense officially connected to the 3rd Corps or 7th Brigade: "the foreign Mujahedin established at Poljanice camp were not officially part of the 3rd Corps or the 7th Brigade" and

"the ICTY Appeals Chamber in April 2008 concluded that the relationship between the 3rd Corps of the Bosnian Army headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mudžahid detachment was not one of subordination but was instead close to overt hostility since the only way to control the detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force"

Are there refs that contradict this?Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That is actually not sourced. The reff 17 just links to the ICTY main page. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Your first statement is also badly sourced, it is the reff 11 which should point out the page. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Page 6 of the reff 11 actually says:
"During the months preceding the establishment of the El Mujahed detachment, the Trial Chamber finds that the foreign Mujahedin established at Poljanice camp were not officially part of the 3rd Corps or the 7th Brigade of the ABiH. However, as regards the “local” Mujahedin, the Chamber found that some of them belonged de jure to units of the 3rd Corps. The same goes for members of the 7th and 306th Brigade, such as Ramo Durmiš, who left their own units to join the Mujahedin at Poljanice camp."
"In terms of the de facto relationship between the Mujahedin and the 3rd Corps, the Chamber pointed out that there are significant indicia of a subordinate relationship between the Mujahedin and the accused prior to 13 August 1993."
Leaving out the "However..." part mentioned just next seems cherry-picking. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Page 9 of same source says further more:
"The Trial Chamber was furthermore of the opinion that, as soon as the El Mujahed detachment was incorporated into his forces, the accused had information allowing him to conclude that there was a real and reasonably foreseeable risk of violations by members of the El Mujahed detachment. He was familiar with their violent and dangerous behaviour. He did not instruct the members of the detachment in complying with the most basic rules of international humanitarian law. In spite of this alarming information, he decided to gain military advantage with the detachment although nothing compelled the 3rd Corps to use the Mujahedin in combat."
Seems they were incorporated. FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
This points to some connections between some BM - this isn't the same thing as ALL the BM being officially part of the 3rd and 7th - which is what including in the infobox implies. Either way, the full position should be in the text before it is in the infobox (which is meant to be a summary of text). Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Taliban flag from the infobox

The infobox contained a black flag, crowded with a phrase, in Arabic. I clicked on the flag, and the image description said it was the Taliban's flag. Well, that didn't seem right. So I trimmed it. Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen/Archive_4&oldid=1223934888"