While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Lavdrim Muhaxheri is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Hi GrammarFascist, regarding your comments about my article on Lavdrim Muhaxheri, I added it as an open draft prior to submitting it, then other users have been able to edit it. I will check the references and update any missing reference. I'll have this done later this week. Thank you for your input and pardon the missing references. Regards, Kewin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KewinLiam (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello KewinLiam, I guess this is the account you prefer to use to discuss the article rather than KewinRozz? It's really a team effort now, with a number of contributors, including Werldwayd and several other users who made minor edits like fixing links that needed disambiguation. Arjayay has been doing great work keeping a persistent vandmaker of unconstructive contributions to the article at bay. Speaking of which, you might want to be careful to check what edits were made most recently before beginning your own edits — I'm going to have to revert some more unconstructives manually, because your intervening edits mean that I can't just use the "undo" feature. Not a big deal, but something I wanted to be sure you were aware of.
Also, you shouldn't remove sources (like you did with the sources substantiating which countries' media had covered Muhaxheri) unless the sources added by another editor are unreliable sources, or are inappropriate for some other reason. At the very least you should give a reason for deleting a source in the edit summary, on the article talk page, or both.
Anyway, thanks for creating the article and continuing to work on it! To be honest I found the subject unpleasant, but worked on the draft because Muhaxheri seemed like someone there should be a Wikipedia article about. But I'll keep an eye out for as long as the unconstructive IP editor seems determined to make the article worse. And if you want help with anything, do feel free to ask. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk20:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see your point. Regardless, because other reliable media established that the bazooka/RPG video was believed to depict Muhaxheri, I considered it worthwhile to include coverage of the video even if it didn't mention Muhaxheri by name, just to show that Muhaxheri's video was covered by media in the various countries; it's still him in the video, and apparently him who released the video online.I got confused there; all the sources in the sentence "The vast majority of publications on Muhaxheri come from Kosovo and Serbian media, but his case has also been highlighted by Arab, Australian, German, Greek, Italian, Kurdish, Spanish, Turkish, and UK media." do mention Muhaxheri by name. So I'm not clear on your objection there. If you disagree, perhaps we should take this to the article's talk page and invite other editors into the discussion there.
Regarding the Independent article, I just don't see where you're getting "uncensored" there. I've read the article 5 or 6 times now looking for it, and even used Firefox's find-in-page function, and cannot find any mention of "censored", "uncensored" or any variation. Could you maybe tell me the exact sentence you're looking at?
I just finished making an edit to the article, mostly to revert/correct the IP user's interpolations, but I changed some of your edits too, I think. I didn't see your message above until after I made the edits, or I would have taken that part of my edits to the talk page before making them. Ships passing in the night. Sorry if the timing caused you any distaste. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk21:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some other edits to the Lavdrim Muhaxheri article, KewinRozz. Mostly I was fixing citation formatting. Note that the title= field should always be the exact title given in the source (I recommend copy & paste to avoid typos) rather than your personal description of what the source is or says. Also be careful when replacing one source with another that you don't leave behind stray information that isn't correct for the new source, such as publication dates.
Thank you for adding category tags to the page.
I restored the LiveLeak source. I believe it's okay to cite in the context of what it's cited for, even though it's an unreliable source and ought to remain marked as such; it would be good to supplement it with other, reliable sources, but it doesn't need to be replaced. The source you used to replace it (which I have left in the article for now) does not substantiate the claim that the "authenticity of the video has been questioned" in the preceding question, whereas the LiveLeak source does substantiate that.
Hi GrammarFacist,
the media refered to initially in "Media coverage of Muhaxheri in 2014 and beyond" is in general about the publication of Lavdrim Muhaxheri.
Hello, KewinRozz. I have moved this discussion to the article's talk page as I feel this is the more appropriate forum.
The phrase "has not been independently verified" does not mean that the video is uncensored; it simply means that the origin of the video (that is, whether it was truly made by Islamic State militants) had not been proven as of the time the article was published. Verification, censorship and editing are three different things.
As for reasons not to keep what you call "an actual article", number one would be the fact that it is a blog post, not an article published by an organization with editorial oversight and fact-checking. It also happens to be a highly biased blog. Perhaps even more importantly, however, as I mentioned, it does not prove the statement it is cited in support of. Did you read the section of Referencing for Beginners that I linked to above? It is important for you to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for citing sources in articles.
Hi GrammarFacist, the Liveleak post that you're referring to is a post that I wrote, (Liam00 is my user account on Liveleak). This is what I wrote "The video doesn't show images of the subjects face after the attack since he's faced down on the ground". As I see the citation, either the "citation needed" tag or "not in citation" tag could be used with or without the reference since it refers to the part in the article where it states that a part in the video is "cut out", which isn't stated in that Liveleak post.
I've emailed the Independent about it and they replied to my email on the 26th may 2015 with the following;"as the article states this video and the details contained within it have not been independently verified". Regarding the term "uncensored"; Not examined, expurgated, or given a rating for inclusion of improper or inappropriate material: received uncensored correspondence from a theater of military operations; sells uncensored movies and novels." Alternatively "uncensored" could be changed to "not independently verified" or "independently unverified video and content" Liveleak Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=820_1432489194#El8dOXaD3buKGO2b.99— Preceding unsigned comment added by KewinRozz (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zoupan, read the reference article about Camp Bondsteel and other information about NATO/ KFOR's establishment and purpose of Camp Bondsteel.talkKewinRozz (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Zoupan, how can he be pseudonymed "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" when it is his name? The video is of Lavdrim.' They don't know if it's him for sure, read Parzsuck where they discuss the video [11]. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Is this and this not the same person? Camp Bondsteel is another subject, the subject of the article being Muhaxheri, if one wants information about Camp Bondsteel and view that article's categories, they are perfectly able to do so, at that article.--Zoupan17:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
they're serious, based on differing physical appearance, as they discuss, they say that the videos 'could be' of him but they don't know when or of whom they are.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source clearly says: "was posting photos of himself on Facebook" "recent Islamic State video showed Mr Muhaxheri brandishing his Kosovo passport,". It is the same physical appearance, note the vest he is wearing in both photos, if you have low facial recognition ability. I am going to remove the speculative language your keen on using.--Zoupan17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also going to remove the Albanian-language references and replace them with newer, English-language ones. You are not a native speaker of Albanian, I presume, so I would not rely on Google translate.--Zoupan18:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
about Camp Bondsteel and Kosovo war, ref 9,'Construction of the base began immediately after the controversial 78-day, NATO bombing on the former Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. Camp Bondsteel was established to provide safety and security in the region. In February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared itself an independent state from Serbia. 'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
............................................about Camp Bondsteel. Not about Lavdrim Muhaxheri. NATO bombing has nothing to do with the subject. It has nothing to do with the subject. It has nothing to do with the subject. Don't add those categories. Don't add those categories. Those are used in the appropriate articles. Those are used in the appropriate articles.--Zoupan18:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'do you have a source in which he is described as a child-fighter? A 9-year old KLA fighter?', it's according to the articles,but I agree that it's confusing, but if one is to follow ref the state that he did
No. That is not what the sources say. B92 says: "he worked for American KFOR forces in Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and for NATO in Afghanistan. " You added a source, which has nothing to do with Muhaxheri, and claim that he joined upon its establishment? This is serious Original Research issues.--Zoupan18:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Albanian mujahedin leader in Syria, Lavdrim Muhaxheri worked for American KFOR'in in Kosovo in camp "Bondsteel" in Ferizaj, have announced to his friends Express newspaper in Kacanik',from ref 9 if refs han't been changed KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Camp Bondsteel's establishment date have to mean that Muhaxheri started working there at the same time. Stop your analysis, which is terribly false. He did not participate in the Kosovo War, nor did he work in Bondsteel upon its establishment.--Zoupan20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you slow? The KFOR/NATO did not employ a nine-year-old for heaven's sake. He worked as a translator, which means that he was employed after finishing school. Stop using your own, false conclusions.--Zoupan20:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zoupan, the reason why I edited it is because you wrote that he fought in Syria, read the part about the prosecution under Activity in ISIS, the prosecution claim that he didn't fight in Syria and this was published last friday. At least not what they mention, they claim that he didn'f fight with the others who are indicted and who he was with.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Further, the Rexhepi part in 'From NATO to Islamic State (IS)' is a response to the videos so it should be directly after that part which is why I moved it there. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the edits in the first part of the Activity in ISIS that you keep reverting to are factually inconsistent. The newspaper is 'Gazeta dita' and not 'Dita',see ref,. talkKewinRozz (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the prosecution have indicted imams and other members as responsible for the group that Muhaxheri was involved with in 2012-2013 Syria I've now edited the intro sentence and removed 'leader' in accordance with the latest articles, see ref number 18.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time to devote to it at the moment, but this article is rife with blatant original research and WP:SYNTH. Examples: "...which makes it more plausible to assume that the footage would be from Iraq but it could also be from elsewhere...", "...Thus the photo only shows parts of the head from the side and in absence of greater portions of the face, heavily covered in a substance that, by some, has been assumed to be blood." It's not Wikipedia's job to speculate. Material in Wikipedia should be directly linked to what is stated in reliable sources, period. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to readWP:SYNTH. Wikipedia articles should not make their own commentary about the sources. A source either meets WP:RS or it doesn't. If a statement is not backed by a reliable source, it should not be included. On the other hand, if numerous RS sources say that the individual uploaded a video that appeared to show them beheading someone, it's appropriate to include that. It's clearly WP:SYNTH to then go and dispute what the RS is reporting. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie In the end of the article the reference article number 11 is questioning the verification of the footage of Lavdrim Muhaxheri. There's no expert statements in the reference - articles, they're assumptive.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie,The development in the section about the prosecution was the following;' On 15 January 2016 Balkan media reported that Lavdrim Muhaxheri had returned wounded to Kosovo from Syria in 2013 and published parts of court records of text message conversations between the period 12 August 2015 to 5 Oktober 2013 that were claimed to have been sent and received by Lavdrim Muhaxheri and other individuals who have traveled to Syria. ' They've published text messages believed to be from Muhaxheri's phone but nothing else. The prosecution claims that he had been ordered to escort people between Turkey and Syria in year 2013, that's the only 'reliable source' that I've seen in the articles regarding this, ref number 65User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie I'm reverting your re-titeling of 'The alleged beheading of a 19-year-old Iraqi soldier'. The reason is that I noticed that reference article 14 doesn't mention a video, it clearly states 'pictures'. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie The titeling 'Beheading footage' sounds too conclusive, there's no expert statements involved in the article. I suggest'presumed' instead of 'alleged'; 'The presumed beheading footage of a 19 - year old - soldier' or 'The presumed beheading footage'? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with unnecessary "assumed" tags. The article already makes clear the nature of the claims. Do we know for sure who is in the videosphotos and what happened? No. Has it been reported in multiple reliable sources that photos have been published claiming to show Muhaxheri holding a head? Yes. Wikipedia simply summarizes what RS sources say; we don't provide our own analysis or comment on the analysis of blogs and chatrooms. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamiethe article doesn't mention a video. 'Has it been reported in multiple reliable sources that photos have been published claiming to show Muhaxheri holding a head?' The prosecution mentions text messages, no video or images, as from the published article. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular case, the issue wasn't the ref itself, but that content it was with; the article doesn't need to mention every single speculated sighting of Muhaxheri. See WP:WEIGHT. You'll notice that the AnemoneBot automatically restored the orphaned ref since it is used elsewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a lot of excessive detail (too much detail about US blacklisting, media reaction, etc) and reorganized the article into more logical sections. The article could still use more pruning and condensing. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie( Response to your first reply) As the section 'beheading photo' is preserved to that then I would move the part about the prosectution and travels into a new section, 'Muhaxheri in Syria' since this part isn't about the beheading photos. It's based on three articles;
On 6 September 2014 it became public known that a Kosova prosecutor had been granted an international warrant at the Court of Ferizaj for Muhaxheri's arrest, entailing an international warrant for Muhaxheri at Interpol, for his affiliation with terrorist organisations.[1]. The prosecution had obtained text message conversations claimed to be sent and received between the period 12 August 2015 to 5 Oktober 2013 by Lavdrim Muhaxheri and other individuals who have traveled to Syria by crossing the border between the Hatay Province in Turkey and Syria. Muhaxheri was believed to have traveled to Syria at two(2) occasions between 2012-2013. The first time was between period 2012 to May 2013, wherefrom he returned to Kosova wounded. The second time was sometime after May 2013 and Muhaxheri left Syria to Kosova on 4 October 2013, based on a text message.
According to the prosecution's indictment Muhaxheri had received text messages with telephone numbers of people who either had been or were to be recruited to join IS in Syria. According to the prosecution Muhaxheri had not engaged in fighting in Syria with the other indicted individuals.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok,( Response to your second reply) I disagree with the latest edit, you also removed Parszuk's article again. There are many who've written and co -edited. Could you tell me the objection to these parts, for instance,why do you think Kerry's article is redundant? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest renaming the ' Activities with ISIS' to something that also covers Media coverage & Prosecution' since all parts aren't about his involvement with ISIS KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought a suggestion is 'Affiliation with IS' since it would cover the parts when he's claimed to be in Balkans and also the prosecution. I've added 'in Syria' in the end of the first sentence, in accordance with the ref article 14. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to OR and SYNTH issues; I've improved it since the latest days edits and also from previous versions in the latest reversed version. 'OR and SYNTH issues' needs to be discussed as well as consensus on editing/edits KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KewinRozz is repeatedly restoring Category:People of the Kosovo War to the article. (Just for the record, the removal by IP2.150. yesterday was mine.) This is clearly nonsense. Even if he worked at Camp Bondsteel at some point, it does not mean that he worked there in 1999, when he was 10 years old. That KFOR employed a 10 year old boy as a translator is just absurd. Unless you can give a source that puts him on the spot in 1999, please refrain from restoring again.
@KewinRozz will also need to learn more about how Wikipedia works. I suggest that they study some Wiki guidelines before they continue their edits. Some recommendations could be WP:Consensus, WP:Edit war, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and not least WP:Edit summary. As far as I can see, they have never ever used an edit summary. --T*U (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TU-nor
from article tagged to camp bondsteel;
'about Camp Bondsteel and Kosovo war, ref 9,'Construction of the base began immediately after the controversial 78-day, NATO bombing on the former Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. Camp Bondsteel was established to provide safety and security in the region. In February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared itself an independent state from Serbia. '
from biography - article
'Albanian mujahedin leader in Syria, Lavdrim Muhaxheri worked for American KFOR'in in Kosovo in camp "Bondsteel" in Ferizaj, have announced to his friends Express newspaper in Kacanik',from ref 9 if refs
TU-norto begin with, I'm fine with 'Activities and media reports' but not 'Joining Jihad' because the section isn't motivating 'why' he joined 'jihad', it's about him going from NATO to IS and that's why I see the 'from NATO to Islamic State (IS)' as consistent, what's the objection ?KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked OP & SYNTH, references. I added the bio that was initially published on Muhaxheri for early life. I've merged early life and background. I merged two sections into 'Government reactions'. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference from the latest synth- issue version are 5 articles that repeat what's already stated. If they are to be re-attached then they need to be referenced correctly. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which "five articles" you are talking about. The diff between the versions is useless because too much was changed in a single pass. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
'Holy warriors' was referenced for Clanging of the sword since it's stated in Parzuck, Camp - Bondsteel presentation article, two
WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
There are numerous of SYNTH issues
for instance, ref for this is 'were affected by the persecution of ethnic Albanians conducted by the Serbian Slobodan Milošević's regime in Kosovo.' or the Clanging of the Swords 4, what part in 7 and 9 is used in Lavdrim Muhaxheri, a Kosovo Albanian Muslim, was born on 12 March 1989[6] in the town of Kačanik,[7][8][9]? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First part:
'Lavdrim Muhaxheri, a Kosovo Albanian Muslim, was born on 12 March 1989[6] in the town of Kačanik,[7][8][9] located on the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. He was raised Muslim, living with his father and brothers in the absence of his mother. Muhaxheri grew up during the Kosovo War (1989–99) during which he and his family were affected by the persecution of ethnic Albanians conducted by the Serbian Slobodan Milošević's regime in Kosovo. He graduated from the Skanderbeg School. His education earned him a position as an English translator in the the American Kosovo Force (KFOR) camp, "Camp Bondsteel"[8] in the city of Ferizaj in southeastern Kosovo. He worked at Camp Bondsteel until 2010, when he was promoted to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) training camp in Afghanistan.[10]' [7][8][9] - are irrelevant here.
'Muhaxheri grew up during the Kosovo War (1989–99) during which he and his family were affected by the persecution of ethnic Albanians conducted by the Serbian Slobodan Milošević's regime in Kosovo.- ref missing/ replaced since written
English translator is ref article that I added in the bio that you've now removed so this has no ref at the moment, the current articles in this section are not supportive at the moment, so the first bio should be re - added to support it.
KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you very much for explaining Wikipedia policies to me. Pasting in ref #s is not helpful, as those numbers a dynamic (i.e., they change based on the order of refs or the insertion of deletion of refs). Please use the actual links to the refs instead if you want to discuss sources. Regarding your specific sentence you mention above, I've removed it as that I don't see any direct support for it in sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in swapping around references unless there (1) there is material in the article unsupported by current references or (2) you wish to suggest adding material that is not currently in the article. Can you be specific regarding existing or missing content? OhNoitsJamieTalk18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Reverting vandalism is not edit warring'. The articles in the current version do not state what's in that section, that is you've replaced the wrong bio, this is your version, the previous didn't have any ref synth issues. I've suggested you change it for the correct bio, which would be 3 in my version and linked above.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You do not appear to have a grasp of what constitutes "vandalism and (2) your vague suggestions about "correct bio" are not actual. Do I really need to ask you to be specific again? OhNoitsJamieTalk19:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated it above; compare these statements. 'He was raised Muslim, living with his father and brothers in the absence of his mother. He graduated from the Skanderbeg School. His education earned him a position as an English translator in the the American Kosovo Force (KFOR) camp, "Camp Bondsteel"[8] in the city of Ferizaj in southeastern Kosovo. He worked at Camp Bondsteel until 2010, when he was promoted to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) training camp in Afghanistan.[10]' It's bio 3, not 10.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
don't know which diff but the diff I've referred to is between bio 3 and 10. It seems however that the OR definition and other tagging is confused when looking at the definition of neutral point of view NPOV. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please use names of refs (publishers, dates, links) and not ref numbers which are fluctuating betweens diffs. This has been made clear to you several times. It is very hard to understand your points. All cleanup that has been made is actually problems that you yourself introduced? --Zoupan15:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there hasn't been any actual consensus on that and I can't agree that the so called 'clean up' wasn't a confusion between OR and NPOV, then the references, out of 70 reference articles I found that only a couple were displaced and few, mostly in Early Life, two reference articles were missing, one is mentioned as bio 3 aboveKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles often mention both medial reports from 29 July 2014 about Muhahxeri allegedy appearing on beheading footage from Syria [17] and a warrant from Court of Ferizaj and Interpol from the 6 September 2014 in the same articles but they don’t claim that the warrant is issued for the alleged beheading footage [17]; ‘The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq’ [17]'. Published court records on 15 January 2016 only mention text messages as evidence for recruitment.[65] The question is about formulation of medial claims in regard to NPOV; avoid stating opinions as facts; shouldn't ‘On 29 July 2014 Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria.’(1/2) (2/3) be stated as 'According to Balkan media, on 29 July 2014 an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" ( it's questioned which published footage is of Muhaxheri [11]) that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man.' or something to the effect of a neutral statement where it's mentioned who's claiming it?
I have removed the RfC tag because there is no specific question being asked. An RfC needs to present a specific question, ideally with a small number of possible answers that people can rate in order of preference. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
under the 'username'? there's no court order or warrant claiming this in the reference articles, it's only mentioned and refers to media reports from 29 July 2014 and articles referring to those articles. The Facebook - post is published in the article KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.You need to know the difference between "allegedly Muhaxheri" and "allegedly beheading". The images were uploaded by Muhaxheri, and depicts Muhaxheri. This is unrefuted. Some news articles use the word allegedly in relation to beheading, if the second image is of a beheaded man, i.e. authentic. Muhaxheri said that it was him, and that he saw no problem in it. The definition of "allegedly" is said to have happened but not yet proven. I ask you to list these researchers and experts and exactly what they state.
The following comment was inserted inside User:Zoupan's comment, making it very hard to understand who says what. I have indented it for clarification. --T*U (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the Rfc description states, the following claims are based on articles with a Facebook-post from 29 July 2014. They're not mentioned in the warrant or text about the warrant in the articles, based on that it's problematic to describe or consider these images as 'unrefuted' since the only reference to these images is stated to be a Facebook - account wherefrom they've been taken directly and leaked to media outlets. These are not the only images that have been published and claimed to be of Lavdrim Muhaxheri in articles but the claims of which of the images would be of Lavdrim Muhaxheri has been questioned by experts, reference 11 in the description. 'The images were uploaded by Muhaxheri, and depicts Muhaxheri. This is unrefuted.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Jihadist's Beheading Photos Shock Kosovo". of a Kosovo Albanian militant allegedly beheading a captive soldier in Syria ... The gruesome photographs are the work of Lavdrim Muhaxheri ... Balkan Insight cannot verify the authenticity of the photographs.
"Kosovo Albanian posts a picture of him beheading a man". "Allahu Ekber" is the message, to which he added two photographs. First showing him cutting a head of a man, and the second, showing him holding the head in bloodied hands, reports "Koha Ditore".
So an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the username "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man is not the way to go. I do, however, see no problem in adding "appearing to behead", or clarifying that the photos are before (standing above, holding neck and knife) and after (appearing to hold a decapitated head). If you ask me, and going by the news articles, the photos show before and after beheading. The canvas of the after-photo may be "problematic", however, it does show a bloodied head held in a manner that could only mean decapitation, Muhaxheri's left fingers going where a cervical vertebrae is obviously not present.--Zoupan17:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zoupan, the issue is that it's not what the prosecution is claiming according to court documents from 15 January 2016 or in the warrant from 6 September 2014,'The images were uploaded by Muhaxheri, and depicts Muhaxheri', according to whom? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'In an interview for an Albanian daily a few days later, Lavdrim Muhaxheri explained that the beheading of a 19-year-old came as a result of the latter suspected of being a spy.' I've read the article with the interview in Gazeta Dita and it's also been in the references of this article, the person said that the victim (and this was in an offline interview according to the journalist) was a 19-year old Iraqi soldier who had been trespassing on their territory and that it wasn't anything unusual in compare to what KLA had done during the Kosovo War. He continues saying strange stories about prisons in Saudi Arabia and other things KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the prosecution stating that it is not Muhaxheri in the photos and videos? I doubt it. Could you link to the documents? I warn you, once again, of synthesis and OR. You use (OR) some kind of criticism and ex silentio that is very unconstructive (If this goes the way I believe it is doing, I think questioning your competence would only be the right next step).--Zoupan18:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the warrant from the court of Ferizaj, and the released evidence from court records from the prosecution say that he's wanted for affiliation with a group of indicted members from Kosovo based on textmessages through which he's been instructed to administrate and recruite and or handle recruited individuals through text message conversations wherein he's been given orders by an indicted imam in Kosovo and other group members between 2012 to 5 October 2013 in Syria [ref 65 above]. The experts have questioned many of the videos and footage, if it's the same individual on the videos and footage and when and where it's taken, see Parzsuzuks article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KewinRozz (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You really refuse to understand what everyone is explaining to you. I have no intention in continuing any discussion of your personal conclusions.--Zoupan18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
everyone? there's nothing to explain other than answering the question 'according to whom'? Anyone can read the warrant.
anyone who clicks on the 'Al - Bagdad' (not Al-Bagdadi btw) link in ref 14 comes to a 404 page. Islamic Youth Kacanik isn't a military organization. You keep misunderstanding foreign analyst Shtuni's statement, reverted by both me and another editor earlier this week since you're only taking a part of it in a strange interpretation of the context, so no, I'm definitively not lying.KewinRozzKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozz (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you said was that I removed court documents and tags to references leading to 404 pages. This is called lying. Do you base this on a link inside the cited reference (=not the actual reference, Gazeta Express) does not work? That link is not used, but the reference (the cited page, not the link within the page), which is not 404, is used. You are synthesizing Shtuni's quote and another sentence. You are claiming that the British Treasury's "Address:Syrian Arab Republic (as of September 2015)" is According to the Telegraph. This is the last comment I will make here because this is getting lobotomical. Good luck.--Zoupan22:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that's called blanking, and then further added tags to the unverifiable references as commented. I don't know what you mean by 'synthesizing Shtuni's statement' but Shtuni claims that Muhaxheri might have emulated himself into IS figures, on question why he states that it's because he's a strategist and the journalist/interviewer agrees with him on the matter of Muhaxheri possibly emulating himself since being a strategist. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Article 8; 'No, what you said was that I removed court documents' KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting a sentence with the link in that article so the verifiability of your quote, which you've stated as a fact, is dependent on that link being verifiable. 'That link is not used, but the reference (the cited page, not the link within the page), which is not 404, is used' KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the British Treasury report is a financial report, as commented earlier not only by me, but there were many reports about Muhaxheri's whereabouts in 2015, some have later been denounced by authorities.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you read NPOVavoid stating opinions as facts it should be According to.. or something to that effect:' For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." KewinRozz (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. The suggested text According to Balkan media, on 29 July 2014 an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man gives the impression that the posting was not done by LM. I cannot see any source for calling it a "pseudonym". If there are reliable sources that raise doubt about the "individual" being LM, that may be mentioned. But definitely not in this way. The suggested text is completely unnacceptable. --T*U (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" means someone using that name, either Lavdrim Muhaxheri or someone else, but under the username "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" would also work. 'If there are reliable sources that raise doubt about the "individual" being LM', the claims about Muhaxheri being the man in the footage is based on journalist opinions in the articles referenced above. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to proposed change --- Perhaps it is just me, but the reliable sources that I am finding are stating that it was "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" Facebook page -- nothing alleged to pseudonym about it. There is speculation on if it is actually a beheading, but that is different than the discussion about the ownership of the Facebook page. From everything I can find from reliable sources, nobody is calling into question if it his page or not. While there is the possibility that it was not actually his page, that itself is synthesis and original research, and thus not permitted here. To argue semantics on which term to support plausible deniability is irrelevant, because it is not supported with reliable sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but my point and question isn't whether it's him or not who posted it, the issue is the formulation, or reformulation of it in contrast to NPOV avoid stating opinions as facts, since the claim is made by journalist opinions.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that is your supposition that the journalist is posting an opinion. Can you support that theory in a specific reference? Otherwise what you're doing is synthesis... This is information shared as facts, and we're conveying those as facts. Furthermore since it is presented as facts in multiple reliable sources, and as far as I can tell, not refuted in any reliable source, there is no basis for calling this opinion nor POV nor BIAS... Tiggerjay (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiggerjay According to NPOV; For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." the claim should't be formulated as a fact, it should be formulated,'According to Balkan media, Muhaxheri had uploaded', according to NPOV you shouldn't state opinion as a fact, if that would be the case you could claim that Muhaxheri is physically paralyzed as a fact instead of something claimed by a report.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you read this statement as opinion? There is no BIAS or POV about what is currently stated in the article "Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria". There is no opinion language here. This is written as fact, and there is no information to refute it... Do you have a specific reliable source that supports your theory that some element of this is opinion? Just because you believe it might not be a true statement, doesn't make it theory, opinion or untrue. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the meaning of opinion is: "In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred." So the question here, is, can it be objectively proven that Muhaxheri uploaded a photo, and the beheading? -- I believe that it is true, that it can be proven, and has been established through multiple, independent sources. About the only thing that might be opinion is if he actually performed the beheading, or if he was just posing as if he had. Although I'm not certain that is significant, nor the point you're trying to make. Your discussion about genocide is that "evil" is subjective, but to state that X performed genocide is objective truth. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiggerjay, to claim that it's a fact would preclude a conviction as stated in BLPCRIME, and these articles induce opinions from 29 July 2014 but aren't supported by either a conviction nor the warrant. By 'For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."' I was referring on how to formulate such claims as indirect statements given the above. The example is from NPOV; avoid stating opinions as factsWP:NPOV. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 December 2015 Balkan media claimed that Lavdrim Muhaxheri was in Ar-Rutbah in Iraq based on images and information from a post in a twitter - account. The unverified images, which are taken from a newsclip aired by arab media on an unknown date, were posted on the twitter - account on 16 July 2015. In the same article it's claimed that Lavdrim Muhaxheri has been staying in Ar-Rutbah since September 2015, based on information from unnamed sources. [61] Some media outlets claimed that the images disprove reports from 2 December 2015 about Lavdrim Muhaxheri being physically paralyzed in Syria, thus the Ar-Rutbah - images were posted on the twitter - account on 16 July 2015, a date prior to reports about Muhaxheri being paralyzed and in Syria.[62] The same images and claims about Lavdrim Muhaxheri being in Ar-Rutbah in Iraq were reported on 29 January 2015. [63]
in this edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&oldid=700637976
KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...OR strikes once again. None of the news articles (61, 62, 63) make any mention of 16 July 2015, and they were all published on 29 December and do n o t mirror the paragraph. Why are you doing this? Why don't you just stop?--Zoupan22:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are arguing the reporting/journalism. That is NOT what we do on Wikipedia. To synthesize your own opinions on what really took place to dispute reliable sources is invalid. You must provide verifiable information from reliable sources to support your claim. Your theories do not belong here. If you have some sources which clearly state what you're claiming - then that would be considered for inclusion. But do not argue the merits of a reliable source. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:SYNTH; 'On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process"'. Such problems are when there is contesting information in source articles. Indirect statement, neutral and summarized statements are not SYNTH. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why concensus is needed (KewinRozz: "seek consensus again") for moving external links (Interpol profile, video interviews) previously in the article body, used erroneously as references (citations) by KewinRozz himself?--Zoupan22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It should not be quoted. The Interpol profile makes no mention of the quoted sentence. You can't use it as an inline citation.--Zoupan23:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While these External Links are not ideal, the removal of them was unacceptable. And it is not the place for KewinRozz to "decline" the external links. The Interpol one really needs to be restored into the inline citations to fix the currently broken reference. The YouTube videos need context to be included, simply an unorganized list of links to videos is not sufficient. As a result, they should be reworked properly back into the article itself, and not left stray. But at the same time the contentious removal by KewinRozz was also bad form. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only video worth saving is the one where he holds a speech in Syria in 2013, which is translated. The other one, where he speaks in Albanian with his friend, is untranslated. The third one is the disturbing video of the RPG-attack, and I don't think it should be included in the article.--Zoupan00:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zoupan, in this case the quotes contain accusations in this edit,this edit and this edit for which there's no conviction nor supported by the warrant so they are violating WP:BLP and shouldn't be cited from the articles making the accusations; '... For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[6] include all the explanatory information.'BLPCRIMEKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's been reported dead at least three times between 2014-2015 but then the reports have been contested by other reports with footage claiming to prove he's alive, thus experts have questioned the footage, especially when it's taken since it might be old footage, changes in physical appearance between images and emulation, the reference says that the police are investigating the footage but that there are question - marks and that it's not authenticized. [1]KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
—GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
