Talk:Bosnian mujahideen

Please stop vandalizing/deleting this page

Please stop deleting/vandalizing this page based on the claim that "Bosnian Mujahideen" does not exist. The term does exist and is used by published and respected academics and experts.

"The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" is the title of both a book and a research paper (presented at a conference held by the Swedish National Defence College's Center for Assymetric Threat Studies (CATS) in Stockholm in May 2006 at the request of Dr. Magnus Ranstorp - former director of the St. Andrews University Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence - and now Chief Scientist at CATS). The paper is available for download on the CATS official website.

Evan F. Kohlmann is a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation and runs the Web site [www.globalterroralert.com]. In addition to the above report and book he has been published by several respected journals, including Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the US Council on Foreign Relations.

I agree that there are other terms for these fighters, "El Mujaheed" or just "Mujahideen" are often referred to in media[1][2] and [3] as well as by the Bosnian courts in their indictments of former Bosnian Mujahideen suspected of various war crimes.

So, Dragon of Bosnia, please do not delete the article for on spurious and, I suspect, ideologically/politically, motivated reasons.Osli73 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already articles called 7th Muslim Brigade, and The role of foreign volunteers. This is just redundant WP:OR article, based on unrelaible sources per WP:RS. On the other hand my sources are International court findings. The sources should be relaible, such as verdicts, verified documents, not blog, websites or unverified pictures/photo montague. You also tried to delete the cause of foreign volunteers arrival, and the cause were mass war crimes committed by Serb forces. This is the ICTY conclusion. So when you talk about NPOV, I juct can't understand your earlier actions. The Dragon of Bosnia 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, please don't make things up. Read: Wikipedia:No original research:

1. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
2. Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
3. Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.

Osli73, you were earlier blocked many times because of your behaviour: [4] so I advice you to stop propagating false info/original research. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Here.

(Informal) Mediator here. I saw request for Mediation. However, I'm not an official mediator (nobody in the Mediation Cabal is), so I can not and/or will not:
1) "Block the other guy"
2) Delete the article
3) Lock the article
4) Take sides based on personal opinion.

This will only work if you will let it work. So, I would now like to hear both sides of the story, preferably without namecalling, accusations, or any other trolling/flaming/general unpleasantness.

Would Osli73 please start? Then I will hear The Dragon of Bosnia's side. Please don't interrupt each other.

Sdirrim (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

osli73 on the merits of the article

Osli73's arguments on the merits of the article:

1. the title "Bosnian Mujahideen". The sources I cite (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 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 Bosnian Mujahideen and their connection with global terrorist networks. 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. Finally, the title proposed by User:The Dragon of Bosnia - "The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war" is hardly a more common term.
2. In its judgement for Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura the ICTY states that "As a result, local people joined the foreign Mujahedin and in the process became local Mujahedin. They imitated the foreigners in both the way they dressed and behaved, to such an extent that it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two groups. For that reason, in the Judgement, the Trial Chamber shall use the term "Mujahedin" to designate foreigners from Arab countries, but also local Muslims who joined the Mujahedin units."[5] (my bold). So it is quite apparent that the Mujahideen units in Bosnia were mixed containing both foreign and local Mujahideen, hence I name the article Bosnian Mujahideen, in accordance with the ICTY finding.
3. several sources use other variants of the name, including (but not limited to): El Mujahid, El Mudjahid, El Mujahed, El Mujaheed, Bosnian Mujahiden).
4. The 7th Muslim Batallion is the name of the larger unit of the Bosnian Army in which the Mujahideen units were included during part of their existence. However, the 7th Muslim Batallion also included other units who were not Mujahideen. Indeed, the 7th Muslim Brigade article specifically states that it is not to be confused with the Bosnian Mujahideen. To the extent that the article mentions the Bosnian Mujahideen it is more concerned with how they were used in Serbian propaganda rather than than discussing the actual unit.
5. the article is based on verifiable and reliable sources (pls note the list of references). I have exclusively used American and British media and government sources as well as ICTY documents precisely to avoid the type of knee-jerk accusation of "Serb propaganda" which you claim. Please see the list of references.
6. I agree that Bosnian Mujahideen was a part of Bosnian Serb propaganda during the war. That doesn't mean they did not exist (otherwise the reputable sources listed would not mention them).
7. the article does not refute that Bosnian Serb forces committed the majority of war crimes during the war. However, the article is about the Bosnian Mujahideen.
8. the article The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war article is a more general article about the foreign involvement in the Bosnian war. This is an article specifically about the involvement of the Mujahideen in the war, and could be seen as a subset of that overarching article.

Given the above, I can't see that Dragon of Bosnia's and Grandy Grandy's opposition to the article has any merits.Osli73 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragon of Bosnia's arguments for deleting the article

I guess it is my turn now.

The sources are not relaible per WP:RS (political forum site, broken links and mailing lists are not relaible sources).

Let's go from the beginning:

• Nettime mailing list - Post by Drazen Pantic on Tue, 9 Oct 2001 couldn't be verified as the link to the article is broken - Page Not Found. And it doesn't contain the term Bosnian Mujahideen. According to WP:Verifiability:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." which isn't the case here, to quote: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

• This is an example of WP:NOT content as it is a political forum, actually The Premier Conservative News Forum. On their site you can find what it is about:

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here, I don't have to mention that the term Bosnian Mujahideen has not been used.

• This report doesn't contain the term Osli73 is using. It just contains: "foreign mujahideen fighters", and there is already article about foreign soldiers: The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war.

• The Hadzihasanovic verdict Osli73 quoted actually discards all his claims about foreign fighters (that they were controlled by Bosnian army, but he didn't include the rest of the quote in the article.) I will quote it here:

"However, the Trial Chamber could not establish that the Accused Hadzihasanovic or the Accused Kubura gave any orders to the Mujahedin and that those orders were implemented. Moreover, in the 3000 or so documents the Trial Chamber has analyzed, there is no combat report from the Mujahedin to the Accused, nor any other document which indicates that the Mujahedin were answerable to the Accused. However, in their combat reports, the commanders of the 3rd Corps units often complained of the undisciplined behaviour of the Mujahedin during joint combat operations. The Trial Chamber also notes that prior to 13 August 1993, the 3rd Corps war diaries hardly mention the Mujahedin."

Summary

The are already two articles about the topic with correct and precise names:

• The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war,
• 7th Muslim Brigade.

Osli73 said: "(b) that the The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war article mainly deals with their use in Serbian and Croatian propaganda[6] and is otherwise"

I think Osli73 should improve the existing articles, but creating a new article with the same topic and false terms in order to move edit war from the existing article to the new one isn't a good way for Wikipedia as it is WP:NOT content based on propaganda. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition

It is now obvious why Osli73 created this article. As you can see from his contribution he created many redirections to the article, among them Al-Qaida_in_Bosnia which is pure vandalism as such claims need verification, and his sources are not reliable per WP:RS. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've requested this article be protected during the mediation. Redirecting it to the other article makes it harder for others to contribute. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sdirrim (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Osli and Dragon, thank you for being patient and taking your turns. However, for the time being, please leave both the article and the mediation case entry alone.
What I had originally thought was that there was a progression of events, a "story" of some sort ultimately leading to the dispute. In any case, you appear willing to discuss this in a thought-out and relatively civil manner (so please refrain from attacks ad hominem). Because the page-long "Side A" and "Side B" sections are difficult to read in full and digest. Thus, I ask the following: I would like a list of the basic points of contention, without the reasons for claiming them. Each person puts one item on the list at a time, and please take turns.

The list should be something like this (if the Dragon goes first)

Points of Contention
1. (Dragon's claim)
2. (Osli's claim)
3. (Dragon's Claim)
etc.

We will then discuss each point in depth, in a seperate section, and one at a time.

Sdirrim (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Points of Contention

The Dragon, by a random dice roll please go first.

Both sides, please refrain from simply adding counter-claims, such as "The Article is NPOV" in response to "The Article is POV". Each claim will be discussed, and each side will be able to speak for or against it.

Oh, and please: do not post more than a few paragraphs at a time; use proper spelling; use proper format; and please do not post a reply in the middle of the argument.

Sdirrim (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims about the article

1. The Dragon of Bosnia's claim:

I guees I will start the discussion because Osli73 is temporary blocked.

• First of all, Osli73 wrote an article called Bosnian Mujahideen, and included some sources which don't contain the name of the article at all. I repeat, the sources don't contain this term. The name Bosnian Mujahideen is not common and precise name. I have nothing against the use of the term Mujahideen, Arab volunteers etc. which are indeed the terms used by media or some other sources, but Bosnian Mujahideen isn't just right.

• Second, the sources Osli73 included are not relaible per WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:SOAP (political forum, mailing lists, broken links and news articles):

• Nettime mailing list - Post by Drazen Pantic on Tue, 9 Oct 2001 couldn't be verified as the link to the article is broken - Page Not Found. It should be verified according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And it doesn't contain the term Bosnian Mujahideen.
• The Premier Conservative News Forum is an example of WP:NOT content as it is a political forum: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here, I don't have to mention the term Bosnian Mujahideen has not been used.
• This report doesn't contain the term Osli73 is using. It just contains: "foreign mujahideen fighters", and there is already article about foreign soldiers: The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war.
• The Hadzihasanovic verdict Osli73 quoted actually discards all his claims about foreign fighters (that they were controlled by Bosnian army, but he didn't include the rest of the quote in the article.) I will quote it here: "However, the Trial Chamber could not establish that the Accused Hadzihasanovic or the Accused Kubura gave any orders to the Mujahedin and that those orders were implemented. Moreover, in the 3000 or so documents the Trial Chamber has analyzed, there is no combat report from the Mujahedin to the Accused, nor any other document which indicates that the Mujahedin were answerable to the Accused. However, in their combat reports, the commanders of the 3rd Corps units often complained of the undisciplined behaviour of the Mujahedin during joint combat operations. The Trial Chamber also notes that prior to 13 August 1993, the 3rd Corps war diaries hardly mention the Mujahedin."

• Third, there are already three articles about this topic:

• Mujahideen
• 7th Muslim Brigade
• The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war with correct terms. He should just improve it.

• Finally, this is my personal opinion. I think with all due respect, that Osli73 didn't write that article in order to contribute to Wikipedia, but to propagate claims by some nationalistic Serbian media and some conservative Western centers about Al-Qaida allegedly connected to Bosnia. As you can see here he made redirection: Al-Qaida to Bosnian Mujahideen [7], Bosnian jihad, Bosnian jihadis etc. You will ask me why? Well, Serb propaganda tried to justify genocide committed by Serb forces on Bosnian Muslims so many times, the genocide did happen in the heart of civilized Europe at the end of 20th century during Bosnian war. The ICTY made the same conclusion in many verdicts about Serb propaganda regarding foreign volunteer, so I see this as another example of it, according to Osli73's block log he tried similar things in Srebrenica massacre article during his edit wars. It should also be noted that Bill Clinton helped Bosniaks to defend themselves during the genocide, and some conservative republican media tried to destroy his reputation with the same approach as Serb propaganda connecting him with terrorism etc. Osli73 misused such unverified claims (and this is very importan according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.").

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Osli73's claim:

• LA Times article: indeed the source is linked to a reprint of the article as the LA Times has moved the article into their archive, which is pay-per-view. However, the article is also reprinted on the University of Buffalo's Trial Watch list and an abstract of the orignial article is available for free in the LA Times on-line archives. In my opinion, this is reasonable evidence that the reprint of the article is genuine.
• JM Berger article: is sourced from JM Berger's website. JM Berger has participated in documentaries on Al Qaeda in Al Jazeera and National Geographic Channel. However, as this is only one of the two sources used for the statement that the Bosnian Mujahideen were financed from Saudi Arabia, including persons connected with Al Qaeda, the other being a very reputable expert on terrorism, I could agree to remove the JM Berger source if that would satisfy Dragon of Bosnia.
• United States Institute of Peace report: this source is used as a reference to the statement in the article that "several hundred Iranian Revolutionary Guards supporting the Bosnian government during the war". I use other, more extensive, sources for the claim of "Bosnian Mujahideen", most notably the ICTY judgement discussed under my second point in my opening statements above.
• Hadzihasanovic verdict: First of all, I do write that the extent of Bosnian government control of the Mujahideen is "contentious". The verdict clearly distinguishes between the period before the official formation of the El Mujahed unit on 13 August 1993 and the period thereafter. I make this clear in my text in the article. Regarding the period before 13 August 1993 the court makes a distinction between de jure and de facto control. Regarding de jure control it notes that while it could not be proven that some of the foreign mujahideen were under de jure control some of the local (ie Bosniak) mujahideen were. Concerning de facto control it states (again, this only concerns the situation prior to 13 August 1993) that "there are significant indicia of a subordinate relationship between the Mujahedin and the Accused prior to 13 August 1993" and that "Joint combat operations are one illustration of that" but concludes by noting that "the Trial Chamber is unable to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused exercised effective control over the Mujahedin prior to the establishment of the El Mujahed detachment on 13 August 1993" (my emphasis added). Regarding the situation after the formation of the El Mujahed unit on 13 August 1993 it states that "There is no denying that the Mujahedin always held a special status compared to other 3rd Corps units, even after the El Mujahed detachment was established. Nevertheless, as the Trial Chamber explained in its Judgement, the fact remains that the Accused Hadzihasanovic exercised effective control over that detachment." (my emphsis added)
• The Mujahideen and The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war articles: these are general articles not specifically on the Bosnian Mujahideen. For example, the Mujahideen article contains links to specific mujahideen groups (which the Bosnian Mujahideen clearly were given their joint command, illustrated, for example, in the ICTY cases against their commanders).
• The 7th Muslim Brigade article: is, clearly, about a brigade in the Bosnian army (ABiH). I do not contest that from 13 August 1993 to sometime 1995, the Bosnian Mujahideen unit "El Mujahed", were part of this brigade (however, there were also other units within that brigade). In the article I mention and link to the 7th Muslim Brigade. However, since the Bosnian Mujahideen existed before their official inclusion in the 7th Muslim Brigade and continued to exist after both the El Mujahed unit and the 7th Muslim Brigade itself had been disbanded after the Dayton accords, it is not appropriate that the Bosnian Mujahideen article is subsumed into or merged with the 7th Muslim Brigade article. Finally, the 7th Muslim Brigade article cannot, for obvious reasons, contain any information about the issue of deportations of Bosnian Mujahideen from Bosnia or the links between the Bosnian Mujahideen and Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist networks in Europe, which only became issues after the disbandment of the 7th Muslim Brigade. Given Dragon of Bosnia's claims it is a bit strange that the 7th Muslim Brigade article (which he has been the principal editor of) states "It [the 7th Muslim Brigade] was often misinterpreted by Serb and Croat media, which confused it with the squad of Arab volunteers known as El-Mudžahid - foreign fighters from various Islamic countries that fought during the 1992-95 Bosnian War. The 7th brigade had over 1,000 local soldiers and was a part of the 3rd corps of the Bosnian Army. The El-Mudžahid was an independent detachment" despite the evidence to the contrary available for anyone who has read the ICTY documents in the relevant cases. Despite this, I do think it is appropriate that the 7th Muslim Brigade article include links to the Bosnian Mujahideen article (and vice verse, which is already the case). I believe the Bosnian Mujahideen article should be compared to other similar articles on specific units involved in the Bosnian war, such as already exist on the Serb Volunteer Guard and White Eagles (paramilitary) although both of these were, at times, subsumed into other units or served under other, formal military units.
• Motives for creating the article: I created the article because I believed there was a lack of information on Wikipedia about the Bosnian Mujahideen (see my discussion above). This should be enough justification for creating the article. I will not speculate in The Dragon of Bosnia's motives for repeatedly deleting the article and links to it. These deletions (together with those of Grandy Grandy), despite my calls for Mediation, is what led me to break the 3RR rule. It is very frustrating (not to say time consuming) to write an article when it faces such coordinated attacks without regard for discussion or attempts at mediation.
• Finally, I believe that although it is not a widely reported topic I have been able to base the article on a number of verifiable, knowledgeable and very reputable sources, including the ICTY and terrorism expert Kohlmann (see the link of references).

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The Dragon of Bosnia's reply:

• LA Times article still doesn't support your claims in introduction. There is a sentence which says: "Beginning in 1992, as many as 4,000 volunteers from throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Europe came to Bosnia to fight Serbian and Croatian nationalists on behalf of fellow Muslims." But your introduction sentence says: "Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid) is the term often used for the Muslim volunteers to fight on the Bosnian government side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. The number of volunteers is estimated to have been about 4,000..." So as you can see from your own source, the sentece you wrote is wrong. The name Bosnian Mujahideen is not a common name. Foreign volunteers is a common name, so this article should be redirected to The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. I have nothing against the use of the term Mujahideen, but you are know making up new terminology adding Bosnian in front of Mujahideen. Also you did't write the exact claim from your source: "4,000 volunteers from throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Europe came to Bosnia to fight Serbian and Croatian nationalists on behalf of fellow Muslims., which means they didn't come to fight on Bosnian government side, but to defend Muslims from Serbian nationalists (this is supported also by ICTY, so how come you didn't include it?). Anyway this is just in case your source is verifiable, but it isn't according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You didn't provide the original article, you deceived us including wrong sentence saying it is supported by the source. Regarding the number of foreign volunteers, this newspaper article is less relaible than ICTY documents which state there were 300 volunteers. And ICTY is relaible source, but you decided not to include it in introduction, you were just looking for bigger numbers, which was also part of Serb propaganda. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• JM Berger article from The Premier Conservative News Forum is an example of WP:NOT content as it is a political forum: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here, I don't have to mention the term Bosnian Mujahideen has not been used. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding ICTY sources, they are not using the term Bosnian Mujahideen at all, just Mujahideen, or foreign fighters/volunteers. Second, when you use ICTY sources, the verdicts are relaible sources, not indictments according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So this article is not just redundant, it is inaccurate, incorrect and should be redirected to other existing articles. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Spillover?

I have been directed to this page by "Dragon of Bosnia" to justify his deletion of material from War in Bosnia and Herzegovina ([8], [9]). It appeared to me initially to be simple POV-based vandalism, but he seems to feel this discussion has some relevance. I don't intend to participate but correct me if I was wrong to restore the info. <eleland/talkedits> 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims

Let's try this again. Since the claims, counter-claims, and the arguments behind them can be lengthy and complex, I would like to have the discussion in a specific format. Let's try the list again, but without the reasons, details, rebuttals, etc. Just the claim. For example, instead of claiming "This article is POV, because..." or "The article uses unreliable sources, such as..." you would write "The article is POV." and only that. The other person would not rebut (on the list). Then, we will have a section for each claim (but only one at a time). There, you will provide the basis for your claim, the reasons, examples, and so on. Then, the other person will have a chance to rebut with his own evidence and reasoning. This way, we can deal with claims/problems systematically and efficiently. I'll start the list off with some issues that have been previously stated. (Note: I neither approve nor disapprove of the arguments.)

Sdirrim (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims

1. The article violates WP:NPOV.
2. The article uses sources that violate WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:RS.
3. The article is redundant.

Please extend the list (in single sentences only) if I missed any. Oh, and I'm not including the 'motive' of either party as relevant, as it cannot be proven, and is essentially speculation compounded with opinion. Besides, motives don't matter, only the content does.

Sdirrim (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sky News Video

Here's a link to a Sky News report on the Bosnian Mujahideen. This seems like something that should be listed in an "Further reading" section. Any objections?Osli73 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Claim #2

Sorry, I'm back. Let us discuss the second claim:

The article uses sources that violate WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:RS.

The Dragon of Bosnia, you made the claim, now here is your chance to provide examples and evidence. After you have done so, Osli can rebut. I will moderate the debate. Keep it civil, on topic, and above the belt.

Sdirrim (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim,

I would ask you first to read the above discussion, because I already provided the evidence for my claims. The most important claim here is the title of the article is wrong. The first sentence of this article begins with this words: "Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid)...". This is completely wrong introduction, and wrong title. There is no source in this whole article which supports this title: Bosnian Mujahideen. Second the first sentence also says, "also reffered to as El Mujahideen". It isn't reffered to as El Mujahideen because Bosnian Mujadideen is fabricated term, or original research made by Osli73. On the other hand, El Mujahideen is completely different type of term. El Mujahideen is a military unit. There is already article about this military company whose meaning in Serb media is identified with 7th Muslim Brigade. So there are already two articles which covers the subject of this wrong title article, the first article is Mujahideen, the second article is 7th Muslim Brigade. There is also the third article called The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war which also covers this. So my proposal is to redirect this article to the existing articles and to improve them, maybe the best thing is to redirect it to the Mujahideen article or to the The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war, because the foreign volunteer/fighter is the common term used in the sources. My second proposal is to delete this article, but for the beginning an admin should put OR tag as the title of this article is fabricated. There were other terms such as Arab mujahideen or Arab fighters, but Bosnian Mujadideen isn't validated by the ICTY nor by any other court on this planet (Wikipedia:Verifiability:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.). I told it once, in my opinion with all due respect, Osli73 created this redundant article just because he didn't like the existing articles and he wanted to connect Bosnia somehow with terrorism in order to move the focus from the genocide committed by Serb forces, so he joined the two terms together. Just read his explanation about his motive for writing this article. After that he nominated 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion?! But that is not how Wikipedia works. In the rest of the intro section he included political conservative claims from Free Republic forum (very similar to Serb propaganda), in order to mention Al Qaida and somehow connect it to Bosnia. So many reasons for deletion or redirection of the article. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli's reply. From reading DoB's text above it seems he primarily has four issues: the name of the title; the reference to the El Mujahed; overlap with other articles; and the motive. I'll deal with each of them (again):

1. Title "Bosnian Mujahideen": DoB claims there is no such thing as the "Bosnian Mujahideen", that it is not supported by the sources but OR. The sources I cite (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 book with the title "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" (my bold) by terrosism expert Evan F. Kohlmann (published, among other things, in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs) on Bosnian Mujahideen and their connection with global terrorist networks. 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.
2. Reference to "El Mujahed": while "Bosnian Mujahideen" is the colloquial term used to describe the Mujahideen forces in Bosnia, "El Mujahed" (etc.) are the other names under which these units operated. "El Mujahed" literally means "The Mujahideen". I don't see any problem with this. Yes, the Bosnian Mujahideen unit the El Mujahed were part of the 7th Muslim Brigade during the period from August 1993-1995. However, the Bosnian Mujahideen existed before August 1993 (e.g. see the Kabura sentence) and continued to be an issue also after the war ended and the 7th Muslim Brigade was dissolved in 1995.
3. Overlap with other articles: I believe neither of the two articles proposed by DoB properly cover the Bosnian Mujahideen. The article on the 7th Muslim Brigade is about the entire Brigade in the Bosnian army during the 1992-95 war, of which the Bosnian Mujahideen / El Mujahed were only one of its many units. This article is about the Bosnian Mujahideen, not a now disbanded Brigade in the Bosnian army (1992-1995). Also, the 7th Muslim Brigade article is poorly written and, according to several editors in the recent Afd discussion on it, full of WP:POV and WP:COATRACK issues. The article on Foreign fighters in the Bosnian war is equally flawed, both regarding title and content, and purports to cover a much wider set of issues. I would also like to note that there already are several articles about specific paramilitary units involved in the Bosnian war, such as the White Eagles, the Serbian Volunteer Guard the Patriotic League.
4. Motive: I can's see that this is an issue here. However, I created the article because I believe there were no other articles which specially and properly covered this topic. The title "Bosnian Mujahideen" was based on the title of the academic paper presented at a conference at the Swedish Military College by Kohlmann with that title and analogous to e.g. "Afghan Mujahideen" or "Iraqi Mujahideen", where a multinational force is named after the nation in which it operates.

I asked for this mediation to stop DoB's deletion/vandalism of the article and links to it on other articles. I believe DoB has put forth his claims and that I have answered them. I hope that these replies will be enough for the mediator to come to a recommendation that "DoB shall stop aggressively deleting/editing/vandalizing the article and links to it".Osli73 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

1. I still claim your sources don't support the term. Maybe there are a few examples of the term, but it is not a common name, and it is not the term in relaible sources such as ICTY sources. The title you cite: "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" by Evan F. Kohlmann war just a research/working title (and it is about the network), he changed it when published his book into a subtitle "The Afghan-Bosnian Network" (without mentioning Mujahideen). Anyway few examples are just not enough for Wikipedia to start an article. (Wikipedia:Verifiability:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.). We need sources with a reputation for fact-checking, like court verdicts.

1. Regarding Even F. Kohlmann, I don't know if he is an expert or not, but he also talks about Serb propaganda regarding foreign volunteers. You can see more info in my talk page: "Serb propaganda throughout the whole war had portrayed the Bosnian Muslims as violent extremists, fundamentalists, and as eager to jump on the bandwagon of the mujahedin.".

1. Bosnian Mujahideen is not the colloquial term. No need to explain this anymore. Probably the Mujahideen is the colloquial term. On the other hand foreign volunteer is a common term in ICTY documents.

1. As I said before, other articles cover this topic. You cannot just start a new article whenever you dislike some existing article.

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD

This article should be definitely nominated for deletion. I agree with the above claims. The term is fabricated by @OSLI73. I mean, the real term is Mujahideen, but Bosnian Mujahideen is smth else it is just the newest hit by Serb propaganda trying to link two terms together (--Bosnian-- and --Mujahideen--). The ICTY doesn't use the name, so why should we?! Common name is Arab Mujahideen. Come on guys, isn't it obvious what @OSLI73 is trying to do, he was first banned from editing Srebrenica massacre, with so many edit wars, just to find some kind of justification for the genocide committed by the Serbs in Bosnia...--Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GG, I'm not quite sure who you are adressing here. However, I'll reply.

1. No, the term isn't "fabricated" as there are several instances where it is used. I believe that what you are saying is that there are no "Bosnian" mujahideen, only Mujahideen who operated in Bosnia. However, Kohlmann and others use the term "Bosnian Mujahideen" in the same way as the terms "Afghan Mujahideen" and "Iraqi Mujahideen" are used.
2. Since Kohlmann and many others use it I can't see why you call it "Serbian propaganda". I agree that the presence of the Bosnian Mujahideen was used by Serb propaganda in the war and that we must take care not to use 'Serbian' sources (which I don't use in the article), however, this doesn't mean the Bosnian Mujahideen didn't exist.
3. the use of a term by the ICTY isn't a condition for an article's existence.
4. I resent your accusation that I am trying to "find some kind of justification for the genocide committed by the Serbs in Bosnia". Please refrain from personal attacks.

Osli73 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no "Afghan Mujahideen" and "Iraqi Mujahideen" articles? --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is the main Mujahideen article and the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen article --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No shit? I think I asked about "Afghan Mujahideen" or "Iraqi Mujahideen" articles, not about, say, Afghanistan Mujahedin Freedom Fighters Front or Mujahideen Army (Iraq). --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY. Just because an article on a topic does not exist that is no reason why this article should not exist. Because of the political concerns of the USA and EU members about Muslim people and organisations that threaten these states. People perceived as a threat by these governments living in Europe is notable. That the B&H government is taking action to diminish these concerns rather proves the old maxim "nations don't have friends, they have interests". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Osli, please stop promoting this article when it's controversial

You repeatedly post "main article" links in various other articles. This is annoying. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hazo,

1. I think it is relevant to post a link to this article at the head of a chapter on the Mujahideen in Bosnia.
2. "controversy" is in the eye of the beholder. I realize you dislike the entire subject matter of this article, but have yet to see any good arguments why.
3. I'm sorry you are "annoyed". That's not my intention. At the same time, that an article "annoys" you is not a reason not to mention it.

Osli73 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

General guidelines and principles for the article

Hi all, assuming that the outcome of the ongoing afd is to keep the article, we still need to agree on content and content editing, which is underlying reason for the current dispute. Otherwise I foresee a situation where, once the article is unprotected, an edit war gets going. To avoid that, I think we should use this time when the article is still protected and we have outside mediation to try to agree on some general guidelines about the content and how future edits should be made. Otherwise it is very likely to get bogged down into two parties talking past each other. How about it?Osli73 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Much more emphasis on post war issues and less on the war as those should be covered in the main articles about the formations that fought in the war. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is due to the Yugoslav Wars template, not the article. Notifying bot operator. Vassyana (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

The article for deletion discussion ended in no consensus, which defaults to keep. We can move this article forward in a number of ways. We should first consider whether the article should be renamed/moved. There are a few options that have been presented:

1. "Bosnian mujahideen"
2. "Mujahideen in Bosnia"
3. "Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina"
4. "Radical Islam in the Balkans"
5. "Islamic extremists in the Balkans"
6. "Paramilitary forces in Bosnia"
7. "Paramilitary forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina"

This list was drawn from the deletion discussion. 1 through 3 represent adjusting the title to reflect it is not a proper name. This would help allay concerns regarding the article title being a neologism while retaining the essential focus of the article. 4 and 5 would alter the focus somewhat to a broader look at fundamentalist and radical Islam in the region. This could help allay concerns about the article being a potential point-of-view fork by addressing the broader cause/phenomena in the general region. 6 and 7 would alter the focus to militia forces and paramilitary groups in the country, which includes the mujahideen fighters. This could also help address concerns about a POV fork by addressing the broader phenomena of militia/paramilitary groups in Bosnia. Thoughts? Suggestions? Vassyana (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen implies that it was a force from Bosnia, which it was not. Paramilitary forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be my pick. "Radical Islam in the Balkans" would also work well.Raggz (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The official name of the unit was El-Mudzahid unit, this should be the title, it's used by ICTY and other international officials. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was officially the "Kateebat al-Mujahideen", El-Mudzahid is a Serbo-Croat abbreviation. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen is the better title. The reasons are:

1. The Bosnian mujahideen were in fact mixed Bosniak and foreign, with a core of foreign fighters and the rest being local Bosniaks.
2. The Bosnian mujahideen units were officially incorporated into the mainstream Bosnian government army. Thus, they were not a 'paramilitary' force operating outside of the main army, neither de jure or de facto.
3. After the end of the war many of the foreign mujahideen were incorporated into different units of the Bosnian army.
4. The Bosnian mujahideen, both foreign and local, remained in the country after the war and many of the foreign volunteers settled in the country and married local Bosniak women.

Here are my reasons why the other suggested titles are not preferable:

• "Mujahideen in Bosnia" gives the false impression that the mujahideen were a foreign force and that the Bosnian war was one of their deployments. See above for an explanation of why it would be fair to state that these were as much Bosniak as foreign mujahideen.
• "Radical Islam..." or ""Islamic extremists..." in the Balkans cast too wide a net, since the article would then include both other expressions of radical/extremist Islam (ie non-violent such as the spread of wahabism in Bosnia and Kosovo or non-miliatary such as terrorism) as well as cover other countries (e.g. Albania, Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo).
• "Paramilitary forces..." is equally incorrect since they were in fact incorporated into the offical Bosnian government army (both during and after the war). That would also bypass the central fact that they styled themselves as "mujahideen" - religious fighers - rather than as nationalist paramilitaries.

Osli73 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. The "Kateebat al-Mujahideen" or El-Mudzhahid (Batallion of the Holy Warriors) was formed by Izetbegovic himself, so I really don't see any POV issues here. The wider issue of Radical Islam in the Balkans deserves an article too. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bull shit. Show me the evidence. The Hague didn't prove it, it just proved the existance of strong Serbian propaganda. The title is fabrication. It should be moved to El Mujahid Unit cause it was the the offical name of paramilitary unit, used in ICTY documents. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the Australian guy here just to say, El-Mudzahid means "a holy warrior", not "Batallion of the Holy Warriors"...--Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's "Serb propaganda" now? The BBC and Sky News aren't exactly known for having a pro-Serb bias. And the UN.Org, a political organisation lobbying for world government, is notoriously soft on Islamism, just look at its treatment of Israel. BTW, "Kateebat al-Mujahideen" translates as "Battalion of the Holy Warriors", read Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network, by Washington DC-based consultant Evan Kohlmann. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, I'm English (see Hereward the Wake), not Australian. Not that I would be ashamed of being associated with that great country. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And how is that related to the wrong title of this article? --Grandy Grandy (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen is a concise and accurate title. Quote from Kohlmann's book: "On 13 August [1993], the government officially mobilized the 'Kateebat al-Mujahideen' ('Battalion of the Holy Warriors') on the personal orders of Bosnian president Alija Izetbegovic, to whom the unit was directly responsible." (from Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network, by Evan F. Kohlmann, pp 91-92) --Hereward77 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kohlman is a propagandist and speculator. Those are not facts, but merely speculations. Dr Richard Johnstone (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a serious allegation, and not very helpful here. Mr. Kohlmann has worked as a terrorism consultant to the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, so he is clearly an authority on the subject. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the article

This article may require a move/name change. There was a recent deletion discussion that ended in no consensus, in large part due to the current article title (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen). Please see Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen#Moving forward (immediately above) for an overview of what is on the table for discussion.

RfC responses

I'll use the ambiguous term "combatants" to refer to the subject of the article in the following. I agree with an editor above that the adjective "Bosnian" indicates that the combatants were primarily of Bosnian origin. From the sources, I gather that there were some of Bosnian origin, but note that he primary reason this subject is of interest is because of those of foreign origin. Furthermore, expressions synonymous to "Bosnians joined the foreign combatants" lead me to believe the bulk of the combatants belonging to the subject of this article came from foreign countries.

I think using the name of an event rather than a place is the right thing to do here, especially because the subject is rather restricted. Technically, "Bosnian Mujahideen" could apply to (parts of) the Ottoman army in that era of Bosnian history. "... in the Bosnian War" is the shortest, but the most technically correct may be "... in the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina", which is awful because of the recurring word "in" and its length.

The above constitutes my opinion on the "Bosnian" part of the title of this article. I think the other part of the title, "mujahideen", can stay this way. I agree with the above that some terms are too ambiguous, and others simply do not fit. The largest argument for this, though, is that this is what most sources call it that way. Wikipedia's naming policy is based upon the most common use, not logic. Common use and logic often conflict. User:Krator (t c) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just rename this article to "Mujahideen in Bosnia"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Being that this is the English wikipedia, I believe we should rename the article with the word guerrilla replacing the word mujahidin (we can add that mujahidin is a common term/description). 'Guerrilla activity in Bosnia' sounds like a reasonable solution to me, but being that I know nothing of the territorial history, maybe it's better to use some other territorial names (Balkans?) and maybe also confine it to a certain time-frame. Does this suggestion help the discussions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the two comments above:

1. The Bosnian mujahideen consisted of both foreigners and local Bosniaks. Hence they are referred to as "Bosnian" mujahideen. Renaming the article "Mujahideen in Bosnia" gives the impression that it was mainly an issue of foreigners. Media will typically refer to the group by names such as "Iraqi mujahideen" or "Afghan mujahideen". The same logic is used here.
2. "Mujahideen" is a commonly used term in English language media today (just as "guerilla" is a Spanish word which has come into the English language).

In conclusion, there is no reason for the term "Bosnian mujahideen" to be seen as controversial. It mere refers to the foreign and local mujahideen units who fought in the Bosnian war (and who, in some cases, stayed). "Bosnian mujahideen" is a concise and reasonable way to refer to them while distinguishing them from eg "Iraqi mujahideen" or "Afghan mujahideen". Since it is well established that there were mujahideen in Bosnia and that they were both foreign and local, there is no reason replace a clear and concise article title with a long and obfuscating one.Osli73 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bosnian mujahideen" is in no way "concise and reasonable" BECAUSE IT'S NOT USED (god damn). --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong

Why not "Paramilitary formations in former Yugoslavia"? Serb animal units (Tigers, White Eagles, Scorpions, what not) don't have their articles AFAIK, Croatians and Bosnians also had their other informal militias, and the KLA(s) were guerilla organizations. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote to delete this article

The article sources speculations, not facts. Therefore, it should be removed. Osli has been blocked several times for vandalism, and his credibility is on stake. Dr Richard Johnstone (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article had a recent deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen). There was no consensus, which defaults to keep. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's vote again. How do I nominate this for deletion?142.179.67.238 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Osli's Double Standard: Trifunovic vs. so called Bosnian Mujjahadeen

Osli, you are contradicting yourself. So Bosnian sources are not credible to you? How about EVAN KOHLMAN, Serbian propagandist activist who wrote lies about Bosnian Mujahedeen and you opened Wikipedia article about Bosnian Mujahadeen based on lies propagated by pro-Serbian activist who is celebrated on Serbian Chetnik sites? You are using double standard. 142.179.67.238 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Kohlmann has worked as a terrorism consultant to the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, so he clearly isn't a "Serbian propagandist activist". Maybe you should stop propagandising and start acting like an educated adult. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GWOT

A half dozen, or more, captives held in extrajudicial detention in Guantanamo had their continued detention justified, at least in part, due to an allegation they had been "Bosnian Mujahideen".

FWIW several of them testified that they had decided to become Bosnian citizens. They testified they had paid the normal official fee those applying for citizenship paid. They attributed being listed as a foreign volunteer who had helped fight for Bosnian independence on corrupt citizenship clerks.

Ordinary applicants had to pay an application fee. This fee was waived for foreign volunteers who had fought for Bosnian independence. They attributed their presence on the list of foreign fighters to corrupt clerks who granted them citizenship as former foreign fighters -- even when they weren't, and quietly pocketed the fee legitimate applicants paid.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Given the controversial nature of this article and subject matter, any such information would have to be backed up by reliable sources for it to be used in the article.Osli73 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)