Talk:2001 insurgency in Macedonia

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021 (2)

Change ONA casualties to: 84(Oficially stated by ONA), over 2000( unoficially by bodies counted). 64 is incorrect 37.25.87.202 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide sources for these numbers? Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source https://web.archive.org/web/20171108205017/http://tanusha2001.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:deshmoret-e-ushtrise-clirimtare-kombetare&catid=3:deshmoret-e-ushtrise-clirimtare-kombetare&Itemid=3, since it actually has the names of the fallen fighters i have used it and removed the 64 casualtions citations since this was one seems more reliable.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

NATO vandalization

NATO was not part of the conflict yet Albanian editors daily add it to the Macedonian side of the conflict, NATO was a mediator which more than once helped the NLA. They also add Bulgaria and Turkey.

Bulgaria donated tanks in 1999 and had nothing to do with the conflict in 2001. Turkey stated their support for the government which is also what all governments including the Albanian government did. This is from the citation used to add Turkey to the "Support" part

>Albania gave full support to the Macedonian government

(https://hal.science/hal-00583229/document)

As for NATO

>JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24919730?seq=12#metadata_info_tab_contents)

Quote: But you have to remember that the government in Skopje did not find allies in NATO nor in the EU. Quote: This policy should not be treated as a desire to help the Macedonians

NATO rescued the NLA from Aracinovo and was routinely accused by the Macedonian government of helping the NLA, stop this. GoofyGoofyson (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Tanuševci Operation was a Joint military operation against the NLA, KFOR started the operation by attacking NLA troops in Tanuševci which led to a retreat by the NLA. Macedonian troops later ambushed the retreating NLA troops! All of this happened in Macedonian territory this isn't even the only NATO military operation in the conflict! You must have forgotten about Operation Essential Harvest and Operation Amber Fox Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Me and countless other editors like Karadakli230 and Albnian 7 have given more than enough sources for our edits but you delate them without any reason Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Since there are sources which explicitly say that NATO was not an ally of Macedonia and at the same time the NATO forces participated in some operations against the rebels, I think that it's better not to mention NATO in the infobox and describe their involvement in the body of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Alaexis, As already Based Shqiptar from Pirok has said, he and I have already clearly stated sources and NATO has helped the Macedonian troops against the NLA, wrm we should then not include them purely in relation to Bulgaria in the source is the Bulgaria military Macedonia supported against the rebels Albanian 7 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not sufficient to warrant including them as a second belligerent, allied with Macedonia. This is misleading and an oversimplification of something that can only be described in the body, as Alaexis has already stated. --Local hero ^talk 00:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it an Over-Simplification? NATO literally attacked a major stronghold in Tanuševci and even told the NLA to Surrender to Macedonian forces https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/08/world/nato-troops-help-macedonians-drive-away-ethnic-albanian-rebels.html https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/17/macedonia.03/index.html

Further more the NATO Secretary General George Robertson referred to the NLa as "a bunch of murderous thugs" http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/07/macedonia.fighting.04/index.html

NATO also started Operation Essential Harvest, in which they disarmed Albanian rebels who were fighting for the Control of Tetovo https://books.google.de/books?id=SB1OrH8iZtcC&redir_esc=y Karadakli230 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

GoofyGoofyson provided a much reliable source (per the criteria of WP:RS). Furthermore, the second source you gave does not prove that NATO supported the Macedonian forces. The third one also doesn't prove anything - the Operation began and ended after the Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed, which also included the disarmament of the NLA (see Article 2 of the Agreement).

If we go by your logic - KFOR and UNMIK should be listed as an ally of the NLA because of:

1. A KFOR helicopter entering Macedonian airspace unannounced and dropping some sort of cargo in rebel-controlled territory.

2. The participation of Kosovo Protection Corps troops (under UNMIK) on the side of the NLA during the Battle of Raduša.

I am vehemently against the inclusion of NATO as a Macedonian ally, as it is completely against WP:NPOV. Kluche (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you can use an Macedonian claim as proof for KFOR/NATO support for the NLA, when there are literally dozens of western sources like the New York Times, CNN, BBC, the Guardian etc. which literally proof that KFOR/NATO forces attacked the NLA stronghold of Tanusevci and engaged in combat with the NLA. In fact your friend GoofyGoofyson created the Tanuševci operation site himself, proving an NATO involvement in the conflict on behalf of Macedonia. Also can you bring up an reliable third party source which proofs that the KPC participated in the Battle of Raduša?

In my conclusion, you are just coping here by denying obvious facts. It is not against WP:NPOV to add a belligerent (NATO), that engaged in COMBAT against the NLA on behalf of the REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. Drenicak32 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Drenicak32, the Macedonian sources about the KFOR helicopter use statements by officials (https://web.archive.org/web/20131003020929/http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/?pBroj=1610&stID=2318; https://web.archive.org/web/20131002140239/http://star.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=12119&idg=2&idb=315&rubrika=Makedonija).

I don't know what "my friend" has done, as I have had very limited, if not non-existant contact with them.

Since you charachterized news outlets such as CNN as reliable, here are a few sources on KPC involvement, which fufill your criteria:

https://apnews.com/article/173e5b8ef0dff14bc5e553e8a31bc72c

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/11/macedonia.peace/index.html

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/policing-protectors

https://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-088e.htm (point 6)

https://ips-dc.org/natos_credibility_in_macedonia/.

So, per your own logic, the KPC should be added here.

Furtheremore, I'd like to addrees the fact that you are fixating on one engagment - not the enitre conflict. It is well documented that NATO acted on behalf of the NLA as a gurantor of the Cease Fire Agreement. To add to this, the JSTOR source provided above in this talk states that Macedonia could not find allies in NATO or the EU.

I will make my position clear again - I am against adding NATO/KFOR/KPC as supporters of either side, instead mentioning their activity in the pages about Tanuševci and Raduša.

I'd like to also (precautiosly) make you aware that Wikipedia is not a forum, and WP:NPA, and your use of language such as "coping" may or may not constitute a violation of such guidelines. Still however, I am assuming WP:GF in this conversation. Kluche (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

KFORs actions in Tanusevci were completely in line with their role to secure the Kosovo border the operation they conducted was on the Kosovo side of the border and the Macedonian part of the operation was on the Macedonian side of the border.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

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

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

Mujahideen is not a beligerent

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

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

Hi Kluche. They were not a sub belligerent, they were members of the NLA. there was never a Mujahideen sub group inside of the NLA like there was a brigade of mujahideen Bosnia. the only source I could access [1] does not state that they were a sub belligerent. I can not access the other sources, but this one [2] is written by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and alleged pro Russian propagandist Michel Chossudovsky. Durraz0 (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Claims" about 150 mujahideen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor role

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

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

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

Consensus for removal from infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Mujahideen in the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia

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

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

---

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

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

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

• According to some Macedonian politicians and Macedonian-language media, this possibility is already a certainty. Wild and unproven allegations linking the local ethnic Albanian rebel force, the NLA, with bin Laden and 'mujahidin' were published and broadcast in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks (page 21).
• Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.van Meurs 2013 [8] Durraz0 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Opppose There are indeed sources which contest these claims such as page 21, [9], these sources specifically deny the claims of mujahidin participating in the war and refer to the claims as unproven and "wild".

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

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

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

• Oppose wikivoice That is against the policy. WP:WIKIVOICE says that claims and that are not supported by all the reliable source and claims that are described by some sources as unproven allegations should not be stated as an unqestionabke fact in wikivoice. That is also against WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. As stated zillions of times above, there are several reliable sources that question the allegations about Mujahideen involvement. They also point out that hardline nationalist Macedonian politicians and press made those allegations to lower the international community's resolve to implement the Ohrid Agreement which cemented the status of Macedonia as a multiethnic state. Such RS include:
• According to some Macedonian politicians and Macedonian-language media, this possibility is already a certainty. Wild and unproven allegations linking the local ethnic Albanian rebel force, the NLA, with bin Laden and 'mujahidin' were published and broadcast in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks (page 21).
• Meurs 2013 [11]: Because Islamic terrorism has become a pivotal issue in the media worldwide, reports and allegations quickly arose in the local and international press concerning connections between Islamic regimes in the Balkans and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Whereas the Slavic-Macedonian press claimed to have identified connections between the Mujahedin, their allies and the Albanian rebels in the hills around Tetovo.....Similarly, in tension-ridden Macedonia, hard-line Slavs have consistently equated Albanians and terrorists, speculating about possible links between the Albanian groups and the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. For the time being, however, Western conflict management seems to worry about the provocations and obstructionism of Slavic hardliners rather than about external support for the Albanian rebels. A nationalist outcry in Macedonia, portraying the Albanian rebels as the "European face of Osama bin Laden" blocked the constitutional reforms promised in the Ohrid Agreements for weeks. Because most Macedonian Albanians are rather secular Muslims, these allegations were too obvious a ploy to sway Western resolve to implement the agreement and consolidate Macedonia as a multiethnic state.
• Neofotistos 2012 [12]: Rumors concerning Serbia's purported involvement in the crisis in Macedonia and the alleged presence of foreign mujahideen fighters in the country spread widely.
• Human Rights Watch [13]: Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, the Macedonian government repeatedly used anti-terrorist rhetoric, invented threats to score political points, and raised the specter of Islamic fundamentalism among Macedonia's Albanians. After police shot and killed seven foreign men on the outskirts of Skopje in March, the government cast the incident as a thwarted "terrorist attack" on Western embassies in the capital. The Ministry of the Interior attempted to link the men with the NLA and al-Qaeda, and called them "mujahideen" fighters. Suspicions emerged when official versions of the incident changed, and the ministry rejected a request for international forensic experts to examine the bodies. The Wall Street Journal later reported that the victims were Pakistani and Indian migrants traveling to Greece to seek employment. The government continued, however, to label them "terrorists."
• Fraser [14]: The Serb and Macedonian authorities are also fond of referring to their rebellious Albanian minorities as 'terrorists' - obviously more so since the events of 11 September 2001 in New York City. They have even suggested that there are links with Osama bin Laden and profess to be bewildered that the international 'Coalition against Terrorism' is not supporting them in their efforts to deal with these Albanian terrorists. Whether or not there were any mujahedin soldiers of fortune fighting in Kosovo or Macedonia , these wars were certainly not part of a jihad. Albanians, in general, are indeed Muslims, but Islamic fundamentalism is, for most of them, a foreign concept. Their struggle has been inspired by nationalism, not religious zeal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per nom. I don't see how the three sources listed are unreliable, especially Nigel. The sources clearly state that the unit fought independent of the NLA, not as a subgroup or division of the NLA. The notion that this theory is fringe doesn't have any weight as a simple Google search has unearthed two further articles [15][16]. The fact that the weight of all the articles mentioned in this discussion are in favor of the fact support its addition as a clear statement. As a precedent, Tajikistani Civil War and 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes are good examples of Mujahideen groups worked into the infobox. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Rosguill: you make a good point that RS elaborating on the organization and structure of the NLA itself are needed. You are actually the first to note that in this discussion. From a quick search, I found Koksitidis & ten Dam (2018) [17] elaborating on the NLA: It is highly unlikely that the NLA exceeded the 3000 active combat- ants at its peak.92 A more moderate estimate speaks of 1,000 to 1,200.^3 The rebel group probably consisted of at least six brigades. It is doubtful whether these so-called brigades fiilly submitted to a higher authority. However, given the post-crisis influx of NLA veterans into Ahmeti's political party DUI (Bashkimi Demokratik per Integrim - Democratic Union for Integration), most regional commanders probably paid alle- giance to Ahmeti. The NLA also attracted a number of mercenaries, former 'professional' combatants from Kosovo, Bosnia and the Presevo Valley. The FYR Macedonian security services claim involvement of Mujahedin fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The mutilation and desecration of eight soldier's bodies at the Skopje-Tetovo highway massacre in Aug. 2001 indicated Mujahedin involvement as Albanians are not known for such cruelties at least up till this point. State security officials claim that the rest of the NLA comprised of local Albanian fighters who were paid or forced to participate but this allegation remains contentious. They say that the NLA was mostly local Albanians. They mention the presence of mercenaries from nearby Balkan countries. But on the Mujahideen presence, they treat it as a Macedonian claim for which the indication is the mutilation of some bodies. If such an elaborated source on the organization and structure of the NLA does not treat the Mujahideen presence as a fact, how can the article do the opposite? The article could also benefit from this source's elaboration on the total numbet of NLA's fighters. Durraz0 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support: No reason to hide a well-sourced statement which is also essential to the context here. The closing admin should also check votes as this one [[19]] (account was 're-activated' after 9 years just to vote here)Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

According to this conribution log [[20]] his last edit on a wikipedia article was back in Feb 2014... This should be definitely be checked by a closing admin. I don't know what Ktrimi is trying to hide here. Even old retired accounts are allowed to contribute in wikipedia but going straight into a voting proccess after 9 1/2 years this is definitely something that should be taken into consideration.Alexikoua (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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

The editor had returned to editing on May 10 [21], this RfC was opened on May 16. going straight into a voting proccess This is not a "voting process", we are not "voting" here and the conclusion of the RfC is not decided by counting "votes". The consensus is based on the strength of arguments based on relevant policies. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

"Several hundred killed (unconfirmed claim")"

I removed and readded and removed again that part [22] bc the many reverts the article has had made it difficult to figure out why and when it had been added/remove before. I will not revert again (the article already has too many reverts), but somone should verify whether the source backs the claim or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That source and assertion pre-dates this dispute. I find the following text: "The exact number of NLA fighters who were killed remains a mystery, with numbers varying from about 100 to several hundred." --Local hero ^talk 22:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

go visit the graveyard in Aracinovo Bel kamen, kicevo and Romanovce around 300 graveyards for NLa troops from 2001, only in radusa there were 150 casualties from shelling 185.100.245.167 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You are making things up without sources, this is Wikipedia and not the comment section of tiktok. 178.175.126.179 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

mujahideen involvment

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

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

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

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

UÇPMB involvment

Is UÇPMB involvet? Based Person (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

yes it was

Here's a source http://www.newsru.com/itogi/25mar2001/makedonia.html Jesssiemen (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The link is dead. Daddyson11111 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents (again)

Hello. I'm starting this thread, because I question the POV, accuracy and consistency of the content in the infobox (especially the belligerents and the strength sections). I'd like to remind that there was never consensus to include the content. I also noticed that it was disputed by at least three editors by now, so it certainly needs to be discussed. There have been attempts to discuss it before, but no consensus prevailed then. The onus to start this discussion was actually on the editors who restored the content, but I decided to start it to avoid an edit war type of situation.

The issue with NATO being listed as a belligerent on Macedonia's side on the basis of KFOR is that KFOR as a 'peacekeeping' force operates only in Kosovo, and it has had a mandate to operate only there. The Tanuševci operation is often cited as proof that KFOR (and for that matter NATO) was a belligerent on Macedonia's side. While it's true that both sides cooperated for the operation, there's nothing that indicates KFOR was not doing anything that was not within their jurisdiction, i.e border control and keeping Kosovo safe which is per their mandate. On top of that, it's disputed whether they actually entered Macedonia's territory for the operation. So I think it's misleading to include the 300 peacekepeers in the strength section, because this article concerns things that definitely happened on Macedonian territory. As for the claim that they were involved in the battle of Nikuštak, the German source explicitly says that KFOR detained the 90 suspected NLA rebels on their side, in Kosovo. It also refers to NATO's decision to deploy around 3000 troops to Macedonia, which were troops intended for the Operation Essential Harvest. I'd like to also point here to a statement by Lord Robertson on record in an interview with a Macedonian newspaper that NATO's mission in Macedonia is not "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Macedonian". If NATO was really a belligerent on Macedonia's side, they wouldn't come out with such statements. Not to mention that both NATO and KFOR have been also both criticized for their response regarding Macedonia. As for the NATO troops, they were deployed after a ceasefire, the Ohrid Framework Agreement and on request by the Macedonian government. Along with Operation Amber Fox, it was a non-hostile 'peace' operation. The NLA also agreed to voluntarily give up their weapons, not to mention also that their members were amnestied under the auspice of NATO. NATO and KFOR not being sitting ducks all the time does not make them a belligerent for either side. Compared to their role in Kosovo, NATO's role in Macedonia was limited, restricted and indirect. No NATO troops ever participated directly in hostilities on Macedonian territory. I see Phillips' source cited as proof that NATO was a belligerent on Macedonia's side, but I've found quite the contrary there, so I'll ask for pages within the source which support the notion that it was a belligerent.

The next issue is whether to include those who provided military aid, military/arms support and/or diplomatic support in the belligerents field. I see Turkey included solely because it expressed messages of support to Macedonia, but such support was also expressed by Albania, Russia, US and Britain. The latter two, apart from diplomatic support, also provided military aid to Macedonia. The EU also provided diplomatic support. So far I haven't seen any proof that any of the ones listed in the belligerents field directly participated in the hostilities. For Ukraine, the Ukrainian sources deny that they were directly involved, while Western sources say that Ukrainian mercenary pilots were involved, at least for the Battle of Tetovo. I'd like to point out however that mercenaries are distinct from soldiers, so I'd like to see proof that the Ukrainian Air Force was actually involved. I'll also wait for quotation from the Bugajski's source to see what it has to say about the issue. I hope that this matter with the belligerents gets resolved, because it's getting annoying to have back and forth discussions. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed NATO bc its inclusion is nonsense. On Turkey, it would need stronger and clearer sourcing, so I removed it too. You can remove Ukraine and Bulgaria; at this point I am neither for nor against inclusion. Those who added them do not have any meaningful experience on Wiki, and seem to misinterpret sources. At least in some cases. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove them due to lack of consensus. If any editors wish to include them, they can make their case here or ask for input from the community, since none of the previous discussions led to a common understanding. Both of their roles are currently detailed in the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The source of Turkey is neutral for that you don't need a stronger source or a clearer source Pringlesringles (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Where was the mi 24 destroyed, where was an APC caputed? This post is full of lies

There are graveyards of around 300 NLA soldiers dead from this conflict this post is full of lies they never destroyed a mi 24 in fact they didnt even know how to use javelins there is evidence with video how they just threw javelins away and ran off the whole equipment was captured before they clould even learn to use it 185.100.244.15 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

„There are graveyards of around 300 NLA soldiers dead„ such a statement is not a reliable source, and they never had javelins. Here is the source that the NLA had 2 captured APCs

https://www.mail-archive.com/antinato@topica.com/msg01077.html

The claim with the mi24 is also sourced. Edison18273 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

EVERYONE report this post, full of fake news

They never captured APCs they never destroyed Mi24 and m12 This is totaly fake report everyone 185.100.245.167 (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything is sourced, so i see no reason why the site should be fake and be reported. Edison18273 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of sources and proposing to merge several "battles" to one front

I wrote about this months ago but still no reply from any wikipedia editor here. There is a constant misuse of sources on several pages and several "battles" are completely irrelevant and only written to invent "NLA victory" in cases where the only sources are Albanian. These are the battles of Matejce, Slupcane and Vaksince where fighting was stopped by the large number of civlillians present in the villages, the first source for NLA victory on Matejce is from Albanian journalist and unnoficcial spokesman for the NLA Iso Rusi which states that the battle ended on June 5th but there are several sources that fighting was ongoing past June 6 and June 11th and that the fighting was stopped in order to allow humanitarian help for the trapped villagers and to restore the water supply to the area.

>https://www.hrw.org/news/2001/06/06/macedonia-albanian-rebel-abuses-serb-civilians >https://www.rferl.org/a/1096658.html (Skopje, 11 June 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Macedonian state radio says the army has been ordered to suspend its military operations in the Kumanovo-Lipkovo region, effective at noon today (1200 Prague time). The Macedonian army suspended its shelling of ethnic Albanian rebel positions after a morning of fighting. The radio says fighting around the villages of Slupcane, Orizare, and Matejce had subsided)...( Dimitrov said the halt in shelling was called to allow international officials to enter the area and inspect the damage to pumps supplying water to the city of Kumanovo.)

THe other source used to claim an NLA victory is an AP archive from June 18th which still mentions Macedonian Army units in the village and a no mans land between the Macedonians and the NLA, furthermore the quote that the NLA won is Albanians who only claim that the Macedonian Army lost one part of the village.

>https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=c6329f35efdd2e318aab33cd596e5085&mediatype=video

(The village had been divided between rebel ethnic Albanians and the Macedonian army. But the Macedonians, who according to the Albanians, only had three tanks in Matejce, lost their part of the village after a fierce battle. This was one of their tanks, now in no man's land. Nobody can reach the tank because of sniper fire from both sides, but the Albanians say eight dead Macedonian soldiers lie inside.)

It is clear the village was still contested beyond the arbitrary timescale imposed by the Albanian source and it is clear the Macedonian security forces did not withdraw or halt their.

The one other source used on Vaksince, Slupcane and Matejce is John Philips who uses the Macedonian General Pande Petrovski as a source regarding the "mutiny" of the Tigers police force and this is used as proof of an operational failure regarding Operation Vaksince which by all sources even the ones used in the articles was a Macedonian victory, the "mutiny" of the tigers did not stop the mission in any way, shape or form. This is the one source used on several of these pages as NLA victory when it is clear it does not even refer to said villages.

>http://www.makedonijaese.com/Svedoshtva%20-%202001.pdf

All of these "battles" should be merged into one like the battle of Tetovo, and the result absolutely should be:

Ohrid Framework Agreement Militarily inconclusive Macedonian offensives stopped because of civilian presence

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@GoofyGoofyson, if those three are merged into one, what should the resulting article be titled? --Local hero ^talk 03:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

well the war had 2 fronts

The Karadak Front and the polog front

So of course the merging of the battles in the polog region should be called the polog front and the other the Karadak Front Jesssiemen (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I still think that the pages for the battles of the villages in the polog and karadak region should still exist becouse there isn't a reason to delete them

There is a article about the eastern Ww2 front and the battles in that front do still exist so there isn't a reason of why not to have both the Karadak and polog fronts and tbe battles inside those regions Jesssiemen (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Because most of those "battles" weren't battles and there is no reliable information on when they started or ended, the NLA infiltrated some of the villages on the Kumanovo-Lipkovo front and then banned the civilians from retreating, whether they stayed on their own or it was their choice is irrelevant the Macedonian army stopped and did not carry out any ground offensives to retake the villages because of the large number of civilians in the villages, furthermore only Matejce experienced ground fighting as the Macedonian army did not even try to take back the other villages as Macedonia was pressured to deescalate the situation and allow dialogue to solve the issue. The only reason those battles were made were to create "NLA victories" in the infoboxes which never occurred.

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/05/09/in-rebel-held-towns-macedonians-remain-as-shells-rain-down/71bd89b4-58db-4e5f-a96d-a60d649a6085/

>Apart from Matejce, none of the towns has experienced ground fighting. Instead, the Macedonian army has lined up tanks and artillery more than three miles away along an old two-lane highway between Kumanovo and the capital, Skopje, and lobbed in shells. At times, helicopters have joined with volleys of rockets.

Also from the same source

>For whatever reason, they are functioning as human shields in a combat zone. Their continued presence means the army cannot pursue the all-out war and ground assault it says is necessary to defeat the rebels and stamp out a new full-scale ethnic conflict in the Balkans. It also means that mass civilian deaths, avoided in the two months of sporadic fighting that has shaken Macedonia, could be just one shell away, since the roofs of some houses are already gone and only one or two concrete floors now protect those sheltered in the basements.

Second of all the citation they use that the battles ended on May 5th is from Iso Rusi an unofficial spokesman for the NLA despite there being clear indications that the fighting for the villages continued past that date.

The Macedonian Army stopped an offensive that happened on June 11th due to the presence of civilians and international pressure to avoid civilian casualties and because the rebels were in control of the Lipkovo dam and stopped the water supply for 100.000 civilians.

>https://www.rferl.org/a/1096658.html

> Dimitrov said the halt in shelling was called to allow international officials to enter the area and inspect the damage to pumps supplying water to the city of Kumanovo.

The idea that the Albanian editors are trying to push in the infoboxes is that the Albanians won and stopped the Macedonian offensives when in reality there was little to any fighting except shelling to put pressure on the NLA without escalating the conflict and starting a ground offensive which would have cost thousands of lives, both western and domestic pressure forced the Macedonian Army to practice restraint and this is used to extrapolate an NLA victory when at best the result should be "inconclusive"

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore Albanian wikipedia editors have already merged the Operation Vaksince page which was a separate military operation which ended in a Macedonian victory with the battle of Vaksince in order to remove a "Macedonain victory" and replace it with an "NLA victory" despite there being more information and more right for a known and cited Military Operation having a separate wiki than a battle where no real fighting occurred. They did this intentionally to remove the Macedonian victory, they of course make little or no mention of the operation in the main article.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And the JSTOR source quoted saying that the operations of the NLA ended up with A success in the Kumanovo sector refer only to the original infiltration of the villages and several pages later it states.

>Until the armistice large areas of north-western Macedonia were recaptured however NO ATTEMPTS WERE MADE to luquidate hotbeds of rebellion

And later on it describes the offensives which were cancelled due to international pressure like MH2.

SO again the citations are misused and taken out of context, BUT that same JSTOR source claims a deceisive military victory of the Macedonians in the battle of Radusa yet Albanian wikipedia editors don't consider it a reliable source on that battle and the battle of Radusa result is still "Ohrid framework Agrement" with misused citaitons from months before the battle that the NLA captured Radusa again meant to pull out an "NLA victory"

>ASYMMETRY OF THE ALBANIAN-MACEDONIAN MILITARY CONFLICT IN 2001: MILITARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIGHT IN THE REGIONS OF TETOVO, KUMANOVO, ARAČINOVO AND VAKSINCE

>Despite the lack of coordination between the police and ARM troops, the government forces managed to eliminate the blockade of a border police station in Radusha, and then to discard the rebel forces.......It was one of the the biggest successesof the government forces since the beginning of the conflict in Macedonia. KLA NMET(NLA) suffered heavy losses in men and equipment. The breakdown of the rebel group brought a big propaganda and psychological success. It showed that the tenacious and determined fight against terrorists might succeed.

And again i have posted this several times in the talk section in both the main article and radusha and everybody ignores this? I have pointed out several times why the citations of the battle of Radusha are not reliable or do not refer to the battle and yet again it is ignored?

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be called the Kumanovo-Lipkovo front as that's what it was called during the war.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Front articles are out of the question. There have been attempts to create such articles, but there are no reliable sources that refer to specific fronts. Only this REFL article has referred to a Lipkovo/Kumanovo front. One journalistic article is not enough for a whole front article and it would be largely original research. Your only options are to try to improve the existing articles or to formally propose that they be merged into this article. For the latter option, you'll need to make a good case though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the wording. Where did you find it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I may or may not have borrowed it from a far more eloquent user here on Wikipedia. Annwfwn (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I learnt almost all I know on Wikipedia by stealing things from other editors. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @ACEagle12. Annwfwn (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the result is Ohrid Agreement and there is no need to switch it to aftermath,people can just see there AcEagle12 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Then place the Ohrid Agreement in the aftermath section. The reason so many folks have been edit warring over this is and the reason the Milhist infobox insists on limiting results to "inconclusive" or "x victory" is that having all this extra detail in the infobox creates controversy and is often used by folks to convey bias. Annwfwn (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah but it also needs to explain what lead to ohrid agreement like the Macedonian Albanians gaining greater political rights and NLA agreeing to disarm after that and stuff,so yeah just let the page be like it is it's already perfect it doesn't need to be changed anymore AcEagle12 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That is what the article and the lead are for. It needs to state the immediate military outcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah exactly some people won't even go to Aftermath section because some just check the military inbox then just leave,that's why it's better for the result to be there not in aftermath AcEagle12 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

AcEagle12, every article can always be improved on Wikipedia. There's no article which is perfect and simply shouldn't be changed no more. Placing a link in the result would encourage people to read more than just the infobox. The infobox is only a quick summary of the article anyway. Anyone who wants to know more about the subject will definitely read more than the infobox. I agree that bullet points can be contentious and could cause edit warring between editors. This is a simple solution to that issue. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No absolutely not,if people are interested on reading more they can do so,but placing a link on result would make people not read it,because most people want to just see the result there,that's why it's called result,not really go in aftermath and read a whole paragraph there,so it isn't necessary to add aftermath in the result instead we can just leave it like it is,Ohrid agreement and other things that resuled,if anyone is interested in reading more they can do it with their own will not be lead by the result. AcEagle12 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That would result in the whole article being repeated in the infobox. In any event, the template instructions are clear, as repeated in the first post in this section. There seems to be a clear consensus to align the infobox with these instructions, so I am going to implement it. AcEagle12, please read WP:CON and WP:WAR: if you dislike the current consensus, please demonstrate a stronger one on this page before reverting the infobox to be more to your personal taste - that is not how Wikipedia works. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with your latest version, however I find it incorrect to not mention the Ohrid Agreement there. The lead sentence of the article states the conflict "ended with the Ohrid Agreement". --Local hero ^talk 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A simple solution to that would be to integrate the content from the Ohrid Framework Agreement section into the Aftermath section. It has also come to my attention that the information in the infobox contradicts with the lead section and the body. In the infobox, it is written that the conflict ended on 12 November, while in the lead section and body, it is written that it ended on 13 August. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Most wars end with an agreement or treaty of some sort, that does not mean that they should be mentioned in the infobox. For example, the First World War famously concluded with the Treaty of Versailles, but it is not - quite correctly - included in that war's infobox. That said, it is a little odd that when a reader clicks on "Aftermath" they go to immediately after the section on the the Ohrid Agreement! Which, it seems to me, as it does to StephenMacky1, was a part of the aftermath. I have tweaked the aftermath to remedy this. Now, when you click on "See Aftermath" the first thing you see is a whole section on the Ohrid Agreement. How is that. If people don't like this, feel entirely free to implement the R of WP:BRD and bring it back here for further discussion.Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)