Talk:2001 insurgency in Macedonia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mujahideen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Kluche Thank you for your answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same source also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

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

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