Talk:2001 insurgency in Macedonia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lajmpress.com/lajme/maqedoni/5447.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330000920/http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-13/world/macedonia_1_key-ethnic-albanian-party-party-for-democratic-prosperity-blagoja-markovski?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-13/world/macedonia_1_key-ethnic-albanian-party-party-for-democratic-prosperity-blagoja-markovski?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/60966
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DOM204A.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.morm.gov.mk/morm/en/pr/news/8_god_od_vejce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606224809/http://www.kultura.com.mk/BookDetails.aspx?Pr=467 to http://www.kultura.com.mk/BookDetails.aspx?Pr=467
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509042555/http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso41.html to http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso41.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311112319/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/04/macedonia.clash/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/04/macedonia.clash/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine as a Belligerents sources

- While the source http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/23/world/rebels-secure-a-base-in-macedonian-town.html mentions that weapons were acquired from Ukraine, but does not state the government was part of this conflict. - The reference from the Jamestown.org isn't a primary source. Without a better source to back this up I don't believe this source can be trusted. - If no other sources can be found to back this up. Ukraine should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoEd (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an old post but I have to agree, especially given the recent edits of the page. Ukraine was not a belligerent in the war, it did sell weapons to Macedonia but that can hardly be constituted as being a belligerent. Also Ukraine stopped after it was pressured by the US. The Russian invasion of Ukraine page is a good example, everybody has seen countless countries donating weapons to Ukraine for free, but they are not listed as belligerents in the infobox despite donations being a far more belligerent action than simply selling weapons from one state to another, all perfectly legal.

GoofyMF (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian pilots were sent to Macedonia to fight Albanian rebels which means Ukraine counts as a Belligerent Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305050053/http://www.ecmi.de/jemie/download/Focus1-2002Brunnbauer.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/jemie/download/Focus1-2002Brunnbauer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070722031334/http://www2.iisg.nl/id/Systematik.asp?cat=8&id=107 to http://www2.iisg.nl/id/Systematik.asp?cat=8&id=107
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061127093707/http://www.humanrights.coe.int/Media/activities/stability%20pact/2000/table.htm to http://www.humanrights.coe.int/media/activities/stability%20pact/2000/table.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208023205/http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/mkd-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/mkd-summary-eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006155627/http://www.icty.org/sections/TheCases/JudgementList to http://www.icty.org/sections/TheCases/JudgementList
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712033646/http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr115.html to http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr115.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 19 September 2017 (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)

aaaaaaa

?Shouldn't it be called the Republic of North Macedonia rather than the Republic of Macedonia after the referendum that changed the name of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Name changes like this aren't retroactive as far as Wikipedia is concerned; which is why don't refer to the Großdeutsches Reich as Bundesrepublik Deutschland. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved by unanimous support — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

---

2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia → 2001 insurgency in Macedonia – There was no other insurgency in any other Macedonia that year (so WP:PRECISE) and most contemporary English-language news sources from the time just used plain "Macedonia" when referring to the then-ongoing conflict (so MOS:COMMON). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. Makes sense to me. --Local hero ^talk 01:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. Per the moving rationale comment made by Illegimate Barrister. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Support per nom. Less Unless (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Support most common and sufficiently precise.--Staberinde (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Al-Qaeda involvement

The following discussion 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.

---

the sources in which you reference to, do not state that the NLA had direct links to Al-Qaeda or were supported by them. reference 1, points out FYROM media and FYROM state security portraying the NLA as being associated with mujahids and al-Qaeda however it goes as far as to debunk some of these claims. source two and three do not say the NLA was associated with al-Qaeda instead it talks about al-Qaeda recruitment in the Balkans. the third source mentions al-Qaeda only with the Bosnian war. Durraz0 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Durraz0: Discussions start because there are disputes about the interpretation of bibliography. If an editor adds content which isn't discussed in bibliography, remove it. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not find where in the cited sources is provided the info, Al-Qaeda supported directly and deliberately UCK, military or in another way. Jingiby (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all by Prespa Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prespa_agreement) there is no such thing as "FYROM" so please refer with the official country name and I'll respond to you. Thanks! --ButtersIO (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited sources don't discuss links to al-Qaeda. The source which discusses in detail narratives about al-Qaeda in Macedonia writes:

• 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.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello , I don't understand why are you trying so hard to hide the facts and change the truth when I marked 3 sources with clear evidence of that group involvement in 2001 Conflict in Macedonia by changing the original. In your quotation there is not a clear rejection of collaboration between UCK and al-Qaeda. We must undermine that this was the text with the most sources in the article (3), so here are the texts, proofs and sources:

The most obvious distinction came in the language used to describe the combatants. The Macedonian language media generally spoke of “terrorist attacks”, featuring “fires, looting, torture and terror,” against Macedonian civilians by “terrorists”. In these accounts, Macedonian security forces appear as “defenders of the fatherland” confronting “Albanian terrorist gangs infiltrating from Kosovo and Albania”, assisted by “Mujahedins”, who after 11 September 2001, were recast as “al-Qaeda terrorists”. The message here was that the war was provoked and conducted by terrorists, with assistance from Kosovo. Their aim was to conquer part of Macedonia, drive out all non-Albanians, then partition the territory. As such, they were cast as forces of destruction, hostile to the status quo and established international order. , p. 37

Articles and reports appeared, claiming that the NLA had direct connections with al-Qaeda, that the CIA knew that Osama Bin Laden’s fighters had fought with Albanian terrorists in Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania, and that NLA leader Ali Ahmeti had accepted money from Osama Bin Laden via Sali Berisha, the former president of Albania. One of the most emotive claims was that al-Qaeda terrorists had carried out a massacre of eight soldiers and policemen near the village of Vejce on 28 April 2001. The Macedonian language media broadcast ministry of interior statements claiming that “the intelligence service possesses footage showing Mujahedin activities in Macedonia”, while daily newspapers published photos of Mujahedin fighters allegedly taken in Macedonia. , p.41

Israel military intelligence sources were quoted claiming that al-Qaeda terrorists from Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia had been ordered to open asecond Islamic front against the USA in the Balkans. , p.41

At the end of October 2001, the Macedonian language media widely quoted a story from the British Independent newspaper, reporting that Interpol had discovered links between al-Qaeda, the Albanian mafia, and Albanian terrorists in Macedonia. , p.41

In Albania, terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), the Islamic Armed Group (GIA), and Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) infiltrated the country and used charities to raise and distribute funds. In relation to the war in Kosovo, a conference of Islamic organizations resolved to regard the Muslim Albanians strugles for independence as a Jihad. According to various sources, during the conflict in Macedonia, the ranks of the National Liberation Army (NLA) included approximately 150 Mujahidin from Albania, Bosnia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, all of whom participated in the fighting.59, p. 46

The presence of active fundamentalists in Macedonia brought the attention of experts on terrorism and raised concerns of wider international community. The reaction came in 2004 when French terrorism experts of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center revealed that up to one hundred fundamentalists linked to terrorist organizations were operating in Macedonia. In addition, Monique claimed that al-Qaeda had financial links with local crime and accused Zenun Berisha, the chief mufti at that time, of supporting radical Islam and appointing fundamentalists to positions in mosques and the administration of the Islamic Community of Macedonia (IVZ).70, p.37

The IIRO collected and provided around $2 million for the people of Kosovo.98 It is unknown how much of these funds were diverged to Macedonia, and for what purposes. In 2003, it was confirmed that IIRO actively supported the worldwide activities of al-Qaeda.99 However, IIRO reopened its office in Tetovo, north-west Macedonia., p.61

There are many songs posted on the Internet about Bin Laden and alQaeda, often in Arabic language. However, in August 2010 an online music video devoted to Osama bin Laden was registered and aired for the first time, in Albanian language, on an Islamic forum. The short video shows a group of men celebrating alQaeda’s war against the West, they sing “Oh Osama, annihilate the American army. Oh Osama, raise the Muslims honor. I September 2001 you conquered a power. We all pray for you.” The author and poster of this video are unknown. Representatives from IVZ were aware of the video, and expressed their belief that it was created by Wahhabi groups controlling several Skopje mosques.108 Irrespective of the author, the video is promotes jihad and glorifies Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The language of the video clearly identifies that Albanians are the intended audience; the video aims to recruit Albanian Muslims for the jihad. , p. 49-50

The Bosnian Embassy in Vienna issued a passport to bin Laden in 1993, according to various reports in the Yugoslav press at the time. The reports add that bin Laden then visited a terrorist camp in Zenica, Bosnia, in 1994." -- "Al-Qaeda's Balkan Links" by Marcia Christoff Kurop, published in "The Wall Street Journal Europe" on 1 November. "By 1994, major Balkan terrorist training camps included Zenica, and Malisevo and Mitrovica in Kosovo. Elaborate command-and-control centers were further established in Croatia, and Tetovo, Macedonia, as well as around Sofia, Bulgaria, according to the U.S. Congress's task force on terrorism. In Albania, the main training camp included even the property of former Albanian premier [editor's note: he was president] Sali Berisha in Tropje [editor's note: Tropoja?], Albania, who was then very close to the Kosovo Liberation Army.

--ButtersIO (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

none of us are trying to hide any facts. your bibliography literally states that the North-Macedonian media tried to portray the NLA as being supported by the al-Qaeda without any proof. al-Qaeda trying to recruit ethnic Albanians in 2010 does not mean al-Qaeda supported the NLA in 2001. "terrorist" camps in Kosovo and Albania in 1994 does not mean the NLA was supported by al-Qaeda in 2001. Durraz0 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've literally shared the proofs above, you just need to read them, what more can I say if you don't want to accept the facts. I am genuinely honest while you are trying to prove me that white is black. Do you have some official denial from UCK about their support by al-Qaeda? --ButtersIO (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You should read carefully the cited bibliography. It doesn't discuss such links. 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.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I read it and it does, here I would add one more and last source not by English, Swiss or Macedonian organisations, but by Greeks, reminder that N.Macedonia and Greece had really bad relationship back in early 00s so this couldn't be any more unbiased. The truth is that you want to deny the fact while everyone here and in this region know the truth, deal with that it had been past, that doesn't mean that all Albanians are al-Qaeda supporters today. So after 4 sources (most by far in this article) if you revert the original again I would report that to admins. Meanwhile you didn't add a single fact about the case.

"An examination of the presence of Islamic terrorism in Albania will follow. Emphasis will be given to Osama bin Laden’s visit to the country, al-Qaeda’s locally planned targets and to Albania’s most recent reform measures relating to international efforts against terrorism. We will then turn to Kosovo and the alleged links of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) to Islamic terrorism. Various claims will be evaluated and the nature and goals of the organization dissected. Turning to FYROM, the National Liberation Army’s (NLA) connection to terrorism will be assessed in a similar manner. It will emerge that although mujahedin fighters did participate in both the KLA and NLA, these organizations were primarily nationalist and irredentist in character lacking any significant jihadi dimension."

--ButtersIO (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

an assumption that foreign mujahideen's might have joined the NLA does not equivilate the NLA being supported by al-Qaeda. none your sources state this as factual. Durraz0 (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok are you trolling or what, it doesn't say that "might have joined" but

"mujahedin fighters did participate in both the KLA and NLA"

. I don't know what to say anymore it's like talking to a wall. --ButtersIO (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• 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. can't be translated to al-Qaeda supported the NLA in any shape or form.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that 150 mujahedeen participating in a war "can't be translated to al-Qaeda supported the NLA". Wow, then at least add the number of 150 and don't delete the whole paragraph with sources etc. EdJohnston (talk · contribs) and Jingiby (talk · contribs) please check this out. --ButtersIO (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. a mujahid is someone who fights for Islam/Allah. al-Qaeda is an organization, the assumption that there might have been some mujahids among the ranks of the NLA do to 150 mujahids fighting in Kosovo 2 years prior, does not mean that NLA was supported by al-Qaeda. Durraz0 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked the source of UCK casualties and it's just a self reported number, not an official one

The former political and military leadership of the ethnic Albanian National Liberation Army (NLA) claims their losses up to the present amount to 64 fighters having lost their lives since the incident in Tanusevac last February.

--ButtersIO (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

this discussion is about alleged al-Qaeda involvement, not casualties. Durraz0 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2021 (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)

References

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.

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)

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

Why are the 4 albanian crimes again at humanity Not documented Here ?!

- there are 4 terrorist acts of the so called NLA/UCK commited in 2001 again at Macedonians:

1. 12 civolians Kidnapped from and Killed from their homes 2. Mavrovo workers kidnaped from Road works and tortured. UCK fighters we're writing letters with knives into the flash on the Back of These people 3. NLA leadership 4. They closed water in lipkovo on whole City of Kumanovo leaving 60.000 civilians, children For weeks with No drinking water

Write these facts in the article, you can find Them everywhere in Internet ! 2A02:810D:E80:4E6C:81B2:2842:EE6E:E94A (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add this information, assuming there are reliable sources which describe them and giving them appropriate weight. Alaexis_¿question? 12:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Vaksince Attack into 2001 insurgency in Macedonia

The following discussion 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.

---

These two articles, Vaksince Attack and Vaksince offensive, suffer from the same problem. While some (not even a majority) of the references in these articles specifically address Macedonian military maneuvers in Vaksince, none of them refer to a "Vaksince attack" or "Vaksince offensive" in a fashion that rises above WP:NOTNEWS. I was not able to find any results in a google scholar search, which leads me to conclude that these battles are not notable enough to meet WP:GNG, and thus should be merged to the broader article about this conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree in part, the so called Vaksince Attack page was intentionally made to create a battle and an NLA victory out of thin air. The Vaksince Attack is the "Vaksince Ambush" refered to in both Operation MH-2, you can check the infobox it claims 2 Macedonian dead 1 captured which is identical to the so called "Vaksince attack" and the Vaksince offensive furthermore check the Vaksince offensive it was originally created with the "NLA victory" tag (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaksince_offensive&oldid=1084631004) citing a BBC article that outlines the events, it says that on may 3 a Macedonian offensive in Vaksince "failed" after checking all avaliable sources it's clear that there was no such offensive and that the NLA did not stop or even fight a Macedonian Army offensive. On May 3 the Macedonian Army planned an offensive and submitted a deadline by May 3 to release the captured soldier and evacuate the civilians in the city after which it started preparatory shelling both to threaten the NLA and to get the civilians to leave, the civilians did not leave and the soldier was later released, the planned offensive in the wider region began 5 days later on May 8 and was called Operation MH-2 which like the infobox says on the Vaksince offensive was halted by foreign influences due to the civilian presence in the region.

The Vaksince offensive and Operation MH-2 are one and the same they were intentionally separated by Albanian wikipedia editors to create an NLA victory on the fact that the operation was postponed. According to the memoirs of the Macedonian General who planned the operations found here online page 61 (https://macedonianhistory.ca/Stefov_Risto/Svedoshtva%20-%202001%20-%20e-book%20Macedonian.pdf)

"According to the proclamation, an ultimatum was also given in the village of Vaksince for the captured soldier be handed over. Due to the severity of

the situation, because the captured soldier was not handed over, after the appointed time, warning actions were carried out in the village.

Vaksince on 5/3/2001. The actions were outside the village itself after certain battle positions.

It was still a preparation for the upcoming military operation that is, the previous combat actions were a warning

so the population in the villages would move out" it should be noted that the page has several typos including the /5/3/2001 aka the American way of coutning dates and not the 3/5/2001 that it should be the mistake is only in that format when speaking in prose the date is correct, one day before Operation MH-2 he says he received a videotape from UK ambassador and he says the correct date May 7. "Around 8:00 p.m. (May 7, 2001), Zvonko Kashirski came and we played the videotape in the office of the head of the General Education what brought her etc

After that on page 65 the title says "Execution of the Operation MH-2" and then recalls the events mentioned in Vaksince offensive ie the offensive being halted by the President under pressure from the West due to the civilian presence in the region. So in other words Vaksince attack and "Vaksince offensive" should both be moved to Operation MH-2 as the casualties are there.

I was going to make and still will, a talk page on the constant misuse of sources and creation of pages for the sole purpose of claiming NLA victories.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, Firstly Macedonians created several similar wikipages like the Skopje Raid or the Raduša ambush, which were almost entirely based on Macedonian sources, while this Page only uses reliable western sources, yet a merge or a deletion was not proposed. Secondly the Attack/Ambush in Vaksince was important, since it was one of the first times where the NLA captured territory and it drectly led to the first Major Offensive by Macedonian Forces on 3 May 2001. You also mentioned that you couldn't find any sources about the Vaksince offensive, yet when i typed in "vaksince offensive 3 may 2001" i found multible news articles mentioning the Incident in detail, those sources also mention the ambush/attack of the NLA in Vaksince in detail, since it happend on the same day. Karadakli230 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But can you find peer-reviewed scholarly sources that discuss it? This isn't something that happened yesterday, it's more than two decades old. If it were of outsize significance, it would be covered in scholarly literature by now. Meanwhile, if there are articles with similar problem for the other military faction, I would be in favor of merging them too. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting the recent edits at Vaksince Attack, at a glance [1] [2] look like good sources! But, their treatment of hostilities in Vaksince is brief, as part of a more general overview of this phase of the campaign more broadly. Based on the level of granularity in the sources, you could probably justify creating an article for the events described in the Fighting in Kumanovo section of the 2001 insurgency aarticle (maybe with a better title). I stand by my assessment of the suitability of splitting off an article, and note that the US press declaration that was added is exactly the kind of primary source that a carveout article invites but which is simply WP:OR without secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources you just posted say that the attacks were on May 6 and only mentions artillery/mortar/helicopter attacks and that it was done to warn the civilians to leave the area for the upcoming offensive which was Operation MH-2 and that the NLA did not defend from or stop a Macedonian ground offensive which is implied by the Vaksince attack page.

The Vaksince attack page stated that "On the same day Macedonian forces started a Offensive in the village of Vaksince Macedonian army halted their offensive and failed to regain control over the village" even tho by all accounts the offensive did not start and the shelling was a direct response to the ambush, according to this blatant POV pushing by the Albanian wikipedia editor the implication is that A: The offensive was not related to the ambush B: The Macedonian army failed in it's offensive

This is an attempt to create a Macedonian Army failure against the NLA who would have won this supposed battle. Even tho it's clear that the shelling on May 3 was in direct response to the ultimatum to release the man held hostage and was only shelling not an offensive, no army in the world can start an offensive in less than 24 hours which is implied by the Albanian wikipedia editors who desperately hope to find a way to imply an NLA victory against a Macedonian Army offensive.

The Macedonian government aborted the military operations to avoid civilian casualties this was praised by the US in the "reactions page":

"We support the measured response of the Macedonian armed forces to such terrorist violence. We have continued to urge the Government of Macedonia to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties as they take the necessary steps to uphold the rule of law."

This measured response and care for civilians that the Macedonian government showed is used to claim an NLA victory

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Skopje raid actually happened and it was important in several ways, because the NLA in Arcinovo threatened to attack the capital so the finding of NLA men there confirms that the NLA planned operations in the capital, and it was also important in that because of that action that the NLA committed the Karpalak ambush.

The radusha ambush is no less important than the Gajre ambush and Ambush near Tanuševci, during the Gajre ambush 5 soldiers died and Tanusevci 3. The Radusha ambush would have cost 7 and would be as heavy a death toll as the Vejce ambush the only reason you don't think it's relevant is that the NLA lost. Furthermore on the Lisec ambush you deleted all Macedonian sources and claimed that it was an NLA failure not a Macedonian victory even tho it is one and the same, an NLA failure is a Macedonian victory. But because you do not edit in good faith, instead try to create NLA victories out of thin air and deny Macedonian victories you added NLA failure becuase i assume it's less offensive to you than a Macedonian victory.

As for the NLA capturing Vaksince this is absurd as Vaksince was not defended by police or army checkpoints the NLA infiltrated the village and ambushed the patrol on it's way back from a border outpost and then proclaimed a liberated territory and was subsequently defeated during Operation Vaksince a scaled down version of the Operation MH-2 which was postponed. You also changed Macedonian-KFOR victory to KFOR-Macedonian victory on the tanusevci incident because again your plan is obviously to minimize Macedonian victories another and blatant case of the fact that you do not argue in good faith is your editing of the radusha battle without citations that the Macedonian Army had 2000 soldiers and 30 tanks and that the NLA captured Kuckovo as well as Radusha. And now you are using a source that says the NLA "captured" radusha in July for the battle which is in August.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Goofy, your most recent edits at Vaksince Attack seem rather WP:POINT-y, can we take a step back and figure out what peer-reviewed sources say about the periodization of the conflict should be before making such edits? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, if the Albanian wikipedia editors actually used the same criteria before they intentionally created fictional battles. I will cease edits on the page because i believe that all the information i posted clearly shows that it was an ambush and not a battle for control of a village and i used the same sources in the article only i added quotes to clarify what the sources actually said which is why i don't consider it "POV pushing" i also added a more detailed Macedonian account of the battle which does not disagree with the other accounts and is there merely to give more detailed information.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

GoofyGoofyson, Karadakli230, I've put a request for further participation at WP:PAM, and posted neutral invitations to WikiProjects for North Macedonia, Albania, Yugoslavia and Military history in order to help us reach a consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is very good. I am fairly new to wikipedia editing would you mind explaining if there is anything i need to do personally? Thank you

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Now we wait (again). The PAM backlog is quite slow. If any other editors feel motivated to participate irrespective of how they found the discussion, they can also help us move towards consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 4 January 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.

2001 insurgency in Macedonia

Macedonians and albanians have always argued about who won the 2001 insurancy in Macedonia, one thing that we all can agree on is that nato was in it and it stoped the tention in the war In the article we should add nato as a 3rd combat to the war as it had broken the conflict between the NLA and the Macedonians Patrick batmen123 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A procedural note: your edits have added information to the infobox without adding anything to the article body. Infoboxes serve as summaries of the article; information in the infobox must appear in the article as well, and it is its prominence within the article that establishes its dueness for inclusion in the infobox. I haven't reviewed the sources you've provided, but assuming that they are valid, you should use them to first add relevant content to the article body, and only then consider adding them to the infobox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm realizing now that your most recent changes were concerning the inclusion of Albanian paramilitary groups as belligerents, and not the inclusion of NATO, which is the thread you've started here. Regardless, the general advice stands. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• There was no "insurancy" in Macedonia at the time, there was an insurgency. The Mujahedeen stuff has always been an unproven claim, usually made by those with anti-Albanian or pro-Macedonian bias. Sth about that can be written in the article, but not in the infobox as it would be misleading. Your sources do not say that the Kosovo Protection Corps fought in the conflict. They say that some (apparently five) members of KPC fought, and for that they were expelled from the organization. The other Albanian organization you added has no source to back its addition. Read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:3RR carefully, it seems that you do not understand the editing process as much as you should. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  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? 08:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

AKSH involvement.

why is AKSH removed when sources indicate it was involved ? 178.175.116.79 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents

Hello. I'm starting this thread because NATO's status as a belligerent has been repeatedly challenged for a while now. Since there are editors who insist on adding it as a belligerent and editors who object, it'd be more productive to discuss it here and try to reach a common understanding, instead of repeatedly disputing it over edits. I'm inviting you all to discuss it here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Albanian 7 @Based.shqiptar.frompirok Please discuss disputed content here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Constant vandalism in order to create NLA victories and editing in bad faith

I have been editing articles here for months and there is a constant attempt by Albanian editors to vandalize articles without any good citations to imply NLA victories or flat out invent battles or restrict dating for the same reason. The most recent ones have happened after the merger of two articles about the fighting in Vaksince and a new page for the fighting around Matejce.

VAKSINCE

The page was originally for Operation Vaksince which was a military offensive by the Macedonian Army which ended in success on may 25th. Now the dating has been pushed to May 3 - June 6th. The name was changed to "Battle of Vaksince" and the result changed to "NLA victory", previously Albanian editors tried inventing "Vaksince attack" which was a small ambush already in the main article and "Vaksince Operation" an Operation that never happened on May 3 to imply the NLA stopped the offensive.

1. The fighting around Vaksince did not end on June 6th this is completely arbitrary 2. The Macedonian Army did not launch any offensives in the Kumanovo-Lipkovo area due to: a) The civilian population was still in the village and would lead to massive casualties b) The West forced Macedonia to cancel the offensives to allow diplomatic talks to continue

There is no proof that the NLA took Vaksince apart from the fact that they declared victory:

The citations used are only one CNN article that states that the claim comes from the NLA and could not be independently verified. (https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/07/macedonia.riot.02/index.html) >"The NLA's Commander Shpati said his men completely controlled Matejce, the focus of fierce fighting at the weekend, and were once more occupying the village of Vaksince. The claims could not be independently confirmed"

In a JSTOR book on the conflict there is no mention what so ever on the recapture of the village only that the Macedonian Army recaptured the village during the military operation, and that afterwards the NLA started offensive operations in Matejce. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24919730?seq=11#metadata_info_tab_contents)

Matejce

Another newly created battle with the "NLA victory" result. Timeframe 24 May - June 5. This is also part of the Kumanovo-Lipkovo fighting and is also mentioned in the main article and the same problems with Vaksince apply.

1. The Macedonian army fought for the village well after June 5 2. The Macedonian army offensive that was planned was halted because of civilian presence (Macedonia: Army Suspends Operations In Kumanovo-Lipkovo) June 11 3. Even the citation used for an "NLA Victory" states that the village was shelled daily at least up until 19th of June

No citations actually claim NLA victory The JSTOR book citation is (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24919730?seq=11#metadata_info_tab_contents) and claims successful NLA operations in Kumanovo, but this is BEFORE the Vaksince operation, this book also claims a decisive Macedonian victory in Radusha but the SAME author deletes it. The citation that says that the Macedonian forces were retreating by June 5th is an Albanian source from Iso Rusi an unofficial spokesmen of the NLA

The article also states that "Macedonian propaganda" about the NLA using the civilians as human shields was disproven as propaganda as a matter of fact. The only citation is a German newspaper quoting an Albanian woman. Despite this several citations which were removed clearly stated that it was impossible to tell who kept the civilians there and that even if they did so voluntarily they still served as human shields. And this still prevented a Macedonian offensive.

In both cases the Macedonian army was not allowed to conduct military action against the insurgents due to pressure from NATO in order to find a political solution to the conflict.

>https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/07/macedonia.riot.02/index.html

"Robertson also called for restraint from Macedonia, while stopping short of urging the government not to declare a state of war. "I also encourage the government in Skopje to persevere in its two-tack approach of engaging an effective political dialogue while using necessary and proportionate military force," he said."

"They were persuaded not to do it by the Western powers who said it would alienate ethnic Albanians and complicate the search for peace."

The result should at best be inconclusive.

Radusha

This article also gets vandalized, the article uses a JSTOR citation that clearly states that the Macedonian Army was victorious in the battle, despite this I in good faith have not changed the result to Macedonian victory and it remains "Ohrid Framework Agreement" the issue is the supposed capture of Radusha which no citations except an interview with an NLA commander express. The outpost and army barracks were captured which i have added to the result.

The same editor who vandalizes this page removed the Macedonian claim for Albanian casualties stating they are "unreliable" and replaced them with Albanian NLA claims, previously both NLA and Macedonian claims were present now only the Albanian claims and most importantly without the (NLA claim) in brackets. That same editor had previously without a single citation changed the result to "NLA victory" and claimed in the * that the NLA captured Radusha and Kuckovo and that 2000 Macedonian soldiers were present, no citations were provided even when i asked for them. The only citation that says the NLA captured Radusha is from the original entry of the NLA in Radusha in July which was then retaken by the Macedonian Security forces as evidenced by the NLA offensives in Radusha that attacked the Macedonian outposts in the village.

I aplogize for this long text but its been months without any sort of improvement, vandalism and edit wars are daily and citations are routinely dismissed out of hand without any dialogue, text or even an attempt at a concensus, i have constantly and in good faith edited articles with citations and gave the other editors the benefit of the doubt, but the other editors routinely invented and add unsupported claims and use sources that mention battles months previously than what the articles are about.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2023 (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)

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 [3][4]. 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 [5]: 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 [6]: 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 [7]: 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 [8]: 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 [9]: 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)

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)

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 [10] does not state that they were a sub belligerent. I can not access the other sources, but this one [11] 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)

---

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 [12]: 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 [13]: 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 [14]: 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 [15]: 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 [16]: 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

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 [17] 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, [18], 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.[19].

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 [20]: 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 [21]: 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 [22]: 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 [23]: 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)

• 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 [24][25]. 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)

"Several hundred killed (unconfirmed claim")"

I removed and readded and removed again that part [26] 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)