Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen/archive001

NOTE: Mediator Sdirrim (talk) commented the content of this section. It's still in the source for those who want to read it. However, I would like to "Take it from the top" and hear the story from the beginning. However, this should go on Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen.

<!-- Users The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy have (repeatedly) delted the article Bosnian Mujahideen and links to it based on the following arguments (my understanding of them as based on their comments on talk pages and in edits):
 * 1) that the term "Bosnian Mujahideen" does not exists,
 * 2) that the article is highly WP:POV and constitutes propaganda,
 * 3) lacking in sources and is WP:OR, and
 * 4) that it overlaps with the article 7th Muslim Brigade and/or the article The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war


 * In response to this I argue that:
 * the title "Bosnian Mujahideen". The sources I cite (which you do not contest or mention) do specifically refer to the "Bosnian Mujahideen". In particular the choice of article name is based on the research paper and book with the title "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" by terrosism expert Evan F. Kohlmann (published, among other things, in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs) on Bosnian Mujahideen and their connection with global terrorist networks.
 * In its judgement for Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura the ICTY states that "As a result, local people joined the foreign Mujahedin and in the process became local Mujahedin. They imitated the foreigners in both the way they dressed and behaved, to such an extent that it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two groups. For that reason, in the Judgement, the Trial Chamber shall use the term "Mujahedin" to designate foreigners from Arab countries, but also local Muslims who joined the Mujahedin units." (my bold). So it is quite apparent that the Mujahideen units in Bosnia were mixed containing both foreign and local Mujahideen, hence I name the article Bosnian Mujahideen, in accordance with the ICTY finding.
 * several sources use other variants of the name, including (but not limited to): El Mujahid, El Mudjahid, El Mujahed, El Mujaheed, Bosnian Mujahiden).
 * The 7th Muslim Batallion is the name of the larger unit of the Bosnian Army in which the Mujahideen units were included during part of their existence. However, the 7th Muslim Batallion also included other units who were not Mujahideen. Indeed, the 7th Muslim Brigade article specifically states that it is not to be confused with the Bosnian Mujahideen. To the extent that the article mentions the Bosnian Mujahideen it is more concerned with how they were used in Serbian propaganda rather than than discussing the actual unit.
 * the article is based on verifiable and reliable sources (pls note the list of references). I have exclusively used American and British media and government sources as well as ICTY documents precisely to avoid the type of knee-jerk accusation of "Serb propaganda" which you claim. Please see the list of references.
 * I agree that Bosnian Mujahideen was a part of Bosnian Serb propaganda during the war. That doesn't mean they did not exist (otherwise the reputable sources listed would not mention them).
 * the article does not refute that Bosnian Serb forces committed the majority of war crimes during the war. However, the article is about the Bosnian Mujahideen.
 * the article The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war article is a more general article about the foreign involvement in the Bosnian war. This is an article specifically about the involvement of the Mujahideen in the war, and could be seen as a subset of that overarching article.
 * Given the above, I can't see that Dragon of Bosnia's and Grandy Grandy's opposition to the article has any merits.Osli73 (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply from The Dragon of Bosnia (talk):

*the term is used by reliable sources and provided examples of that Osli73


 * I don't agree, because the sources are not relaible per WP:RS (political forum site, broken links and mailing lists are not relaible sources). The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

*the article is based on US and UK media and government reports, ICTY documents and academic papers so as to avoid charges of "propaganda" and partisanship, Osli73


 * This isn't true. But let's go from the beginning:
 * Nettime mailing list - Post by Drazen Pantic on Tue, 9 Oct 2001 couldn't be verified as the link to the article is broken - Page Not Found. And it doesn't contain the term Bosnian Mujahideen. According to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." which isn't the case here, to quote: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an example of [[WP:NOT] content] as it is a political forum, actually The Premier Conservative News Forum. On their site you can find what it is about: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here.The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This report also doesn't contain the term you are using. It just contains: "foreign mujahideen fighters", and there is already article about foreign soldiers: The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hadzihasanovic verdict you quoted actually discards all your claims about foreign fighters (that they were controlled by Bosnian army, but you didn't include the rest of the quote in the article.) I will quote it here: "However, the Trial Chamber could not establish that the Accused Hadzihasanovic or the Accused Kubura gave any orders to the Mujahedin and that those orders were implemented. Moreover, in the 3000 or so documents the Trial Chamber has analyzed, there is no combat report from the Mujahedin to the Accused, nor any other document which indicates that the Mujahedin were answerable to the Accused. However, in their combat reports, the commanders of the 3rd Corps units often complained of the undisciplined behaviour of the Mujahedin during joint combat operations. The Trial Chamber also notes that prior to 13 August 1993, the 3rd Corps war diaries hardly mention the Mujahedin."

*the article lists extensive reliable and verified sources and does not, in my opinion, put disparate pieces of fact together in such a way as to lead readers in a direction which is not supported by the sources Osli73


 * This isn't true as I showed you above. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

*that (a) the Muslim 7th Brigade article does not cover the Mujahideen (indeed that article states "It was often misinterpreted by Serb and Croat media, which confused it with the squad of Arab volunteers known as El-Mudžahid - foreign fighters from various Islamic countries that fought during the 1992-95 Bosnian War''") and (b) that the The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war article mainly deals with their use in Serbian and Croatian propaganda and is otherwise, in my opinion, not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Osli73''


 * You can improve any of these articles with relaible sources and new data, but creating new article with the same topic and false terms isn't good way for Wikipedia as it is WP:NOT content based on propaganda. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I would appreciate help in either getting user The Dragon of Bosnia to stop deleting the page and/or accepting to merge the Muslim 7th Brigade article into the Bosnian Mujahideen article.Osli73 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is redundant article based on WP:NOT sources, as I showed you. Osli73 should improve the existing article about foreign soldiers The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war which is much more relaible or 7th Muslim Brigade. With all due respect, Osli73 is a user with the long block log because of edit wars etc, so I see this as another example of moving edit war from one article to another. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This clone article attack is ridiculous, I mean @Osli73 what is your point here?! To connect Bosnia with terrorism and to frighten people in order to hide/deny/justify genocide committed by Serbs?! I am shocked...Grandy Grandy (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) -->

Mediator notes
Acceptance of volunteer. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with Vassyana assisting in this case:
 * Osli73 --
 * Grandy Grandy --
 * The Dragon of Bosnia --

Discussion
Discussion goes on Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen.


 * Osli73 asked me to comment on this article and user:The Dragon of Bosnia has also placed a comment on my talk page.


 * user:The Dragon of Bosnia make a valid point when he/she/it says "think Osli73 should improve the existing articles, but creating a new article with the same topic and false terms in order to move edit war from the existing article to the new one isn't a good way for Wikipedia as it is WP:NOT content based on propaganda." because part of the arguments involved here is that of a WP:POVFORK. However the term Mujahideen was commonly used by the English media during the war and is a much more familiar term for the Mujahideen than "7th Muslim Brigade" much as the Eagle Squadron is much better known than No. 71 Squadron RAF note that both articles exist but the details of the American's contribution are the common name. So the Naming conventions would indicate that a name with Mujahideen is more appropriate than the other suggested names. However I am going to put forward further arguments why I do not think that this is a WP:POVFORK but an issue of a related articles because I can see a reasonable argument for the existence of all three articles.


 * The term was and still is common coin in English language sources, for foreign fighters from Arab countries, Iran and Afghanistan who fought in Bosnia during the war for example:
 * Brendan O'Neill The Bosnian connection the Guardian unlimited 18 July 2007
 * Staff. Balkan extremists July 12 2007 From The Economist print edition
 * Staff Bosnia fighters face uncertain fate BBC 10 May 2007
 * Alix Kroeger. Mujahideen fight Bosnia evictions BBC 18 July, 2000
 * There is probably a need for this article as it should not only cover a certain type of person who fought in the war, but it should also covers the wider issues thrown up by those fighters who settled in Bosnia and are (rightly or wrongly) of particular concern to Western Governments who see them as experienced fighters many of whom fought a proxy war for the West against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and may be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. This concern puts this group of men in a very different category from other foreigners who fought in the Bosnian War and are not seen as a potential political and military threat by other governments.


 * Just because there are articles on The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war and 7th Muslim Brigade does not mean that there is not room for another article called Bosnian Mujahideen particularly one that emphasises the problems faced by the Mujahideen in Bosnia today. The article should also cover the political problems (both internal and internationally) faced by the Bosnian Government in allowing Mujahideen to remain in Bosnia, and also that the expulsion of some of them could be seen by cynics as covered by that old maxim: "No state has friends, only interests".
 * --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, thank you for volunteering to mediate on the Bosnian Mujahideen article. I appreciate you involvement. Please note that the discussion has been moved to the Bosnian Mujahideen talk page. I hope that we can pick up where we left and do not need to restate our claims and counterclaims.Osli73 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am reading over the discussions and the article to get a solid idea of what's going on, and who stands where. Give me a day or so to give it all a complete reading so I don't misunderstand anyone. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Vassyana, thank you very much for your help. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)