Talk:Alija Izetbegović

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Quotes page

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the quotes section is biased. First of all, quotes sections have pretty much disappeared throughout wikipeda and are being transferred to wiki-quotes. Second of all, it seems as if someboy sat down, read through the Islamic decleration, and just handpicked the quotes that would portray him as a complete radical. If we're going to provide quotes there's no need to provide 50 from a single text. As it is, this section is hardly NPOV. Asim Led 20:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes moved to new Wikiquote article. Link box is in Writings section. The quotes in this article make a nice Wikiquote page, and helps cut down the size of this article too. -- Buyoof 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement about Young Muslims

I have moved the discussion about the YM movement into here as there seems to be a level of disagreement about it's nature. -- Buyoof 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have many NPOV and accuracy issues with this article. I'll try to list them in order of appearance (sorry, all the external references are in Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian language, I don't have the time to dig for English versions but a translation can be provided as needed):

  • Mladi Muslimani was not a pro-Nazi or a pro-Ustasa organization. Please provide evidence.
External reference on Mladi muslimani [1]
Mladi Muslimani distanced themselves from Ustasa [2]
Activities of Alija Izetbegovic during WWII included clearing rubble and hiding Muslim families from Chetniks [3] [4]
  • Mladi Muslimani did not challenge the regime. They merely refused to subdue. Izetbegovic, Sacirbegovic and others were arrested because they, through their writings in the underground "Mudzahid", critised an initiative to merge Mladi Muslimani with SKOJ (Union of Communist Youth of Jugoslavia). [5]

-- Vedran 17:45, 25 Nov 2003

I'm generally satisfied with ChrisO's rewrite, although I believe the connection between Mladi Muslimani and Nazis / Ustasa could have been further debunked. Let me translate a part from http://www.mm.co.ba/art7_1.html - the official site of Mladi Muslimani which is arguably biased, but I doubt they could easily falsify something like this:

"One of the many tests that Mladi Muslimani successfully passed was their distancing from the Ustasa government that wanted to incorporate this organization with their (Ustasa) youth. The price for declining this offer-ultimatum was an embargo on the official registration of Mladi Muslimani on territories controlled by NDH."
--Vedran 13:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bosnian Muslims started calling themselves Bosniaks only after 1994. Calling 1940’s Mladi Muslimani organization “Bosniak” is not accurate, they thought of themselves as Muslims, purely.--GeneralPatton 07:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can you please provide the sources for this statement:

  • As such, while it was not officially pro-fascist in orientation, the Young Muslims generally supported the Nazi/Ustase efforts to promote a Bosniak national identity in opposition to the Chetnik and Partisan guerrillas.

I can't seem to find it in the ones listed in the article. --Vedran 12:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it's based what Noel Malcolm says about it in "Bosnia: A Short History". I could dig out the specific citation, if you like.
Please do. With the evidence that Young Muslims distanced themselves from Ustasa that I provided above, I'd say that if Mr. Malcolm claimed such a thing he's probably - pardon my language - pulling it from his ass. The people of the period are still alive and, being personally acquinted with some of them, I can say with certainty that Young Muslims criticized the Fascists and Ustasa as heavily as Chetniks. --Vedran 10:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Just looked in the index of my copy of "Bosnia: A Short History" (1996 updated edition). 'Young Muslims' is mentioned on pages 196 and 208. Page 196 talks about it working against the Communist government's suppression of Islam, and page 208 talks about the 1983 Sarajevo trial against Izetbegović and others (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article). I think people are getting things mixed up - unintentionally, I hope - with Derviš Šušić's 1979 exposé in Oslobodjenje (encouraged by the authorities at the time) of senior members of the Muslim clergy who had apparently collaborated with the Nazis and the Ustaša during WWII. As I have mentioned later in this section about Young Muslims, this had nothing to do with the Young Muslims movement, who view such collaborations as un-Islamic. -- Buyoof 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"As such, while it was not officially pro-fascist in orientation, the Young Muslims generally supported the Nazi/Ustase efforts to promote an Islamic identity in opposition to the Chetnik and Partisan guerrillas."

If it wasnt fascist and only agreed with the Nazi's and Ustase's in one thing, and that was religious freedom, why do you have to link Mladi Muslimani with Nazi's and Fascist's?

Because they were linked to fascists and nazis!
Alan.

Yeah right

Not sure what's going on here, it appears that the writer(s) are not familiar with the (worldwide) Young Muslims movement (see links [6] and [7], the Canadian and the British Young Muslims organisation respectively, for more info).

None of the Young Muslims movements, including the Bosnian one, have ever advocated the type of nationalism spoken about here. Young Muslims itself advocates "pure" Islamic teachings, and it must be noted that Nationalism goes directly against the Islamic teaching of Ummah.

An Islamic organisation cannot therefore advocate such nationalism without losing its legitimacy; indeed the vast majority of Islamic scholars (and therefore of Muslims) believe that Islam is incompatible with any type of nationalism, i.e. that one cannot be a nationalist and a true Muslim at the same time. Nationalism is often described by Islamic scholars as a "disease" in the Muslim community, and many Islamic organisations -- including Young Muslims -- give great importance to defeating nationalist ideas and advocating the idea of Ummah in its place.

One must therefore be careful to differentiate between the Young Muslims movement itself and the actions of some of its members. Any Muslims that supported Nazi/Ustaše efforts would have done so due to their own lack of belief in -- or ignorance of -- Islamic teachings, and not because of the Young Muslims.

I hope this helps clear things up. I have amended the paragraph on Young Muslims to make it NPOV.

-- Buyoof 10:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and accuracy issues

Igor removes "due to insufficient evidence" saying evidence was sent several times. Either your or my meaning of the word "insufficient" is wrong. --Shallot 20:12, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


This article is riddled with both inaccuracy and NPOV problems. "Hardline Muslim government" - err, no. Multiethnic legitimate government of the state.

Similarly - the army of BiH was not a "Muslim" army. It was a multiethnic army of a multiethnic state.

Army of BiH was a Muslim army, 2-3 Serb and Croat offices, holding no real power, where window dressing, pure cosmetics. As the new war crimes charges will show. --GeneralPatton 02:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not what I know. With many of my Croat and Serb friends figthing in Army of BiH. What new charges? --Vedran 10:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
BiH Army was multietnic. Just because it's your opinion that they were not, does not make it true.--Custovic 10:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have many NPOV and accuracy issues with this article. I'll try to list them in order of appearance (sorry, all the external references are in Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian language, I don't have the time to dig for English versions but a translation can be provided as needed):

  • The term Muslim is used consistently for Bosniaks
  • It is generally believed among Bosniaks that the 1983 trial was falsified and that the communists simply couldn't allow an opposing view, as expressed in Izetbegovic's "Islamic Declaration" [8]
  • Bosnian Federation (Muslim-Croat) Army - There is nothing in Bosnian Federation that is "Muslim-Croat", this is POV. A proper name with a link - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - should be used with no reference to ethnicities. Later on, the text has a reference to "Izetbegovic's Army" - Izetbegovic had no private army of his own!?
  • The article claims contradictory that Izetbegovic was president until 1997, and later that he remained in power until 2000. This should be cleared up and ordered chronologically.
  • Izetbegovic headed a Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which existed only on paper, no longer legitimate according to some 60% of its population - notes such as this one are a POV and in contradiction with what is said in the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These kind of comments should be avoided, and See Also with above reference provided.
  • Izetbegovic proclaimed Bosnia's independence - Again, he did nothing on his own. Again, the history of Bosnia is not a subject of this article, especially not if things claimed here are clashing with stuff in the relevant article.

Several passages in this article serve absolutely no purpose, apart from "story-telling", obviously from an anti-Izetbegovic POV. More specifically, a discussion on Fikret Abdic which wasn't deemed important enough to be a part of the Bosnian History article and the paragraph on his "elongated" presidency under three different Constitutions. Certain persons reverted several attempts of removing these (and other) passages under the claim of "vandalizing". Well some judgment on relevance of facts to the article has to be made.

- Vedran 17:45, 25 Nov 2003

[edit] Rewrite

This article has a lot of problems, as the previous contributors to this talk page have pointed out. I've rewritten it pretty much from scratch in an effort to expand the detail and get it into some kind of NPOV shape. Major changes that I should point out include:

  • Addition of much more info about the period between his birth and 1989 - which is, after all, three quarters of his life!
  • Removed the bits about Fikret Abdic; the article should be focused on Izetbegovic, and the Abdic elements are fairly incidental.
  • Removed lots and lots of POV elements - as Vedran says above, the original article was very clearly written from an anti-Izetbegovic viewpoint. But I've also tried to acknowledge and represent the points made by those POV elements.
  • Removed the purported photo of Osama bin Laden, but providing detail of the claim of his involvement and giving a proper attribution (to Der Spiegel). I'm suspicious of this claim and would prefer to get a bit more detail on it before bringing it into a Wikipedia article. I'll see what I can find out.

A significant part of the original article, and some of the new version, deals with Izetbegovic's involvement with Islamic fundamentalism. I think this is a topic which would be worth an article of its own - is anyone up to writing an article on Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia? -- ChrisO 21:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I wasn't expecting my questions above to prompt User:Nikola Smolenski to revert the entire article to his 11 Jan version!

Nikola, I don't think reversion is the appropriate thing to do. It's wiped out a large amount of factual content and restored all the POV material that other users complained about. Could you please explain what specific aspects of my rewrite you object to? You haven't posted any explanation here and your comment that "Article was better before the rewrite" doesn't give much information on your objections. -- ChrisO 17:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, first of all, article itself says that it's biased: "He was well regarded in Western countries but was a controversial figure in the former Yugoslavia", but at the end all sources are Western ones. You left out details about his family, that trial, "an attempt to obtain the loyalty" I won't even comment, you left out details about forming SDA (and I don't see why would mentioning other people who formed the party be objectionable to anyone!), and I'm too tired to look further. See also my talk page. Nikola 23:36, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm very distrustful of most of the Yugoslav sources - they're so heavily contaminated by the propaganda of the 1990s that it's hard to work out what's real and what's propangandistic invention or distortion. (This is true for all sides, I might add). My main sources were a slew of contemporary (yes, Western) media accounts and a number of (again Western) histories of the Yugoslav wars and of Bosnia itself.
It is quite normal that one does not trust Yugoslav sources - but why do you trust Western sources??????? Nikola
That's a pretty good question. I don't really have a clear answer, but there are a few reasons that I can think of. The Western sources tend to list their own sources, so these are at least verifiable, but the English-language Yugoslav accounts (including your own!) tend not to give many - if any - sources. The other factor is that the Yugoslav sources are so heavily tainted by propaganda that it makes it difficult to work out what is factual. In theory, reputable Western observers may be a bit more objective given their physical and political distance. Maybe this is an assumption I shouldn't be making? -- ChrisO 00:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Heavily tainted by propaganda" are the Yugoslav sources? Aren't you referring to Western reports?!!
Come on ChrisO, how many Western newspaper reports have you seen listing sources? Please...I mean that's the problem with Western newspapers; they don't usually list footnotes and they don't often direct you to their sources. That doesn't show good credibility.
Alan.
I don't have a problem with using Yugoslav sources on things like forming the SDA, that trial etc. if they're factually accurate and if they can be expressed in a NPOV way. But that's true for all sources, of course. If you think that anything I've said isn't factually accurate, please let me know and I'll correct it.
I pointed to the things you left out. Nikola 19:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm puzzled by your assertion that I left out material about his family - I actually included a lot of information about his pre-WW2 life which you deleted. Your version had nothing on this period other than saying that he was born in Bosanski Šamac, so I felt that it needed a bit more background. But you make some fair points about the trial and the formation of the SDA. I'll address those. If you've recovered from your tiredness, I'd appreciate further comments. :-) -- ChrisO 00:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And I've just seen you used KLA as a source???? Nikola 23:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I've never touched that article and I don't think I've even read it in much detail until now. Now that I have, I will probably have to edit it a bit. :-) But what's its relevance to Bosnia? It certainly wasn't a source for my edits here. -- ChrisO 00:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a link to a KLA source (apparently) under the references but it wasn't me who added it... -- ChrisO 00:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heavily biased page

Serbian POV. It is obvious that Serb nationalists have tried to manipulate this page to present their perspective. A great deal in this article contradicts factual evidence.

Nazam, what do you think of my earlier version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alija_Izetbegovic&oldid=2300548 , which I wrote in an attempt to make the article more POV? -- ChrisO 10:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why did they change your version? It was very neutral. It's a scandal. -- Hamdo 00:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia for you. :-) Someone did make some subtle POV changes but I've removed these now. -- ChrisO 00:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another attempt at a NPOV article

67.71.100.34, thanks for your work on this article. I've revised it to incorporate your changes, Nikola's factual points and some more things that I've addressed at Nikola's suggestion (such as Izetbegovic's 1983 trial). I've also tried to make the spelling consistent.

The http://www.ciaonet.org/ link seems to require subscription to view or something like that. That link should probably be moved in the external links section and explained for the benefit of everyone who for whatever reason can't follow it. --Shallot 00:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wierd - it's freely available in the Google cache. I guess they must have password-protected it after Google's last spidering of that website. -- ChrisO 09:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's one point I need to mention - I don't think we should use the Alijaibinladen.jpg picture. Three reasons why:

1) Nikola has acquired permission from freesrpska.org to use the image but I'm not at all sure that that meets the requirements of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. The image actually comes from http://www.slobodnasrpska.org/mudzahedini/naputudzihada.html. I don't see any copyright notices or acknowledgements on that page, so it's not clear what rights they might have. Don't forget that copyright belongs to the person or group which created the image and the linked video clips. One thing we can be absolutely sure of is that the person who shot the video was not a Serbian nationalist. Unless Nikola can provide some details of the source and its copyright status, I suggest that we ask for the picture to be deleted from the database.

2) The picture is entirely conjectural; it is alleged to show bin Laden with Izetbegovic. About all we can say for certain is that it shows Izetbegovic with a man with a very long beard (not exactly uncommon among Islamists). We don't even know that it's genuine. I would hesitate to state this for sure without some more convincing evidence than a rabidly nationalist website's assertions.

3) In any case, the picture is "Completely and iredeemably POV" as Nikola puts it. Given that, it probably shouldn't be included in the article in any case.

Does anyone have a good quality public domain picture of Izetbegovic that can be included? -- ChrisO 00:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I must protest at listing the NDH primarily as Greater Croatia and then listing its proper name and article in the parenthesis. There's really no point in such conjecturing right at the first mention, it reeks of an insinuation that I'd expect from the likes of Igor, not ChrisO who has a good record on keeping things straight. :| --Shallot 00:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It was a somewhat clumsy way of putting it, I agree. I think it originated with the previous editor, though. -- ChrisO 09:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback of Igor's inaccurate and POV version

Igor, I've reverted your reversion to the earlier, extremely POV version - you wiped out a lot of factual content without any explanation. If you have specific concerns, please discuss them here. Overwriting an article that tries to be NPOV with something that doesn't even attempt to be NPOV is not a good idea. -- ChrisO 08:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then why are you doing it all the time? Nikola 07:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
He isn't. ChrisO has shown a rather commendable skill of crafting sentences in a very careful manner that generally manages to remain neutral while at the same time it doesn't become whitewashing or badmouthing. --Shallot 15:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's definitely hard work. I don't pretend that I get everything right first time, so if I do get something wrong it makes sense to discuss it on the talk page rather than just delete it without any explanation. Igor's list of contributions suggests that he only rarely contributes to talk pages, which I think is unfortunate. Nikola and I may not always agree on things but I do have to commend him for his willingness to discuss issues. -- ChrisO 01:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Exact quote

Can we have the exact words used in "The chef prosecutor of the Hague’s war crimes tribunal, Carla Del Ponte, has stated in early 2004, that if Izetbegovic was still alive today, he certainly would have faced major war crimes indictments, as is evidenced by the 2004 war crimes indictments of his closest deputies" rather than a restatement, please? I can't find that quote. - Mustafaa 19:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic activist

Izetbegovic was always first and foremost an Islamic activist, there is nothing wrong with that (or any other kind of legitimate activism) and he was in fact proud of it. GeneralPatton 02:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Come on Patton, he was an Islamic extremist.
"Islamic Activist"? Well, in a way Islamic extremists are activists -- extreme activists, that is. Perhaps he was proud to be one -- extreme activist.
How about you ask a Bosnian Muslim, who supported Fikret Abdic and suffered from the "Army of Bosnia & Herzegovina"? And see how he/she feels about "Ali".
Alan.

I lived in Bosnia during that very war you people seem to be disussing and whilst Alija was very pro-Muslim it is pretty much to be expected considering the very real possiblity of complete genocide. However, the words "Islamic activist" and "Islamic extremist" just perpetuate a certain negative stereotype which I do not think should be applied in this case.

[edit] NPOV issues

Shouldn't this article have a permanent notice that alerts users to the controversial nature of this personality? Do we have standard boilerplate for something like that?--iFaqeer 09:41, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, it's up there now (I recall a history of disputes, too). --Joy [shallot] 10:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article is pretty NPOV as it is, nobody has even touched on the rampant charges of wartime and postwar corruption. GeneralPatton 12:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am copying the "controversial" notice to the main page. I believe that was the desired effect?--iFaqeer 01:46, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
No, actually. I know it sounds silly, but it's not meant to be on the main page, and the talk page is the second best option. Cf. Wikipedia talk:List of controversial issues. --Joy [shallot] 11:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed?

The article still has the following tags at the top of the page:

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed: see talk:Alija_Izetbegovic
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Are these still needed? Does anyone dispute the factual accuracy or neutrality of the new version of the article? If not, can we remove the tags? -- ChrisO 12:51, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this article still considered disputed? I looked it over and it seems decent, though it could use a copy-edit; much of the information here would be more in place in an article on the Bosnian War (though there isnt one right now). If there is no objection, i'd like to remove the tag and start with some editing to make it more readable. --The Minister of War 10:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with above comments by The Minister of War and since no one has objected in nearly three weeks, I'm removing the tag. FRS 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is pretty decent now, only some minor POV issues remain. -- Buyoof 10:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Serb nationalists will never give up from spreading incorrect info, because that is the same strategy that Serb war criminals use in ICTY, to make a base for manipulating and controling their own people, spreading incorrect info, fear and propaganda, which is never proven. I would call this according to Serb nationalistic logic> "Alijofobia" (this is a joke of course), because Serb nationalists are trying now to crate a new myth here in Wikipedia about "Serbofobia"?! Chech this out, and give ur comment: Serbofobia, for deletion--Emir Arven 15:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the false claim about the Young Muslims movement being connected with Nazis/Ustaša keeps being added. I have removed it again today. The discussion has been done to death (see the 'disagreement about YM' topic here) and we have established that this claim has no basis - not to mention ridiculous and far-fetched due to Islam's incompatibility with nationalist/fascist ideologies. I believe any further adding of this claim (without decent referencing) should be treated as vandalism.

This and other (always unreferenced and never explained in Talk) POV edits are a constant problem here. If it keeps happening we'll have to add the 'factual accuracy'/POV notice back on to this article. -- Buyoof 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remarkable bad luck for those involved in the break-up of Yugoslavia

  • Tudjman dies in 1999
  • Izetbegović dies in 2003

These deaths end the risk of a war-crimes trial for these pro-Western leaders. The accusations are never tested.

  • Milosevic dies in 2006

A conviction might have been attacked in detail. But he too dies, and it will soon drop out of world news.

--GwydionM 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Mother

I've heard many times that his mother is of Serbian nationality, but I can't find anything about her, heard anything??


no she isn't, alijas family descends from the ottoman turks

[edit] Kill them

they need to kill those basdards who tried to destroy rahmetli alijas grave, they wont even let the man rewst in peace, they need to kill the in the worst possible way

thats why we need to change Bosnias system of everything from governement to people

[edit] I'm removing some text

In the "Personal life and other information" section, there's a tag asking for a citation for Croat and Serb politicians denouncing Izetbegovic for his fundamentalism. The article then contains the following section:

Fact is Alija Izetbegovic was a Muslim fundementalist. On his orders Arab freedom fighters moved to Bosnia in as early as 1992. Some of them are still present in Bosnia in and around Tuzla, changing their names from typical Arabic to slavic sounding last names. The majority of those "freedom fighters" also recieved Bosnian passports upon arrival on Izetbegovic's orders. His connection to the terrorist group Al Qaida is undeniable.

Aside from the fact that it's not very well written, there is no citation for such claims - and anything like this should be well cited. Indeed, the fact that a citation is requested for the earlier claim of denunciation would suggest that this section should be excised until the former is cited. Therefore, I'm removing it forthwith.

And before anyone claims political motivation, let it be known that I'm not remotely connected to any of the ethnic groups involved in the region. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICTY indictment

The article does not mention that Izetbegovic was set to be indicted by the ICTY when he died. A representative of the OTP of the ICTY, Hartmann, made the following statement:

She added to answer the second part of the question that Izetbegovic was one of the suspects under investigation as part of the current investigations, but the fact that he had died meant that all legal proceedings against him were dropped. Asked to confirm that up until he died he was under investigation, Hartmann replied that this was the case.[9]

The Transitions Online website also carries the info on this:

The ICTY on 23 October confirmed that former wartime Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic had been under investigation for war crimes against Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats. His death on 19 October, the ICTY said, meant that the case is now closed. [10]

As Tudjman and Milosevic were both on line to be indicted by the ICTY, the above might be a useful piece of info for anyone interested in Izetbegovic.Osli73 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Bosniak, as I've explained above, given that Milosevic was indicted and Tudjman on line to be indicted by the ICTY, it is fair to give the reader of the article information about Izetbegovic's status vis-a-vis the ICTY. Granted, he wasn't a Milosevic or Tudjman, but apparently the ICTY did have some reason to investigate him. This is something a lot of readers are likely to want to know about. Regards Osli73 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

I semi-protected the article to prevent the revert war by the anon, sourced from a pile of rubbish. Please remind me to lift the protection in a couple of days, or request it at WP:RFPP. Duja► 07:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic! These sources are not "a pile of rubbish", Yossef Bodansky and Robert Fox are respected 'Establishment' figures. Izetbegovic clearly did have a division called the Handzar, unless you are accusing these people of lying which would be libellous. 217.134.107.78 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So Duja, according to you, the likes of Noel Malcolm have a monopoly on the truth, do they? 217.134.225.121 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, nope. The article still fails to properly address the controversies surrounding Izetbegovic. I semi-protected the article to stop the revert war and encourage discussion on this talk page. As for the Handzar division, even if it did exist (which a dubious assertion from the start), what proven links are there between Izetbegović's personality and them, as well as Mujaheddin units (which certainly existed)? All sorts of dogs of war were present on all sides in the Bosnian conflict, and they should certainly be mentioned in War in Bosnia and Herzegovina article if properly sourced, but as long as their (and their war crimes) ties to Izetbegovic himself are only rumors, they have no place in the article. In your version, most of it remains on the level of hints that "there might be something".
Yes, there could be more about the allegations of Izetbegovic's fundamentalism (which is not confined "to Serb and Croat politicians"), but (preferably neutral) sources are required. Trust me, I saw a lot of partisanship all over the internet when I started rewriting of "Dissident and Activist" section, but many are fairly one-sided and often on the level on the debate that Izetbegovic ought not be praised by West as much. Duja► 19:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No, just because the 'politically correct' left-liberal media chose to ignore these issues it does not make them "rumours" or "hints", these are reported facts by repected journalists and analysts. Yossef Bodansky and Robert Fox are both highly respected geopolitics analysts and impeccable sources. 217.134.111.195 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Duja continues to evade the fact that these sources comply fully with the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. 217.134.238.235 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Day 3, and no response from Duja. 195.92.67.74 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Like it reads on my talk page, I'm fairly busy in real life these days. There's always WP:RFPP or WP:AN that you can refer to; I don't own this article. I have no particular problem lifting the semiprotection, but I'd like to see WP:1RR followed by all. For the convenience of all editors, here are the "problematic" edits:

However, many figures outside of the Balkans, including senior members of the United States Republican Party and foreign policy analysts such as Dr Yossef Bodansky, still regard Izetbegović as a dangerous Islamic fundamentalist, and there is much evidence to support their assertion. [11] [12]

In addition to the mujahiddin, there was another group known as the Handzar ("dagger" or "scimitar") Division, described by Dr Yossef Bodansky as Izetbegović's "praetorian guard". British journalist Robert Fox wrote in 1993: "Up to 6000-strong, the Handzar division glories in a fascist culture. They see themselves as the heirs of the SS Handzar division, formed by Bosnian Muslims in 1943 to fight for the Nazis. Their spiritual model was Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sided with Hitler. According to UN officers, surprisingly few of those in charge of the Handzars . . . seem to speak good Serbo-Croatian. 'Many of them are Albanian, whether from Kosovo (the Serb province where Albanians are the majority) or from Albania itself.' They are trained and led by veterans from Afghanistan and Pakistan, say UN sources." ["Albanians and Afghans fight for the heirs to Bosnia's SS past," (London) Daily Telegraph, 12/29/93, bracketed text in original]

Extended Bosnia Mission Endangers U.S. Troops - Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base (United States Senate Republican Policy Committee)

Duja► 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Without obfuscating as per usual, can you please give me a good reason why this well-sourced material should not be included. 195.92.67.74 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Relevance? NPOV? Undue weight? There are many good reasons potentially. I don't object to the first part too much, except for WP:WEASEL "and there is much evidence". The second part is hardly relevant if you don't have proofs to link them to Izetbegović. The third part is an interesting link that I'd generally welcome as reference in the article. Duja► 16:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, Bodansky is a respected analyst and is director of research at a respected Washington think-tank, as well as being chief consultant on terrorism to the US Congress. I would regard that as a verifiable source, wouldn't you? 195.92.67.74 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


The Christian Science Monitor must be considered a well respected media source. Here's a link to a 2001 article in the CSI on the darker sides of Izetbegovic which might be worthwhile to use as a source if we are to include a 'criticism' section (or whatever you want to call it). Regards Osli73 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissident and Activist

I rewrote the section in question, which was full of weasel words and poisoning the well. It needs more expansion though.

While starting the paragraph on Islam between East and West I found the following passage here, and also in the page's history:

Izetbegovic wrote what is generally regarded as his major work, Islam Between East and West, in 1980. He declared that this was not a "book of theology" but a serious attempt to define the "place of Islam in the general spectrum of ideas." Like The Islamic Declaration, it focused on the importance of Islam and the need to serve God; it consisted primarily of a dialectical argument placing Islam as the synthesis of two opposing poles in human ideals, which he placed under the headings of "Moses" and "Jesus". Unfortunately for Izetbegovic, its appearance coincided with a spate of nationalist unrest following the death of Tito, which resulted in a widespread crackdown on nationalists and dissidents across Yugoslavia. Nationalists from many parts of Yugoslavia were tried and imprisoned for activities deemed harmful to Yugoslav "brotherhood and unity."

Now, who stole from whom? I must say that that page is more balanced and comprehensive than the current article. Does someone more familiar with the article history know what was going on? Duja► 10:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence referendum

The article says that the 1992 independence referendum had a turnout of 67%. However, the referendum failed as less than two-thirds of the electoral body voted. --PaxEquilibrium 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No such thing in Bosnian Constitution (two-thirds). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.34.254 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ICTY, El-Mudžahid and Edit War

Here is call to anonymous user posting from different BiH ip address 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255 (suppose to be Emir_Arven to take part into discussion instead of replacing article with irrelevant informations without any sources. If we agree that Izetbegovic was subject of investigation regarding ICTY sources [13] and world newspapers [14] [15] then is replacing sourced informations with irrelevant informations without any sources pretty radical. Second it does not make any sense to replace numbers of El-Mudžahid between 2000 - 6000 with 500. Number of 500 does not have any sources. Information that numbers of El-Mudzahid was between 2000 - 6000 is well sourced [16] [17] Citation: Intelligence services of the Nordic-Polish SFOR (previously IFOR) sector alerted the U.S. of their presence in 1992 while the number of mujahideen operating in Bosnia alone continued to grow from a few hundred to around 6,000 in 1995.

Claiming that all above mentioned sources are propaganda from serb lobby site (including official statement of the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY, Hartmann) is simple ridiculous. If you think different then please provide sources to us that we can reach consensus.--Graciella 06:40, 04 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICTY

I included Hartman source, and provided two more very reliable sources. One is about Banja Luka courte [18] which proves that the accusation was constructed by Serb courte who requested investigation by ICTY to quote in Serbian: On je rekao da se među tih 300 osoba nalazi više Bošnjaka nego Hrvata, kao i da Alija Izetbegović, čija je optužnica prosleđena u Hag, zauzima centralno mesto među bošnjačkim optuženicima.

I also presented Predrag Matvejevic analysis (he is not Bosniak, but Italian, Croatian author). He wrote: the number of Arab volonteers who came to help Bosnian Muslims, was much smaller than the number presented by the Serb and Croat propaganda. Also I restored information about Bernard-Levy description that you removed as well as Mladen Ivanic petition that you removed. So please, don't remove sourced information per WP:RS. And finally I included Hartmann source because it is reliable per WP:RS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.14 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

You still ignore official ICTY sources [19]: She added to answer the second part of the question that Izetbegovic was one of the suspects under investigation as part of the current investigations, but the fact that he had died meant that all legal proceedings against him were dropped. Asked to confirm that up until he died he was under investigation, Hartmann replied that this was the case. And again Ms Hartmann said about it:Izetbegovic was one of the suspects who was under investigation...The fact he died means all investigations are stopped she said. [20]There is nothing above official ICTY statement.Second you still does not have any valuable sources for the number of mujahideen 500. Sources from Balknpeace are well valuable.[21] Intelligence services of the Nordic-Polish SFOR (previously IFOR) sector alerted the U.S. of their presence in 1992 while the number of mujahideen operating in Bosnia alone continued to grow from a few hundred to around 6,000 in 1995 Graciella (talk) 20:15, 08 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said I included Hartmann source. Let me repeat once again. I included Hartmann source. And again: I included Hartmann source. Regarding Arabs: First, the number of Arabs is not the subject of the article. In the first source it says: (in intro of the article) information was given by anon source. It is not relaible source per WP:RS. Regarding second source it is a Serb lobby site, and the exact number was never confirmed by ICTY. As you know Arabs are mentioned in the article upon their arrival not in 1995 nor 1996 nor etc. And I will be gled to discuss with you in Arab volunteers related article about the numbers etc because I have exact sources. 85.158.35.14 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Your sources [22] is not english and it talks about Tudjman.It does not have anything to do with Alija Izetbegovic and with this article.Graciella (talk) 20:18, 08 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not true. I quoted it above and explained in the Anon's discussion page. You can ask someone to help you translate it. 85.158.35.14 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the quote: On je rekao da se među tih 300 osoba nalazi više Bošnjaka nego Hrvata, kao i da Alija Izetbegović, čija je optužnica prosleđena u Hag, zauzima centralno mesto među bošnjačkim optuženicima.85.158.35.14 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It have nothing to do with article. It is not english and if it is needed i will call Duja that understand ex-Yu language to assist here.But he will confirm that your article does not make any sense with article about Izetbegovic.It just confirm that Alija was indicted by the ICTYGraciella (talk) 20:25, 08 May 2007 (UTC)

It sure has, but you don't speak Serbia, Bosnian or Croatian. It shows that Serb courte accused Tudjman, Izetbegovic and other Bosniak and Croat leaders and sent those indictments to ICTY to be investigated. I will be gled that you ask someone who understands to remove your doubt, just don't vandalize the article because you don't speak Bosnian. 85.158.35.14 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

YOu again provoke and you do not understand your own language.I have already called AnonEMouse and again Duja, because he understand better ex-Yu language than other English admin here, to assist.Again your article does not make any sense to article about Izetbegovic and you simple prove that Izetbegovic was prosecuted.Remember what Hartman said about it:Izetbegovic was one of the suspects who was under investigation...The fact he died means all investigations are stopped she said. [23] Do not continue to be ignorant and arrogant.Graciella (talk) 20:35, 08 May 2007 (UTC)

For those following the discussion on this page, a fair amount spilled over to my talk page, at User_talk:AnonEMouse#May_8. I made a few suggestions that each side seems to partly like, maybe we can achieve some kind of detente. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you suggestion.I have already tried to copied exactly as you said on your page about controversial part but other side simple continue with his own editing, making, adding and ignoring what he does not like.So please mu suggestion is to protect page and make self edits.Graciella (talk) 21:30, 08 May 2007 (UTC)
both of you, slow down, please. There's something to what each of you are saying, and we're finally getting somewhere to a point the article might just possibly be stable; let's be careful not to lose that in the rush. There is no hurry, the person is dead. I don't want to protect the article, especially if you both mostly agree to my suggestions. Graciella, notice that 85 is right, we don't want 2 different sections each called "War crimes investigation". 85, please don't put in the uncited phrases until you find sources that say that - it's in the article history, so you won't lose your text, and no one will die if it stays out until you find them. Don't panic. There is no deadline. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Graciella, when I put in ..., I didn't mean to put three dots in the article, I was implying to keep the rest of the text there, unchanged, just to move the numbers controversy out to a sentence of its own. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about my fault.I really did not saw it that he makes previosly editing at the end of article and adding some infos making it less importing. I have removed it and copied exactly as you suggested into heading. Some thing i have overlooked. Anyway i'm still gonna try to copied exactly your words as you suggested where we agreed including heading.I believe that it should be not any problem in future.Graciella (talk) 21:45, 08 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Islamic Declaration

Hello everybody. I have added a page about The Islamic Declaration with infos from Malcolm and Banac. Every advice is welcome. ;)--Dans-eng 20:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The recently published book also very biased as Malcolm's but more scientifically based by Schindler, John should then also be mentioned in this connection.Daniellund 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Schindler is not historian nor relaible author. He is well known by its islamophobia and hatred for islam which he didn't even hide. And he is not notable writer, just the man who wrote pamphlet about islam in order to make some many in this global anti-islam era. That is his well known opinion. If we put his opinion, then we should put islamic opinon as well. But his opinion is already the same as the one by Croat and Serb nationalists. So, Malcolm is the real choice, because he is neutral, and he actually made a scientific research, unlike others. Grandy Grandy 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'll come up with an advice for you; You are right about that Schindler is not historian however he's a professor of strategy and pol. science. As I wrote (if you at all noticed before you deleted the section?) he is biased though as a reversionist. Islamophobian...think that is a bit too strong word for him. Nevermind Noel Malcolm is a historian and he is a "notable writer" as you mentioned but his book Bosnia; A short History is not scientific - far from! It originates from 1994 which more or less makes it appear as journalism instead. In addition Malcolm is as well far from neutral; follows a kind of main stream U.S. media approach from that period. If you would like to read something more scientific and neutral then try this: The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina : Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention, by Paul Shoup & Steven Burg (2000) (it's excellent). But as you said: "the man who wrote pamphlet about islam in order to make some many in this global anti-islam era" Global anti-Islam era" That doesn't seem totally neutral to me to be honest or am I wrong?:-)Daniellund 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A turk?

Since he is from an ottoman family, how does he qualify as a Bosniak?

A couple of comments:

  1. Do you have any evidence of this (from reputable sources)?
  2. How does he describe himself? If he calls himself a Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim, there's a pretty strong case for describing him as such.

Osli73 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


This just seems like a provocation to me. Ethic belonging is dependent on our personal sense of identity, not heritage. And besides, Ottoman in this context is not an ethnic designation. Live Forever 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You're most probably right. Let's ignore and repair any edits in this direction, especially considering that there was no source given for this.Osli73 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Im not trying to provocate, Im just interested how ethnicity can be chosen..? It can't, obviously, it's passed down. So, if he's of turk descent it should be listed. Otherwise it seems like this article is not being honest.
Do we call the local Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat population Eastern Orthodox or Catholics? They only took upon calling themselves Serbs and Croats after the Austrian occupation. We don't. Bosnian nation has evolved over the years with the mixing of original Catholic, Orthodox and Bogumil natives with conversions to Islam. After those conversions, they were mixing with Turks also. There are rare instances where any Bosniak is of pure non-mixing blood. Impossible to find actually.--Custovic 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


I think you're thinking about race, not ethnicity. According to Wikipedia, ethnic group is:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis. The term is used in contrast to race, which refers to a classification of physical and genetic traits perceived as common to certain groups.

So, ethnicity is not set in stone but an issue of identity, both assumed and presumed. However, it could be argued that he is of turkish ancestry and that, given that you have good sources for this, this could be interesting information for the reader of the article. Though, in my opionion, it would have to be rather recent to be relevant. Cheers Osli73 09:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It just goes with my previous post.--Custovic 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War crimes investigation

User:The Dragon of Bosnia insists on keeping the following sentence in in this section:

In his autobiography Inescapable Questions, Izetbegovic admits one occasion in which a small number of soldiers of the Bosnian army deliberately killed civilians, and details his government's struggles to maintain discipline over the hastily assembled army. Early in the war, allegations of other atrocities were fabricated by the Croatian press as a pretext to justify the partition of Bosnia.

Not only is there no reference, even if it were, I can't see that a statement which Izetbegovic made about himself in his autobiography, should be used to somehow absolve him of war crimes which the ICTY was investigating him for. Also, the last piece of information about Croatian press is definately out of order. Given the above, does anyone have any reasons for not deleting this type of info?Osli73 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Still no objections?Osli73 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I will remove the above mentioned text as no arguement for keeping it has been put forward.Osli73 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference. Take a look again! The info is interesting...He can't be absolved of war crimes, because he was never indicted nor convicted. There is just no reason for deleting it. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is being used to absolve him, it's his statement, it's for the readers to decide how to take it. But it is important what the man himself writes about the matter in his autobiography. "Allegations of other atrocities were fabricated..." needs a better source, agreed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed it, is it OK now? I included citation needed tag for the "allegations" sentence...--Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that AI actually wrote what you claim he wrote or that perhaps Croatians forged evidence to implicate AI of war crimes. However, the point is that precisely to avoid all these types of claims and counter claims we should just stick to stating that the ICTY began an investigation but that he was never indicted. Otherwise we'll get into all kinds of allegations back and forth. Finally, we cannot and therefore should not speculate about what kind of war crimes he was under investigation for.Osli73 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a point. I haven't read the autobiography, so don't know if AI's statement about the Bosnian troops was meant to be a response to the war crimes accusations, or if the war crimes accusations were focused on the actions of Bosnian troops under his command. If it was, we should put this sentence there. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? Of course it wasn't meant to be a response to the war crimes accusations, because it was based on his diary during the war. The accusations came later after the war. It is well known fact that AI struggled to maintain control of the army even under the Serb siege of Sarajevo, and the siege was vary horrific condition, a million grenades was trown by Serb army to the city. 14.000 civilians killed, 1650 children. That's the main reason he got the medal by American Center For Democracy. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
GG, I don't understand your line of thinking here. I am simply proposing that we only include the fact that the ICTY were investigating him for war crimes and not speculate what these alleged crimes might have been.Osli73 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not speculating anything. Serbs initiated the investigation, not ICTY (it just started to investigate their accusations), AI never hide the fact that there were incidents by his soldiers. Well it is known fact that the commander of Bosnian Army was also indicted (the investigation was also initiated by Serbs and Croats) and found not guilty which is unique example in ICTY. I think it is up to readers to decide whether to read his autobiography or not. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the information that the Serbs started the investigation and that this was the cause of the ICTY investigation. I've never seen any such information (that is from reliable sources). Since we really should allow the readers to decide for themselves we should just state that the icty initiated an investigation but that it was terminated at AI's death. That's clearly the most neutral wording. Anything else is speculationOsli73 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1946 imprisonment

According to various sources found on goole, among them MS encarta, Mr Izetbegović was arrested in 1946 and spend 3 years in prison. This is a fact, this can be hardly reduced to less informative and neutral text. The reason for imprisonment is disputed on some pages. I trust most the Encarta source so it's taken from it as well. If you object the reason for imprisonment, please state your source of information.--Modrooky (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)