Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:04, 28 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Biography / Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Afghanistan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Mid‑importance Ahmad Shah Massoud is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 9, 2004, September 9, 2005, September 9, 2007, and September 9, 2008.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Date of birth

Massoud was born on September 2, 1953 and died in Khwaja bahauddin disrtict in Takhar provience in Afghanistan.

Fair use image

File:Ahmad Shah Massoud.jpg is now fair use and the lead image. We dont know anything about the photo, it appears to be a 'known' portrait because it was used in the event File:Abdul Rahim Wardak in Kabul April 2010.jpg, if the photo is unknown they will not use it. Thats however all we know. ] was an attempt to find a free image, our search for free images often leads to 'bad but free images', under fair use we can have a little more focus on quality in our search for images. If we decide to use a fair use photo we should use the best we can use inside the restrictions of fair use policy. Thats possibly the portraits by Reza Deghati of 1985 or later portraits by him who highly influenced the public image of Massoud in the western hemisphere. All portraits have been published in Massoud, des Russes aux talibans, 20 ans de résistance afghane (the 1985 portrait is the cover image). The 1985 portrait was first published in France and/or National Geographic in the U.S., so it is not free but should be ok under fair use with an appropriate image caption.
Aditionally I removed File:Cmdt massoud ill artlibre jn.png from the article. That scribbling is trash, even no image in the article is better than that. --Martin H. (talk)

Recent edits

Would FPS please explain his issues with the article one at a time so we may work through them. JcaLa would you refrain from overly long posts, keep the mas short and to the point as is possible. I am sure we can all reach an accord here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The issues with this article are obvious from the article itself and from my edits; they do not need yet more explanation. Anybody with half a brain can see what's wrong with the article; anybody who needs an explanation to understand it ought not to be editing Misplaced Pages in the first place. And no, as I said above, I am no longer available for any discussion that involves JCAla, and I am not interested in reaching any "accord" with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall telling you on ANI why one of those edits were wrong, if you do not wish to edit in a collaborative manner then do not edit the article. And I do hope you are not inferring I have half a brain nor should I edit Wiki. One of the issues here FP is you know little of the subject, or you know a great deal of it but dislike the subject matter, which is it? Now you can explain exactly what you feel is wrong with this article or I will wholesale revert your changes as soon as the article is unprotected. This is how it works here remember. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not how it works here; threatening to start an edit war is a big no-no, as is failing to read the discussion above. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DS: you have not explained why any part of my rewritten passages was wrong. If you have an objection to any part of the rewrite, it's up to you to state it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The objections were already stated to you plain and simple, yet, you restored them in an edit war. You are the proposer of new content. Therefore, you are the one who needs to establish consensus for your addition and changes according to wikipedia policy. I recommend you to self rv so editors can work in a collaborative effort on the article. I agree with above, that you either know very little about the issue (in which case your uncivil attacks on the competence of other editors would be misplaced) or you have a horse in this race so to speak (in which case your blatant attacks on the integrity of others would be highly misplaced). JCAla (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Akhilleus, sorry but you are wrong, so go fuck yourself. Excuse my drunken behavior Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC) I am not threatening an edit war, I am telling FP what will happen if he does not explain his actions. I have already pointed out in once instance were he was wrong, I think it necessary he makes his issues known so I may let him know were else he is wrong Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors on Misplaced Pages won't discuss with people who edit while drunk and who habitually make personal attacks in the process. Sober up, then you have one more chance of explaining what is wrong with my rewrite. Repeating again and again that you already did so doesn't make it truer; you did not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(out) Struck the offending comments, now perhaps you can get around to your issues? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I am still prepared to discuss with you, because up to now you have not yet totally exhausted my patience the way the other guy did, but don't push it, because this might change quickly and my patience is limited. I gave all the explanation anybody needs for my edits: the old version was a hugely overblown, tendentious quotefarm. Now, I asked you what is wrong with my rewrite. Ball's in your court. But do get sober first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you find blunt speech so problematic, when I drink it tends to go on for a while :o) we all have our little foibles. You have actually given no explanations at all FP, hence this section my friend. Now really, I would appreciate you telling me in bite size chunks, given I am a drunken bigot and obviously far to stupid to edit the wiki anyone can edit so, tell me so it is real easy for me to get, that cool with you? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Your conduct here is nothing but empty filibustering. You have exhausted my patience now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

List

Ok, obviously the discussion until now has yielded only few results. One being that Fut.Perf. saw that "civilian target" was obviously a wrong term. The reasons why I am opposed to Fut.Perf.'s removal of 13,000 bytes of content are the following:

• Ittihad-i Islami are the forces of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. Fut.Perf. terming them as "Massoud's forces" is original research. Not once does the source term them that way, but Ittihad is consistently identified as "Sayyaf's forces" in the report. Misplaced Pages needs to abide by what the source actually says. Ittihad is explicitly identified as a "factional ally". That was the relationship. Fut.Perf. version is falsifying the source, also against common knowledge. None familiar with Afghanistan will identify the term "Massoud's forces" with Ittihad-i Islami but rather with Shura-e Nazar and Jamiat-e Islami.
• There is further original research in the sentence about the issue. The report does no say Massoud was responsible for the "massacre" by factional ally Ittihad but it says, "he should have foreseen and prevented".
• At least one-two of the quotes removed by Fut.Perf. should have stayed as they present very good summaries of certain issues. Especially the Roy Gutman quote. In any case, this should be discussed and not unilaterally decided by Fut.Perf.
• Fut.Perf.'s summary of the position on "other observers" is suboptimal. Who were those observers and why do we quote them, etc. These were the very people as observers on the ground during that time, that is why they have special credibility.
• In the "resistance against Taliban" section, Fut.Perf. changed the 1999-2001 "alliance" (section heading) to "negotiations" although reliable sources such as Steve Coll term it an alliance.
• Fut.Perf. removed valuable information, such as that dissenting Taliban were joining Massoud ally Abdul Haq and the alliance.

There is more, but that is already enough to reject the unilateral removal of 13,000 bytes of content. Again, I suggest that we work together constructively on-content. JCAla (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked FPS in the section above to explain his actions, he refused, apparently asking him for an explanation exhausted his patience. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As for one of the sentences, it should be something like: "The report describes him as failing to prevent atrocities by factional ally Ittihad-i Islami on taking the suburb of Afshar during a military operation against anti-state militias shelling the capital city in February 1993, arguing that he should have foreseen them. At the same time the report says that a meeting convened by Massoud during the operation ordered a halt to killing and looting, but that it failed to stop abuses largely carried out by Ittihad forces." JCAla (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., the AJP report does not cite one single incidence of on the ground atrocities (rape or summary execution) in Afshar for Jamiat, witness testimonial exclusively talk about Ittihad, even the section heading is called "Rape by Ittihad forces". Your claim is in contradiction to what Roy Gutman wrote about AJP. You are practically claiming Gutman is in contradiction to AJP (original research) while Roy Gutman himself writes "according to AJP". JCAla (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The report, in its summary paragraph preceding those sections, says that "estimony indicates that both

Jamiat and Ittihad troops committed abuses". The following sections list testimony only involving one of the groups, but we don't know the reason for that. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, so the omission of explicit references to acts committed by Jamiat forces may be editorial coincidence, or it may reflect a real difference between the two; that's not for us to decide. If the AJP authors intended to make a distinction between two qualitatively different types of "abuses" along the lines you suggested (the really bad ones being committed only by one side, and lesser ones committed by both), that summary paragraph would have been the place to express it. But the authors didn't make such a distinction. Constructing one now, on your own, just to make the summary compatible with your reading of the witness reports that follow it, is your personal speculation. In the absence of a distinguishing remark in the summary, if the summary explicitly says "both committed abuses", and then there's a single list of examples detailing abuses, then the only safe conclusion is that the authors wanted us to understand that list of examples as representative of what both forces did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

They write that both committed abuses because looting is also an abuse. However, the report explicitly ascribes crimes of the category rape and summary executions to Ittihad. Its section heading says "Rape by Ittihad". The section summary explicitly states: "During the Afshar operation, Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami forces used rape and other assaults on civilians to drive the civilian population from the area. The Afghanistan Justice Project interviewed many witnesses who described incidents of rape by Ittihad forces during the Afshar operation." If it were as you say, they'd named both factions under the section but stated that only part of the testimonies are shown below. But that is not what they did.

The same goes for summary executions. AJP in the section summary states: "Witnesses interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project stated that a group of Hizb-i Wahdat soldiers was taken prisoner from Wahdat headquarters at the Social Science Institute by Ittihad-i Islami forces on February 11. In addition to these, a large number of civilian men and suspected Wahdat militants were arrested from the Afshar area after Ittihad captured it. The number taken is not known. One group of Hazara prisoners held by Ittihad-i Islami was subsequently used by the Ittihad commanders to undertake burial of the dead from the Afshar operation, after one week. This group of witnesses has reported that their relatives were among the civilian and military prisoners taken by Ittihad who subsequently disappeared and are believed to have been summarily executed by Ittihad forces." The report as method of research exclusively used witness testimonies cited below the section summary. These testimonies were what the authors based their work on and they ascribe such crimes to Ittihad.

These distinctions were captured by Roy Gutman who won a Pulitzer Price for his work on war crimes in Bosnia and is heading a research institute on war crimes. So, the distinction is clearly there and desribed as such by a reliable secondary source.

From a historical perspective it can be explained by the fact that Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Sunni Pashtun Ittihad (backed by Saudi Arabia) and Abdul Ali Mazari's Shia Hazara Wahdat (backed by Iran) were involved in a bloody ethnic and ideological feud since June 1992. Massoud's forces to the contrary were primarily there to fight Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's alliance to which Wahdat belonged since roughly a month during that time. JCAla (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply for two weeks, I'll conduct the appropriate changes then. JCAla (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf., I am waiting for your participation in this discussion. Also for an explanantion why verifiable, reliably sourced content i. e. about the establishment of a commission or about the specific sub-commanders mentioned by AJP was removed. Further any compelling reason why the improvement of the description on the international observers on the ground was rv? You do know that your description of Roy Gutman's statement - besides being factually incorrect - is WP:OR and cannot stand?!

On a sidenote: I ask you to refrain from descriptive edit summaries such as "whitewashing" or "source falsification" because they are far from reality and thus disruptive, just like your blanket revert after failing to discuss for two weeks on the talk. JCAla (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I made my position clear, and so did you. If you want to insist on your edit, you are free to choose whatever method of dispute resolution you wish to pursue outside input. Just please make it one that does not require me discussing with you again, because my tolerance for filibustering is exhausted, so I won't be discussing this with you any further. If you insist, this will have to end with either you or me being banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A content dispute will have to end with either of us banned? You are again far over the top as you were on that image deletion discussion. Let's have a little less drama and more productivity. To make it easier. We never once discussed the commission before. You removed the content about the commission. Do you have any reason for it that you can present here? JCAla (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your citation "The Middle East: Abstracts and index, part 4" is unverifiable. Author, year, title, page? Is that statement made in the context of a discussion of Massoud's responsibility for Afshar? If not, placing it in this context would be OR. I cannot check the Akbarzadeh citation right now. But to tell you the truth, I chose the blanket revert because technically I couldn't undo the main offending edit alone. That said, I once posed you a challenge to which you did not respond: could you imagine trying, for once, to write a paragraph about Massoud that does not reek of fawning admiration and apologism? Do you even recognize that might be a desirable goal? Or, do you even understand what that means? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about the commission here. The commission is in the Akbarzadeh/Maley source on page 100. It is fully verifiable. So, I am waiting for you to check it out.

Then, as you again deem it necessary to make personal attacks, did it ever occur to you that you as a person have only a very subjective take on matters just like most other people - and I am still not sure if you have a horse in the race or not. Assuming and writing negatively about a person does not correspond with neutrality or some weird sense of being above things - especially not when you impose your subjective pov through WP:OR against the findings of experts on that matter such as Roy Gutman or those handful of observers who were actually on the ground such as Anthony Davis and Edward Girardet. Or are these experts reeking of "fawning admiration and apologism" also? Because, I am not writing anything different than they do. JCAla (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FPS, there is a content dispute, it is resolved through discussion. You cannot keep saying you will not discuss the issue and then blanket revert changes you do not like, nor because you cannot be bothered to check the sources used. JCala. which source is the issue, I will verify it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple issues. Currently, I have asked him to present reasons for reverting the commission sentence. It is about establishment of a government commission to independently estimate casualties and destruction during the operation. Please see "Islam and Human Rights in Practice: Perspectives across the Ummah" by Shahram Akbarzadeh, Benjamin Macqueen, page 100. JCAla (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

{out}

While there is nothing to suggest that Sayyaf ever felt much guilt about the Afshar massacre, others in the Mujahideen’s ranks recognized that serious transgressions were involved, and later in 1993, a government commission including civilians nominated by Wahdat was appointed to estimate civilian damage during the Afshar campaign. Its conclusions suggested that approximately 70–80 persons were killed in the streets of Afshar, 700–750 persons perished as captives of Ittehad, and 5,000 houses were looted

Verified Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A second point, among the Jamiat, two out of nine sub-commanders have been identified by witnesses as leading troops that carried out abuses: Anwar Dangar and Mullah Izzat. Can you verify? (http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf, p. 83) A third point would be, Roy Gutman says, according to AJP. But Fut.Perf. writes, "Contrary to AJP's own assessment, Roy Gutman ..." Writing Gutman is in contradiction to AJP is therefore original research by Fut.Perf. Fut.Perf. has also misrepresented what Gutman actually says. Gutman does not say, Jamiat forces did not commit any abuses which would include looting, beating, arbitrary arrests, etc., because they did (Anwar Dangar and Mullah Izzat). Gutman makes a distinction. He says atrocities like summary executions, disappearances and rape on the ground were ascribed by witnesses cited by AJP to Ittihad. This is in full compliance with the AJP report (see: http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf, p. 86-88), the witness testimonies cited and the section summaries on those crimes. I therefore propose to leave Fut.Perf. OR description or any subjective description out and simply cite what Gutman wrote. The reason why Gutman should be cited is because he isn't just another author who may not be truly familiar, but he won a Pulitzer Prize for his works on war crimes and he also represents a reliable secondary source analyzing the AJP source over which the content dispute started. JCAla (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Look, Fut.Perf., I am starting to find your behavior truly disruptive. What's the matter? The commission sentence is exactly according to source. Roy Gutman's citation is exactly according to source. You are edit warring while not even bothering to check out the sources nor to discuss here. The things you initially disputed I have not changed yet. So, I am waiting for a truly informative explanation for your latest revert now. JCAla (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I told you before, I am no longer discussing this with you. The AJP report does quite clearly say that (a) M's own Jamiat forces took part in the crimes, and (b) the Ittihad forces were also under his command and in his responsibility, even if only indirectly. Gutman says something different. It is not "OR" to observe that two sources say something contradictory. These two sources do. We will therefore present them as two distinct assessments. What I will not let you get away with is your tenacious attempt at passing off the Gutman assessment as if it was a summary of what the AJP itself says. Now, if you want to further insist on this, go find some means of dispute resolution that involves something other than me having to explain this to you more and more times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • AJP says, Ittihad took instructions from Sayyaf and were under direct command of Sayyaf. Massoud's relationship to Ittihad was that of a factional ally per AJP, that is the indirectly. Every child in Afghanistan is able to tell you that Wahhabi Pashtun Ittihad forces did not take direct orders from the Tajik Massoud. It is your original research that Gutman, as I said a Pulitzer Prize-winning war crimes expert, is in contradiction to AJP. Thereby you put your own interpretation above Gutman's. If you had bothered to read the witness testimonies you'd see that only Ittihad is mentioned in connection with rape, summary executions or disappearances. That is what Gutman points out. Again, he does not say, Jamiat committed no crimes because they did, he says, these kinds of crimes were ascribed by witnesses to Ittihad, and he is both in compliance with the AJP report and a United Nations report on it. This article is not there to display your original research. JCAla (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you removed the commission sentence. I figure, you do not have a problem with that sentence then as well as the explanations on the on-the-ground observers. So that can go back into the article?! JCAla (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It does look as though FP is using a little OR. Can I please have the Gutman source so I can check? Which book and page numbers please. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Roy Gutman: How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan, Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace, p. 222:

"Troops of both Jamiat and Ittihad undertook a search operation that investigators later described as 'a mass exercise in abuse and looting.' But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued."

For the witness testimomies, read http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf, p. 86-88. Saying Gutman is in contradiction to the witnesses cited by AJP is OR and wrong. Gutman should be quoted or paraphrased without OR description. More importantly, a thing I find truly disruptive, is it due to write that an investigative commission was established when such a commission was established? Fut.Perf. has removed the sentence about the commission. JCAla (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Saying Gutman is in contradiction to the witnesses cited by AJP is OR" because neither source says that. The quote from How We Missed the Story is verified, I had just read in :o)I will look at the AJP report now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the AJP report, the witness statements are all of abuses by Ittihad forces. However does this report not fall under WP:PRIMARY? Should we even be trying to second guess Gutman here who is a reliable secondary source interpreting the primary source? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Witness statements with regards to the atrocities specified by Gutman, yes. I don't think the report as a whole falls under WP:PRIMARY, do you? The second issue, is anyone, besides Fut.Perf., of the opinion that it is undue to mention that an investigative commission was established when such a commission was actually established? JCAla (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Peter Tomsen, The wars of Afghanistan, p. 565:

"Increasing numbers of Pashtun Taliban were secretly contacting him as Taliban popularity trended downward. ..."

What exactly fails verification? And I will revert your weasel OR, Peter Tomsen does not say he "hoped", he wrote "if ... then". JCAla (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would request FPaS use the talk page rather than continue his edit war. Facts, not fiction (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this particular edit-war, the issue was over wording and interpretation of Ahmad Shah Massoud's involvement in the Massacre and Mass Rape in Afshar (see page 82 of the source document. The source does lay responsibility for the troops involved in the incident squarely on Ahmad Shah Massoud, and as such Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) 's version is closer to the source than the alternative. Furthermore, language used by Future Perfect at Sunrise is more encyclopedic and neutral in tone, hence adhering to our NPOV policies. I encourage editors to discuss further changes on the talk page and to ensure adherence to sourcing, and to seek outside opinion in deadlocked cases. Persistent violations of policy may ultimately lead to suspension of editing privileges. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Either FPaS uses the talk page and explains his actions or I shall have little choice but to report his edit warring, again. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As you must have seen, I actually did explain my revert (see edit summary: ). You failed to explain yours. Other than that, I see no benefit in talking against a brick wall, so my position remains unchanged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary is naught but a personal attack. And it has been explained to you already that your edit contains OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

Right folks, I've fully protected for a week. I strongly advise a structured argument (with links to preferred versions and reasonings why) below on the merits of each version, with a seeking of wider opinion. I can see this is the second time it has flared up, so can we sort it out with a link to the discussion for if/when it flares up in future? Much of the previous discussion is a wall of text which is going to discourage others trying to get a sense of this. I have alerted the military history and afghanistan wikiprojects. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct: the wall-of-text situation is due to a systematically employed strategy by User:JCAla, which has so far been incredibly successful at driving other editors away, here and at various noticeboards. Any new discussion procedure will only work if it is supervised with a strong hand, by an admin who is willing to call out the BS and stop this editor (removing his postings, blocking him, etc.) when he tries these same tactics again. If that doesn't happen, any new attempt at resolving this will be drowned in yet more repetitive drivel. If you are willing to take that supervising role, we can try. If not, it's not worth even trying. We've tried all these things before, and the WP:SOUP chaos has always been the result. (You know that crack about the definition of insanity being "trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result", right?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, Future Perfect at Sunrise you wanna start by summarising your version, the difference with theirs and the rationale for your version. (and ditto for Darkness Shines etc.) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree: I'd seen this edit warring, but couldn't work out (as an outsider) who had the "more correct" version. Time this was resolved, or party/ies topic blocked? Esowteric+Talk 09:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start. First, this is not actually "my" version; it's just the lesser evil compared to the most recent rewrite attempt by JCAla. The old version too is predominently JCAla's work, heavily tendentious, and in dire need of being pruned down. With this new rewrite , there are essentially two issues:

• JCAla claimed he wanted to "shorten" the lead. That aim is legitimate in principle, but the way he's done it, he has taken out or deemphasized all the concrete factual info (biographical data, role in the power struggles etc.) and instead left all the positive fluff in (what a great guy he was, how much good he did, lots of quotations full of fawning admiration). This contributes to the overall tenor of the whole article, which is quite clearly hagiographic.
• There has been a continuous dispute about the passage further down (currently in a section titled "War against Hekmatyar (1992-1995)"), about Massoud's role in the "Afshar massacre". This is crucial because it is the only bit of criticism that JCAla has so far not managed to excise entirely from the article, and his agenda of apologism regarding this event has been his main editorial focus ever since he started editing here. Basically, what we have is the following: there is a reliable source, the "AJP report" , which unambiguously accuses Massoud of sharing personal responsibility for war crimes in this event (and others). There is a second source, by a political writer called Gutman, who, citing this same report, comes to the assessment that the data in it doesn't really implicate Massoud. In earlier versions of JCAla's article, he made the brazen-faced attempt of passing off the AJP report to support a claim of the exact opposite of what it actually says (using it as a footnote for the sentence "Massoud did not order any crimes" , when the report quite obviously says that he did). He then started arguing that we should simply ignore what the report says and instead rely on Gutman to explain for us what it "really" means, essentially passing off Gutman's judgment as if it was that of the AJP. When he couldn't push that through, he tried a new tactic in this rewrite: rather than falsifying the citation directly, he is now trying to simply bury it under a mountain of counter-arguments, obliterating it through sheer quantity of unrelated material. That's why this new rewrite now has a huge amount of off-topic material on how bad his opponents were, how legitimate the military aim of that operation was, what a great guy Gutman is, and so on. This is why I consider the rewrite yet another attempt in his whitewashing agenda.

– So much for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

First, contrary to what Fut.Perf. claims, most of this is actually Fut.Perf.'s version as he did that rewrite some time ago. Fut.Perf. himself termed it as his "rewritten intro".

• The lead, however, was heavily repetitive and that is why I shortened it. We had for example two consecutive paragraphs stating more or less the same: two times that he was an anti-Soviet leader, two times that he fought Hekmatyar and two times that he led resistance to the Taliban. While shortening the lead, I didn't really change a lot contentwise. Besides reducing everything to being only mentioned once, the minor changes that I did make were that I axed this sentence i. e.: "Many of his followers see him not only as a military commander but also as a spiritual leader." I also added two information: giving shelter to 400,000 refugees (some put the number as high as 1 million, so I chose the small end of the numbers) (National Geographic), (Reza Deghati in EU Parliament) and the historically important Rome Process, both of which are verified historical facts.
• As for the other issue, no, the AJP report does not say "Massoud ordered crimes" with regards to Afshar. Actually, none ever could prove anything to that regard. Many observers/sources who were themselves on the ground in Afghanistan, i. e. the director of the Global Journalism Network Edward Girardet, have strongly objected to any such notion. To the contrary. Massoud was defense minister of the post-communist government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, appointed by the Peshawar Accord. Massoud had a role in the Afshar military operation, with a clear-cut military objective according to the AJP, but no role in the escalation of the military operation which took place after the operation when forces started to undertake search operations. The Afshar military operation was meant to stop heavy bombardment conducted by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's allies against northern Kabul, to capture the HQs of those allies and their leader. The escalation of that military operation was, according to the United Nations, Pulitzer Prize-winning war crimes reseacher Roy Gutman (Roy Gutman, How we missed the story, p. 222) and plenty of other sources, mainly conducted by the government's factional ally Ittihad-i Islami under the direct command of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. Among Massoud's government forces there were two (out of nine) subcommanders mentioned as leading troops that carried out abuses: Anwar Dangar (a semi-independent Pashtun commander who later joined the Taliban) and Mullah Izzat (a Tajik from Sayyaf's region of Paghman who also became an Ittihad commander). The AJP does NOT accuse Massoud of ordering the escalation i. e. the crimes that happened in the suburb of Afshar. The AJP accuses Massoud of failing to prevent and to effectively stop abuses, although it says that Massoud ordered a halt to abuses on the second day of the operation but that his orders remained unheard. Massoud then appointed a commander from his own core forces, Hussain Anwari, to take charge of restoring security for civilians. By repeatedly removing the names of the true perpetrators such as Anwar Dangar, Fut.Perf. is shifting the blame from the direct perpetrators (Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Anwar Dangar, Mullah Izzat) to someone else who, while failing to prevent abuses, explicitly ordered a halt to them. I do not agree with that. I am also not in favour of mentioning something without explaining the historical context which Fut.Perf. more or less is proposing. So, below you can compare the two versions:

JCAla (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying. (a) I'm saying that the whole article, in the version I was reverting to, was predominantly your work, which is obviously the case. I had only been working on a few paragraphs. (b) I didn't say the AJP report claimed Massoud "ordered" crimes at Afshar. (About Afshar, it says he was responsible for them by not preventing them.) It does, however, quite clearly say that he personally ordered indiscriminate shelling, throughout the war, and that too was a war crime, so when you used the AJP report to prop up the claim that he "didn't order any crimes" that was a blatant source falsification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

a) I suggest you cease your personal attacks once and for all. Thank you. b) You are bringing up an old discussion about a sentence that isn't even in the article any more. AJP does not say Massoud was responsible for the crimes in Afshar. It says he had a general "command and control responsibility" for his government troops (same Obama has for the US troops in Afghanistan) which is a different thing. In international law, to legally determine the question, it would be investigated if he as de facto superior commander (such as the US defense minister is to the US army), not in Afshar himself, had "effective control" in the sense of i. e. "having the material ability to prevent" individuals among the government forces from committing abuses the moment they happened. While AJP claims he failed to effectively prevent, this doesn't answer the question if he wasn't willing to prevent or if he wasn't able to. This has never been legally investigated and that is not something we can decide here. But we do have certain indications based on what Gutman and on-the-ground observers have reported and the fact that he ordered crimes to stop. AJP also does not say "Massoud ordered indiscriminate shelling". AJP writes: "All of the factions involved in the conflict in Kabul engaged in indiscriminate attacks." And further: "While the armed factions responsible may have had military targets in mind, those targets were based or were moving in primarily civilian areas. While they were still legitimate military targets, the scale of the bombardments and kinds of weapons used represented disproportionate use of force, prohibited by the Geneva Conventions." It then goes on to analyze the command situation for different kinds of attacks. According to AJP, for the government forces both Massoud and Mohammad Fahim are named as authorizing/commanding the use of air force, long-range missiles which were then directed by Baba Jalander and short-range attacks. Middle-range artillery - the most common type of attack - as used in Afshar was ordered by the division commanders. For you to say, Massoud ordered indiscriminate shelling, it needed to be investigated and proven that there was a case or cases in which Massoud with full knowledge of the consequences personally chose the target and then ordered such a specific bombardment assault. c) I suggest we look forward and concentrate on the current edit war and the versions at hand. JCAla (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Walls of text again. Casliber, do something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. is quite right to say that the AJP report assigns responsibility for indrisciminate shelling to Massoud (among many others). JCAla's posts to the contrary are either clueless or disingenuous, or perhaps both. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• It´s obvious Fut.Perf. is trying to derail attention from the present issue over which he edit warred - the shortening of the lead and the discussion about version 1 & 2.

If I went through all the things Fut.Perf. falsely claimed during the old discussions - such as that Massoud wasn´t part of the rome process which he most certainly was (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72 et al sources already present in the article) - this discussion would never end. I won´t bother commenting any further on an old discussion already dealt with, in which both Fut.Perf. and Akhilleus had certain opinions and other people have different opinions, but which has nothing to do with the present edit war which needs to be resolved. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, yet another case of persistent, willful source distortion. What that source says is not that Massoud was "part of the Rome process". It says that he in contact with it and prepared to support it – that doesn't make him part of it. In fact, that was at a time when the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with the edit war, but for those interested in the issue (all others please ignore it): The "Rome Process" was the two-year plan/process which started around 1999/2000 for an Afghan loya jirga to replace the Taliban. The sources quite simply speak for themselves whether Massoud was part of the process and whether it was supposed to topple the Taliban regime or not.

JCAla (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, let's try and keep this succinct. I am a bit pressed for time but will investigate over the weekend. I am grateful for others to look at the versions each is claiming and come to their own conclusions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there need here for advice from subject experts? Esowteric+Talk 11:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't have any. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing

This article currently relies very heavily – with 27 references to the same footnote! – on a single book source, Marcela Grad, Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader, Webster University Press, 2009. While this book, being published by a university press, probably passes formal standards of "reliable source", it is also clearly a highly non-neutral contribution, and has been used as the main source for the overal reverential tone of this article.

The book's academic standing seems not particularly impressive: apparently only very few citations to it from other works found on Google books; Worldcat.org knows of only 37 copies in academic libraries world-wide.

It may be necessary to reduce the article's over-reliance on this one source.

I also note that the footnote is actually technically deficient, because all 27 references in the text ostensibly point to the same page in the book, which can't really be true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Several items are also sourced to journalistic opinion pieces from TV reportages, hosted on youtube. This is certainly less than ideal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The source as you say is RS, so the source is fine. I believe Op-Eds are RS so long as attributed. 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You are also removing a great deal of content without discussion. I have reverted you and ask you discuss before removing reams of sourced content from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Full protection (again)

Right, whoa everybody. FPAS, please succinctly explain each removal, and Darkness Shines, please expalin why each segment in each case should remain. I need to remind everyone to stick to discussing the specific piece of content in each case. Thankyou. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I consider their justification self-evident to any reasonable observer: this material was a quotefarm, overly lengthy, full of POV fluff, and of very little information value apart from contributing to the overall tendentious colouring of the article. If DS believes otherwise, I expect a detailed list explaining, about each of the removed passages, why he thinks it is important to the article. Let me also remind everybody that JCAla himself wanted a tightened, shorter lead (that's what I did). Finally, at least my latest edit ought to have been entirely uncontentious, as it was a purely editorial tightening of a very poorly written, highly redundant passage. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No it was not, why remove the fact that he defeated the soviet army nine times? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And what, pray, were those "nine" separate events? Nine battles? Nine skirmishes? Nine failed strategic Soviet attempts at capturing the valley? Nine guerilla attacks by Massoud's forces on some Soviet outpost? That sentence was pretty much meaningless without context. And its sourcing is to an unnamed TV excerpt on youtube that's now a deadlink, so we have no chance of even finding out what was originally meant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how removing it in violation of WP:DEADLINK was justified. Of course you could have just changed it to "He defeated the soviet army a number of times" and sourced it to Conflict in Afghanistan: A Historical Encyclopedia p165. Or of course we could leave it as it is, just a minor change from he defeated the soviets nine times in one year, and source it to Contemporary Afghanistan: A Political Dictionary p58 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The second of those sources indeed makes it clearer what that "nine times" may have meant, but it's still irrelevant to that article. The basic fact here is that this article is simply far, far too long. It's now at 126,000 bytes (almost 13,000 words of prose, body text alone)! Given the advice of WP:Article length, there are good reasons for cutting this down to about half the size. My most recent edits removed only about 7,000 bytes (1,000 words); this can only be a first start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You ought not cite a guideline to support your removal of content which says the opposite Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length. As this is now settled we move on to the next reason I reverted you. Why did you remove this highly notable quote? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Because pull quotes are a bad thing, as a matter of principle. And removal of stuff to reduce article length is, of course, legitimate, if the material is POV fluff, as it has been here. All these quotations can far better be covered by succinct paraphrasing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your actions belie what you are now saying, why did you not paraphrase instead of removal of content? Your response is sorely lacking in truth. What you call fluff, I see as an important aspect of this mans life, I believe this quote belongs as is. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The matter is already described in the text (and that coverage is still longer than necessary.) But let's get some basics straight first. Do you seriously deny that the article in its present state is a nightmare of overblown POV writing and quote-farming? Yes or no? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(od)Per Cas, we shall discuss your edits one at a time, this is what I have been doing and shall continue to do. I reccomend you do the same. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I insist on an answer; otherwise a basis of cooperation cannot be established. Yes or no? Just one word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You may insist all you want, I do not respond to childish demands. I intend to do as Cas said, which is discuss your removals one at a time, so please explain why you removed the quote currently being discussed. My position is that this quote is important as it gives us a view on this mans attitudes towards women, which is fully 360 degrees north of what other Afghan leaders of the time thought of them. Why remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

More lopsided sourcing

The source Blood-Stained Hands, Past Atrocities in Kabul and Afghanistan's Legacy of Impunity by Human Rights Watch is used in the present version of the article, with four footnotes, but exclusively as a source of accusations of war crimes against Massoud's opponents. What the present version omits is that the same source is also highly critical of Massoud himself and of his forces (p.120). Quote: "Jamiat forces are culpable for many of the abuses documented in this report. There is compelling evidence that Jamit forces in 1992 and 1993 intentionally targeted civilians Ahmad Shah Massoud is implicated in many of the abuses". If we're going to use this report as a source, which I think we should, then it needs to be evaluated in full. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Afghanistan Justice Project was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Gutman, Roy (2008): How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan, Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace, 1st ed., Washington D.C., p. 222

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (military) articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Afghanistan articles
• Unknown-importance Afghanistan articles
• WikiProject Afghanistan articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• Mid-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2008)