Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

File:Ahmad Shah Masood.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmad Shah Masood.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmad Shah Masood.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Photographs/Interview

I have a number of photographs that I took of Ahmad Shah Massoud in 1991 that you would be welcome to use for your site, if you'd like to. You can see the photos at asmassoudphotos.redbubble.com. I also have an interview with Massoud that has never been translated into English; I'm hoping to have something available in time for the 10th anniversry of his martyrdom. Do you speak Dari? Interested in taking a listen? You can reach me at benjaminpendleton@gmail.com. Thanks, Ben Pendleton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Pendleton (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2011

A belated thankyou, Ben. – Question: has anybody ever followed up on this offer to see if the photographer would be willing to grant an actual CC license? These are great photos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 13,000 bytes of content by Fut.Perf.

Please discuss the points of your removal on the talk page as I have to reject several points of your unilateral BOLD edits. First and foremost stands your source falsifications with regards to the 1992-1996 period, then comes your terming of what was an alliance as "negotiations". There are several other points. You may want to discuss your proposals here first. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The article was in such a horrible state that no reasonable observer could entertain even a moment's doubt that the tightening I attempted here was an improvement. I am not going to discuss such changes in advance, certainly not with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, you need not discuss them in advance. But you need to discuss them when they were rejected based on WP:BRD, so much I learned on another article on which I made major adjustments. So. Please tell me your proposals. Actually, I wanted to improve this article for a very long time now, so I propose we can work together on it. JCAla (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is in the diff; I don't need to "tell you" about it again. The reason for my proposal is also obvious: the old version was a hugely overblown quotefarm, with cherrypicked sources obviously selected to promote a tendentious agenda. So, now, you go and tell me why you think that quotefarm was a better article than the abridged version. You might also want to explain where and how my abridgment misrepresented the sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to collaborate: demonstrate your good will by rewriting one paragraph, let's say on Massoud's role in the war, in such a way that it does not reek of your point of view in every sentence. Like, you know, in such a way that an outside observer couldn't tell from the writing what your own opinions are. Because, you know, that's what we are supposed to be doing here. From what I have seen of your writing so far, I very much doubt you could achieve this even if you wanted to. But I also doubt you want to do it in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are breaking one wikipedia policy after another here. The first being civility, the second being assuming good faith. Third being representing sources correctly. I obviously reject your bold proposal as in the diff as the "quotefarm" was at least factually correct as opposed to your proposal. Why there are several source falsifications you can read on my talk where I thoroughly analyzed the sources. I am not going to copy paste them here, least I be again accused of wallsoftext. Still, I think we can work together in a civil manner on this article and I have already started reducing the "quotefarm" without removing the very important contents of the sources. We can go point by point. I suggest we start with something not too controversial as a start. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Where did you analyse this [1] edit of mine, which I only made this morning? You didn't. Tell me which source it misrepresents. That's a strong accusation you are making there, so consider well what you're saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

C´mon. Parts of that edit this morning were already introduced by you to this article several days ago (and rejected by me). JCAla (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which doesn't answer my question: which of my summarizing abridgments was wrong? You have not made such a case. You have one more chance of doing so now; otherwise I'll reinstate my edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat my very answer to that very question, please see here where I explained in detail why you are not representing the sources correctly a) on "Massoud's forces" and b) on "civilian targets". This is for the content you re-introduced. For the other part of your edit today, I don't agree with you to generally remove all quotes. We should discuss which quotes are truly valuable to keep such as Roy Gutman's. As for earlier edits by you which I haven't yet reverted. You wrongly call an alliance "cross-factional negotiations" although the sources clearly describe it as an alliance. That needs to be fixed. And there are several other things which I suggest we discuss one after another. If you are truly interested in improving this article, I suggest we start with something less controversial, i. e. refill the "early life" sections with contents after the copyvio had to be removed. That way you can also show that you are not just here to pick a fight after that failed deletion discussion which this edit of yours suggests, as regions (especially that region) is indeed known for exactly that person (and that sentence was not added by me). JCAla (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With regards to your most recent edit, I for example don't agree. It is valuable information to know who exactly Robin Raphel is. Maybe not in that detail, but as a sidenote for sure. JCAla (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting more and more bizarre. My summary said, correctly, that the Afghanistan Justice Project report assigns personal responsibility to Massoud both for ordering indiscriminate shelling of civilian quarters, and for not preventing the Afshar massacre. This is correct, because the report very explicitly does precisely this. Your discussion here merely explains why you believe the Afghanistan Justice Project is wrong in its assessment, but that is irrelevant to the question whether it was correctly summarized. It obviously was.

This discussion is now over, as JCAla has clearly demonstrated, yet again, that he is unable or unwilling to uphold a reasoned discussion. His WP:SOUP tactics will not longer be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed getting more and more bizarre. You are blatantly lying. You wrote the Afghanistan Justice Project says "Massoud's forces" committed mass rape in Afshar, which the source does not say. It says Ittihad did so. And you wrote the AJP says, Massoud intentionally targeted "civilian targets" which it does not say. It says "unproportional use of force" in residential areas (obviously Kabul is a capital city) which resulted in civilian casualties. You are edit warring and pushing a version rejected per WP:BRD. You also seem unable to engage in a constructive, topic-based discussion as you seem to think you own the truth. JCAla (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what the AJP report says (p.82):

lengthy quote

"The forces that launched the [Afshar operation] all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations. He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units and indirectly controlled the Ittihad-i Islami unit. […] Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway. […] Testimony indicates that both Jamiat and Ittihad troops committed abuses".

So, yes, it clearly describes the forces involved as being under Massoud's command, and it explicitly describes Massoud as being at least indirectly responsible for what they did. I don't care whether you think that's correct, and in fact I don't care much whether it actually is correct, but this is what this source says. – About the shelling, here's what the source says:

lengthy quote

"The bombardment of Kabul [...] All of the major armed factions who were contending for control of the city were responsible for the indiscriminate use of a full range of heavy weapons […] under international humanitarian law (the laws of war), indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are defined as those that are not directed at a specific military objective, or that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Indiscriminate attacks include bombardment by any means which treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” This last is known as the rule of proportionality.148 All of the factions involved in the conflict in Kabul engaged in indiscriminate attacks. […] Shura-i Nazar were a particularly deadly fighting force and a significant proportion of the destruction of the Afghan capital was caused by its rockets and artillery. […] Massoud is named repeatedly as directing operations. […] Shura-i Nazar and Junbish fighter planes were under separate chains of command. According to a former Shura-i Nazar artillery commander, Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids.".

I am summarizing this as: "assigns personal responsibility to Massoud for some part of the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets with heavy weapons in Kabul, which it describes as a war crime". This is a perfectly adequate, correct summary of what this source says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(On reflection, I'm prepared to change "civilian targets" against "civilian areas", to avoid the impression the damage to civilians was the prime military objective as such.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what you tend to leave out:

lengthy quote

"Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault, working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense, but were operating in coordination with it." "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" "Rape by Ittihad Forces" "Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ... too late to prevent the main abuses. The meeting also seems to have been ineffective in halting the looting of the area, as the destruction of housing in Afshar happened largely after the meeting."

So, no, the Ittihad forces (which were the ones who committed mass rape in Afshar according to this source) were not under Massoud's command, as war crimes expert Roy Gutman also analyzes the same source, "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." As such you writing "mass rape ... committed by Massoud's forces" is a falsification of the source. Ittihad are not and were never "Massoud's forces". They just worked in coordination with the Ministry of Defense in the legitimate part of the military operation against Hekmatyar's alliance. Massoud ordered a halt to the abuses but they continued, obviously as Ittihad was not under his command.

The same goes for the massacre ("summary executions and kidnapping")

lengthy quote

"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 Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ... Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ..."

Do you see any of "Massoud's forces" with regards to summary executions in there?

About the shelling, here's what you always tend to leave out:

lengthy quote

"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" "He said the second type of rocket was middle-range, able to target locations from 15 to 20 kilometres away. He said orders to fire these were given by division commanders, for example, Ahmadi, commander of Qargha Division, Panah Khan, commander of Jihadi army, Gada Mohammed Khan, commander of Tapa Sorkh Division and Bismillah Khan. “They launched rockets at Hizb-i Islami bases, such as military zones, military centers like Bagrami, Shah Shahid, and Kart-i Nau, Chilsiton and Wahdat areas like Afshar, Social Science Institute, and Silo and indeed any area in west Kabul that was under the control of Hizb-i Wahdat.

Middle range artillery as used in Afshar, according to this source, was not ordered directly by Massoud. And your earlier formulation about "civilian targets" completely falsified the sources as you now reflected yourself. JCAla (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think war crimes expert and Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman summarizes the source in a very balanced, factually correct way. Therefore I suggest that neither you nor me write a summary, but that we take his summary. JCAla (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ittihad forces are very clearly described in the report as being under Massoud's command – if only indirectly –, and he is very clearly said to be at least partly responsible for what they did. Again, I don't care whether that's correct or not, but that's what the source says. Your quotations regarding the shelling do nothing to dispel what I said above. Gutman isn't "summarizing" the report; he is discussing it and contradicting its interpretation. What Gutman says is Gutman's opinion, not that of the AJP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the Ittihad forces are very clearly described as being under the command of Sayyaf, taking orders from Sayyaf, receiving pay from him and only working in coordination (which is the "indirectly") in the legitimate military operation with the Ministry of Defense. There is nothing in that source linking Massoud to the abuses by Ittihad (except that the Ittihad forces in Afshar which committed abuses were part of a legitimate military operation against the Wahdat/Hekmatyar alliance), to the contrary he is described as ordering a halt to their massacre. The only thing that is in there, is that he had overall responsibility for military operations, and that all the troops "formally" belonged to the Ministry of Defense. That says nothing about abuses. Roy Gutman very well captures all points about Afshar. He does not contradict the AJP's interpretation, he contradicts your interpretation. Also, Ittihad-i Islami was not "Massoud's force", that is one of the most terrible source falsifications. And, my quotations regarding the shelling did very much dispel what you claimed all the time, but now reflected upon yourself and changed. JCAla (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You understand German, right? Getretner Quark / wird breit, nicht stark. This discussion is over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ja, schon klar, Sommerkom. JCAla (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: Given this thread and the next subthread below, I consider it self-evident to any intelligent outside observer that JCAla's conduct is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and as such sanctionable disruption, and that further rational content debate with this person would be a hopeless waste of time at this point. JCAla: I am giving you one more chance of doing something to resolve this in a reasonable way. Choose one sensible forum where you can ask outside observers for a judgment on whether my summary of the source is correct or not – let's say, the content dispute noticeboard or something of the sort. I will otherwise no longer be available to discuss directly with you in any related content matter. I may cite this incident as an example of your disruptive conduct on some future occasion, to administrators, an RfC/U or Arbcom, asking for sanctions against you, which will inevitably come some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have filed this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: I consider it self-evident to any intelligent outside observer that Fut.Perf.'s conduct is an extreme case of "I own the ultimate truth". He considers any rational content debate with other people a waste of time because he already owns the truth. I may cite this incident as an example of your extremely uncivil and disruptive conduct on some future occasion. In two cases you already had to concede that what you were proclaiming was simply wrong (1) Massoud not being part of the Rome process and (2) "civilian areas". Yet, you still cannot see that other editors whether they are able to get a consensus behind them in this very case or not, might have valid discussion points. Even if you would be able to create a consensus for your favourite version (as I was several times in other content debates), doesn't mean the other editor is disruptive, just because he has a different opinion. You citing a difference in opinion as disruptive behavior is the very essence of your own conduct problems. JCAla (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed

• (1) Fut.Perf. has described Ittihad-i Islami as "Massoud's forces". Ittihad-i Islami is the force of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf not Ahmad Shah Massoud. In the source there is no "mass rape" nor "massacre" in Afshar by "Massoud's forces" which would have been Shura-e Nazar. There is a "Rape by Ittihad forces" and dozens of witness testimonial which describe summary executions by Ittihad forces.

lengthy quote

"In June 1992, conflict broke out between Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami, headquartered in Paghman, west of Kabul, and Hizb-i Wahdat. ... Responsibility for the abuses rests with the senior leadership of both parties who were aware of the hostage taking and disappearances: Sayyaf and his top commanders [for Ittihad], and Mazari (who died in 1995 (see below), and his deputy, Karim Khalili, along with other senior Wahdat commanders. [for Wahdat]" "Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense, but were operating in coordination with it." "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" "Rape by Ittihad forces" "Summary executions" "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 Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ... Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ..."

Here is how Pulitzer Price-winning author and expert on war crimes Roy Gutman summarized the same source and issue (Roy Gutman, How we missed the story, p. 222):

"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."

This source falsification:

"an ethnically motivated massacre and mass rape committed by his forces on taking the suburb of Afshar in February 1993 ..."

needs to be removed until a proper replacement is discussed on this talk that rightly represents the source.

JCAla (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not a consensus change, so no chance an admin is going to implement this change during the protection period that was put in force over exactly this point. Once more: it doesn't matter if the Ittihad sources really were Massoud's in any sense that you or I might agree on; what matters is that the source that is being summarized in that sentence explicitly treats them as such, saying they were under his command and he was responsible for their conduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The source states no such things. The source does not state he was responsible for the conduct of Ittihad troops but it explicitly states that Ittihad troops were under immediate command of Sayyaf, took Sayyaf's orders and received pay from Sayyaf. Anyone familiar with Afghanistan-related issues will find it ridiculous to see that you termed Ittihad as "Massoud's forces". I think an administrator should act because you introduced a completely controversial sentence based on obvious source falsification by means of edit warring without any consensus. JCAla (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"The source states no such things"? What exactly do you not understand about He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units and indirectly controlled the Ittihad-i Islami unit. […] Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, would you accept the summary if "by his forces" were to be changed to "by forces under his command"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you not understand about "Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense [of Massoud], but were operating in coordination with it." "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation"? and "Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ... too late to prevent the main abuses. The meeting also seems to have been ineffective in halting the looting of the area, as the destruction of housing in Afshar happened largely after the meeting."? JCAla (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I perfectly understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the authors of the report still, despite these statements, considered the one I pointed out above an adequate summary of the whole affair. The authors of the report thought Massoud was responsible; no matter how much you wiggle there is no way of denying this basic thing. You also conveniently overlook the sentence that comes right after the passage you quoted: In this sense, Sayyaf shares equal command and control responsibility with the top Jamiat military leadership. [i.e. Massoud] Conclusion: Sayyaf was also responsible, but the report says clearly he was just as responsible as Massoud, not more responsible, let alone alone responsible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"[E]qual command and control responsibility" refers to the military operation not the abuses. Both committed their respective troops in the operation. It means Massoud had responsibility to control and command his troops during the legitimate military operation, while Sayyaf had responsibility to control and command his Ittihad troops during the operation. The authors say only two things 1) "The forces that launched the offensive in west Kabul on February 10-11, 1993 all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations." (this says nothing about being responsible for the abuses during an otherwise legitimate military operation) and 2) he failed to take effective measures, but he did order "an immediate halt to the massacre and looting", which Ittihad did not follow because "The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense [of Massoud], but were operating in coordination with it.""Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him.""Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" So, you terming Ittihad as "Massoud's forces" (besides constituting a falsification of the source) is highly misleading as "Massoud's forces" were Shura-e Nazar which according to this source did not commit "mass rape" and "massacre".

Again, neither me nor you should summarize the source. Let's leave that to an expert like Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman who did it in fair and balanced way showing that Islamic State defense minister Massoud conducted a military operation which, however, was escalated by forces allied to the Islamic State (Ittihad) under the direct command of Sayyaf committing abuses which Massoud ordered halted, without result. The following summary by Roy Gutman should replace you personal interpretation:

lengthy quote

"The major criticism of Massoud's human rights record centers on the 1993 killing of Hazara civilians in the Afshar neighborhood of Kabul. This was Massoud's operation, while defense minister, to capture the military and political headquarters of the Shia Hezbi Wahdat in west Kabul after Wahdat leader Abdul Ali Mazari withdrew from the government and began secret talks with Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami. Massoud's Jamiat forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i-Islami sent in troops at five o'clock in the morning on February 11, 1993. Mazari and his commanders fled the University Social Science Institute, where they had their headquarters, by about one o'clock in the afternoon. 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." (Roy Gutman, How we missed the story, p. 222)

JCAla (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides that you wrongly want to term Ittihad-i Islami "Massoud's forces", this is also a discussion about the meaning of responsibility. Here responsibility is clearly defined as not taking effective measures to prevent although taking measures (which just didn't prove effective). If we change "Massoud's forces" to "Ittihad-i Islami forces under the command of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf allied to Massoud's Islamic State forces" and clearly define what responsibility means in this case ... something like "It describes him as failing to take effective measures to prevent ethnically motivated atrocities committed by Ittihad forces under the command of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf allied to the Islamic State upon taking the suburb of Afshar in February 1993. Massoud ordered the massacre halted but without success." JCAla (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: please do not use the {{editprotect}} template unless you have specific and noncontroversial edits to propose. Thanks. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 06:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

small misalignment problem

In the part "the areas of Massoud", the end of the quote by Pepe Escobar is misaligned.

The end of the sentence : "women -- they would have the same rights as men."

should be beneath the beginning : "But the Taliban exacerbate this with oppression.' His most ambitious project is to shatter this cultural prejudice and so give more space, freedom and equality to"

it is at the moment misaligned to the left and that is quite confusing with the previous quote.

174.91.192.138 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I had the same confusing layout on my display too (It may not have been the same for people with larger screens). I've fixed it by moving the pull quote from the left to the right.

Hope nobody minds me making this minor layout tweak editing through protection. I consider it uncontroversial, but if anybody objects, I'll self-revert.

In the long run, this should be treated as a another instance of overuse of quotes that needs to be reduced. Having both a large block quote and a pull quote in the same paragraph, supporting the same point, is just silly. In fact, pull quotes are almost always silly; they ought to be hardly ever used in articles at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ahmad Shah Massoud

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ahmad Shah Massoud's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Library of Congress Country Studies":

• From Islamabad Accord: "The Islamabad and Jalalabad Accords, March-April 1993". Library of Congress.
• From Peshawar Accord: "The Fall of Kabul, April 1992". Library of Congress.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 "[t]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 [Haq] 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: [2]). 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 [3], 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" [4], 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" [5], 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".[6]

• 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:

version 1

The Afshar Operation was a two-day military operation by Islamic State government forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittehad-i Islami militia, which during the time was a factional ally of Burhanuddin Rabbani's government. The operation targeted the Wahdat militia which had entered into an alliance with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i Islami and had started shelling densely populated areas in northern Kabul from their positions in Afshar, west Kabul. Government forces attacked the suburb of Afshar to stop the shelling, capture the positions of Wahdat and capture Wahdat's leader Abdul Ali Mazari. After government forces and Ittihad had captured Afshar and started undertaking a search operation, the military operation escalated into widespread abuses mainly committed by Sunni Wahhabi Ittihad forces against Shia civilians. Besides Ittihad militia commanders, two of the nine Islamic State commanders on the ground, Anwar Dangar (who later defected to the Taliban) and Mullah Izzat from Sayyaf's home region of Paghman, were also named as leading troops that carried out abuses. Reports describe looting, arrests and indiscriminate shelling by some Islamic State forces. In one instance fleeing civilians in the streets were hit three times by fire from government soldiers. At the same time it was reported that in another incidence government troops carried a wounded Afshar civilian to safety and that some commanders on the ground tried to stop abuses from taking place. A report by the Afghanistan Justice Project accuses Massoud of failing to effectively prevent atrocities, arguing that he should have foreseen them. A meeting convened by Massoud, himself not present in Afshar, on the second day of the operation ordered a halt to killing and looting, but it failed to effectively stop abuses, especially looting and the destruction of houses continued. Pulitzer Prize-winning researcher Roy Gutman of the United States Institute of Peace writes, "according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed" the systematic atrocities "was [Abdul Rasul] Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command."

version 2

A report by the Afghanistan Justice Project describes Massoud as failing to prevent atrocities carried out by his forces and those of their factional ally Ittihad-i Islami against civilians on taking the suburb of Afshar during a military operation against an anti-state militia allied to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar shelling residential areas in the capital city in February 1993, arguing that he should have foreseen them. A meeting convened by Massoud on the next day ordered a halt to killing and looting, but that it failed to effectively stop abuses. Contrary to AJP's own assessment, Roy Gutman has argued that the witness reports cited in the report implicated only the Ittihad forces, and that these had not been under Massoud's direct command.

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 [7] 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.

some sources "Rome Process"

"Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24) "In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72)) "A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572) "A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban [including Hamid Karzai and Abdul Haq´s brother Abdul Qadir] meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000) “The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More lopsided sourcing

The source Blood-Stained Hands, Past Atrocities in Kabul and Afghanistan's Legacy of Impunity by Human Rights Watch [8] 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)

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. Darkness Shines (talk) 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)

Actually, looking a bit further into this, it appears "Webster University Press" is not an established academic outlet of any standing, despite its name. Webster University is a minor regional university of the US, of which the author is an alumna, and its "University Press" is a recent initiative, with no publisher's infrastructure of its own (all actual publishing work is handed off to "cooperation" partners); it's only been active since 2007, and has published a whopping five (5!) books since then [9], only one of which appear to be an academic work in the narrow sense. Grad's book was the second(!) book ever published in this outlet. The author apparently has no particular qualification in history of political sciences (she's described as a "writer and translator") and no other publishing record in the field; her book is described as an "oral history of Massoud", essentially a compilation of "stories" collected from people around him. This is definitely not the kind of work we can base our article on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 28 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 [10] 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[11]? 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?[12] 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)

I already did. – Now, this debate is over again. I can't continue. It would mean driving me insane. I simply cannot go on pretending reasoning with these people is possible. It is not. Casliber: do something. One side here is trying in good faith to get this article further towards neutrality; one side is not. I know which is which. You know it too. You must know. Please stop this. Ban either him, or me. Now. Please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So rather than discuss you just wish those who disagree with you away, interesting approach to collaborative editing. I quite simply do not understand your refusal to discuss, every other editor has to, and so do you. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, please don't reply with alternative accounts in this discussion, this gives the impression of an extra editor agreeing with you and JCAla (not everyone clicks on editor names). In fact, can you please label each of them as you? I am going to itemise FPAS's edits then (if no-one else will) and request a succinct explanation for each of them, and problematic links below, as to why the material should not be removed or trimmed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please explain your opposition to FPAS' trimming of the lead here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please explain why these quotes are essential to the text, that FPAS removed here. And the source for one is a deadlink, so I think that warrants removal unless another can be found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please explain why any segments of text removed here should remain. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• This quote removed here seems to be somewhat off-topic, so can I request what specifically it adds by remaining? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, some of the content removed here seems somewhat tangential, so I request you explain why you want to keep it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, FPAS' writing style is more concise and neutral-sounding, which is what we are aiming for in writing an encyclopedia, so we really need reasons to deviate segments from that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My mobile account is clearly marked as an alternate account. You insisted we discuss each edit one at a time, which is what I have been doing, now you insist I explain all in one go, make your mind up. What we have here is FPaS refusing to discuss again, I have explained why the current quote is in my opinion necessary, I have seen no reason from FPaS to remove it. I will move onto the next edit later when time allows. You are already coming across as one admin helping another against the plebs, do not try and rush me. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I was expecting interspersed comments in the section above, not all answered in one go. Second, it may very well be your mobile account, but I didn't know that. I think it would be prudent if it had a name like "Darkness Shines mobile" or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As much as I value the effort and time you put into it looking through this, I have a bit of problem with you, Casliber, deciding everything as an ultimate judge now. This is not how wikipedia works. It works by consensus. I accept the decision taken by you above for now. But I see a problem in every issue being resolved that way now -- especially as you say you do not have any knowledge of the history of Afghanistan. I don't see FP writing neutral, I see him removing a lot of important information that has been mentioned as outstanding by dozens of notable, high profile, neutral authors. For the issues:

• Re this: Now, the Soviets being defeated nine times by Massoud is really what Massoud became known for (Roy Gutman: "The force he (Massoud) organized in northern Afghanistan repelled nine Soviet offensives ... He was a military genius in vision and tactics ..." Ian Beckett: "He successfully resisted at least nine separate Soviet attempts ...") and what earned him that name "Lion of Panjshir" in the first place. Removing that info, is keeping the reader from knowing the full story. Military experts such as Robert D. Kaplan describe Massoud as the greatest guerilla genius of the 20th century. We don't have that in the article currently. But certainly if we did, it would maybe not sound "neutral" to someone not familiar with Afghanistan. However, if someone is accustomed to the literature about Afghanistan, then he/she knows that this is an accepted fact among most Afghanistan experts and as such would deserve to be mentioned. Given someone knows these facts, it becomes obvious very fast why it is not neutral when someone such as FP even removes the often-cited information that Massoud defeated nine Soviet offensives.

• Re this: Given the situation of women in Afghanistan, I -- like DS -- find it hard to believe that we need to argue about why it is important to point out Massoud's different stance on women's rights in the article -- with a quote to emphasize it. As a background information it may be useful to know that besides the fact that girl's schools were running in areas controlled by Massoud and some women were working, in 2000, Massoud signed the Declaration of the Essential Rights of Afghan Women, giving crucial backing to a document which post 9/11 would become the basis for theoretical gender equality in the new Afghan constitution.

You may wanna read

CNN interview with Nasrine Gross who was the main women behind the declaration: "The women in the Northern Alliance are impoverished. They live with the utmost hardships of daily life because they have been in a state of war for six years, and their independence and their country has been invaded. So they are under very harsh circumstances. But what I found in them was something extremely hopeful. I did not see in their faces that they have been vanquished. They have a determination to succeed. Now, for the women under the rule of the Taliban the situation is completely different. They haven't had hope. They haven't had their voice raised; they haven't had their voice heard. I heard of so many cases of depression, of suicide, of nervous breakdown among the women who are living under the rule of the Taliban. And, of course, they have been totally silent. [...] Massoud was one of the best friends of Afghan women. As you know, I work for the rights of Afghan women and we have developed a declaration of the essential rights of Afghan women and we have been collecting signatures for this inside Afghanistan. Massoud was one of the first political leaders of Afghanistan to sign this document so that it will become part of the next constitution of Afghanistan. On the day of his assassination I was there [...] not only it was a great loss for Afghanistan and humanity but I also felt that the women of Afghanistan had lost a very good friend.[13] Outlook Afghanistan: "... Declaration of the Essential Rights of Afghan Women which had been drafted in June 2000 in Dushanbe, Tajikistan by 300 Afghan women. The Declaration which received Karzai's approval on January 12, 2002, stipulated "the rights to equality between men and women, equal protection under the law, institutional education in all disciplines, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and political participation and the right to wear or not wear the burqa or scarf."[14]

Michael A. Barry's conclusion on Massoud is of notability because he is one of the few highly notable experts on the subject matter and has written the only real biography on Massoud -- an award-winning one.

• Re this: Why a quote by an Oscar-nominated documentary journalist, Sebastian Junger, who personally went to film at the frontlines of the Afghan war in 2000 for the Emmy Award-winning documentary "Afghanistan Revealed", about the reason why the Taliban were able to stand against Massoud's UF forces is notable, should also not be a subject of discussion. It is quite obvious really. Maybe it can be paraphrased, but certainly not removed.

• There is a problem with FP's trimming. He removed information that is outstanding (Peshawar Accord, Tajikistan peace accord, Nobel Peace Prize nom., Rome Process, refugees, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, etc.) and added information that is unimportant (ethnicity, etc.). Also, the term "civil war" is heavily disputed for certain periods in the Afghan war as there was heavy foreign involvement. Beside the anti-Soviet resistance, Massoud is mainly known as the anti-Taliban leader, but the first summarizing paragraph doesn't even mention this. Very bad mistake. Also, the lead makes it look like as if the only reason for Massoud's anti-Taliban stance was him disagreeing with the Taliban's interpretation of Islam. So there are many problems and several days ago I had myself shortened the lead while keeping the notable information, which FP blanket reverted.

JCAla (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I only have a few minutes now. I might not know much about Afghan history, but I do know about concise writing, and writing that veers too closely or too far from sourcing and NPOV writing. I will be back a bit later to look at sources. You don't know much of our history but FPAS and I are usually on the opposite side of debates, so he is by no means anyone I would tag team with (I am pretty sure he will agree with me here). Hence I have no alliances either in editors or content. It is not possible to limit admin involvement here to 3RR and civility as we'll get nowhere. I will look above at your comments soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)