Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 8 July 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of birth

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

Fair use image

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

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 (UTC)

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[REDACTED] 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 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):

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:

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:

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")

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:

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 Misplaced Pages: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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• (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.

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 , 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"? 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. 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)

"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 , but were operating in coordination with it.""Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault , 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:

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! 06:21, 12 May 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 Misplaced Pages in the first place. And no, as I said above, I am no longer available for any discussion that involves JCAla, and I am not interested in reaching any "accord" with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{out}

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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