Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud

Date of birth

Massoud was born on September 2, 1953[1] and died in Khwaja bahauddin disrtict in Takhar provience in Afghanistan.[2]

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

Recent edits

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

The issues with this article are obvious from the article itself and from my edits; they do not need yet more explanation. Anybody with half a brain can see what's wrong with the article; anybody who needs an explanation to understand it ought not to be editing 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: [3]). 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 [4], 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" [5], 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" [6], 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".[7]

• 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 [8] 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.

Questionable sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

More lopsided sourcing

The source Blood-Stained Hands, Past Atrocities in Kabul and Afghanistan's Legacy of Impunity by Human Rights Watch [15] 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)

Failed verification

The statement "Courts started to work again also convicting individuals inside government troops who had committed crimes" is sourced to this youtube video: [16]. Verification failed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A replacement source is required. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

More problems

• [17] (footnotes 120/121), youtube video, dead link. Whole passage can be removed; we don't need descriptions of individual tv features that cover Massoud.
• [18] (footnote 97): an opinion piece, speech by a US politician; not a reliable source. Used for several statements of fact in the article.
  • Passage Two top foreign policy officials in the Clinton administration flew to northern Afghanistan to convince - without success - the United Front not to take advantage of an opportunity to make crucial gains against the Taliban.[97] Before the United Front could strike, Assistant Secretary of State Rick Indefurth and American U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson flew to northern Afghanistan and tried to convince the leadership of the United Front that this was not the time for an offensive is heavily redundant,
  • Passage At the same time Pakistanis began a "Berlin-like airlift to resupply and re-equip the Taliban", financed with Saudi money (same footnote) is a politically sensitive claim of fact, presented as a fact, sourced to the same opinion piece
  • Passage she had realized that this was a one-dimensional view of Afghanistan and there were gaping holes in the DOD's understanding of the situation: another politically sensitive claim of fact; same situation. Also plagiarized wording.

  This whole piece by Rohrabacher is given far exaggerated weight in the article.

• [19] (footnote 87), "Proposal for peace": dead link; obviously was a non-reliable self-published source

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack material

Many of the history sections contain very extensive material unrelated to Massoud, essentially amounting to a fork of a History of Afghanistan article. This goes most obviously for the sections on Hekmatyar and on the Taliban, but also for the section about the pre-1979 socialist government. The only function of these sections appear to be to make Massoud's opponents look bad so as to make him shine the more in comparison. All of this needs to be reduced drastically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop it!

Are you still ok, FP? One editor agreed with you on one issue, a majority of editors disagreed with you on another issue. Big deal, now what? Will you finally stop opening up walls of sections for every single sentence?! And FYI, there are a lot of things in that article not written by me.

Regarding some of the things mentioned in above wall of sections:

Webster University Press is a reliable source, the information used for the article from the book were provided by reliable experts. The book has accounts of high profile journalists, diplomats, and others, the author didn't write about the matter herself, she collected the accounts.

As for pre-1979. The section is very informative and reliably, academically sourced. Most people will understand that things are interdependent in history and Massoud's relation and difficulties with Hekmatyar or later the Taliban are an integral part of any bio or article about Massoud.

This specific HRW report was surrounded by a controversy regarding Massoud. That is why it was left out as the source for the matter. HRW used specific sources to implicate factions in abuses but did not cite the very same sources when they cleared specific persons i. e. Massoud. Btw, HRW put the blame for Afshar mostly on Ittihad, which hasn't been written in the article either.

U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is a very useful and reliable source on Afghanistan-related issues. He is repeatedly cited by the media as an expert on Afghanistan-related topics. He spent years in Afghanistan himself and he holds a central position as a Chairman in the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US Congress.

JCAla (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A majority of 2 is no majority at all. Also, Darkness Shines' posts above as User:Nihil Novi Sub Sole aren't a blatant violation of WP:SOCK since the account is declared as Darkness Shines' sockpuppet, but posting to this page under two user names without declaring so explicitly here is likely to confuse outside observers, and is at best unhelpful.

I doubt that JCAla truly misunderstands the point that Fut. Perf. has made about Marcela Grad's book: it passes WP:RS, but it's very sympathetic towards Massoud, and over-reliance on this source has led to a non-neutral article.

It's silly to first complain that an editor doesn't discuss things, and then complain when he discusses things extensively. I don't see much willingness on the part of Darkness or JCAla to address Fut. Perf.'s points, and this is the source of both Fut. Perf.'s impatience and the lack of progress on this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A) I just addressed many of FP's points above.

B) I don't think FP needs a lawyer.

C) With "majority" I wasn't referring to this specific discussion about Massoud, I was referring to a previous, different discussion about Massoud as FP seems to perceive his inputs to be the ultimate truth. Obviously, they are not as can be seen by the example of the Rome Process discussion.

D) With regards to the Webster University Press book, you may wanna read again what your friend wrote:

""Webster University Press" is not an established academic outlet of any standing, despite its name. [...] 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."

And now read again my answer. I explained that Marcela Grad is not the one who wrote about the matter in the book, but that she collected accounts of highly professional journalists and diplomats and others -- which mostly are the accounts that have been used in the article. As such the source is very useful despite it meeting WP:RS anyway -- no matter if it is perceived as sympathetic or not to Massoud in subjective perception.

E) The lack of progress on the article is due to FP being completely unable to accept that there are different and valid (!) opinions other than his own. I have rewritten several sections among them "Early life" and sourced them reliably -- this was the only progress the article saw.

JCAla (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it clear what we are talking about. Among those whose accounts are in the Webster University Press book are:

• Michael A. Barry (Professor at Princeton University),
• Roger L. Plunk (George Washington University, international mediator),
• Jean-José Puig (fmr. French Foreign Affairs, Centre d'Analyse),
• Hiromi Nagakura (award-winning photographer),
• Richard Mackenzie (Emmy Award-winning journalist for Afghanistan documentary, war correspondent, author and analyst),
• Sebastian Junger (Oscar-nominated documentary journalist),
• John Jennings (AP correspondent in Kabul 1991-1994),
• Chris Hooke (BBC),
• Sandy Gall (BBC, ITN journalist and author),
• Pepe Escobar (Asia Times),
• Reza Deghati (award-winning photographer and UNESCO ambassador),
• Anthony Davis (journalist among others for the Washington Post, Time Magazine, ...),
• Edward Girardet (Director Global Journalism Network, award-winning author on Afghanistan)

JCAla (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Which makes the book just a collection of opinion pieces in a non-peer-reviewed source. Unsuitable. Plus, it's yet another case of source falsification on your part, because so far you have presented all of the refs to this book as if they were to Grad's own work. Now you're saying it isn't really her work? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are very high-standard authors and very suitable. If only wikipedia had such sourcing on all articles, that would be grand quality. I have presented all those refs as "Webster University Press book" and certainly I don't have any more time for your "source falsification" accusations. Why would I want to make it look like as if a statement by a highly reliable author such as Michael A. Barry was Marcela Grad's statement? Do you have nothing else to do than throw around accusations and hound people to articles you never cared for in the past? JCAla (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read Grad's book and don't have access to a copy but it looks to me like she interviewed the people listed and wrote a biography (with extensive direct quotes from the interviewees). So the book is her work, it's not as if it's an edited collection or the people listed are her coauthors. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have the book and read it. In the book Grad lists information provided to her by the above authors/journalists/etc. and known Afghans. She herself does not write on the issues except for the general introduction, small introductions at the beginning of each chapter which deal with a specific topic/theme and the epilogue. She also put a heading above every information provided by others i. e. "Massoud and Hekmatyar - text by expert - name of expert". This way she collected hundreds of interviews, many experts are cited several times on different issues/in different chapters. Her main and valuable work on the book is basically having collected and put together all this extensive information. As such the book is her work but the information in the book is provided by the named experts or others who know about the issues. JCAla (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Better source

There's a simple solution to the problem of the unreliable main source (Grad) described above. JCAla himself mentioned Michael A. Barry, as one of the witnesses contributing to Grad's book. Now, Barry is himself the author of his own book-length biography of Massoud, which so far we have used only for one footnote (which has been in place since before JCAla edited the article). Unlike Grad's book, Barry's WP:RS status would appear to be impeccable. He, too, is apparently highly sympathetic to Massoud, so we must take care not to take any political evaluations from it as gospel truth, but there's also not much danger it would skew the article too far in the other direction.

We have the book at my local library. It's in French, which I read with a bit of effort, so I'd be willing to get it and rework the basic factual biographic outline of the article on that basis. This should make Grad pretty much superfluous.

But if I'm to do that, I want to do it in a reasonable working environment. No protection; no passing each edit through the gauntlet of filibustering here on talk in advance; no kneejerk blanket reverts. B-D-R, not B-R-D. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Grad's collection (Webster University Press) is a reliable source. There is no need to replace it. It won't become superfluos, probably facts will just be further confirmed. There is certainly no reason not to work Barry's book into the article also. I am confident it will be a plus for the article. In any way, wikipedia is a collaborative effort and it is not for a single editor -- like you -- to "own" and decide on the article alone. I have been working on improving this article and I will keep doing so. I and maybe others who wanna join too will have a look at Barry's book and see what can be worked into the article. There is no such thing as, "I read the book and rewrite but nobody can object to my version by means of revert" or what you perceive as invalid opinions on the talk. If we can all assume good faith we may be able to work in a collaborative effort on this article. JCAla (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for Nobel peace prize

I propose to remove the following sentence from the lead: "In 2002, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize." While true, simply being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is not especially noteworthy. For example, Adolf Hitler has been nominated.[20] Gabbe (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's nomination was withdrawn and it was by one outlandish Swedish parliamentarian. Massoud's nomination was not withdrawn and he was nominated by dozens of respected groups. JCAla (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not notable enough for the lead, but it could be mentioned further down in the "legacy" section. I have seen hardly any reliable source that really discusses this episode, especially the problematic aspect that the nomination (being posthumous) was explicitly contrary to the Nobel foundation's rules, and as such without a chance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The nominators argued that the committee once made an exception for one person, and that after 9/11 - Massoud representing the opposite of Bin Laden while being a Muslim - the same exception should be made for Massoud. JCAla (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But is it notable enough for the lead? If you're nominated for the Academy Awards, for example, or for a Pulitzer, you are among a handful of finalists. By contrast, hundreds of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year. Gabbe (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any reliably sourced information (i.e., not Grad) about who was actually responsible for the nomination? What initiative was that, how were they organized, who took part? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would have to support this, after all so many Afghan leaders get nominated right? So ya, not even a notable mention in this guys life. </sarc>Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is most notable including for the lead. I don't think Grad has the names of the nominators in her great and informativ book - that wonderful reliable source. I have read about the nominators but I will have to go and search where that was. Among them, I think, were notables such as Bernard-Henri Lévy. (He was the main force to convince Sarkozy and as a consequence the United Nations to intervene in Libya arguing that the West should not make the same mistake as it made by not backing Ahmad Shah Massoud and asking Sarkozy: "Will the president meet 'the Libyan Massoud'"?[21] He also wrote extensively about Massoud.[22][23]) Among the nominators was also Phillipe Morillon. In total it were 2,000 people, very prominent ones as the two mentioned and private citizens also. JCAla (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Private citizens cannot make nobel prize nominations. We will have to distinguish between those who were actually responsible for signing and submitting the nomination, and those who merely signed some public petition or something of the sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

More issues

• In the "Warning the west" section, the sentence On this visit to Europe he also warned that his intelligence had gathered information about a large-scale attack on U.S. soil being imminent is sourced to this CNN article, which does not contain this information.
• Footnote 119, used to source the sentence he issued the warning that [...] the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world. Link goes to this primary source, an internal memo from some US agency, with most content blacked out. I can't find anything in there that is related to the issue at hand, or even related to Massoud.
• More potential for abridgment: in the section on "Investigative commission", there is no need for all those details about the guy the camera was stolen from (his name, who he was, what he was doing when he got robbed, etc.) This is just a random guy who is totally unrelated to the whole case – it's like cars getting stolen and then used in a crime; it happens every day and nobody would ever dream about dragging the names and biographic details of their owners into a report about the crime itself.
• Footnote 114: website http://ahmadshahmassoud.com/modules.php?name=Pages&pa=showpage&pid=74 is broken (and not a reliable source anyway).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Just checking the first two points that are mentioned above - these need to be re-sourced, re-written or removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nah, the sentence, [...] he issued the warning that [...] the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world is foremost sourced to a video of Massoud in the European parliament (Footnote 82). The follow up part of that video contains the sequence in which Massoud issues the warning. However, National Geographic's documentary "Afghanistan Revealed" (which won an Emmy Award) offers even better sourcing for that and several other warnings: original video posted by National Geographic & video for those fellows outside the US

The same source btw, also contains interesting insights on Massoud's stance towards women's rights. He regularly employed skilled women in his areas which had fled Taliban areas. An example of a nurse is given in the documentary.[24] Such information isn't yet in the article, needs to be added.

• Now, I didn't check the DIA link for years. Probably the article - like many others - needs checks if the links still work. Either they changed the address path for the document from the short cut "tal32" to "tal31" or someone mixed up the reference. In any case the document is available here. With some research you could have find out easily, FP. The document is represented in the "warning the world" part through this text: "Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from November 2001 show that Massoud had gained "limited knowledge... regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." They also point out that he warned about such attacks."

Am going to change these things and have a look at some other issues later on. JCAla (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Footnote 114 works, but not with Firefox. In any case, it is just a service to the reader to be able to read for himself the excerpt of Michael Barry's "Thoughts on Commander Massoud". We could also have had as a Footnote just "Michael A. Barry, Thoughts on Commander Massoud". JCAla (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Right I am going to unprotect now and advise the following:

• Material clearly failing policy (i.e. referenced with a source that does not contain the material) and clearly unreliable sources should be removed. Rather than reverting, it can be rewritten and readded with better sources if those can be found.

• Regarding more complicated bits, discussion should take place here. I recommend trying for GA status as this will provide some semblance of a stable version. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • GA status?! This article is currently miles away from GA status. It has to be gutted radically, or even better rewritten from scratch, before such a nomination could be anything other than a farce. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, consider the adverb "eventually" to have been implied above. I did not mean now, but at some point in the future. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I think going for GA is a good idea, Casliber. JCAla (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I guess I'd think about it like this - even if you compromise alot, getting it on the front page as today's featured article makes it worthwhile. GA is a big step towards FA and more people will be in mind to review and fine-tune it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nom de guerre?

This [25] source, and a few others I've seen, suggest that "Massoud" wasn't actually his original name but a "nom de guerre". Can this be confirmed, and do we know what his original birth name was? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The former Afghan ambassador to France, Mehraboudin Masstan, provided many details about Massoud's family background in the great Webster University book. The family came to Panjshir from Samarkand around 1780. One of Massoud's ancestors was decorated twice for rendering important services to the kingdom of King Timur Shah. Another ancestor was one of the Panjshir's most significant people in the past because he was considered a leader in the war against the British during the Anglo-Afghan wars. Massoud's mother was named Khurshaid ("sun") and his father was Dost Mohammad. Massoud was simply born as "Ahmad Shah" as most Afghans don't have surnames, see i. e. Abdullah Abdullah who simply born as "Abdullah" son of ... Massoud took the surname Massoud as "nom de guerre" and the name has since become his whole family's surname. JCAla (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted this edit by JCAla, for several reasons: first, the bibliographic information is wrong. Jennings and Hussain are not the authors of that book, "Afghanistan and 9/11: The Anatomy of a Conflict" is not its title, and "pp.256" is not the page reference to the information in question. Given this sloppiness, I cannot verify what is actually said in that book and where. Second, the edit was worded in such a way as to imply that these were actually two counter-statements, with two footnotes, when it's essentially just a single argument by a single observer. This fits in with JCAla's well-known tendency of trying to bury viewpoints he doesn't like through the sheer quantity of the blown-up coverage of his favourite viewpoints. Third, Jennings is already covered with essentially the same argument (cited to the Grad book) two sentences further down, thus boiling down to giving his argument three-fold coverage. These tactics of tendentious editing need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The bibliographic information is right. As provided in the ref info, "John Jennings, Rifaat Hussain et al" are the authors of the book, "Afghanistan and 9/11: The Anatomy of a Conflict" is its title.[26] In order not to repeat Jennings, I shortened the subsequent paragraph.[27] The last "reason" mentioned is completely ridiculous. I ask you to self-rv as you have again bullied and blanket-reverted reliable, notable information. If you add an argument, there needs to be room for the counter-argument.JCAla (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't know how to cite books. This is a collected volume. It must be cited with its editor, Anand Giridharadas et al.. Then, the title is the other way round, "The anatomy of a conflict : Afghanistan and 9/11". John Jennings is the author of one chapter in this collection. Here's a free lesson in academic writing 101. Such things are cited like: Author: chapter title. In: Book title, ed. Editor. Oh, and don't forget the page numbers – both those of the beginning and end of the chapter in question, and that of the specific claim being cited. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case JCAla seems to be relying on the title given on the amazon.co.uk page and the rest of the author info given there. I wonder if this is an indication that he's relying on slapdash online research without reading the physical books he's trying to cite? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this one too. As has been pointed out repeatedly to JCAla, both Coll and Tomson are talking about a "Tajik-Pashtun alliance" not in the sense of an alliance that actually happened on the ground, but merely as a plan that they thought might materialize (Coll is basically just paraphrasing Tomson here). With this edit, JCAla is again, like several times before, trying to pass this off as a lot more than it is, giving it far exaggerated weight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Pathetic. Page 152, 174 & 180. JCAla (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Lion of Panjshir

I see there is some real "hot" discussion here. So I propose a "lighter" issue for discussion on the side. As the article says, A.Sh.M. is known as the "Lion of Panjshir". People who contribute to this article certainly know that "Panjshir" means "five lions" but I doubt most readers of WP will know that. The fact that Massoud has been called "Lion of" is also, I believe, attributable to the place called "Five Lions". Should we not add something in the article about this? (If it was discussed before, sorry, I confess I never enter the archives because I have a strong dust allegy...) --E4024 (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's already covered in the #Lion of Panjshir section. (That's what comes from having an article so absurdly over-long and blown up with coatrack fluff – people no longer read the whole thing and fail to find important things that are actually there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the article went so much down?! I thought I head read half of it; but now that I checked again I see I have not read more than a third. (Well, but still it is not worse than the Armenians in Cyprus article where there are pages of detailed information and one pic for each Armenian Cypriot). Maybe we should create a barnstar for people who read completely such lengthy articles like the present one. --E4024 (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Better sources

I recommend using Gilles Dorronsoro's REVOLUTION UNENDING Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present, well reviewed in WaPo. Here are some useful excerpts from pp. 127-128 (but there's more on Massoud in the book, I'm not going to copy it all here):

“ The partisan model was a variant of the state model, in which the underlying structure was more the party than the state. The structures were of a different type than those which have been described, since the movement had revolutionary principles. There was some similarity with Maoist guerrilla movements, although the ideological structure was different. The population was led by militants with ideological commitment, in addition to, or sometimes instead of, technical abilities. The objective was to politicise the population.¶ Masud’s organisation was the most developed example of this kind of structure in Afghanistan.[fn 59] He had been a militant Islamist since adolescence, and his involvement in the movement drove him into exile in Pakistan in 1974,whence he returned in 1975 to take part in the Islamists’ abortive coup.[fn 60] After a period in Nuristan he took up residence in Panjshir, where the rebellion broke out in July 1979, and eliminated rival groups, in particular the Maoists. For this professional revolutionary ideological issues were central, in spite of the priorities of combat. In 1980, through the agency of his brother, he embarked on the establishment of political teaching for the peasants in Panjshir: in the event the classes failed, and the plan was abandoned. Officials used very political language,[fn 61] and their horizons were not limited to Afghanistan: their movement fell within an international revolutionary context. Another factor was that Masud’s expansionism provoked a long series of clashes with other commanders, which brought about, for example, his military occupation of the neighbouring valley of Andarab. Masud was also the only commander to organise on a substantial scale training courses for Afghan guerrilla leaders as well as for foreign Islamists, who included Kashmiris, Turks and others. Internationalism was a characteristic trait of Masud’s model, at least up to the fall of Kabul in 1992. ”

The two footnotes 59-60 are also of interest:

“ [fn 59] There are many written accounts of Masud and films about him, but few are of any quality. The demands of the media, which tend to focus attention on Masud’s personality, obstruct understanding of his political organisation. Jean-José Puig gives a relevant analysis of his career in ‘Le commandant Massoud’ in Gérard Chaliand (ed.) Stratégies de la guérilla, Paris: Payot, 1994. ”

“ [fn 60]

Masud was born in 1956, the third of six sons, into a wealthy family in the Panjshir valley; his father was an officer.He spent his childhood in Kabul, and attended classes at the French Istiqlal lycée (although he rarely spoke French, he retained his competence in the language). He studied at the Polytechnic high school, and joined the Islamist movement. After the failed coup in the spring of 1974, in which he did not take part, he fled to Pakistan.He was trained by Pakistani officers and led the group which carried out the coup of 1975 in Panjshir. In 1976 Masud, who was close to Rabbani, found himself accused by Hekmatyar of having betrayed the movement, on the basis of statements obtained under torture from a friend of Masud, Jan Mohammad, who was later assassinated by Hekmatyar. Though arrested, Masud escaped death and returned to Panjshir in the spring of 1979. See Anthony Davies, ‘A brotherly vendetta’, Asiaweek, 6 December 1996.

”

Hope this helps with the more obscure points of his bio. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bootheel Publishing book

I see a good number of citations are from " Vollmer, Susan (2007). Legends, Leaders, Legacies. Bootheel Publishing." The ISBN 978-0979523311 for that book is not working in WorldCat. No page numbers are given for the citations either. Questionable source. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about?[28][29] JCAla (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)