This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treatment of women by the Taliban article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Treatment of women by the Taliban was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 December 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Removed a section that was basically a big conspiracy theory (based on the "No original research"-rule), and modified it's surroundings to make it grammatically coherent.
I'd like to point out a few things about this article that seem to require clarification or amending. - Exaggerated claims: Can this be substantiated? This does not seem to be the consensus on the issue. - The policies were not popular outside Afghanistan: It should probably be noted that some Muslims felt these were in accordance to the Qur'an. - The anti-U.S. government stance: I actually agree that this was probably the case, but such accusations don't belong into an encyclopedia article. Seriously. --some anon
I made a slight change to the article in response to a long comment posted here on talk -- it is certainly true that the Taliban abuses of men were horrific. (You can see that comment in the revision history, and if the author wants, we can move it back here, but I'm hoping we can keep this talk page pretty clean as a 'working discussion', not a permanent litany of complaints.)
I added back the explanation for the U.S. attack on Afghanistan. Taw had removed it, calling it bullshit, and so I invite him to come and explain why. It certainly seems relevant to the history of the situation, and omitting it doesn't give the true picture. -- Jimbo Wales
Nobody ever proved that there is a link between Taliban and WTC attack. Don't listen to US propaganda. -- Taw
It doesn't matter if the link was proven or not. It's still the reason for the US attack. -- Jimbo Wales
It's the pretext not the reason. -- Taw
Then say so! The sentence is now worded as a claim by the US government. Whether or not the claim is accurate or jusitified is a separate issue, but the fact remains that this is the reason given for the attack, and that should be mentioned here. -- LDC 16:55, 2001 December 11
Excellent change, LDC. Thanks. Taw, what do you think the reason it, then? -- Jimbo Wales 16:58, 2001 December 11
Extending area of US control of course. The same reason why British, Soviets and Germans attacked various countries. -- Taw 17:02, 2001 December 11
I don't think you understand America very well, Taw. -- Jimbo Wales
Nobody ever proved that there is a link between either Taliban or bin laden and WTC attack. Don't listen to US propaganda. if you know arabic, you would notice binladen is "Happy" about the WTC attack, but never claimed responsibility -- User:212.77.213.55 10:28, 2002 March 3
Moved this comment to the /talk (seemed to be advice on writing not article text):
(topics to be fleshed out?)
http://www.supportersofshariah.com/Eng/project.html
Each section should attempt to accurately characterize (a) what the Taliban decreed (b) what the Taliban actually enforced, and to what extent they softened over time, looked the other way, or simply were unable to enforce due to a lack of resources (c) what the penalties were for violations, (d) other stuff like that.
Also removed stuff about terrorist attack that seemed irrelevent (and added needless controversy). It's late. I would have liked to add some actual content on the "exagerated claims".
I still have some things i would like to add to this article so it is a work in progress. Do you have any suggestions of what should be added? -- Rmantle
I added the tag noting the necessity of citations, and removed some material that seems pretty dubious and needs to be cited if it is going to be included in this article. Jrkarp 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to tidy this a little, but it could use some sources. I'll look for some if I have time. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As a Pashtun, I found this article to be extremely offensive especially when it ties Pashtunwali with extremist interpretation of Islam. Has this article written by some one from Petagon or US/NATO military? Fateh
Agreed this article is terribly biased, there is a link to a video showing a public execution! Some of the "Further Reading" is a work of fiction! Unusually there are unreferenced quotes, which don't particularly add to the facts but rather to the dramatic effect. I agree as much as anyone that this is intolerable cruelty, but if that justifies bias then why not edit the pages of Savak, the Rwandan Genocide, the Holocaust, Khomemni, Pol Pot, Khemer Rouge, many of the Shahs, the list of atrocities worse than this is endless, none are tolerable, all are disgusting and gross violations of human rights, but this website should publish facts, not opinions.
I don't think that Zarmina's execution is a good example of Taliban's cruelty. She murdered a human and was put to death. I'm all against death penalty, let alone public death penalties but I suggest that we remove the picture and comments.
Northern 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - Zarmina's execution is a CLASSIC example of the patriarchal treatment of women; she was executed for killing her violently abusive husband after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.11 ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Also, the reason she killed the bastard was that that night, he said he was going to report her to the Taliban for adultery, wherupon she would be stoned to death - read the full story here http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/A/afghanistan/summary.html, and try and imagine what you would do in her position before judging her execution as legitimate - Jonathan Handforth, 12/06/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.11 ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine we'd use an image of a convicted murderer being executed for the Women in Japan article; and see absolutely no reason to use it here; especially when it is copyrighted and watermarked, and we have a freely-licensed alternative available that is more neutral. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
They faced public flogging<ref>[http://www.rawa.us/movies/beating.mpg A woman being [[flogging|flogged]] in public].</ref> and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.<ref name=physicians>{{cite web|url= http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/talibans-war-on-women.pdf |title="The Taliban's War on Women" }} {{small|(857 [[Kibibyte|KiB]])}}, Physicians for Human Rights, August 1998.</ref><ref>"100 Girls' Schools in Afghan Capital Are Ordered Shut", ''The New York Times'', June 17, 1998.</ref>
As much as I hate to defend that Taliban (but then I guess adherence to NPOV must mean we insist on fairness even for these people), the use of that execution image in the lead is utterly unjustifiable. The lead image normally serves to represent the subject, and should exhibit some balance - or some level of typicality. Putting a public execution in the lead fails that entirely. It is exactly what I'd do if I was writing a campaign piece for Amnesty International or some Human rights campaign, because it shocks the reader by drawing their attention to the worst abuse. But we are an encyclopedia NOT a campaign piece. The image should be demoted in the article, if it justifies its fair use claim at all.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent). OK. I've stated that I believe the image to represent the extreme end of the daily life and experience of woman under the Taliban. You appeared to me (and I could have you wrong) to be making the argument that it was "typical", on the basis that the more routine control and abuse is somehow "explained" by this extreme event; and that we need to ""inform and educate the reader" of this. I merely asked for evidence. If there is no evidence of this, as you now seem to suggest, then I'm not sure what your case for using this image as a typical representation is. Sorry, I may be misunderstanding the case here.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 14:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sherurcij, all you do at this article is revert other editors back to your chosen version. Because there are objections, you need to go through the changes on talk to try to gain consensus. As things stand, you've violated 3RR at least a couple of times in the last few days. SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article is now fully protected for a week, in which you have time to discuss the issue and get more input from other editors, using mechanisms like dispute resolution, third party opinions or request for comments. Please try to reach consensus and request unprotection afterwards, but not sooner. Regards So Why 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think this article is a little unbalanced, however, I agree with SlimVirgin that Sherurcij's smacks of a whitewash. Between the two must be a balanced possibility. However, there's no change of getting that if each side assumed that they are correct and reverts to their chosen version. Since this is not a BLP, it matters little what version it is in in the shorter term; we can afford to be eventualist. It also matters little who is disagreeing with whom, and who needs to justify what. Whatever state this article ends up in, all aspects of it need to be justified by the sources anyway (and in saying that I'm not necessarily suggesting the current version isn't). Can I suggest that one side (either really) calmly lists their objections to what the other wants. We can then look at each issue separately; and that will work best if we don't try to defend our own position, but we try to see if the other has some valid point, and we then work together to see if there's something that can meet all valid point. I'm quite sure that all of us would admit the current article (as indeed any article) can always be improved. Neutrality is not a zero-sum game.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
|
The modification of any place names that included the word "women." For example, "women's garden" was renamed "spring garden". [2]
Violence against women remained a serious problem. Women and girls were subjected to rape, kidnaping, and forced marriage. Taliban restrictions against women and girls remained widespread, institutionally sanctioned, and systematic throughout most of the year. The Taliban increased enforcement of strict dress codes and maintained the prohibition against women working outside the home except in strictly limited circumstances in the health care field and in some humanitarian assistance projects. The Taliban appeared to reverse a 2-year trend of relaxing enforcement of restrictions on women and girls and increasingly restricted female education and participation in the labor force. Although girls were prohibited formally from attending school, some organizations clandestinely operated elementary schools and home schools with girls in attendance. [4]
Was corporal punishment and capital punishment a solely women's issue? I was suggested, above, that since the Taliban flogged and executed men too, this was not solely a women's issue.
If it is not solely a women's issue how much of this article should discuss it?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to be more specific about aspects of this article that suggest bias. No problem.
The lead sentence currently says:
|
How would we, in 2008, measure notoriety from 2001? I don't believe this statement is true. So little news escaped Afghanistan that I doubt it would be fair to claim Afghanistan was notorious for anything.
Sure, in 2008 the Taliban is held up as the World's worst example of female repression. If I had been asked to guess, back in 2001, I would have guessed that Saudi Arabia was the most repressive country.
This statement strikes me as an instance of revisionism. Sure, we'd all like now, to think that we were all riled up about the Taliban's abuse back then. But, the truth is practically no one was paying attention -- just as practically no one is paying attention to repression of women in a number of other countries.
And, as I noted above, the policies we identify with the Taliban were first put into place by the regime that preceded them. Further, repression of women hasn't stopped since the Taliban have been kicked out. Doesn't this lead statement imply that the Taliban introduced these policies? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
precedents |
The apartheid policies were unprecedented in South Africa |
The Taliban merely continued policies introduced by a prior regime. |
termination |
Apartheid is dead. There is no chance the apartheid system could be re-introduced. |
While the less intellectually honest element of the Press corps portray the repression of women and girls the repression of women and girls in Afghanistan has not been wiped out. Further hard-line elements, both within and without the current Hamid Karzai administration favor a return to more repression. |
I get the point, but "The apartheid policies were unprecedented in South Africa" isn't quite right either. Racial discrimination in SA pre-dates the Nationalist Party.--
Scott MacDonald (
talk)
13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to try to explain the following comment. I wrote:
|
As noted above, the article's lead sentence currently says:
|
What I would suggest is more accurate would be
|
I asked a few people, for feedback on my comment. And I thought their replies I didn't dispute, I don't think Sherurcij is disputing, I don't think anyone is disputing, that the Taliban is widely disapproved of NOW due to the reports of repressive policies implemented THEN.
That is different than what the lead says. The lead says that the Taliban was notorious during its administration for the repression of women.
I am not disputing, I doubt Sherurcij is disputing, I don't think anyone would dispute that human rights groups tried to draw attention to the plight of Afghan women and girls -- while the Taliban were in power. Similarly, a limited number of contemporary newspaper articles addressed the plight of Afghan women and girls, while the Taliban were in power.
Sadly the reports of international human rights groups are widely ignored. So human rights reports do not justify the characterization "internationally notorious".
Look at the references the article cites. How many of them predate 9-11? I see just a single newspaper report from prior to 9-11. Surely if newspapers were reporting the repression of women widely enough to merit the characterization that it was "internationally notorious" we would be citing more than a single pre-9-11 article? The url of the New York Times article is missing. I have supplied it below:
I hope my questioner finds this explanation clear. The term "notorious" is inappropiate -- cannot be verified.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 05:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
These are from the first 50 of 166 results of a Lexis/Nexis search, all of which predate 9-11:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Selected quotes:
Tom Harrison Talk 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Objects of universal loathing is more accurate, but we should probably stick with Notorious:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)Tom Harrison Talk 01:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently says:
|
I suggest the following lead sentence does not represent the same kind of bias and revisionism as the current sentence.
|
It also has the advantage that it complies with the convention that the name of the article should be repeated, verbatim, in the lead. Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 18:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence is fine, as-is, since the Taliban were notorious for their treatment of women prior to 9/11. The issue of the Taliban and their treatment of the Afghan people, particularly women, got especially a lot of attention in late August 2001 when Australia refused to accept a boat load of ~400 refugees, mostly from Afghanistan. I do remember numerous news stories in newspapers and on television about this, and talking about this among friends at the time. The news coverage may have been more extensive coverage outside of the U.S. (in Canada, Europe, Asia, and of course Australia), though it was also covered by the U.S. media.
These news stories are just a small sample. -- Aude ( talk) 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Taliban treatment of women aimed to provide "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct", based on Pashtunwali beliefs about living in purdah.<ref name="Maley">Nancy Hatch Dupree. 'Afghan Women under the Taliban' in William Maley (2001) ISBN-10: 0786410906. ''Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban''. London: Hurst and Company, ISBN-10: 0814755860 pp145-166.</ref><ref name="Marsden">Marsden, Peter. (1998). ''The Taliban: War, religion and the new order in Afghanistan''. London: Zed Books Ltd, ISBN-10: 1856495221 pp88-101.</ref> However, their measures attracted condemnation from many fronts, including the United Nations and Amnesty International.<ref>[[AFP]], "UN lashes out at Taliban for Violence against Women", September 13, 1999</ref><ref>[[Amnesty International]], [http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/afgan/afgtoc.htm Women in Afghanistan - A human rights catastrophe], 1996</ref>
Women were required to wear the burqa when in public since it was believed the sight of a woman's flesh served as a forbidden temptation to men, and was thus a corruption.<ref name="Gohari">M. J. Gohari (2000). ''The Taliban: Ascent to Power''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN-10: 0195795601 pp. 108-110.</ref> They were allowed to work only in limited fields, and were not allowed educational opportunities afforded to their male counterparts. In addition, women were required to be accompanied by a mahram relative during most public activities, resulting in a decreased sense of mobility and independence.<ref>Government of Afghanistan, ''Mahram Decree'', July 16 1997</ref><ref>Lindholt, Lone. "Human Rights in Development Yearbook", 2003. p. 357</ref>
This seems to be a much better lead intro to the subject, avoiding weasel words, still making it clear that their treatment of women was widely condemned, without being a blatant POV subjective Western view. It's likely not perfect, but what should be improved? Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The same old users have stubbornly hijacked this article, removing any photographs that show women in Afghanistan in "normal" circumstances, instead allowing only photos of them being beaten or as the victims of capital punishment. In addition, in contravention to Wikipedia:External links, we keep pushing readers to go visit the RAWA website - this entire article basically is one large advertisement for RAWA - and makes absolutely no attempt to be neutral. It says that women were prohibited from becoming doctors, but any attempt to point out that the Taliban overturned that rule within a year is removed from the article, to make it sound (falsely) like there was a decade without medical care for women in Afghanistan. Then we have my favourite statement of all, "They faced execution for violations of the Taliban's law"...you're kidding, right? Shall we mention that in the Women in Japan article as well, that women can be punished for breaking the law? Similarly, even though "required to wear the burqa" is true, the editors insist it say "forced to wear the burqa" - even though we wouldn't likely talk about how Americans are forced to wear shoes any time they enter a shopping mall. Rules require us to do things, they do not force us to do them. The Taliban was the government, and made the rules, thus they required certain things from certain people -- but let's not stoop to playing wordgames - It's dishonest and it's propaganda - and it's a stain on the project. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to formally propose this, but it makes much more sense to me that there be a single page for the "Role of Women in Afghan society" or "Women's Rights in Afghanistan", with historical discussion of the subject. Otherwise, it appears as if the Taliban's restrictions are arising out of the blue in a country that was previously like Sweden or something. Msalt ( talk) 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think their should be a link to someone's execution. It does belong a encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.190.239 ( talk) 12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"In September 2010, a female caught swimming in a pool received a harsh punishment of fifty lashes with a foam swim noodle and given a wedgie for holding her nose while she swam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.168.118 ( talk) 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Long time later but if anyone has time may be worth checking [6]. The edit doesn't seem to be vandalism but at least one of the changes was bizzare (insertion of mention of Osama bin Laden when the source said nothing about that and it didn't seem relevant to the comment) Nil Einne ( talk) 11:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
After reading this I have been shocked.I assure the reader that each and every law the Taliban have made is invariance with Islamic law.Any person who studies early Islamic history will realize that women have had a huge role in Islamic society. for example,Islam has allowed women to earn money if they have no provider.Also,preventing women from getting educated is forbidden in Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.52.223.165 ( talk) 05:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's true A book of signs ( talk) 20:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The link from the first illustration is dead. 217.210.200.246 ( talk) 06:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Taliban treatment of women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Taliban treatment of women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Nightscream recently removed two bullet points from a list of examples of punishments for men that failed to adequately "police" the behavior of women. There were a total of three bullet points in the list, and a single citation at the end of the list. The content in question is extremely long-standing—well over ten-years-old—yet Nightscream leaped to the conclusion that the citation pertained only to the final example, not the entire list, in defiance of common sense—an interpretation so novel that it apparently had never occurred to many dozens (if not hundreds) of other editors that have pored over the text since it was originally added to this article. Look at the aggressiveness (and irrelevant policy acronyms!) in Nightscream's edit summaries:
"Revert. I read the cited source. It isn't. And in any event, adherence to WP:V/ WP:CS/ WP:NOR et al. is not 'presumed.' It must be verified. That's why that first policy is called WP:Verifiability."(in response to my suggestion that
"Presumably this is all in the same cited source.")
On top of everything else, that second edit is shockingly bad. Rather than highlighting the supposedly "uncited" sentences and hitting "delete," Nightscream restored an old revision, excising numerous constructive intervening changes to an article currently experiencing higher-than-normal traffic, as JulioW4rrior00 pointed out. We're talking about removing page numbers and simultaneously restoring a "page needed" maintenance tag, people!
The question remains: Did such incredibly long-standing content fail verification? After all, Nightscream confidently asserted that he had "read the cited source,"
namely Dupree 1998 (pp. 145–166), even though this statement was totally unprompted as nobody had inquired about Nightscream's reading history. Now, I try to
assume good faith, but the source in question is hard to find, long out-of-print, and the previews online are quite limited, thus it was hard for me to believe that Nightscream truly tracked it down (especially with that page range!) just in time for a quick, kneejerk revert. Hopefully the following excerpt from pages 156-157 settles the matter:
Of the general regulations, only three pertained to women. Number 1 stated that in order to prevent "sedition and uncovered females", no drivers were allowed to pick up females wearing the Iranian burqa which did not cover the face, or seductive clothing, or those unaccompanied by a mahram. In case of violation the driver would be imprisoned and the husbands would be punished. Number 12 required that it should be announced in all mosques that women found washing clothes in the river would be picked up in a "respectful Islamic manner" and taken to their homes where their husbands would be severely punished. Number 15 announced that tailors found taking female body measurements and displaying fashion magazines would be imprisoned. The emphasis on punishing males for infractions committed by females reflects the universal acceptance of male responsibility for females, which is a natural consequence of the belief that males have a duty to exert control over female members of their families.
If Nightscream would like to explain, here or elsewhere, the extent to which the above edits are representative of his other contributions as a 16-year Wikipedia veteran (and former administrator!) with over 150,000 edits to his name, I would be interested in hearing it. Either way, let this be a lesson to everyone on the potential perils of trigger-happy reverting. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed August 17 2021 entry from "punishments" section due to inaccurate reporting. Article cited claims the incident occurred 08/17/2021 but photo of incident circulated as early as 2019. Original publisher (Fox News) has issued a correction but misinformation has spread quite far regardless.
@ Nableezy: I see you added this and I can't access the WSJ article, it is behind a paywall. Can you tell me what are the details of what it says? Feel free to email me the text or post it somewhere for me to read, or post a link to a non-paywall source. The NPR's article on female teachers being banned contains a few nuances:
It is also noteworthy that most RS have been saying, even today on Dec 22, "Taliban bans universities for women". If Taliban had banned all education then those RS would also be mentioning that, right? Maybe we should wait to see what the developments are? VR talk 21:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The main body of the article requires a lot of mapping to try to determine what treatments occurred during what times. For example, the main section: #Gender policies says this treatment started in 1996, then the body of them says these restrictions "were forbidden". So it is vague if this type of treatment ceased or did not, and when, or if they ceased and are now-presently occurring again. Generally an article section that is not about the "history" of something speaks to the reader about what is the current-state. — xaosflux Talk 21:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, much of #Post-2021 takeover parrots what is already said above in previous sections. This section needs to have a more obvious purpose otherwise the article will end up repeating itself for everything that happened post-takover. Anarchyte ( talk) 04:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treatment of women by the Taliban article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Treatment of women by the Taliban was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 December 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Removed a section that was basically a big conspiracy theory (based on the "No original research"-rule), and modified it's surroundings to make it grammatically coherent.
I'd like to point out a few things about this article that seem to require clarification or amending. - Exaggerated claims: Can this be substantiated? This does not seem to be the consensus on the issue. - The policies were not popular outside Afghanistan: It should probably be noted that some Muslims felt these were in accordance to the Qur'an. - The anti-U.S. government stance: I actually agree that this was probably the case, but such accusations don't belong into an encyclopedia article. Seriously. --some anon
I made a slight change to the article in response to a long comment posted here on talk -- it is certainly true that the Taliban abuses of men were horrific. (You can see that comment in the revision history, and if the author wants, we can move it back here, but I'm hoping we can keep this talk page pretty clean as a 'working discussion', not a permanent litany of complaints.)
I added back the explanation for the U.S. attack on Afghanistan. Taw had removed it, calling it bullshit, and so I invite him to come and explain why. It certainly seems relevant to the history of the situation, and omitting it doesn't give the true picture. -- Jimbo Wales
Nobody ever proved that there is a link between Taliban and WTC attack. Don't listen to US propaganda. -- Taw
It doesn't matter if the link was proven or not. It's still the reason for the US attack. -- Jimbo Wales
It's the pretext not the reason. -- Taw
Then say so! The sentence is now worded as a claim by the US government. Whether or not the claim is accurate or jusitified is a separate issue, but the fact remains that this is the reason given for the attack, and that should be mentioned here. -- LDC 16:55, 2001 December 11
Excellent change, LDC. Thanks. Taw, what do you think the reason it, then? -- Jimbo Wales 16:58, 2001 December 11
Extending area of US control of course. The same reason why British, Soviets and Germans attacked various countries. -- Taw 17:02, 2001 December 11
I don't think you understand America very well, Taw. -- Jimbo Wales
Nobody ever proved that there is a link between either Taliban or bin laden and WTC attack. Don't listen to US propaganda. if you know arabic, you would notice binladen is "Happy" about the WTC attack, but never claimed responsibility -- User:212.77.213.55 10:28, 2002 March 3
Moved this comment to the /talk (seemed to be advice on writing not article text):
(topics to be fleshed out?)
http://www.supportersofshariah.com/Eng/project.html
Each section should attempt to accurately characterize (a) what the Taliban decreed (b) what the Taliban actually enforced, and to what extent they softened over time, looked the other way, or simply were unable to enforce due to a lack of resources (c) what the penalties were for violations, (d) other stuff like that.
Also removed stuff about terrorist attack that seemed irrelevent (and added needless controversy). It's late. I would have liked to add some actual content on the "exagerated claims".
I still have some things i would like to add to this article so it is a work in progress. Do you have any suggestions of what should be added? -- Rmantle
I added the tag noting the necessity of citations, and removed some material that seems pretty dubious and needs to be cited if it is going to be included in this article. Jrkarp 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to tidy this a little, but it could use some sources. I'll look for some if I have time. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As a Pashtun, I found this article to be extremely offensive especially when it ties Pashtunwali with extremist interpretation of Islam. Has this article written by some one from Petagon or US/NATO military? Fateh
Agreed this article is terribly biased, there is a link to a video showing a public execution! Some of the "Further Reading" is a work of fiction! Unusually there are unreferenced quotes, which don't particularly add to the facts but rather to the dramatic effect. I agree as much as anyone that this is intolerable cruelty, but if that justifies bias then why not edit the pages of Savak, the Rwandan Genocide, the Holocaust, Khomemni, Pol Pot, Khemer Rouge, many of the Shahs, the list of atrocities worse than this is endless, none are tolerable, all are disgusting and gross violations of human rights, but this website should publish facts, not opinions.
I don't think that Zarmina's execution is a good example of Taliban's cruelty. She murdered a human and was put to death. I'm all against death penalty, let alone public death penalties but I suggest that we remove the picture and comments.
Northern 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - Zarmina's execution is a CLASSIC example of the patriarchal treatment of women; she was executed for killing her violently abusive husband after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.11 ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Also, the reason she killed the bastard was that that night, he said he was going to report her to the Taliban for adultery, wherupon she would be stoned to death - read the full story here http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/A/afghanistan/summary.html, and try and imagine what you would do in her position before judging her execution as legitimate - Jonathan Handforth, 12/06/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.11 ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine we'd use an image of a convicted murderer being executed for the Women in Japan article; and see absolutely no reason to use it here; especially when it is copyrighted and watermarked, and we have a freely-licensed alternative available that is more neutral. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
They faced public flogging<ref>[http://www.rawa.us/movies/beating.mpg A woman being [[flogging|flogged]] in public].</ref> and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.<ref name=physicians>{{cite web|url= http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/talibans-war-on-women.pdf |title="The Taliban's War on Women" }} {{small|(857 [[Kibibyte|KiB]])}}, Physicians for Human Rights, August 1998.</ref><ref>"100 Girls' Schools in Afghan Capital Are Ordered Shut", ''The New York Times'', June 17, 1998.</ref>
As much as I hate to defend that Taliban (but then I guess adherence to NPOV must mean we insist on fairness even for these people), the use of that execution image in the lead is utterly unjustifiable. The lead image normally serves to represent the subject, and should exhibit some balance - or some level of typicality. Putting a public execution in the lead fails that entirely. It is exactly what I'd do if I was writing a campaign piece for Amnesty International or some Human rights campaign, because it shocks the reader by drawing their attention to the worst abuse. But we are an encyclopedia NOT a campaign piece. The image should be demoted in the article, if it justifies its fair use claim at all.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent). OK. I've stated that I believe the image to represent the extreme end of the daily life and experience of woman under the Taliban. You appeared to me (and I could have you wrong) to be making the argument that it was "typical", on the basis that the more routine control and abuse is somehow "explained" by this extreme event; and that we need to ""inform and educate the reader" of this. I merely asked for evidence. If there is no evidence of this, as you now seem to suggest, then I'm not sure what your case for using this image as a typical representation is. Sorry, I may be misunderstanding the case here.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 14:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sherurcij, all you do at this article is revert other editors back to your chosen version. Because there are objections, you need to go through the changes on talk to try to gain consensus. As things stand, you've violated 3RR at least a couple of times in the last few days. SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article is now fully protected for a week, in which you have time to discuss the issue and get more input from other editors, using mechanisms like dispute resolution, third party opinions or request for comments. Please try to reach consensus and request unprotection afterwards, but not sooner. Regards So Why 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think this article is a little unbalanced, however, I agree with SlimVirgin that Sherurcij's smacks of a whitewash. Between the two must be a balanced possibility. However, there's no change of getting that if each side assumed that they are correct and reverts to their chosen version. Since this is not a BLP, it matters little what version it is in in the shorter term; we can afford to be eventualist. It also matters little who is disagreeing with whom, and who needs to justify what. Whatever state this article ends up in, all aspects of it need to be justified by the sources anyway (and in saying that I'm not necessarily suggesting the current version isn't). Can I suggest that one side (either really) calmly lists their objections to what the other wants. We can then look at each issue separately; and that will work best if we don't try to defend our own position, but we try to see if the other has some valid point, and we then work together to see if there's something that can meet all valid point. I'm quite sure that all of us would admit the current article (as indeed any article) can always be improved. Neutrality is not a zero-sum game.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
|
The modification of any place names that included the word "women." For example, "women's garden" was renamed "spring garden". [2]
Violence against women remained a serious problem. Women and girls were subjected to rape, kidnaping, and forced marriage. Taliban restrictions against women and girls remained widespread, institutionally sanctioned, and systematic throughout most of the year. The Taliban increased enforcement of strict dress codes and maintained the prohibition against women working outside the home except in strictly limited circumstances in the health care field and in some humanitarian assistance projects. The Taliban appeared to reverse a 2-year trend of relaxing enforcement of restrictions on women and girls and increasingly restricted female education and participation in the labor force. Although girls were prohibited formally from attending school, some organizations clandestinely operated elementary schools and home schools with girls in attendance. [4]
Was corporal punishment and capital punishment a solely women's issue? I was suggested, above, that since the Taliban flogged and executed men too, this was not solely a women's issue.
If it is not solely a women's issue how much of this article should discuss it?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to be more specific about aspects of this article that suggest bias. No problem.
The lead sentence currently says:
|
How would we, in 2008, measure notoriety from 2001? I don't believe this statement is true. So little news escaped Afghanistan that I doubt it would be fair to claim Afghanistan was notorious for anything.
Sure, in 2008 the Taliban is held up as the World's worst example of female repression. If I had been asked to guess, back in 2001, I would have guessed that Saudi Arabia was the most repressive country.
This statement strikes me as an instance of revisionism. Sure, we'd all like now, to think that we were all riled up about the Taliban's abuse back then. But, the truth is practically no one was paying attention -- just as practically no one is paying attention to repression of women in a number of other countries.
And, as I noted above, the policies we identify with the Taliban were first put into place by the regime that preceded them. Further, repression of women hasn't stopped since the Taliban have been kicked out. Doesn't this lead statement imply that the Taliban introduced these policies? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
precedents |
The apartheid policies were unprecedented in South Africa |
The Taliban merely continued policies introduced by a prior regime. |
termination |
Apartheid is dead. There is no chance the apartheid system could be re-introduced. |
While the less intellectually honest element of the Press corps portray the repression of women and girls the repression of women and girls in Afghanistan has not been wiped out. Further hard-line elements, both within and without the current Hamid Karzai administration favor a return to more repression. |
I get the point, but "The apartheid policies were unprecedented in South Africa" isn't quite right either. Racial discrimination in SA pre-dates the Nationalist Party.--
Scott MacDonald (
talk)
13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to try to explain the following comment. I wrote:
|
As noted above, the article's lead sentence currently says:
|
What I would suggest is more accurate would be
|
I asked a few people, for feedback on my comment. And I thought their replies I didn't dispute, I don't think Sherurcij is disputing, I don't think anyone is disputing, that the Taliban is widely disapproved of NOW due to the reports of repressive policies implemented THEN.
That is different than what the lead says. The lead says that the Taliban was notorious during its administration for the repression of women.
I am not disputing, I doubt Sherurcij is disputing, I don't think anyone would dispute that human rights groups tried to draw attention to the plight of Afghan women and girls -- while the Taliban were in power. Similarly, a limited number of contemporary newspaper articles addressed the plight of Afghan women and girls, while the Taliban were in power.
Sadly the reports of international human rights groups are widely ignored. So human rights reports do not justify the characterization "internationally notorious".
Look at the references the article cites. How many of them predate 9-11? I see just a single newspaper report from prior to 9-11. Surely if newspapers were reporting the repression of women widely enough to merit the characterization that it was "internationally notorious" we would be citing more than a single pre-9-11 article? The url of the New York Times article is missing. I have supplied it below:
I hope my questioner finds this explanation clear. The term "notorious" is inappropiate -- cannot be verified.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 05:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
These are from the first 50 of 166 results of a Lexis/Nexis search, all of which predate 9-11:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Selected quotes:
Tom Harrison Talk 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Objects of universal loathing is more accurate, but we should probably stick with Notorious:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)Tom Harrison Talk 01:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently says:
|
I suggest the following lead sentence does not represent the same kind of bias and revisionism as the current sentence.
|
It also has the advantage that it complies with the convention that the name of the article should be repeated, verbatim, in the lead. Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 18:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence is fine, as-is, since the Taliban were notorious for their treatment of women prior to 9/11. The issue of the Taliban and their treatment of the Afghan people, particularly women, got especially a lot of attention in late August 2001 when Australia refused to accept a boat load of ~400 refugees, mostly from Afghanistan. I do remember numerous news stories in newspapers and on television about this, and talking about this among friends at the time. The news coverage may have been more extensive coverage outside of the U.S. (in Canada, Europe, Asia, and of course Australia), though it was also covered by the U.S. media.
These news stories are just a small sample. -- Aude ( talk) 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Taliban treatment of women aimed to provide "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct", based on Pashtunwali beliefs about living in purdah.<ref name="Maley">Nancy Hatch Dupree. 'Afghan Women under the Taliban' in William Maley (2001) ISBN-10: 0786410906. ''Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban''. London: Hurst and Company, ISBN-10: 0814755860 pp145-166.</ref><ref name="Marsden">Marsden, Peter. (1998). ''The Taliban: War, religion and the new order in Afghanistan''. London: Zed Books Ltd, ISBN-10: 1856495221 pp88-101.</ref> However, their measures attracted condemnation from many fronts, including the United Nations and Amnesty International.<ref>[[AFP]], "UN lashes out at Taliban for Violence against Women", September 13, 1999</ref><ref>[[Amnesty International]], [http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/afgan/afgtoc.htm Women in Afghanistan - A human rights catastrophe], 1996</ref>
Women were required to wear the burqa when in public since it was believed the sight of a woman's flesh served as a forbidden temptation to men, and was thus a corruption.<ref name="Gohari">M. J. Gohari (2000). ''The Taliban: Ascent to Power''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN-10: 0195795601 pp. 108-110.</ref> They were allowed to work only in limited fields, and were not allowed educational opportunities afforded to their male counterparts. In addition, women were required to be accompanied by a mahram relative during most public activities, resulting in a decreased sense of mobility and independence.<ref>Government of Afghanistan, ''Mahram Decree'', July 16 1997</ref><ref>Lindholt, Lone. "Human Rights in Development Yearbook", 2003. p. 357</ref>
This seems to be a much better lead intro to the subject, avoiding weasel words, still making it clear that their treatment of women was widely condemned, without being a blatant POV subjective Western view. It's likely not perfect, but what should be improved? Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The same old users have stubbornly hijacked this article, removing any photographs that show women in Afghanistan in "normal" circumstances, instead allowing only photos of them being beaten or as the victims of capital punishment. In addition, in contravention to Wikipedia:External links, we keep pushing readers to go visit the RAWA website - this entire article basically is one large advertisement for RAWA - and makes absolutely no attempt to be neutral. It says that women were prohibited from becoming doctors, but any attempt to point out that the Taliban overturned that rule within a year is removed from the article, to make it sound (falsely) like there was a decade without medical care for women in Afghanistan. Then we have my favourite statement of all, "They faced execution for violations of the Taliban's law"...you're kidding, right? Shall we mention that in the Women in Japan article as well, that women can be punished for breaking the law? Similarly, even though "required to wear the burqa" is true, the editors insist it say "forced to wear the burqa" - even though we wouldn't likely talk about how Americans are forced to wear shoes any time they enter a shopping mall. Rules require us to do things, they do not force us to do them. The Taliban was the government, and made the rules, thus they required certain things from certain people -- but let's not stoop to playing wordgames - It's dishonest and it's propaganda - and it's a stain on the project. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to formally propose this, but it makes much more sense to me that there be a single page for the "Role of Women in Afghan society" or "Women's Rights in Afghanistan", with historical discussion of the subject. Otherwise, it appears as if the Taliban's restrictions are arising out of the blue in a country that was previously like Sweden or something. Msalt ( talk) 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think their should be a link to someone's execution. It does belong a encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.190.239 ( talk) 12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"In September 2010, a female caught swimming in a pool received a harsh punishment of fifty lashes with a foam swim noodle and given a wedgie for holding her nose while she swam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.168.118 ( talk) 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Long time later but if anyone has time may be worth checking [6]. The edit doesn't seem to be vandalism but at least one of the changes was bizzare (insertion of mention of Osama bin Laden when the source said nothing about that and it didn't seem relevant to the comment) Nil Einne ( talk) 11:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
After reading this I have been shocked.I assure the reader that each and every law the Taliban have made is invariance with Islamic law.Any person who studies early Islamic history will realize that women have had a huge role in Islamic society. for example,Islam has allowed women to earn money if they have no provider.Also,preventing women from getting educated is forbidden in Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.52.223.165 ( talk) 05:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's true A book of signs ( talk) 20:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The link from the first illustration is dead. 217.210.200.246 ( talk) 06:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Taliban treatment of women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Taliban treatment of women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Nightscream recently removed two bullet points from a list of examples of punishments for men that failed to adequately "police" the behavior of women. There were a total of three bullet points in the list, and a single citation at the end of the list. The content in question is extremely long-standing—well over ten-years-old—yet Nightscream leaped to the conclusion that the citation pertained only to the final example, not the entire list, in defiance of common sense—an interpretation so novel that it apparently had never occurred to many dozens (if not hundreds) of other editors that have pored over the text since it was originally added to this article. Look at the aggressiveness (and irrelevant policy acronyms!) in Nightscream's edit summaries:
"Revert. I read the cited source. It isn't. And in any event, adherence to WP:V/ WP:CS/ WP:NOR et al. is not 'presumed.' It must be verified. That's why that first policy is called WP:Verifiability."(in response to my suggestion that
"Presumably this is all in the same cited source.")
On top of everything else, that second edit is shockingly bad. Rather than highlighting the supposedly "uncited" sentences and hitting "delete," Nightscream restored an old revision, excising numerous constructive intervening changes to an article currently experiencing higher-than-normal traffic, as JulioW4rrior00 pointed out. We're talking about removing page numbers and simultaneously restoring a "page needed" maintenance tag, people!
The question remains: Did such incredibly long-standing content fail verification? After all, Nightscream confidently asserted that he had "read the cited source,"
namely Dupree 1998 (pp. 145–166), even though this statement was totally unprompted as nobody had inquired about Nightscream's reading history. Now, I try to
assume good faith, but the source in question is hard to find, long out-of-print, and the previews online are quite limited, thus it was hard for me to believe that Nightscream truly tracked it down (especially with that page range!) just in time for a quick, kneejerk revert. Hopefully the following excerpt from pages 156-157 settles the matter:
Of the general regulations, only three pertained to women. Number 1 stated that in order to prevent "sedition and uncovered females", no drivers were allowed to pick up females wearing the Iranian burqa which did not cover the face, or seductive clothing, or those unaccompanied by a mahram. In case of violation the driver would be imprisoned and the husbands would be punished. Number 12 required that it should be announced in all mosques that women found washing clothes in the river would be picked up in a "respectful Islamic manner" and taken to their homes where their husbands would be severely punished. Number 15 announced that tailors found taking female body measurements and displaying fashion magazines would be imprisoned. The emphasis on punishing males for infractions committed by females reflects the universal acceptance of male responsibility for females, which is a natural consequence of the belief that males have a duty to exert control over female members of their families.
If Nightscream would like to explain, here or elsewhere, the extent to which the above edits are representative of his other contributions as a 16-year Wikipedia veteran (and former administrator!) with over 150,000 edits to his name, I would be interested in hearing it. Either way, let this be a lesson to everyone on the potential perils of trigger-happy reverting. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed August 17 2021 entry from "punishments" section due to inaccurate reporting. Article cited claims the incident occurred 08/17/2021 but photo of incident circulated as early as 2019. Original publisher (Fox News) has issued a correction but misinformation has spread quite far regardless.
@ Nableezy: I see you added this and I can't access the WSJ article, it is behind a paywall. Can you tell me what are the details of what it says? Feel free to email me the text or post it somewhere for me to read, or post a link to a non-paywall source. The NPR's article on female teachers being banned contains a few nuances:
It is also noteworthy that most RS have been saying, even today on Dec 22, "Taliban bans universities for women". If Taliban had banned all education then those RS would also be mentioning that, right? Maybe we should wait to see what the developments are? VR talk 21:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The main body of the article requires a lot of mapping to try to determine what treatments occurred during what times. For example, the main section: #Gender policies says this treatment started in 1996, then the body of them says these restrictions "were forbidden". So it is vague if this type of treatment ceased or did not, and when, or if they ceased and are now-presently occurring again. Generally an article section that is not about the "history" of something speaks to the reader about what is the current-state. — xaosflux Talk 21:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, much of #Post-2021 takeover parrots what is already said above in previous sections. This section needs to have a more obvious purpose otherwise the article will end up repeating itself for everything that happened post-takover. Anarchyte ( talk) 04:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)