Talk:Malala Yousafzai/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

youngest Nobel Peace Prize Nominee

The article linked at this point does not say she is the youngest nominee (I think a 12 year old was nominated at one point, Craig Kielburger) but does say if she won she'd be the youngest winner. As such I have removed the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.95 (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Her ethnicity

I notice a minor edit war over whether she is Pashtun or Hazara. Does anyone have any hard information on this? - Metalello ^talk 15:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yousafzai is a Pashtun clan/tribe besides the Swat valley is majorly populated by pashtuns. --SMS ^Talk 15:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hazara has a different meaning in this context there is a district Hazara, Pakistan in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa area which has no connection with the Hazara who originate in central Afghanistan.RichardBond (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So i'm going to put Pashtun pending further discussion.Fortibus (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's uncontroversial. Everything I've seen refers to her as being Pashtun. - Metalello ^talk 04:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Belay my last. We're getting "Hazara" again, as well as "Shia" and "NWFP". - Metalello ^talk 16:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing people's ethnicities, religions, hometowns etc. is a quite normal thing on Pakistan articles on Wikipedia. I know this because I routinely fix up such edits :) Apparently, some bored nationalists have nothing better to do than pushing their WP:OR here. Just revert straight away whenever it happens. Mar4d (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editors adding Hazara still haven't provided a source that says so, so the issue is still uncontroversial as we have a number of sources ([1]) supporting her Pashtun ethincity. Hazara District is majorly populated by Hindko speaking people and Malala has pashtun accent. About the shia too we need a source to write that. And NWFP is the former name of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (NWFP redirects to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). --SMS ^Talk 17:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In addendum to that, Yousufzai is a Pashtun surname so this is really a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. Moreover, she is from Swat which is a Pashtun region. I really have no idea where people are floating up with this Hazara idea. Even Google shows absolutely nothing about her supposed connection to Hazara. Mar4d (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That observation that Yusafzai is Pashtun is correct but it does not address her matrilineal. What is her mothers side of the family? Maybe both sides are partly correct. I have also seen an article on the family saying that the family had spent some time living in Abbottabad. Maybe there were relatives thereRichardBond (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have since been told by Princess Zebunissa of Swat that Malalas parents are both Pashtun and closely related.RichardBond (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The people changing the ethnicity are IP users. I just made a request for temporary page protection while this remains widely covered in the news. Fortibus (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A wise step indeed. This will solve much of the vandalism problem, at least for now. The amount of traffic that this article has been getting (and the worldwide attention on the topic in general) in the past few days is just phenomenal. Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're right--tons of traffic. "Article traffic". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) for those interested. Fortibus (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Traffic's exploded again since her move to the UK. Well done everyone who works on this article - it's a detailed and solid resource for people. - Metalello ^talk 06:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Original Picture

Why was the original picture edited out? Onthehook (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but if you can find an uncopyrighted photo of her please upload it. - Metalello ^talk 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a good non fair use one now. Thanks Fortibus. - Metalello ^talk 19:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

All previous images have been copyrighted without justification. I put one up with non-free use rationale. I'll admit the picture isn't as good, but this means it will likely stick. Fortibus (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

understandable: opinion

"However, if Yousafzai was a sympathiser of the IMT this is understandable, because they are the only organized Left force that currently exists in Swat." The above was in the section "Criticisms of news coverage". I removed, since it seemed to represent opinion without citing. If you can find a reference, feel free to add it back with attribution to the originator of said opinion. 85.138.128.15 (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Woods actually says this in the article. I will revert and clarify.Fortibus (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of news coverage

Stashing this here until it can be beefed up:

Prominent Marxist Alan Woods has criticized the coverage of Yousafzai's attempted assassination, saying that they make oblique references to her growing interest in politics, but not to the politics they consisted of. Woods claims that Yousafzai was a sympathiser of the IMT, which over the past few years has been swelled by an influx of former members of the Communist Party who have remained loyal to the ideas of Marx and Lenin. However, Woods goes on to say that if Yousafzai was a sympathiser of the IMT this is understandable, because they are the only organized Left force that currently exists in Swat. Fortibus (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The current statement is much better. I was about to say the Wood statement needs to go since it says more about him than her. A twelve year old girl who blogs about just trying go to school get murdered by a fanatic, and Woods is upset we don't have in depth coverage of her Marxists political views that may or may not exist. But the current trimmed version is fine. --MarsRover (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I just never feel comfortable deleting content. Might as well put it here in case someone want to improve it. Fortibus (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Status

I think we should make it a goal to try and get this article to Good Article status. Does anyone have recommendations on what to fix? I'm thinking:

• There is a lot of material in the documentary that could be mined to expand the period of the Second Battle of Swat
• We could post another quote from her blog entry and try to make a narrative between the two
• Obviously, we will keep updating her medical treatment

Fortibus (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for doing this but I don't have any good ideas. Maybe some older hands might have some suggestions. I will keep the refs clean and add any new stories I find. I do think we shouldn't list her as having won the Malala Prize, since it wasn't named that when she won it. It would be odd if it had been. - Metalello ^talk 21:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I struggled with the same thing. I'm fine with putting "National Youth Peace Prize" or something similar in the info box. If you have any other suggestions let me know. Fortibus (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah just put "National Youth Peace Prize" as a link to the article, which will explain the change. - Metalello ^talk 00:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the things that affect a GA nomination is stability of the article. At the moment, the article is recieving a good amount of traffic + rapid editing. You may need to wait until that traffic dries up and the editing going on at the article becomes more stable. Mar4d (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right Mar4d, except that I would make two points. First, there is a several month back-log on good article nominations already. Second, the good article criteria says "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" as a means for exclusion. Since this doesn't have a definite endpoint, I think it's fair to nominate it, as I did. Fortibus (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know bringing this article to Good Article Status is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#SPAs_-_should_we_work_on_retaining_them.3F. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Her Religion / Denomination

This was previously in the infobox. Because this article is up for good article status, I decided to remove it because I could not find references.

• religion = Islam
• denomination = Sunni (Hanafi)

Fortibus (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources as of present discussing what sect Yousufzai follows, so just having "Islam" in the infobox should be sufficient. Mar4d (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, i'll fix that. I'll keep denomination here for now. Fortibus (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

She's actually atheist.--24.202.70.33 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol! She most certainly is not an Atheist. --85.211.119.49 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Kainat and Shazia

Kainat's surname is being given either as Riaz or as Ahmed/Ahmad. This article says that her father's name is Riaz Ahmed. What is the naming convention in that culture? Does the daughter take the father's first name? - Metalello ^talk 04:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in Pakistani culture it is a common naming convention that the last name is usually the father's first name. That seems to be the case here. Mar4d (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How should we name her in this article - should both of her father's names be mentioned? - Metalello ^talk 09:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Whose idea was the blog?

BBC says it was her father. Express Tribune says it was a journalist named Abdul Hai Kakar. This is relevant too. Thoughts? - Metalello ^talk 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The third source says that the journalist approached her father to start a diary, so I guess both could be mentioned as having a role. Mar4d (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Great source (New Yorker)--I haven't even seen this article. Let's incorporate some of this content. Fortibus (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually found another source that provides even more detail. Fortibus (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!

As a spectator, I would like to congratulate the eds here for making valuable contributions and improving this article within a short time and taking it to standards which WP can be proud of. It was quite educative to see expert eds go to work. Kudos :) OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I also want to congratulate the other editors Metalello and Mar4d who have been pretty active on here. I've contributed a bunch of time, but i've really enjoyed it. OrangesRyellow, I encourage you to review the page for Good Article status if you have the time. Fortibus (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take up the GAR review of the article, but I am likely to be preoccupied for a day or two (something in real life). I might take it up as I become free (provided someone else does not take it up in the meantime). I have looked at the nomination page and find that it is listed in the World History section. Although appropriate in some ways, it may be a bit more appropriate to nominate it in the Culture, sociology and psychology or the Education section? OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure where to put it. Feel free to change it. Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the nomination to the Education section. I consider it an honor to be invited to do the GAR for this article, however, it seems that real life is going to claim more of my time than I had expected, and I may not be able to do justice to the GA process if I take it up. As such, I must pass up the opportunity.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Parents home town

Moving this here until we can find a reference:

Her parents belong to village Barkana, Karshat valley of Kana district Shangfla but temporarily residing in Swat. Fortibus (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Urdu Translator

Can someone please translate this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/interactivity/2009/03/090313_swat_diary_part10_aw.shtml. It's the final entry of her blog. Please add it to the section before "Refugee". Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'in heaven nymphs are waiting for'

In the 15th January Swat Taliban to girls to go to school but was imposed and provincial government banned movement for the enforcement of the 'peace between' the Taliban after the decision of the examination only partially by holding. Local students said that he still uncertainty going through the situation.

BBCUrdu.com Swat belonging to the affected student a seventh of the party's story published in the form of a diary is uncertainty. security of the view of the 'Gul corn' alias from writing a diary of the tenth link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.213 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know I asked the wikipedians in WikiProject Pakistan for help. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nizam-e-Adl Regulation

Someone inserted this into the lead. I think it's too specific to be there, but it may be appropriate in one of the body parahraphs:

"Her activism began after President Asif Ali Zardari signed the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation into law in 2009. The regulation was recommended by Sufi Muhammad, a former government official and supporter of the Taliban in order to establish a cease fire." Fortibus (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, this sentence seems to make a causal link between the regulation and her activism, which probably doesn't exist. Fortibus (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I put this back in right before "Refugee" Fortibus (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I don't know anything about the politics of this (who is the Taleban, what do they think is wrong that happens in schools), and it is since I'm completely ignorant that it strikes me that this article is far from neutral. The quotes from Malala sound like building to an emotional crescendo, including quotes from others (we are all Malala etc).

I'd rather have a neutral article explaining both political positions even if, as it seems from the article, it is a case that now a very serious crime has occurred, and it was stated that someone in the Taleban claim responsibility.

In other words, the linkage between political/religious discussion and the fact that Malala is a victim of a serious crime, possibly an attempted murder, should be kept separate. Maybe they are, it is a hard article to read objectively. Createangelos (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I slightly agree. I think the article could use a short explanation of the Taliban's position when it comes to women's roles in society. I also did include a quote of Yousafzai criticizing the Pakistani military. I would like to present a more objective view of her, but the truth is, it's hard to find any negative information about her. If she turned out to be really lazy, I would include it. This also goes for the Taliban. It's really hard to find people who are sympathetic--and quoted in news articles. If I could find them I would include them.

Maybe I've misunderstood your comment. Please provide me feedback. To me, Yousafzai's story is very simple. She wrote a blog, was filmed in a documentary, and did some activism. The Taliban threatened her, then shot her. The world erupted in anger. Fortibus (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article could/should note more of why the taliban decided to shoot her and could also note how they tried to explain themselves (have they tried?) in the aftermath of the shooting. I also agree that the quotes seem to stand out too much. Looking at the WP:MOS it seems that short quotes should not be put in blockquotes and we could probably do away with the big quotation marks too (per the MOS). However, if all of the available literature on the topic is coming down on the taliban like a ton of bricks, so should this article?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC) This cnn article [2] appears to contain the taliban side of the story.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Your summary makes it really easy to explain what seems out of place or not neutral, thanks for that, well done truly:

Yousafzai's story is very simple. She wrote a blog, was filmed in a documentary, and did some  
activism. The Taliban threatened her, then shot her. The world erupted in anger. 

Let's try something similar, in the case of the Jared Loughner case, did people say,

 Gabriella Gifford's story is very simple. She was a congresswoman. She saw some constituents 
 in a car park, and the devotees of the conspiracy film 'Zeitgeist the Movie' shot her. 

As a further comment, at the time of the Loughner attack, there were people writing like that, as if Jared was part of some weird sort of 'war.' He himself saw it that way, but Wikipedia didn't. Createangelos (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually strike that, but it's an example of how easy it is to be non-neutral. I really hate the film Zeitgeist the Movie, and it affected my recollections of the Gabriella Giffords story.Createangelos (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The article on the whole is an absolutely dedicated work and I first of all appreciate the efforts of Fortibus, who's evidently been making the bulk of contributions. Unfortunately, due to some real life occupations, I am not able to give this article as much time as I would've liked. I understand Createangelos' point of view. As OrangesRyellow inquires above, the article could perhaps do with a bit more on why a couple of crazies decided to shoot her. This article from The Express Tribune may help: 'Radio Mullah' sent hit squad after Malala Yousafzai. Some relevant text pasted below, for convenience:

Yousafzai continued speaking out despite the danger. As her fame grew, Fazlullah tried everything he could to silence her.

The Taliban published death threats in the newspapers and slipped them under her door. But she ignored them. The Taliban say that’s why they sent assassins, despite a tribal code forbidding the killing of women. “We had no intentions to kill her but were forced when she would not stop (speaking against us),” said Sirajuddin Ahmad, a spokesman of Swat Taliban now based in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

He said the Taliban held a meeting a few months ago at which they unanimously agreed to kill her. The task was then given to military commanders to carry out.

I also remember reading something about them labelling her pro-Western and an Obama fan or something. Can't remember where I read it. But it should be easy to find. Mar4d (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OrangesRyellow that the quotes need to be reformatted. The first blog post, especially, should not be using {cquote}--it's too long. Createangelos, I'm still not clear on why my summary is an easy non-neutral explanation. I've basically explained her entire 15-year-old life as we know it from the sources. Your Giffords quote seems like a bad analogy to me because we know so much more about her life -- that's not the case with Yousafzai. There are pieces of information, like what Mar4d mentioned, that should definitely be included. I will admit, I'm very familiar with the Taliban, so I probably skipped over those instinctually. I appreciate all the feedback. If i've misconstrued your argument, Createangelos, I encourage you to place in-line neutrality tags (like , or , or any other tags), so I can address the specific passages you have in mind. Actually, I encourage everyone to start using the editing tags, because they are one of the best ways to improve an article.Fortibus (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice, Fortibus, I put one tag in the statement in the assassination section, a statement tag like a footnote on the statement that she was shot by the Taliban, and the same footnote on the statement that Ahsan is chief spokesman for the Taliban. The statement is from Washington Post which is indeed reliable but unless there is a quote from Pakistan saying that Ahsan is indeed representing Taliban in Pakistan, it is not enough that he is the spokesman for Washington Post (e.g. their source). Anyway, how can even anyone but a journalist think that what is considered a legitimate spokesman for a religion is advocating murder without being really careful to check it, seems unlikely and very suspicious to me. Createangelos (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting of the quote and added a Taliban reaction to "Public reactions". Fortibus (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw it and it is a neutral paragraph, well researched and well written. Also suggests my tags are going to turn out to be wrong, but I'll leave them in a few days or so just in case. Createangelos (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, world history, and even current times are full of fanatics (from various religions) who have caused or want to cause rivers and oceans of bloodshed. And the Taliban only speaks for itself, not necessarily for Islam. From both angles, it seems we need not worry that we are depicting a spokesman for taliban as advocating violence. If we have reliable sources to back up our material, as indeed we do (I believe), we should not question what the sources are saying. "Reliable sources" means we can trust them, and in this case, we do not even seem to have a single contrary source. If there is a contra source, we can discuss including them too.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Createangelos, can you clarify for me what exactly you see as not neutral? I'm still having trouble understanding. Your first tag especially confuses me (the one attached to "Taliban gunman"). Isn't that exactly what all the reports show? What exactly would you like to see added or removed? Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fortibus, I'm not sure if I see anything not neutral anymore, is is just this issue: do reliable sources in Pakistan (what language would they be in) really identify the attackers as being mainstream Taliban? For example, is there a valid and non-violent religion (or something) called 'The Taliban' which comprises many innocent people who would not consider themselves to have committed this crime, or to have supported those who did?

My tag is because just because the US media and their 'chief sources' identify the gunman as representing the wishes of the Taliban, are the mainstream Taliban in Pakistan disagreeing with this condemnation? From your reaction paragraph it sounds like the answer is 'no' and my tags might be removed, want to look into it a bit further along the same lines as you have before removing them. A big impediment is my total ignorance and also not knowing what language pages to be looking in. Createangelos (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Using this [3] source, I have now noted the theory/possibility that the CIA or some other group may have staged the attack. Please see may additions in the "Public Reaction" and "Criminal Investigation" sections. Perhaps that makes the article more neutral?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is related to your discussion but I would like to see 'Taliban' removed from appearing before the word 'gunman', in both the lead and the respective section, because that the gunman was a member or representative of the Taliban is not a fact. All that can be reliably established is that a known Taliban representative has claimed responsibility for the attack. I believe it was you who made this edit, Fortibus. --78.150.175.214 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is my whole point, very clearly stated again (you have a knack for that). Agree! Please read the above comment if you want to understand what gave me a feeling that the article is not neutral.Createangelos (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How is it not a fact that the gunman was Taliban? Admittedly news sources are never 100% reliable but I fail to see how the affiliation of the gunman is any less of a fact than any other statement regarding the case. - Metalello ^talk 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

IP user, are you suggesting that the Taliban hired the postman or the baker to shoot Malala? I think we are beyond the burden of proof here. Every major news outlet is reporting "Taliban gunman". If it's good enough for them, why isn't it for us?

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but keep in mind that the Taliban had been threatening her and her father for years.Fortibus (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality tag on the "Taliban gunman" claim also strikes me as silly. I've read about this case in four to five papers now, and all are reporting this flatly as a Taliban gunman. As always, our job should be to summarize the majority viewpoint of reliable sources, and it's clear what that is here. If later investigation reveals that the world's media were somehow mistaken or lying, we can correct the article accordingly. But for now, there's no reason to preemptively assume that that's the case. The BBC and Associated Press are reliable sources, period. If other reliable sources turn out to disagree, the views can be balanced appropriately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason it's good enough for them and not for us is because identifying the gunman as Taliban is their own interpretation of events. In the ongoing narrative of news the media has to cut corners to save space and keep it easily digestible, and 'Taliban gunman' does that nicely, as opposed to 'gunman, whom the Taliban have claimed was acting on their behalf'. There aren't any risks as a result of printing that possible inaccuracy because the gunman is hardly going to sue for libel. So as you can see it's not enough to take sources verbatim and at face value, we have to critically assess what they say as well. Of course the gunman was probably Taliban; he was probably from Pakistan as well, and probably had breakfast this morning. And there's probably no God, and probably no teapot orbiting the Sun. But until we can show that any of these are the case using a reliable source, we can't state it as fact one way or the other. We know that none of the reliable sources used in the article know that the gunman was Taliban, because we also know that the gunman hasn't been formally identified yet. --78.150.175.214 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

IP user, if we cannot trust our sources, then the entire article falls apart. Following your logic, almost everything in the article would be removed as "their interpretation". The idea that we're not critically assessing them is insulting. Are you honestly asserting that major news outlets (in tandem) fabricated the Taliban spokesman's quote?

If that's not what you're arguing, then it's just semantics. How are "Taliban gunman" and "gunman assigned by Taliban" substantially different, and how does it constitute a neutrality complant? Fortibus (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Fortibus. Seeing the neutrality disputed tag made me roll my eyes in disbelief at the notion that the fact that there is possibly info we don't have, means we should color the assumptions of the reader into thinking the article is biased against the Taliban. With due respect I read the entire above conversation, and understand the reasoning. But I don't agree with it. I think the article could be re-written, but the phrase "Taliban gunman" would almost certainly need to remain. In what universe is the specific attempted murder of this specific girl not somehow motivated by religion or other beliefs? 184.77.180.34 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fortibus, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Firstly, I jumped into this discussion quite late and I don't see how it is a neutrality issue either; I am occupied merely with the accuracy of the article. Secondly, I'm not saying the sources are making everything up. I'm saying that there are things it is possible for the sources we are using to know, and there are things it is not possible for the sources we are using to know, and currently the question of whether the gunman was connected to the Taliban is one of them, so we must conclude that they are assuming this, which is a simplification they can afford to make but we cannot. Thirdly, I agree that 'Taliban gunman' and 'gunman assigned by Taliban' are not substantially different. 'Gunman whom Taliban claim they assigned' is, however. The facts are as follows: 1) A gunman shot Malala (which we know from testimony), and 2) a Taliban spokesperson claimed responsibility for the gunman (which we know from the statement the spokesperson gave). We do NOT know whether the Taliban actually were or were not responsible for the gunman, so we cannot say either. We can only state the above two facts; anything else is speculation, no matter how reliable the source is. --78.150.175.214 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You frame this as an accuracy issue. It's not. It's an issue of whether we introduce doubt into our statements, and to what degree. It's an issue of what needs to be framed as conjecture and what doesn't, given the facts. In the case of the gunman, there is no need to write "claim". The burden of evidence has been met and exceeded. See my comment below for a list. Fortibus (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually think we've gained some consensus about what we're arguing about. The people who feel it is not neutral think we are not introducing enough doubt into the "Taliban gunman" phrase. Myself and others feel that writing "gunman whom Taliban claim they assigned" is introducing too much doubt. Let me list our points:

• Major news sources refer to them as "Taliban gunmen", meaning this has passed before the eyes of tens if not hundreds of experienced editors.
• Ziauddin and Malala both received Taliban death threats in years before her shooting
• Taliban said it was responsible for shooting
• Taliban say they assigned gunmen several months before the shooting
• Taliban reiterated their intent to kill Malala if she survived.

For the reasons above, we do not need to introduce doubt that this was the Taliban. I can provide sources upon request. Fortibus (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't typically doubt the vast majority of news sources for a current event of an article, and 99% of them are saying it was Taliban gunmen. If that changes, we can change the article. I say remove the tag at this time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. The tag is unnecessary. What the article is saying is correct per the vast majority of sources. We can only say what the sources say, no more.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I went to remove the two neutrality tags I'd placed and see someone has done it already. I like the changes in the 'public reaction' section including some Islamic condemnations of the attakc, thx Fortibus. I guess these alone make the article better balanced. Createangelos (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article not "in the news" on the main page?

Just wondering why this article not in the news on the main page? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Great point! How do you even get on the front page? Fortibus (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

We should probably wait for a significant event -- either she is moved out of the country, or she speaks again, or (hopefully not) dies. That way we can write an interesting 1-sentence piece. Fortibus (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

looks like she was just moved to the UK. I'm going to submit this: Pakistani child activist Malala Yousafzai is sent to the UK for further treatment after being shot in the head by a Taliban gunman. Fortibus (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please go to the link above and support the nomination. Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Main page!! "Pakistani child activist Malala Yousafzai, shot by a Taliban gunman last week, is sent to the United Kingdom for treatment." Fortibus (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi

It is possible that her attackers were Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. But, is there enough information to support it? They pushed for the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation 2009, and the group was banned by Musharraf in 2002. Presently, it is said that this group are the "enforcers" of Sharia Law in the region of Swat.

Twillisjr (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Read this under the investigation portion:

Hakimullah Mehsud, chief of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, was intercepted on the phone by government intelligence giving instructions to a subordinate, Nadeem Abbas, to attack media organizations in the country. Offices of organizations in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, and other cities were at risk, especially organizations and media personalities who denounced the Taliban's attack on Yousafzai. Interior Ministry Malik issued orders to increase security near offices in several cities. [51]

Fortibus (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I did read through this source and noticed that it is a tip that was given on the condition of anonymity and the tape has not reached the news media. To assist, I placed a remark that explains no inquiry has been made into the organization (by name) at this point in time. They admit to individual arrests on both October 10th and October 12th, but do not have anything on actively affiliated Taliban operative groups in the news. I appreciate your work, and it is a pleasure to collaborate with you.

Twillisjr (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good edits! It's much more accurate (and neutral) now. Fortibus (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Malala Education Foundation doesn't seem to exist

I propose that this section be deleted or reduced and merged because the references given do not demonstrate the existence of any organization of that name. One reference says she wanted to establish it, the other, the very partisan video, says that the Foundation was "established in her name". Too weak, I feel. - Metalello ^talk 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that I don't think it exists. I tried to make that clear by using the word "organizing". Is there a way that we can reword it? A Google search does show that some other sites are reporting it -- a CS Monitor article has a quote from a family friend.

Can we hold off on merging for a day? I have a bunch of articles to go through (I ran out of time) and I may find something. Thanks for checking this. Fortibus (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, hold off. But I have seen nothing of substance. I propose something like "She spoke of starting a foundation, the MEF, to promote" etc. - Metalello ^talk 08:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Made this change. Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have changed, I'm changing it now. - Metalello ^talk 21:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

UN Special Envoy for Global Education website dedicated to Malala

Should this website not get a mention, I am Malala, by The Office of the UN Special Envoy for Global Education? [4] It is set up by Gordon Brown, the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education, and supported by Ban Ki-moon Secretary-General of the United Nations. There's a petition to sign too. 86.133.212.40 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It was launched today, by the way [BBC ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19944078]. 86.133.212.40 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! Just added it. Fortibus (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

Surely a good article would not have a DOB in 1997 at the top and another one at the bottom saying 1998 Bashereyre (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Many news reports got her birth date wrong, including Reuters, BBC, NPR. The 1997 birth date is extremely solid. I can walk you through the verification if you want. Fortibus (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

'Political activities' -- Marxism?

I am curious about the claim that this young person was a "Marxist" or "Marxist sympathizer". If there is validity (and verifiability) to this claim, then the related activities should be discussed as part of her politics. I had not heard of her before this event and I'm not an expert at all. A quick search for "Malala Yousafzi marxist" turns up articles like this one, making pretty strong claims about her relationship to US/Obama and her other political leanings. (And denouncing the groups who call this killing a simple false flag attack). It's not really coming across right now. Does anyone know more about this? groupuscule (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

She did attend a summer school in Pakistan for the International Marxist Tendency sympathizing group there (which actually does have a decent following). There's an image of her giving a speech at it on marxist.com --DM 794 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add a reference to this. Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed this material because it has not been written about in any reliable, independent sources. It seems to be a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The photo of her appearing to speak at a Marxist event does call for some mention, I feel. Though I haven't found an independent source for the pic and it might be photoshopped. - Metalello ^talk 21:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this has been censored from the article on this basis, but here's a Pakistani mainstream news source on her marxism: http://dawn.com/2012/10/25/a-flag-and-a-battle-plan/ 24.202.70.33 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:UNDUE cannot be reasonably applied when speaking of the article subject's own personal views. If we applied that, we would remove any mention of Marxism from the Karl Marx page, because it is clearly a minority viewpoint. You must respect that this person held these views, and that it is natural that many mainstream news sources would not mention it.24.202.70.33 (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The citation you provide is an opinion piece. It suffers from the exact same shortcomings as the earlier citations. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IronGargoyle. If you read that piece carefully there's nothing solid apart from "she spoke at the meeting". That could be mentioned but anything more than that is speculation. - Metalello ^talk 21:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Letter from Malala read at the latest congress of "The Struggle" in Lahore: “First of all I’d like to thank The Struggle and the IMT for giving me a chance to speak last year at their Summer Marxist School in Swat and also for introducing me to Marxism and Socialism. I just want to say that in terms of education, as well as other problems in Pakistan, it is high time that we did something to tackle them ourselves. It’s important to take the initiative. We cannot wait around for any one else to come and do it. Why are we waiting for someone else to come and fix things? Why aren’t we doing it ourselves?

I would like to send my heartfelt greetings to the congress. I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.” - Malala Yousafzai

It shouldn't be at all surprising to anyone that the mainstream media will not report on this. I personally know the people referenced in the article, and can verify the accuracy to myself at least...but you know...this is obviously not a source which can be used as "proof". Hopefully another source for the letter can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilltherevolutionist (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 October 2012

Want o edit the school and website detail Amina007 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Kindly provide the details of the content you want to add with sources, so it can be done for you. --SMS ^Talk 20:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Amina007, you can edit semiprotected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed. Your account is old enough, you just need a few more edits (at least 10 total). I'm marking this request as answered now, to get it off the request list. If you provide the information Smsarmad requested, then you can reopen the request. RudolfRed (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malala Yousafzai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gwickwire (talk · contribs) 01:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	May need a small amount of inline citation to be added.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most main ideas about topic are addressed, as far as I can tell.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	One outstanding edit request on talk page, and it's a current event so may change frequently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes, as far as I can see no major problems to prohibit it from being a GA

(Just a note to anyone who cares, I almost broke the table when I was trying to finally assess it... I didn't think that was too bad of a sign though. :) gwickwire | Leave a message 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has had hundreds of edits from multiple editors in the last few days, and based on its subject matter, will be changing more as events unfold. How can this possibly meet the "Stability" GA criterion? Other problems: many citations are improperly formatted (containing only a title and a link); some sources probably do not qualify as reliable sources (their validity should at least have been discussed here); the prose relies too heavily on quotations; prose does not appear to be neutral. Sasata (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in the past, many articles have been promoted even as current events. I am in the process right now of making a list of sources to remove, and when done will remove them all in one edit. As far as I could see, the prose wasn't too far off from neutral, if you disagree I am open to your opinion. In other words, I will go and take another look. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of edits from a few editors. The article was a skeleton that we massively updated -- that's not going to continue happening. As for unfolding events, it's really only her medical treatment. That's one section of many. Gwick, you mention "removing them all in one edit". That scares me, since I wrote most of this. How does that process work? Do I get a chance to fix them before you mass delete?

As for not being neutral, could you elaborate on that Sasata? I'd love to fix it. Also, you mention unreliable sources. Could you please tag these with {Better source}? I'm very dedicated to this article and will make any improvements needed. Fortibus (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 If you would like, sure. I will post a list here. See, I went ahead and passed this because I feel it meets the criteria enough. I'm going to look at the links tomorrow (in about 16 hours or so), as I have some other stuff I'm doing right now. I just don't want to make a bajillion small edits to remove one bad link at a time. :) gwickwire | Leave a message 02:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Fortibus (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I was going to do it right after I reviewed this, but.. I totally forgot it was Monday, and I had homework to do... So, like I said, I will try to get to it tomorrow, but definitally within a week at the latest. (By the way, I'm doing these short responses in between homeworks.. Wikipeida Addict much?) gwickwire | Leave a message 03:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment

It looks like someone reassessed the article and demoted it, and I have to agree. Nominating this article was too premature. Current events can change rapidly. The nominator should have waited for her treatment to be finished so we'll know if she's likely to live or died, and waited for the investigations to be complete, so we know exactly what happened at the shooting incident. Current events are generally bad ideas for GA nominations, and I'm disappointed that the first reviewer did not take this into account. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See, the way I interpreted it was that it couldn't be changing frequently due to edit conflicts or content wars. That, to me, doesn't prohibit current events from being Good Articles. However, I can accept the decision to demote it for the time being. I may nominate it at a later date if it stops being so current. Thanks for your feedback. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gwick. Look at the policy. "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]" Clicking on the reference shows this: "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

Therefore the nomination clearly should have been put on hold. Futuretrillionaire, where do you see a basis (in policy) for delisting it? Fortibus (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you say that someone "reassessed the article and demoted it" -- what are you referring to? The only thing I see is you editing the page to remove the GA status. Where can I find the other assessment? Fortibus (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's on the top of the talk page. Find "article milestone" and open it. I was not the one who reassessed it. I was the one who removed the GA icon after seeing the reassessment. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Fortibus (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

POV article

Now I'm not a big fan of the Taliban, but this article does seem to have some anti-Taliban undertones. For an example, the use of the phrase "Taliban regime". The word regime has negative connotations and shouldn't be used for the sake of neutrality. Also, this article seems to ignore criticisms of Malala. The entire article seems to praise her. Since Malala received significant criticism from the Taliban, a detailed section explaining their criticisms is needed. Otherwise, this article is POV. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "regime" should be removed. But when it comes to criticisms, the article should match the balance of praise/criticsm out in the world. And that balance is overwhelmingly positive. Remember that she was recognized internationally and has had a UN petition named after her. Giving Taliban detractors their own section would simply be giving them too much weight.

But to your point, the article does mention their criticisms of her, at least twice. Fortibus (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP’s policy is: “Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.” I would argue that the Taliban viewpoint is significant because it lead to the shooting. A new reader would probably want to know why the Taliban tried to kill her, and the article currently doesn’t seem to explain that clearly. The rise to fame section says “As Yousafzai became more recognized, the dangers facing her became more acute. Death threats were published in newspapers and slipped under her door.” The section does not even attempt to explain why the Taliban sent the death threats . I don't see any mention of Taliban criticisms of her prior to this section. I agree that we shouldn't elaborate too much on their viewpoint, but some explanations are needed.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that -- on the basis of a reader's ability to find relevant information. I deleted "regime" and consolidated their criticisms (they were under "public reactions"). How does it look now? Fortibus (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks good enough. However that explanation (under "Taliban claims responsibility") is written after the "rise to fame" section, which contains content regrading death threats. Again, new readers might get confused at that section if they didn't read the "Taliban claims responsibility" first. But whatever, that's not neutrality issue. I do see some other organizational and clean-up problems. As for now, I think the neutrality issue has been addressed. I'll remove the tag. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually expanded it some more. Not sure how to fix that "rise to fame" section. Hopefully they'll keep reading? Fortibus (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about. I've added a brief explanation in that section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Malala Education Fund

When I click on Malala Education Fund it redirects to the Malala Yousafzai article. Can someone explain to me why/how this happens and how to fix it? Fortibus (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've unredirected it, so you should be able to start an article there now. (Done by clicking on the blue "redirected from..." when you arrive at the article it's redirected to.) Rothorpe (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have enough to start an article, to be honest. I was just curious how that works. Fortibus (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, an admin will delete it if you don't start it. Rothorpe (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Which has now happened. But I had to do it to remember how to do it... Rothorpe (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Source 35 misused

"Sharia law does not grant the same rights for women as for men,[35]"

Technically this may be accurate as proponents openly claim it grants not the same but "equal" rights to women. However, the author's words imply cruelty and injustice rather than any such nuance. I doubt Malala herself assigns the denial of education to Sharia over the Taliban groups operating in the region. Did the act signed into law stipulate such a thing?

Regardless, this is a blanket statement made of a vast and complex subject with a lengthy history. The bbc source attached to it does not mention such a view either. Lastly, the very next statement to this one ("it is unclear whether...") negates the relevance of any such information/opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.230.222 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Half of the source is an opinion article. The effects of Sharia law on women is not discussed in detail in the non-opinion portion. As for the statement, I agree, it greatly oversimplifies the issue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I wrote it and I don't entirely disagree with your points -- it's not a perfect sentence. I'm essentially trying to say that the regulation was controversial, many saw it as an abidcation of Taliban demands to enact sharia. We know Malala didn't like burqas, for example, and the Taliban had at one point required that they be worn. It's this kind of thing I was trying to describe. It seems like a reasonable and neutral thing to say -- that the event probably affected her. Any suggestions on how to write what I'm saying?

As for the article, it's lengthy, but it does talk about men having different rights that women. It's probably not the best source due to its length. Fortibus (talk)

As long as you have sources backing your statements, that's fine. WP:OR is not acceptable. Also, this statement needs citation: "she had become more outspoken at this time." Not to mention that it's very vauge -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:OR. I'm saying use the facts we have to provide a new insight into the issue -- I saw this simply as clarification of factual events. For example:

"Malala is quoted to have dislike wearing burqas. The Taliban's interpretation of sharia requires women to wear burqas. The regulation that Zardari passed was controversial because it established sharia law in Swat, and many saw it as an abdication to Taliban demands. Sources also state that the sharia law would be hijacked by the Taliban. Sharia law (especially the Taliban's version) treats women differently than it does men (a broad but true statement). Malala's opinion of the particular regulation is unknown, but she did become more politically active at this time."

I can source every statement above. That's the kind of thing i'm talking about. I'm not sure the best way to say it. Fortibus (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what I'm trying to say is, this statement: "Sharia law does not grant the same rights for women as for men," and this one "but she had become more outspoken at this time" need to be more specific. The first sentence should mention examples of how Sharia law was imposed in the area. New readers might not know what Sharia law is, and might need examples, especially considering that this is the first sentece that mentions Sharia law in this article. The burqa I think might be a good example. As for the second statement, what exactly did she do that's "politically active"? Did she spoke in interviews, gave speeches, or what? The statement is vague. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Brought some sources in and removed other stuff. Check it out. Fortibus (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice, much better. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan Penal Code

I've noticed a lack of correlation between Malala Yousafzai's attackers and The Pakistan Penal Code. Based on the sections referring to certain protections of women and children (and punishments that follow), can this be included in the article under "Criminal Investigation?" Or is this an area that belongs to a separate piece of the article? Thanks!

Twillisjr (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Added this and it was removed:

Pakistan Penal Code

The assault of Malala Yousafzai was reported as justifiable under Swat law. However, The Pakistan Penal Code states otherwise:

354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation

Whoever commences the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Twillisjr (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The trial for the suspects have not begun yet. I don't see the real need to include this. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you list the link where it says it's justifiable? I feel like you could make this just two sentences. Something like, "The assualt on Yousafzai has been reported as justifiable under Swat law (source). This appears to contradict items under the Pakistan penal code (source)"

The question then is: why does/doesn't it apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortibus (talk • contribs)

Unless the relevance of these sections of the penal code to this case is actually discussed in reliable sources, including this material constitutes original research -- specifically, WP:SYNTH. Editors' inferences don't belong in the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Overstatement?

I could be wrong about this, but this part of the lede seems confusing to me: "In early 2009, at the age of 11, Yousafzai came to prominence through a blog she wrote for the BBC", and then later it says "Yousafzai began to rise in prominence, giving interviews in print and on television". So she began to become famous twice?? I'm getting the sense that she didn't actually became prominent until after the interviews. To say that she did become prominent because of the 2009 diary series might be an overstatement. So I recommend removing the "rise in prominence" in the first sentence I quoted. Of course, if someone can provide a good amount of sources from back then mentioning her, then keep it as it is, but the double mentioning of her rising prominence is still a little confusing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, first "prominent" should be gone. The blog was widely read, but it wasn't revealed to be her until later that year. She did do a TV interview in February, but most stuff was later. That's my understanding, at least. Fortibus (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good eye. Fortibus (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS

We are using quotes in a somewhat bizarre manner in this article. In particular, the use of the {{Cquote}} template is inappropriate generally here and in one instance is absolutely ludicrous (ie: "My purpose is to serve humanity."). I realise that WP:MOSQUOTE is a guideline rather than policy, but it is a commonly-accepted guideline and we should adhere to it. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pro Malala mood in Pakistan is waning

Some new sources seem to indicate that the overwhelmingly pro Malala mood in Pakistan is changing.

• After a Bullet in the Head, Assaults on a Pakistani Schoolgirl’s Character Follow
• Malala and anti-Malala Pakistan — Dr Mohammad Taqi
• TTP labels Malala as 'an American spy'

Should these or some other similar sources be worked into the article? I brought these here to seek some comments before going ahead.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources you provide show clearly that it is a matter not of the pro-Malala mood waning but rather of pro-Taliban forces engaging in damage control and media fightback. There's a section under "Taliban attack" that has the rudiments of this. It could be expanded or split into a new section under "Reactions" somehow. - Metalello ^talk 15:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I think your interpretation of the sources is correct. The BBC too says [5]:"...The attack on Malala, in which two other schoolgirls were wounded, was overwhelmingly condemned in Pakistan. Groups that have previously expressed some sympathy for the Taliban's cause largely denounced the targeting of children..." The NYT too notes the pro-Taliban forces becoming active:[6]

"... Her plight has set off an outpouring of international concern and sympathy, attracting tributes from movie and music stars and world leaders. In Pakistan, however, the mood has swung back and forth.

Initially, Pakistanis united in a wave of revulsion against the Taliban, ... But in recent days, Ms. Yousafzai’s case has become politicized, with right-wing politicians circulating doctored images suggesting that she is an American government agent.

A government-sponsored parliamentary motion that condemned the attack on her and also mentioned a possible military operation has met with trenchant resistance from the main opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N."

I think the NYT source best summarizes the new situation and could be used? We could add the other sources as support for those who want more details?OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to volunteer and edit the article. Just one advice of caution though: be careful not to over-generalise. Sure, there might be conspiracy theories doing the rounds among some people, but the majority of the public, media, government, politicians and other public figures etc. in Pakistan are on the same line on this issue. The view of the majority must still be presented as the majority POV. Mar4d (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Location of her wounds

Early stories stated that she had been shot in the head and neck, implying two bullets. If you listen carefully to this doctor's words it seems that there was only one bullet, which entered her head at the top and exited below the jaw, lodging finally in her shoulder. (To me this strongly suggests she ducked her head moments before the shot.) Unless I hear counterevidence I am going to use this video to rewrite the description of the attack slightly. - Metalello ^talk 23:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You should also mention what was initially reported. But other than that, go with it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, drawing inferences from the interview about things not explicitly stated is original research; likewise, any speculation about what position she was in at the time she was shot that is rooted in that inference is just that, speculation. Neither belong in the article, which, like every Wikipedia article, must stick to what is explicitly stated in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Speculation about her position I would of course leave out - no question. But we have in the video a clear description of her wounds from a doctor who has examined her, a description that explicitly mentions only one bullet. I don't see that as inferential. Deriving two bullets from early reports is on the other hand clearly inferential, as none of them state that. Such is my view. - Metalello ^talk 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

He clearly says (more than once) that there was one bullet. No inference needed for that. From the path, she must have been ducking, but we can't draw that conclusion in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't hear him say there was only one bullet. I heard him describe the wounds caused by one bullet, wounds that were still a cause for concern because there was an infection in the bullet track. Whether or not there was another bullet -- say, a through-and-through flesh wound that was not a cause for concern and he may not have mentioned -- I haven't any idea. Mentioning only one bullet is not the same as explicitly stating there was only one.

Look, I'm not trying to be obtuse: I agree that on the basis of this video it's probable there was only one bullet, and that initial reports of here having been wounded in the "head and neck" probably led to erroneous reports about there being two. I agree that it's a reasonable inference from the interview that there was only one bullet: but it is an inference, no matter how reasonable, and Wikipedia articles don't contain inferences, because inferences are original research. Unless reliable sources say explicitly "she was shot once" or "she was shot twice", neither statement belongs in the article because neither statement is verifiable.

It's perfectly adequate to say "she was wounded in the head and neck" and remain silent on the question of how many times she was shot. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I grok you. What I'm going to do is describe her wounds in detail per the doctor's statement without mentioning numbers of shots, and leave it to the reader to infer one bullet. - Metalello ^talk 19:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sticking to what has previously been published in reliable sources sometimes requires some creativity when we suspect those sources may have made an error but we have nothing else to draw on. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

He says "the bullet" several times - every time, in fact. He says "the bullet" struck the side of her head and went on to her scapula. That means that one bullet caused her wounds. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)