Talk:Treatment of women by the Taliban

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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.
:@Fateh  You can feel free to be offended as much as you want, but "..the Taliban have turned the clock back on women's rights in Afghanistan by instituting a policy based on a mixture of conservative Deobandi teachings and traditional Pushtunwali conceptions of a women's place..." [Larry Goodson, @Afghnaistna's Endless War, Univ of Washington Press]. The academic books say you're wrong. (06:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: ::Sherucij, I'm not clear why you removed this information:
::They faced public floggingA woman being [[flogging|flogged] in public]. and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws. , Physicians for Human Rights, August 1998."100 Girls' Schools in Afghan Capital Are Ordered Shut", The New York Times, June 17, 1998.
::This information is relevant to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Men also faced flogging and execution...that is an issue of law, not of women. Would we also say "Women wore shoes"? If the stated fact is identical for men and women, it doesn't belong in a "Women in X" article. If we have a reference suggesting women had different punishments than men, we should include it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  09:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherucij, this article is about women and their treatment.  Please stop with POV deletions and bad faith edits.  Your most recent edits cannot be taken seriously, as you added fact tags to material after removing the relevant sources.  If this behavior continues, I may have to file a report. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence to suggest I ever removed a source and then added a fact tag. The tags I added were to facts that had no citation at any time. Please stop suggesting otherwise. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  09:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence?  You removed sources supporting the material in the lead and added fact tags.  You continue to do this and claim that aren't doing it?  I'm sorry, but you cannot be taken seriously.  Frankly, you should be reverted on sight as a vandal. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pay close attention to the edits before criticising them, none of the fact tags were appended after statements which ever had sources. Thus, I did not "remove sources and then add fact tags", they were completely separate issues. I removed facts unrelated to the "Taliban treatment of women", such as an unnamed villager's quote about her burqa stealing her face, and added fact tags to statements like "Women were forbidden to appear on the balconies of their apartments or houses." Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  09:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your deletions and addition of fact tags are in question.  Please defend them or self-revert. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are reduced now to what is essentially name-calling, can I assume you retract the accusation that I added fact tags to statements after removing their sources? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are apparently reduced to dishonesty, since you have not addressed my question nor do you intend to do so except by continually distracting from the topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Sherucij, I don't understand why you removed sourced information from Latifa () with the edit summary, encyclopedias don't quote random unnamed strangers opinions. It's getting difficult to continue assuming good faith with you, so I'm going to ask you very nicely to stop removing material from the article before discussing it here.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if a newspaper says "One local resident said that the proposed railroad station would mean he could no longer rock his child to sleep on his front porch", we surely wouldn't put that under the National Rail System article, right? We don't quote random villagers opinions and stories, we are an encyclopaedia, not a human-interest story. The fact one woman had an interesting story to tell about how the Burqa affected her is not something you'd find if you looked up Burqa in an encyclopaedia, just like how looking up Whales wouldn't turn up "One Finnish sailor once said that whales were "the angels of the seas". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  09:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is relevant and has been widely covered by reliable secondary sources.  Your edits are a violation of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for a Finnish sailor saying that whales are "the angels of the seas" may be relevant and covered by reliable secondary sources, that doesn't mean it belongs in the article Whales. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Address this topic or don't reply. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am addressing this topic. I am stating that a single non-notable person's quote to a reporter regarding their personal experience with bicycles, burqas or belugas does not belong in an Encyclopaedia article about that subject. We deal in facts, not amusing tales, woeful stories or cute adages. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The person in question is notable and has published a notable book that has been covered by reliable secondary sources.  Clearly, you are not interested in facts nor do you have any experience dealing with them. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherurcij, there's clearly no consensus for these changes, so could you please leave the article as it is while your proposals are dicussed? SlimVirgin talk|edits 10:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: (outdent) Since there are a wide number of changes, ranging from the addition of approximately a dozen fact tags, three clarify tags, two who-tags, simple NPOV wording ("forced" versus "required") and additional sources (the condemnation by Amnesty and the United Nations for example), it seems strange to insist that everything be reverted. Instead, as Viriditas has done, please raise specific objections to any changes, or revert single edits that you feel need discussion first. Edit-warring is not the answer, I've already put up an RfC. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  10:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: October overhaul

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, so perhaps others will step in and address it.  Does the article imply or suggest that these things are only women's issues? Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The title does actually. If men are treated in the same appalling way, we need to make that clear, otherwise we get bias - as we are implicitly implying that women are particularly singled out for a specific treatment (maybe they are, of course - check the sources). For instance, if I had an article on Jews in the US, where I stated that "in the US, Jews can be executed for several crimes" but failed to mention that the same laws applied equally to non-Jews, that would be biased.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott sums it up perfectly in my opinion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources that make those claims. The title implies nothing other than the scope.  And, the article does not imply or suggest that executions were only issues related to women.  I'm afraid this discussion is not going anywhere unless someone provides sources and shows actual examples of bias from the article.  If there is actually bias, then this would be very easy to prove. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Are men punished "the same" for the same crimes, or are the criminal sanctions for acts based primarily on the sex of the accused?  Are men punished for gaining an education, driving, leaving their faces open, or wearing fingernail polish?  Is this not "solely" a female issue?  Further, is this article about how the Taliban treated men?  Or is about how the Taliban treated women?   Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Was corporal punishment and capital punishment a solely women's issue?

message: These are from the first 50 of 166 results of a Lexis/Nexis search, all of which predate 9-11:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Selected quotes:
*"Armed men in turbans force a woman from the truck, and make her kneel at the penalty line on the field. Confused and unable to see, the woman tries to look behind just as a rifle is pointed against the back of her head. With no fanfare, she is shot dead."
*"From now on a yashmak must be a free-flowing loose garment that should on no account show the woman's figure, 'so as not to lead the righteous Muslims into sin'. The Afghan Islamic Press agency reports that special police units observing Islamic morality are to control that the newly-issued instructions are followed."
*"Dragging the country into worse than medieval status, they have forced women to always be veiled from head to toe whenever they appear in public. They have been banned from holding jobs, except in some public health sectors, such as doctors or nurses. They are barred from voting, and denied education and proper health care."
*"Bizarre rules were added daily: no television or radio, no music, clapping, singing or dancing, no kite flying, for heaven's sake. Women had to cover the windows of their homes with paint and stay behind purdah walls so no man could see them. If they were caught in the company of a man other than their husband, brother or son, they could be stoned to death. Makeup, nail polish and high-heeled shoes were anathema to the Taliban. Women were even forbidden to wear white socks - the only item of clothing that shows under the burka - because white is the colour of the Taliban flag."
*"The Taliban rule with ferocious cruelty. They permit no civil rights, no due process, no freedom of thought. Under the Taliban, women are repressed more fearfully than anywhere else on earth - forbidden to go to work or to school, forbidden to laugh out loud, forbidden to appear in public except under escort, and even then only when shrouded from head to toe. Torture is widespread, and the Taliban, who are Sunni Muslims, have massacred minority Shiites by the thousands."
Tom Harrison Talk 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding these, Tom. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course they were, read what AI has to say on the rights of women from 1994 to 2001. I watched the taliban kill women for adultery on the BBC several times before 9/11. (Hypnosadist) 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Geo heres one of your favourites HRW from 1999 http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/women/women3.html (Hypnosadist) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: AND http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan3/afgwrd1001-03.htm (Hypnosadist) 08:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: 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)
replies: text: Are you actually arguing that the Taliban's treatment of women (which this article is actually about) has some similarity with a law that requires people to wear shoes in a mall?  Is there some difference between males and females wearing shoes into a mall in the West?  Are the laws enforced with brutality in case a female does not wear shoes?  Are you actually arguing that a law that coerces a female to wear a burqa on pain of death has some similiarity to a law requiring a person to wear shoes in a mall?  That this is some sort of fashion statement by the Taliban?  I'm sorry, but I find your argument and attempt to tie one of set of laws in the West with laws forcing females to wear burqas in Afghanistan under the Taliban to be extremely weak. I also find your own POV to be showing at this point. Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some difference between males and females wearing shoes into a mall in the West? -- is there some difference between males and females being executed for breaking the law? Because the article doesn't imply that, it just says that women were subject to capital punishment - as though that's somehow notable. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, executing people for breaking the law is not notable?  Thanks for confirming that position, but I find that somewhat notable.  The difference:  In the West, men and women are held to the same standard for not wearing shoes in the mall, their crimes being the same underlying offense regardless of sex.  Under the Taliban, the males would be admonished, while the female executed for showing flesh while not wearing shoes.  Therein lies the difference with how the Taliban treated males as opposed to females.  The law was applied in differing degrees to females, inequally, for the same offense.  Add that in with other strictures that targeted females solely, and the law was utilized to oppress females as a class under the Taliban.  Propaganda?  I think not.  The logical underpinnings of this argument is undeniable.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Under the Taliban, the males would be admonished, while the female executed for showing flesh while not wearing shoes." Have any evidence to suggest women were executed for not wearing shoes, or is this just more of your dreamworld trying to make it the most insane government in history? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  13:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that my response will not copy your uncivil attitude towards anyone who disagrees with your positions.  The burqa you mentioned earlier covers females from head to toe, and they were subject to being publically whipped for having uncovered ankles.http://www.equalitynow.org/english/actions/action_1601_en.html However, they could also, technically, be stoned to death for adultery.  As for your other comments, yes, it was, in many ways, the most insane "government" in history.  That's who no self respecting country on Earth recognized them as a legitimate government.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The same old problem users

message: 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)
replies: text: The broader article Women in Afghanistan already exists. The relationships between women's rights under Taliban 1.0, the Islamic Republic, versus Taliban 2.0 will have to be added based on sources if they're not yet included (which is quite likely). Boud (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broaden the scope of this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is an article describing subjects, including execution... 173.180.202.22 (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elimnate the clip 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Remove "Joke Line": 

message: Long time later but if anyone has time may be worth checking . 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)
thread_title:  Long time later but may be worth checking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islamic point of view 

message: The link from the first illustration is dead. 217.210.200.246 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040630222057/http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticleprint/2004/03/176a7386-97d6-4f9b-bec7-b403f88633cc.html to http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticleprint/2004/03/176a7386-97d6-4f9b-bec7-b403f88633cc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030510100948/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110051997?open&of=ENG-AFG to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110051997?open&of=ENG-AFG
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*the ban was largely reported in one region of Kabul and NPR says it is "unclear" if it applied extensively.
*A notice by the Taliban ministry of education says that the ban on female teachers is a "misunderstanding", and "Until there's an official letter, they [female teachers] are allowed to continue their jobs and come to school."
*the NPR article says nothing about female students being banned yet but that the actions have "raised concerns that the Taliban intends to ban all formal schooling for girls by banning their teachers".
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)
thread_title:  Primary schools banned? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If these were only from 1996-2001, then all of these should probably be a lower level section regarding the history of this during that time period, similar to how #Post-2021 takeover is its own section. I think for casual readers the "current treatment" may be useful to have identified easily. — xaosflux Talk 21:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Also some of these appear to only apply in certain cities? — xaosflux Talk 21:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions when and where? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are right, this was also what I thought while updating. But its difficult to frame two governments 10 years apart that only with time tend to adapt to one another. In 2021, the Taliban appeared as the reformed ones...up until recently the Taliban had moderate (for the Taliban moderate), support for women education. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the 'Post-2021 takeover' section? 

message: * Female Afghan employees detained since Taliban ban, UN says, Al Jazeera 9 May 2023
 Bookku    (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs