Talk:Malala Yousafzai/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Update Friday 26 Oct

Update on her condition: [1]. 86.133.212.40 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hudood Ordinance

I'm unfamiliar with the Hudood Ordinance, but wondered if the laws correlated with her punishment. Any experts out there? :)

Twillisjr (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Malala attack

Hi guys. I have been working on the draft of an article on conspiracy theories about attack on Malala. Please see User:OrangesRyellow/Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala. It has been suggested that instead of creating a new article on the conspiracy theories, it may be better to add the material to this article itself and that a new article should not be created without seeking consensus here.User talk:RHaworth#Malala Yousafzai. So, I have brought it here for opinions from eds on this article. Comments please. OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a new article. A subsection should suffice. Some assessment of the prevalence of these theories would be useful. That is to say, are they from a handful of fringe bloggers or do they represent a sizeable portion of public opinion? We have one indication above that they represent a very minority view. - Metalello ^talk 02:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. I will wait for a day or two and then add the material in a new sub-section.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now added the material. I would feel more comfortable if you take look.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work. The subsection titled "Bloggers" is a total mess. Ahmed's statement and retraction seem far too minor to be included as a fully fledged conspiracy theory. And there are potential OR and unsourced statements all over the place. I'll go through it tonight and mark everything that's problematic. - Metalello ^talk 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, the section seems undue weight unless it can be shown that the coverage of the conspiracy theories is approaching the level of attention to her other activities. It seems about 50-70% longer than it should be given the length of the rest of the article and the coverage. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of name?

I have been used to Yousafzai, but now there has appeared Yousufzai. Rothorpe (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Need of hatnote to Malala (village).

The page Malala now redirects here. So, this article needs a hatnote to the Indian village (like the example below).

"Malala" redirects here. For the village in India, see Malala (village).

187.68.49.198 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done – Richard BB 11:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2013

Please change A number of prominent individuals, including the Canadian Minister of Citizenship, are supporting a petition to nominate Yousafzai for the Nobel Peace Prize.[16] to A number of prominent individuals, including the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, are supporting a petition to nominate Yousafzai for the Nobel Peace Prize.[16] because the "Prime Minister of Canada" is a more prominent person than the "Minister of Citizenship" the source [16] is the same: http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/nobel-peace-prize-for-malala 123.227.11.159 (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New award

Turk of the year from TheYoungTurks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deYbXuhhRJs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.60.58 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2013

Under the heading of Conspiracy Theories, Second paragraph, Third line - "Defending her actions, Ms Qaqi....", "Qaqi should be replaced by "Qazi" as that's the mentioned person's name. There's a spelling mistake. Vijay S Paul (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image (File:Malala.jpg) is very likely a copyright violation (tineye search, expires in 72 hours: http://www.tineye.com/search/a1d0436343a11fcb21496637c3b90b6db1db1ced/). Please remove it. 98.195.71.253 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no image there, only a redlink. I also see no evidence that a file at that title has previously been deleted. Closing this request as Not done: no action taken. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The image was deleted on Commons, and redlinked at the top of the page when you commented... It has since been removed. 98.195.71.253 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section

While conspiracy theories can be considered germane, even considering WP:BLP, should there be such a lengthy list of mixed conspiracy theories, rather than a more simplified general listing? Opinions?Wzrd1 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My original intention was to create a separate article. It was suggested by an admin that instead of creating a new article, it should be added to this article. Please see User talk:RHaworth/2012 Dec 05#Malala Yousafzai, #Conspiracy theories about Malala attack, User:OrangesRyellow/Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala, User talk:OrangesRyellow/Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala for a better overview of the discussion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture?

Can't you guys get a better picture for her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As you can edit as well as we can, WP:Be Bold and find a non-copyrighted, free to use image of her. There is no "you guys", there is only WP:anyone can edit.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malala Yousafzai/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

This article is ridiculously long. And therefore violates criteria 3B. Sections that require significant trimming/outright removal include:

1. Criminal investigation
2. Conspiracy theories
3. Awards and honors (Seriously, this should be at most 1/3 of its current size)
4. Early life (Again, this requires a major cut down)

"My purpose is to serve humanity." This box quote should be removed, or at least formatted properly. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"and Taliban commanders were still alive" What does that mean? Please clarify, I think we all know taliban commanders are alive. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article also fails to mention her speech at the UN, which is an event she is known globally for. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To sum up, I have serious concerns about this article. It has been delisted before and probably won't pass this review either. I'll place it on hold expecting some major improvements be made. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't worked on this one previously, but this happens to be an article I'm interested in as one of the 100 most popular WikiProject Human Rights articles. I may see what I can do about addressing the above in the next few days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Khazar2 You are most welcome to try, do you want me to leave the GA review open? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I should get to this sometime in the next few days. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To-do for self: reduce unneeded citations in lead -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I've been working on this for a few hours now, and I think you should fail it. You're right that the level of detail is just too much, while other aspects aren't sufficiently covered; I've now deleted close to half the article's prose, but expanding and making sure things aren't missing is going to take me longer. It's going to be a quite different article by the time I'm done and so probably doesn't meet the stability criterion, even if I got done in a reasonable timeframe.

Thanks for taking the time to review this, and good call on the 3b problems; it makes it easier for me to revise aggressively when a GA reviewer has pointed out the same issues. I do still hope to renominate this in a week or two, but we'll see. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I'll fail it, (Probably the best option). If you need a reviewer in a week or two or whenever you're done fixing the article, well, you know who to ask! Thanks, ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very kind of you to offer, but I think it's probably better to get a fresh reviewer just to get as many eyes on this important article as possible. I do appreciate your giving me a push to start revising this one, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Change the picture

There are far more better pics of her that this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.155.78 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The trick is we need a picture that isn't copyrighted. If you have a picture you took yourself to donate, we'd be glad to have it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To do

This article seems likely to fail its current GA review, but I'm interested in trying to bring it the rest of the way there and renominating. Here's a few things on my to-do list. Other input would be welcome. Thanks to everybody who's already added so much to this article!

• Balance US-centric reactions section (Angelina Jolie and Madonna and Laura Bush but no other heads of state outside US and Pakistan)--other reactions can surely be found
• Work to standardize the format of the awards/honors section; perhaps the most important award events could be described in prose, with a table for the rest
• Updating lead to remove unneeded citations, and better summarize body of article
• Update the criminal investigation section to note releases of the originally arrested suspects
• Check sources--for example, the current #94 has a 2004 date, which couldn't possibly describe a Nobel nomination for Malala

Let me know what you think. Thanks to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the above is largely done. I still wish it had a bit more worldwide reaction in the reactions section, but I think it's otherwise set. Other editors active here, do you have any suggestions before I renominate? I figure I'll give it 4-5 days to verify that the current version is stable, and then renominate. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've renominated above, but of course am still happy to discuss any concerns editors may have with these changes. Thanks again to everybody, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Autoarchiving

Since this talk page has gotten quite long(40+ threads), I'm setting up an autoarchiver to archive inactive conversations. If anyone objects, of course, feel free to revert, or I can. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Huff Post editorial

I've removed a new paragraph on an editorial by independent journalist Assed Baig, originally in the Huffington Post (which generally isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, though I don't know that that's an issue for opeds). I'm not sure that Baig's a significant enough figure to make it into the encyclopedic version of Malala's life when we're leaving out major writers like Nicholas Kristof (which we need to do, since so much has been written about her around the world) and far larger publications. What do others think? The sentence in question is here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A quotation from Baig's piece appeared in the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/07/19/malala_yousafzai_backlash_against_pakistani_teen_activist_spreads_in_her_homeland.html

Which claims in its About page: 'Today, the Toronto Star is Canada's largest daily newspaper, with the largest readership in the country.'

And also in Pakistan's The Friday Times: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20130726&page=25Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Thanks, that's a really good suggestion. Both those pieces are helpful in giving an overview of the commentary generally so that we're not just overemphasizing one random journalist's opinion by giving it a standalone paragraph. Let me know if you consider this version based on those sources reasonable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar, yes I like it but to be fair, Baig did describe her as being used to justify Western imperialism. He doesn't really blame Yousafzai in the original piece, but rather those who are exploiting her.Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

That's what I meant, but you're right that that's not clear in the version I just wrote. Thanks again for the suggestion. Will fix right now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Perfect :)Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malala Yousafzai/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyedits; I hope you don't mind. Here are the initial comments:

1. Well-written

A. Prose: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• The article is well-written, though a significant amount of the sentences begin with a date and it's a bit repetitive.

Okay, most sentences that start with a date have now been restructured. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• Minor issue with WP:words to watch - "some political parties, right-wing groups and other individuals have aired conspiracy theories..." Can you specify which political parties/groups/individuals?

• I can't, unfortunately. The source states only "some fringe Pakistani political parties and extremist outfits are working actively to spin the attack on Malala as the work of the CIA". It also links to a Tribune columnist stating "It would be hard to imagine how a counter narrative could be built around the gunning down of a child, but there it was, coming from our politically charged youth, our parties, our ultra-nationalists and religio-political parties, our extremist/banned organisations and yes, our relatives, peers and friends." I'm up for rewording this per any suggestions you might have; this is text I inherited in rewriting the article, so I'm not especially attached to it (though some mention of the conspiracy theories needs to be included). -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotations would help eliminate the WP:WTW issue: Although the attack was roundly condemned in Pakistan, "some fringe Pakistani political parties and extremist outfits" and other individuals have aired conspiracy theories, such as the shooting being staged by the American Central Intelligence Agency in order to provide an excuse for continuing drone attacks. --1ST7 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten per your suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Verifiable with no original research:

• Everything appears to be well-referenced.

1. Broad in its coverage:

• Article is focused and covers all of the main aspects of the topic.

1. Neutral:
2. Stable:

• No edit wars, etc.

1. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• There are currently no images in the article. They are not necessary for the article to be passed, but is it possible to add a picture of Yousafzai?

Aside from these issues, the article looks ready for promotion. I'll place it on hold for a week. Thanks for your work on this one! --1ST7 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review! I'm very happy to see you pass from quality GA-writing to reviewing so quickly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks! --1ST7 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: I saw this report online a few minutes ago. Please update the "Awards and honors" section. --1ST7 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to check in--anything left to do on this one? Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. 1A still needs to be addressed - the dating is bit repetitive. Can you reword a few of the phrases to make it flow better?

Ex. "In February 2009, girls' schools were still closed. In solidarity, private schools for boys had decided not to open until 9 February, and notices appeared saying so. On 7 February, Yousafzai and a brother returned to their hometown of Mingora, where the streets were deserted, and there was an 'eerie silence'" to "In February 2009, girls' schools were still closed, and private schools for boys announced that they would delay opening for one week in solidarity. On 7 February, Yousafzai and a brother returned to their hometown of Mingora, where the streets were deserted, and there was an 'eerie silence'." --1ST7 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to vary the structure more, but I'm surprised you consider a clarity issue to the degree that this doesn't meet GA requirements. Will get to it tomorrow if not tonight. Thanks again for the suggestions, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks for your work on it. --1ST7 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Malala Yousufzai

Malala is not ethnically a Pukhtun Yousufzai. She belongs to a family of Mullahs. Her great-grandfather migrated from Buner to Shangla. Her grand father Maulana Rooh-ul-Amin was a cleric. He was the Imam of a Mosque in his village Barkana and a teacher in a Government run High School in the adjacent village of Shahpur. His ethnicity as a Mulla can be verified from the revenue records of Shangla. Amjad.shahpur (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Amjad we need verifiable evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources that verify your claim. The one you are pointing to is a vague source that one hardly can verify. --SMS ^Talk 10:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no such ethnicity as "Mullahs". Mar4d (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I Am Mulala

I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban

by Malala Yousafzai (Author) , Christina Lamb (Contributor)

Hardcover: 352 pages

Publisher: Little, Brown and Company (October 8, 2013)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0316322407

ISBN-13: 978-0316322409

-- jwalling (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception in Pakistan

I'm a bit torn and not sure what to do. I split the general reception of her in Pakistan to its own section. I think that the UN Day section should only focus on comments relating to that event.

However, I know Wikipedia frowns on "criticism sections". So what do you suggest? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also this new NYTimes article:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/world/asia/pakistanis-cant-decide-is-malala-yousafzai-a-heroine-or-western-stooge.html?pagewanted=1

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: Thanks for splitting off Malala_Yousafzai#Reception_in_Pakistan. I saw the NY Times article myself and was curious to see what the Pakistani point of view is. I must say I am dismayed to see almost all references are Western. Surely there are reliable sources located in Pakistan / Afganinstan? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the NY Times article quoted there is by a Pakistani newspaper columnist. Hamida Ghafour, who wrote the Toronto Star piece, is from Afghanistan. I'd be happy to see that part expanded if anybody's interested to do the research, but I'm not sure you can say that the references for that section are strictly "Western". -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

new at this...

i think the site should have an audio function so that i dont totally butcher important names like malala yousafzai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktron9000 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

New nationality

Can somebody add that she (will be) is Canadian? http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201310/15/01-4700009-malala-yousafzai-aura-la-citoyennete-canadienne.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippy Killer (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Hippy Killer: thanks for your note - the info is in the intro+infobox now. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Her letter to International Marxist Tendency

Here is a letter Malala wrote to the IMT in Pakistan, from the UK hospital:

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.

Why is this not mentioned at all in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.20.201 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It needs a reliable secondary source per WP:RS, which hasn't appeared yet. Also, the article is a summary of coverage of Yousafzai, not a complete list of sources on her; since she's attained such global and persistent coverage, it'll probably have to appear in a few prominent places before it appears here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What is her first hospital ?

Hello. I'm trying to improve the French article, but I have a little problem. I had writte long time ago that her first hospital after the attack was the Swat Medical Compex in Saidu Sharif (according to this source). But this article says that she was directly transferred in Peshawar by helicopter. Do you have more informations ? Guillaume70 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The source you have presented is right, she was taken to the hospital in Saidu Sharif, Swat first from where she was moved to Peshawar Combined Military Hospital by a heli. As you can see in this set of pictures, there is a photo when she is being taken out from the ambulance at the Saidu Sharif hospital with a white cover on her that bears blood stains. And the other pictures that shows her being moved to and from heli show a white cover with no blood stains, indicating that she was indeed taken to a hospital where some necessary medical treatment was given to her to stop the bleeding before she was moved to Peshawar. There are a number of other sources that say the same: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. -- SMS ^Talk 20:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone add that her friends at school acted as first responders for her at the school? here is the online source...

In the absence of any other help, Malala’s friends acted as first responders after she was shot: “I was lying on Moniba’s lap, bleeding from my head and left ear. We had only gone a short way when a policeman stopped the van and started asking questions, wasting precious time. One girl felt my neck for a pulse. “She’s alive,” she shouted. “We must get her to hospital. Leave us alone and catch the man who did this.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreeaColvin (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

can you give your official connect to me Shameerahmad5 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're looking for methods of contacting Wikipedia, please take a look at Wikipedia:Contact us. If you have specific requests or problems with this article, please feel free to reopen this request and be a bit clearer with what you're asking. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Memoir publication data

Section 5, Works.
Previously we display in the lead bullet point "Orion. ISBN 978-0-297-87093-7."

Previously we say in the lead text, "In October 2013, Little, Brown and Company released ..."

---

In WorldCat library records for the English-language memoir -- [ref>"Formats and Editions of I am Malala". WorldCat. Retrieved 2014-04-11.</ref> -- I do not find that ISBN (having opened perhaps half of the 18 records).

I do find two pairs of ISBN evidently for British edition/s, evidently catalogued by a Danish-language library

• [7] quote: ISBN 9780297870913 0-297-87091-2 (Weidenfeld & Nicolson) 9780297870920 0-297-87092-0 (Orion Publishing Group)

and two pairs of ISBN evidently for American edition/s.

• [8] quote: ISBN 9780316322409 : 0316322407 (Little, Brown and Company) 9780316403467 0316403466 (Hachette Book Group USA)

The associated publishers/imprints/&c and other bibliographic data are displayed on mouseover ISBN-10 (here; mouseover ISBN-13 or ISBN-10 at WorldCat). The "Orion" pair of ISBN, second in the UK/danish record, are assoc'd also with a shorter and slightly different subtitle, The Schoolgirl Who Stood Up to the Taliban. The HGB pair are assoc'd with a slightly longer subtitle, The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.

---

In the lead bullet point, I hid the publisher and isbn fields using WP:COMMENT. I rewrote the lead text to name both hardcover imprints, W&N and Little, Brown. I don't know the significant difference between ISBN associated with imprint and those associated with the parent so-called publishers OG and HBG. Anyway both OG and HBG are owned by Lagardère.

--P64 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Other editions

Translations. WorldCat: "Yousafzai, Malala 1997-" shows that there were 2013 editions of the memoir in 14 other languages. Perhaps more, but none catalogued by WorldCat participating libraries. Of which the Dutch-language edition is much the most numerously catalogued by WCPL.

Young Reader Edition. ... And WorldCat shows that Little, Brown has now published a Young Reader Edition: I Am Malala: How One Girl Stood Up for Education and Changed the World (2014 --sorry, no page count).[9]

eBook. By google search ISBN 978-0-297-87093-7, I find that in the lead bullet point we have previously given data for the eBook edition. See page 41 of "Orion Publishing Group: New Titles Catalogue january–july 2014". (I opened no WorldCat records for eBooks.)

--P64 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Daily Show Appearance

Malala Yousafzai appeared on an episode of the Daily Show with John Stewart. It should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.222.35 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobel First

The article states "Although Yousafzai was widely tipped to win the prize,[6] it was awarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; however, she was the youngest person (at age 16) and the first girl nominated for it."

The first female nobel peace prize winner (not even nominee) was Bertha von Suttner in 1905 (according to this wiki). This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.252.143 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that the writer meant what he wrote: "the first girl nominated for it". All the female Nobel Peace Prize winners have been grown women. - Metalello ^talk 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the wording about Yousafzai being the youngest nominee, should be deleted. Nobel Prize nominations remain secret for fifty years. See http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/. There is no way of confirming whether, or not, Yousafzai is the youngest ever Nobel nominee. 70.128.115.79 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Removed. Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think there is sufficient material and discussion and analysis around the assassination attempt on Malala's life to merit splitting that content out to a new article, especially given she has received significant notability for many actions since that attempt. The article on the assassination attempt could go into more detail on the circumstances surrounding the attempt, the investigation, and the other victims of the attack, the aftermath of the attack, and other reactions, and would allow this article to focus more on her actions before and since the attack.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- She got notable only after that attempt and I don't see any reason to have another article on Malala.  SAMI  ^talk 16:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

the second article wouldn't be on her, it would be about the attempt on her life, aftermath and analysis.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

High Importance?

…Stealstrash (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: I think that Stealstrash refers to the WikiProject importance ratings. There are ten WikiProject banners at the top of this page; of those, six have |importance=high, two have |importance=mid, one (WikiProject Women writers) has not yet had the |importance= set, and one (WikiProject Biography) does not have general importance ratings. Two of the ten also have sub-projects where a separate importance rating may be set: on WikiProject Pakistan there are |Khyber-importance=Mid and |Education-importance=high, and on WikiProject Biography there is |politician-priority=mid.

It is important to remember that unlike the |class= ratings, each WikiProject has its own way of assessing the importance of a topic. So a topic that is high-importance to one WikiProject may well be mid- or even low-importance to another. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I just don't think that, however harrowing her experience, it is possible without being almost painfully "present-ist" in our view of the world to say the merits a rating of "High Importance" in such categories as women's history.Stealstrash (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph

The lede says, "She is known mainly for human rights advocacy for education and for women in her native Swat Valley, where the local Taliban had at times banned girls from attending school; this has since grown into an international movement."

Am I alone, or does this read as though banning girls from attending school has grown into an international movement? Keegan (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold rewording. Keegan (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

First two lines of above para are correct. The 3rd line creates ambiguity, I think.Nannadeem (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism in the 'Childhood' subsection of 'Early life section'

Is the socialism quote there accurate? I cannot find any sources for it apart from Communist mouthpieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.244.9 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of the name

"She was given her first name Malala (meaning "grief-stricken") after Malalai of Maiwand," whose article states that the name means "Grandmother". Of course, there is a missing 'i' which might change the meaning, but it still looks strange. --213.184.43.17 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

Please let me to edit this malala yousafzai info, i want to add some reality which didn't write in this article. Thanks! Sadam123456789 (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Stickee (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

hello Malala Yousafzai i request to you that i want to continue my daughter education but i do have the sufficient amount, please help me in this regards

37.105.80.237 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the talk page of this biography of a living person. Please note that this talk page should not be used to speak to the subject directly, as Wikipedia is not a site to make contact with other persons, and the article's subject is most likely not active on Wikipedia. Consider contacting the person off-wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Marienfred"

I had an edit rejected: [10]. Now, overlinking is one thing, but there is no such place as "Marienfred", at least not in Sweden. 83.253.1.17 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This editor is correct. Patrollers, please make sure your reverts don't decrease the quality of the article. - dcljr (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you go to the source (The Guardian web page), it does say "Marienfred, Sweden"; but further down, in the reader's comments section, there's a post from taomandola dated 29 October 2014 4:09pm, which simply says "Mariefred, Sweden (typo)". There's no page at Swedish Wikipedia for sv:Marienfred, but there is a sv:Mariefred - as indeed there is at English Wikipedia: Mariefred. Also, since this is the only point in this whole article that the word occurs, and it's a pretty obscure place compared to (say) Stockholm, WP:OVERLINK does not apply. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Section on Criticism needs editing

I would like to draw attention to the Criticism section. This section is poorly written and poorly sourced. I would like to suggest removing it until a better version is written because as it stands, it is written in biased fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:100:18CD:5C14:21E:52FF:FE74:D6A3 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section is poorly written and sourced. I'd be in favour of removing it until it is better drafted, but we must wait for other editors to voice their opinions. st170e^talk 15:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The section should be either removed, or more plainly labeled as conspiracy theory rather than criticism. The sources look to be rather shoddy and disreputable, and as it stands the section presents the conspiracy theory as fact.PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerns, and I'd add that criticism sections almost always raise NPOV problems. Based on this provisional consensus, I've removed the section pending further discussion. I would suggest that the quote criticizing giving the Nobel Peace Prize to activists be reinserted in another section, though--that's relevant and interesting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do not have a Criticism section, this will be POV and this will unnecessarily glorify the subject. I have included a revised version of the section below, which can probably be added back to the article: Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of a criticism section is not necessarily POV; most pages manage to get along fine without them, other than, say, contentious political figures or advocates for controversial scientific theories. Disregarding the outright conspiracy theory stuff, which should be removed on sight per BLP, the other items in the criticism section don't seem to merit a section of their own - dustup over a tweet and some Norwegian dude's personal opinion, plus some griping in Pakistan which I think is adequately covered in the already-existing "Reception in Pakistan" section. Unless there is something that is both more substantive and verifiable, there shouldn't be a criticism section added to the article.PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This "Norweigan dude"'s opinion, and that of Pakistan, is indeed notable. However, the tweet isn't. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Epicgenius. The current revision contains only positive materials. The criticism section should be added in a neutral tone. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What some people had to say was: "She is a normal, meaningless girl, nothing special." And the critical voices are entirely justified. What has she actually done? She wrote a weblog and survived accidentally an assassination attempt on her school bus. Was that really all? This is certainly good for her and her father, but far from being a sufficient reason to award her the Nobel Peace Prize. That she as a juvenile still got it, gets here in any case a bitter aftertaste. --188.23.162.32 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

On 1 January 2013, in a Twitter tweet, Malala commented on the cancellation of Bangladesh Cricket Team tour to Pakistan. She wrote on that tweet, “Absolutely gutted #Bangladesh canceled cricket tour of #Pakistan!: That not tiger move but cat,”. After the posting of the tweet, it was criticized by people who rather blamed the situation of Pakistan behind the cancellation of tour of Bangladesh Cricket Team. After a while of the criticism, she removed the tweet.

Malala has been criticised since the assassination attempt, even in her home country. After winning Nobel Peace Prize, despite praise, there were some and disapproval of the decision to award her Peace Prize.

A Norwegian jurist, Fredrik Heffermehl, commented on the winning of Malala's Nobel prize: “This is not for fine people who have done nice things and are glad to receive it. All of that is irrelevant. What Nobel wanted was a prize that promoted global disarmament.”

References

I agree that any meaningful criticism of Yousafzai should be included; I'd just dispute that the best way to do this is a standalone "criticism" section. If you'll look at Wikipedia articles on other controversial figures (take Richard M. Nixon or Nelson Mandela for two examples), you'll see that the common practice is to include criticism by topic or chronologically, not in a catch-all section. (WP:CRITS is a good essay on this.) In case of the text above, I'd think the logical place to insert it would be in the section on the Nobel Prize, where it balances with positive reactions--it doesn't need a standalone section. Having said my bit, I'll bow out after this, though. Thanks to everybody working to keep this article up-to-date! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Heffermehl has a valid point in some ways, but Malala is a very poor example to show it, compared to numerous other Nobel peace prize winners. The thing is, we no longer live in a world where a few individual citizens, without a firm connection to the political elite of their states, can really have a go at stopping the outbreak of a major war or turn around the arms race. That kind of thing has barely been possible since 1914, if you'd look at it realistically. At what point in the last hundred years did a peace movement literally stop the outbreak of a major war, or bring the war to an end by themselves, by marching in the streets or organizing rallies? Can you think of any time when an army in full forward motion or a band of diplomats were forced to a halt, forced to peace, by an idealistic newspaper editor or an NGO? Not even Amnesty or the New York Times have managed that, let alone the EU (an exceptionally ill-advised peace prize IMO, and effectively a piece of political messaging by the Norwegian Nobel committee).

Even the Vietnam war was ended by diplomats and cabinets, although the opposition against the war in the US and Europe had a powerful effect on popular attitudes to it. Nobel was imagining persons or civic leaders who would be able to have a powerful hand in stopping a war as it was about to happen, or already raging - against their own countries - but that kind of figure lost out to modern military states, to their resources and modern propaganda for good, already during the early decades of the 20th century. So the Nobel committee have had to widen the meaning of "working for world peace" and extend it to things like: encouraging broad mutual understanding, working for a more sane local economy or projects of self-help in poor countries, humanitarian work etc. Even Lech Walesa didn't actually stop a war or personally bring down the iron curtain, but he did personify the transition from autocracy to democracy and national liberation in Poland and in much of eastern Europe, and a relative lack of playing out moods of nationalist vengeance - and that's how he earned his Nobel prize. Strausszek (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

Please change the ethinicity of this girl. She is not Pakhtoon as her father now also bring his wife to the money market. Pakhtoons is not like that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.6.130 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

37.208.152.234 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I' love Malala. for ever by. mr. khan...

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this article blacked out for anyone else?

The background was black and ctrl+A revealed it was devoid of text. In order to read it, I had to go to the "View History" tab and click on the most recent version. I'm kind of worried about the ramifications of this. I'm hoping it's nothing more than a technical issue. --104.32.170.219 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's blacked out for me, too. I'm not sure what is causing it. There's no way it could be vandalism, could it? 50.81.22.246 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It was vandalism (but not to this page), which was reverted as soon as I spotted it at about 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC). Unfortunately, it had time to propagate, and although there will be no more propagation, we cannot tell which pages were affected, except that there could be as many as 5000. The affected pages will still show mainly black until any one or more of the following is done: (i) the page is edited; (ii) the page is WP:NULLEDITed; (iii) the page is WP:PURGEd; (iv) the page is reparsed at the server because of some other trigger. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over reasons for assassination

Can the article somehow be edited to make it clear that the reason for the assassination attempt had *NOTHING* to do with female education or her advocacy for this but for her political campaigning in collaboration with the BBC, NYT, US and Pakistani government. The Taliban made it quite clear that it was her political campaigning against the Taliban and her anti-Islam campaigning that was the cause for assassination, not wanting to go to school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.99.110 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

She never did any anti-Islam campaing. She was going to school, something that was prohibited by the idiots from Taliban, particularly by that Maulana Fazlullah individual. After the attack, Pakistan Taliban spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, claimed responsibility and threatened to attack her again, if she survives: “She was pro-West, she was speaking against the Taliban and she was calling President Obama her idol.” He added, “She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas.” What is being "pro-West" in this case? Simply going to school, being pro girl's education. Islam wants their women stupid, silent and submisse, and the only "anti-Islam" campaign she did was to want education as a girl.
If you have any evidence that she wasnt attacked because of the girl's education thing, please, point it. --CesarAKG (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC for Forking

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is against any split at this time. The majority opinion is that the article is not near WP:SPLITSIZE and is pretty much a WP:SNOW. As a side note, the page is at 30kb of prose since I didnt see it mentioned. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I am looking for opinions in order to save time on any debate that may arise later, so before doing these two I'd like other editors to contribute their opinions. Ty for helping.

1. should a Fork be created in the article in order to move the "assassination attempt" to a new article with more details of the event, it aftermath and reaction? The rationale being that "assassination attempts are usually given an article on wikipedia and that this section, despite being long and well sourced, still misses a lot of information which may appear undue here".
2. should the activism section be forked to a new article? same rationale as above

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose both I don't think that spinning out an article on either topic is consistent with WP:Summary style at this time. First off, I think it's a significantly inaccurate statement to say that most assassination attempts (or for that matter, assassinations) have their own articles; in reality, I believe only the smallest subset of assassination attempts/assassinations of preeminently important historical figures have independent articles, and only when those attempts or deaths had immense sociopolitical or historical fallout or the facts surrounding them were largely in contention, such that the sourcing and perspectives are so voluminous that it's impractical to attempt to summarize them in the main article. I don't want to minimize this young woman's courage or impact, which are considerable, but I just don't feel she is analogous to these figures in terms of sourcing. Further, Ms. Yousafzai's notability extends almost entirely from the assassination attempt and from the activism which preceded and followed it. Thus it seems that they ought to be discussed (to the fullest extent they are discussed anywhere on the project) in this space, and together. Now, she may well remain a lightning rod for responses to the movements she represents and may therefore attract yet more media coverage and discussion in broader sourcing, so my take on this issue may very well change down the line, but at present, I think the best way to cover her work and her influence in an encyclopedic fashion is through a unified article. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can see the argument for making it a separate article, however, it is not nearly long enough to need to be forked. It fits very well in her article as a whole. Have there been attempts at lengthening it and expanding it with people arguing that it's too long? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I came here after bot message. I support separate article at least for her activism. She is a Nobel laureate, she deserves separate article for her activism. I can't say about assassination attempt.--Human3015^TALK  00:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could elucidate this point a little further? The vast majority of Nobel laureate's who are covered on this project have only the one article, because the work which earned them the award is the same topic which their articles are chiefly concerned with. Such is the case here: Ms. Malala's activism is the cause for which she was given the award. It is also the reason for her notability and the vast amount of the sourcing and content which we use to discuss her in this article. We don't create extra articles just to celebrate a subject's status, we do it only in extremely rare cases where policy demands it for organizational purposes, per WP:Summary style. I think you may be putting the cart before the horse here, unless I am missing something. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Other nobel laureates usually gets award after age of 50-60. Till that time they already done with their work and they do nothing new after getting Nobel prize. But Malala is just 16-17 year old and she still has entire life to work in social field. Someday we will need separate page on her activism, then why can't we start it from now?--Human3015^TALK  02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Because we have several central policies (based on longstanding and broad community consensus) that govern us to make the decision to split articles based on the present practicalities, not our own guesswork as to what the situation will be in the future. It would be WP:Crystalball to suggest that a separate article is inevitable because of her forthcoming achievements or significance. And even if an editor were comfortable prognosticating as much, it would still be the case that the nature of our current content and sourcing governs how we organize the subject. And I just can't see any practical benefit to splitting the article, while a great deal of downside to spinning off material that is already well-discussed and properly contextualized here. Ms. Malala is known almost exclusively for her activism (and the unfortunate personal consequences, of course), so to spin that material out would mean moving the majority of this article to another namespace and leaving only scant personal details here. That's very much completely a backwards fashion of how BLPs (and broadly, any article representing a root topic) are meant to work.

However, at the same time, I should note that I also don't see any harm in augmenting the content on her activism here, if anyone has relevant content that they think belongs. If the section grows to unwieldy proportions (on WP:Due points; I don't want to inspire a glut of sub-par content just to sidestep the summary style issue), then we can always revisit this issue, but at present, the "continuing activism" section is largely devoid of recent details; most of the content in that section concerns ceremony regarding honours she has received. There's not a single source noting anything concerning her work for the last years and then some. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's see if the sourcing can provide us some growth in content before we decide that offspring articles are a necessity.Snow ^{let's rap} 05:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have stricken my !vote as of now, maybe separate article can be made in future, not now. Thanks. --Human3015^TALK  06:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - (summoned by bot) If that section becomes too big, then WP:SPLIT can be raised. But not before that is needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think the assassination attempt is near the limit length wise for this article and could be split out. The activism is fine and can even be increased without any detrimental effect to this article. I am basing this on what I feel is due weight. The assassination attempt, while huge, has taken up a relatively short time frame of her life. It also contains many details that would not typically be in a BLP and would fit better in its own article (reaction and investigation). I think it would be beneficial to shorten it here to summary style and expanded on it in its own article. However, the activism is more directly related to what she is actively doing and I feel is justified in being a large part of this article without running into weight issues. AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zppix from feedback support here. I think you should take a look at Wikipedia's policies if nothing opposes this policy wise I say go ahead and split the article. If you need any more opinions feel free to ask people over at the Teahouse Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed (summoned by bot). Article can be split under the criteria pf WP:SPLIT, that is when the total article size exceeds the threshold. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose both I've read Snow's ideas on the this matter and s/he makes perfect sense to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.