This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Malala Yousafzai is part of WikiProject Pashtun, a project to maintain and expand Pashtun-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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. st170etalk 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.[1]
Malala has been criticised since the assassination attempt, even in her home country.[2] After winning Nobel Peace Prize, despite praise, there were some and disapproval of the decision to award her Peace Prize.[3][4]
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.”[5]
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)