Talk:Bibi Aisha

Untitled
Maybe some information about the controversy about whether this was "taliban violence" or not should be added: http://www.thenation.com/article/154020/afghan-women-have-already-been-abandoned 46.59.157.113 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care that your "reputable sources" faked the story?
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/08/29/is-time-s-aisha-story-fake.html. Probably not. I'm sure someone will say what I linked isn't as "reputable" as Time, so false information will remain in Wikipedia. This site is a good example of the old saying "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.96.188 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post has retracted the article you linked to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdulhadi-hairan/times-aisha-story-is-fake_b_692123.html, saving me from saying the obvious that the two women look dissimilar. Looks like they fired that reporter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdulhadi-hairan/ Widefox (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone in article, Re:CNN story
After reading the CNN article, it seems fairly clear that the content of that article is being twisted in the language used on this page. For example, never does the family Aisha lives with say they feel as if this sort of sentence is warranted: "Despite problems with rudeness and ingratitude for things done for her...". The point is, this is a BLP. Taking a tone that is MORE negative and subjective than that found in source material is not following Wikipedia's standards. I made edits that better reflected the events described by the article, and which are more in line with the expectations of objectivity found in Wikipedia. We should not be editorializing content further; we should be removing editorialization found in an article and presenting the facts.

Also, I suggest that we move this page to one titled Aesha Mohammadzai, with Bibi Aisha and Bibi Aesha redirecting to that article, given that her name (1) officially changed and (2) she styles her name in that way now.

In any case, I hope that the editor who reverted my edits responds with their reasoning. The editor wanting to keep in the potentially controversial BLP material is required to make a good case for its retention in the article on this Talk page, and form a consensus. If that does not happen, I will go through again and rewrite that section to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. I suggest a look over of the BLP policy on Tone, as well as on the Presumption in the Favor of Privacy 98.94.58.75 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

[contents redacted] you replaced the actual reason for her not having the surgery that was given by the surgeons with "yet to meet the qualifications for psychological preparedness" which are weasel words (see WP:EUPHEMISM) not used by RS. You also deleted Aisha's entire history since she entered the U.S. and replaced it with "Since her arrival, she has resided in New York City, care of the Women for Afghan Women shelter and with friends in suburban Maryland" which contains no background or context. You may as well have just added a list of locations visited. Regarding Tone: The text you deleted had avoided both understatement and overstatement by using the same descriptive words used by the original source which complies with WP:BLPSTYLE. [contents redacted]. There are no words in the article that carry negative connotations that are not also used by the sources and these are ballanced by the inclusion of reasons for her behaviour and statements that she is improving. I'm not claiming the text is perfect, only that it is accurate and supported by RS. I will also point out that the source was two full pages in a newspaper which means it covered the topic in considerable detail. Wayne (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, consensus is not required to add text if it is supported by a RS. Consensus comes later if the reliability of the source is disputed or there are other problems such as NPOV etc. You also can not compare the content of one source (CNN) with that of another (News Ltd) and claim something cant be used because it wasn't in both.


 * a question on this appeared is the BLP noticeboard. I commented. Acting as an administrator, I have removed almost all of this content as a BLP violation--a gross violation of proportional coverage and DO NO HARM (this material appeared in only one newspaper, in an article not currently available on the net,besides some of it on CNN--the web site does not presently have most of the details. We have by far greater prominence.   This is explicitly BLP enforcement, and return of the content without consensus  of other admins here --something I regard as remarkably unlikely-- will bring an immediate block. I am also redacting it from the above paragraph, and shall ask the advice of another experienced editor about removing visibility of the edits. , DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychological problems
Obiwankenobi thinks her psychological problems are not defining for her, or I presume, that she's not notable for her psychological problems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibi_Aisha&oldid=605006441&diff=prev

And so, that user has removed her from Category:People with borderline personality disorder.

I disagree, but not only because it's obvious she belongs in that category, which is under-populated right now. She was flown to the USA to have reconstructive surgery, but her psychological problems prevented the work from being done. Post-photo fame, her psychological problems have been the most dominant force in her life's direction, to the point of her being unable to work a job, and unable to have a stable or permanent home. Being permanently disfigured due to psychological problems is about as defining as it gets, especially considering the fact that the only reason she is notable is because of her disfigurement.

Badon (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * to me it seems that she is notable for the disfigurement, but is not notable for having this disorder. Many people, including many famous people, have been diagnosed with various mental illnesses, but as a rule we don't add them to these categories unless such a disorder is part of their notability. I think she came to be notable for other reasons, and the personality disorder could have been a result of those (or, it could have been already present), but she did not become notable as a patient with personality disorder nor does she remain notable for that reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical that what you described is really a "rule". If it is, can you cite it? In any case, Bibi Aisha's psychological problems are very much a part of her notability, much like the inability to walk is very much a part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's notability. The only thing that isn't certain is HOW MUCH notability, since that is often subjective. In an under-populated, and thus immature category, there is arguably no good reason to prematurely filter anything based on rules that haven't emerged from any kind of consensus yet. Do you disagree? Badon (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The rule is WP:DEFINING. Whether the cat is sparsely populated is rather irrelevant, in this case. Category guidance explicitly addresses this as well, suggesting that some cats are best left for exemplars, vs complete lists. The fact that she was diagnosed with this disorder is not significant to her notability, as the diagnosis came long after her photograph was exhibited and her story was told. Indeed, if you look at many reliable source mentions of Bibi Aisha, most I looked at (I just googled books and found 5) don't mention her diagnosis at all. Therefore, this diagnosis fails WP:DEFINING. In the case of Roosevelt, it's a bit different, and I think his wheelchair is part of his notability, esp since he is I think the only US president to have such a disability.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the category rule, but I'm not convinced it applies. Roughly 1/4 of the article talks about her problems since the photo was taken, and they are all typical of someone with her psychological diagnosis. Once again, the only reason she remains disfigured and functionally disabled today is because of her psychological problems. Additionally, her diagnosis is one that leads to severe interpersonal conflicts that unsurprisingly sometimes end with violence. That possibly places her diagnosis at the beginning of her notability, not the aftermath. Either way, the fact that her true diagnosis isn't mentioned often doesn't make it not notable, especially considering the large fraction of her story that is directly affected by it. Her diagnosis wasn't available until long after the famous photo was published, and media interest in her had declined. That could be why most sources don't mention her diagnosis. Badon (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * then we may have to wait for new sources, and see if the identify her as such. Again, I've seen In the past a special sensitivity around diseases and disorders. No-one is saying this isn't significant for her, but I don't see evidence that it is defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I can agree to that. This is a fairly minor issue anyway. I'm sure she will reappear in the media eventually, if only as a "where are they now?" treatment. Such an article as that would be unlikely to overlook the long term consequences of such a debilitating ailment, especially if she finds a way to overcome them. Badon (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

requests for comment
I'm requesting input on the content of this article. This is mainly because the girl was the subject for an iconic photograph and I'm wondering why her info in the Present day section is relevant. Should this article be about the iconic photograph or the girl, and if it is about the girl solely then why are things like her mental health mentioned when she was not notable for it? This article comes across as not very neutral and mentioning these things does not have to do with why she was notable to begin with. Requesting some comments on the usefulness/relevancy on some of the info here. Turn➦ 03:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think as a general rule, the aftermath of an event is often interesting and relevant for the reader, although it shouldn't have more prominence than the event itself. This is reflected in the popularity of the "where are they now" style of newspaper articles. This is true, for instance, for the last US presidential election or, say, the 9/11 attacks. The primary issue here is about the BLP policy. There are some things in the article that make me a bit uncomfortable that could currently read as victimisation, although I note that an admin did a major trim back in 2012 when the article was expanded. So, to conclude, perhaps some minor tweaking but on balance I would retain the section. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Summoned here by bot. I see no problem with the "present day" section, which contains useful and notable text. Though the subject is famous for the photograph, even if the article was entirely about the photo it would be relevant to say what happened to her afterwards. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Summoned by bot. The article appears fine to me although it could use some minor editing but overall I have no issues with retaining the section. Fraulein451 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article seems about the girl; if it were about the photograph it would be much shorter. Her present day section seems an important part of her life, and the CNN article is very indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Summoned here by bot as well. I think the article seems fine and agree with the above statements made by other users.  It doesn't seem to be a problem to include present day information about the girl and her life, as it adds context to the article. Best,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 04:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Description of psychological problems (Dec. 2015)
There was an unsourced sentence which stated that she "strongly objects to being treated as an adult, and she is known for tantrums, selfishness, and a craving for attention." Although the CNN article does mention her psychological issues, the first part of the quoted sentence strikes me as a subjective interpretation of the CNN article, and the second part of the sentence is redundant with previous material. Accordingly, I have removed the sentence, but if someone objects, I'd be willing to discuss it. 129.133.189.185 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bibi Aisha. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C2007238%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022124150/http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/disfigured-afghan-on-cover-of-time-heads-to-us/19582078 to http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/disfigured-afghan-on-cover-of-time-heads-to-us/19582078

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) 16:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Adoption
" Aisha has been adopted by an Afghan-American couple", she appears to have been 22-24 years old at the time since she was an adult 18+ when she appeared in Afghanistan. Is it accurate to say she was "adopted", rather than simply "taken in"? 174.114.208.223 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)