Talk:Mohammad Daud Miraki

re organized some information
I have re-organized some information provided by a wikipedian - neutralized the information. The user claims that he supported Taleban indirectly. Miraki is not supporting Taleban, but criticizing the NATO forces and he is saying that they can do better. I have also removed the prostitution part because that is not a political, but more like a personal view. We can only include general information otherwise we would be writing an entire book on a person. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

you cannot remove sourced information. That info was presented by Miraki in a political article.--Inuit18 (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you ever read Wikipedia's policy or you just know the part "Do not remove sourced information". It is one thing that the information is sourced, while it is totally a different case if the sourced information should be included in an article or not. Not only that, you didn't even read the entire article and only read the part that you liked and ignored the remaining. Read the following article  & . Are they showing their hatred as well?  (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * This is what he writes, Moreover, IWPR cited the International Organization for Migration (IOM) that accused commanders of the Northern Alliance for committing these crimes: "According to the IOM, much of the responsibility for these abductions lies with local commanders and armed groups."


 * "The emergence of many brothels around Kabul is another fruit of democracy in Afghanistan. Many of these brothels have prostitutes from China, Thailand, and the former Soviet Union. There are unfortunately some elements from the Afghan minority community especially Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek that started brothels and service American soldiers. However, it is worth mentioning that this in no way insinuates a generalization. These elements by no means represent the majority of Afghan minority community. The major ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, considers such practice worse than death. That is why, the insurgents are Pashtun." (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

''Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.'' (Wikipedia WP:V)

Content can be verifiable, but if they are not neutral than it can't be included. The point currently mentioned under "Political views" explains his political views and nationalism. Basically, what you are doing is original research.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (Wikipedia WP:OR)

(Ketabtoon (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Because of your edit-war, your POV pushing(I am talking about both of you), and because of the lack of reliable sources, I have tagged the article. Readers should be aware of the discussion above. Tajik (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns -- Starting from scratch
With tags up and primary editors holding back a bit with good faith assumed, might as well start over a discussion from scratch. Clean slate! *POOF* Edit war? I don't know what you're talking about! 8 hours ago? Ancient history. Let's just run with the idea that we have two editors who seem to care highly about this article and will want a proper consensus reached so they needn't waste extra energy here in the future with edits or dispute escalation.

About deleting a cited quotation-- I would say mostly impolite to do so without some consensus and that a tag would be more appropriate including a mention on the talk page about why it tag was added. I'll assume it was deleted on an opinion that it was not a reliable third-party source, but that is part of the reason we have the tags in the first place! One person alone can never be "consensus", so it would require more input. If verifiability as a reliable source cannot be found, editing become a likelier option, but try to be very cautious as it seems tensions can run high here!

After reading through a few times as a 100% outside observer, a few things stuck out that should actually help in resolution of other tags if looked into. Actually, a number of things, unfortunately. Resource #1 reads almost entirely biographically, as with the spirit of WP:BLP it's important to have secondary sources around that can allow you to add outside perspective. Resources #2 and 3 listed are highly suspect under WP:RS as one is a self-published opinion fro a primary source (the candidate's own website), and the other is very literally a self-publication from this politician placed on another web site. #5 is, again, very literally a self-published resource that the subject of this article signs and states as his own work. The bad? The factual accuracy tag is going to need a whole new set of resources to give validity to any claims. Actually, the possibility of not having any resources held as reliable under a larger consensus would be an even more important concern. The good? It's quite literally impossible to question the neutrality of an article based on its sources if it has no confirmed resources left to cite; There are other tags and policies for what could be seen as a 100% informational article with zero resources... it might want to be looked over as criteria for deletion in one form or another. With all that information subject to being removed (or left sourceless), the article would start leaning into the biography category... a case for notability is something I might make and I have a sour sensation this is going to end up floating around in WP:AFD in the next few days. Someone who is a failed candidate in the already-completed first voting round of the 2009 national elections doesn't assure notability if we don't have some sort of larger sensation of an impact on society or cultural mindset to look at. Presidential candidate does not = notability automatically! Anyone in the US ever bother to look at the full list of people who make the ballot? Actually, that data could be researched to give possible consensus on the notability of any and all top-level office candidates, but even then we'd need to review the process of how a candidate can be placed on the ballot; If it's self-nomination it would revert back to highly questionable self-promotion. If sources that are not just blobs of personal opinion and education history and that could be looked at neutrally appear, the article should certainly be able to make a recovery. If not... again, I think it could be AfD material. Just a heads-up. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources - We can find outside sources, but they have all taken their information from the two sources which I have already provided. Still, I will try to add more links. We have to keep in mind that we cannot find as many sources as we would like to provide for Afghan/Afghanistan related articles.


 * Notability - I understand what you are saying about him being a failed candidate. The biography was not simply added because he was a presidential candidate. Mirakai was a professor, he is the director of an NGO, he is a writer (he has written a book), he is a political and social activist, he was an election candidate and more. We cannot compare an Afghan's case with that of an American. We know that there are thousands of people in the US or other western countries with similar qualifications but there names cannot be added to wikipedia. If we remove articles of such Afghans, than the wikipedia will be home to less than 100 biographies of Afghans. We have very limited people from Afghanistan with such qualifications. And we will be removing a lot of articles. Here in wikipedia, we have biographies of small time singers, we have biographies of Guantanamo bay detainees and so on, but we want to delete biography of an academic person.


 * Deletion of content - The deletion was reported to Administrators' noticeboard. You can see what an outside obsorver wrote about the content which was deleted. Even though it was sourced (the wikipedian sourced Miraki's own article), it was not a WP:NPOV and it was WP:OR. Let me quote the sentence "He has also claimed that Prostitution is only done by the non-Pashtun ethnic groups and is unacceptable for Pashtuns, clearly showing his hatred towards non-Pashtun ethnic groups." Even though it is original research, it is not even accurate and the user misinterpreted Dr. Miraki. Miraki doesn't say that prostitution is only done by the non-Pashtuns, but he says that the prostitution was sponsored by the Northern Alliance (dominated by ethnic Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks) and the prostitutes were from China, Thailand, and the former Soviet Union. However, that is not the point. The point is that the edit was not NPOV and it was OR.  (Ketabtoon (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC))
 * All noted, thank you. ...And I did see that there was an admin reply to that sourced edit but it came as I was in the middle as I was writing this post so I just missed it! I dislike shutting down all discussion without an opposing view, but I do understand your position on it and can see it being reasonable. Your statement about notability per US-centric view is also solid, and you are correct... the Wikipedia people from Afghanistan group would be pretty small if we didn't try to open things up. On sources, I see no reason not to go with good faith if everyone just wants to pretend like we're starting over and nothing like 3RR will ever be a danger again! You have me moderately convinced now that the article would likely not be worth a AfD tag once completed, as I don't know how your view escaped me (I feel rather naive). I can't think of any standing policy about leeway toward being more inclusive on international matters and people, but so long as all is well in the general spirit of WP:GREY and there's some wiggle room in the middle that can be found, it seems perfectly reasonable. I'm going to add a link a link on the ANI posting so other people can come back here to review if they'd like before adding comment. Good will is never a bad thing to demonstrate while trying to resolve matters. Datheisen (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All noted, thank you. ...And I did see that there was an admin reply to that sourced edit but it came as I was in the middle as I was writing this post so I just missed it! I dislike shutting down all discussion without an opposing view, but I do understand your position on it and can see it being reasonable. Your statement about notability per US-centric view is also solid, and you are correct... the Wikipedia people from Afghanistan group would be pretty small if we didn't try to open things up. On sources, I see no reason not to go with good faith if everyone just wants to pretend like we're starting over and nothing like 3RR will ever be a danger again! You have me moderately convinced now that the article would likely not be worth a AfD tag once completed, as I don't know how your view escaped me (I feel rather naive). I can't think of any standing policy about leeway toward being more inclusive on international matters and people, but so long as all is well in the general spirit of WP:GREY and there's some wiggle room in the middle that can be found, it seems perfectly reasonable. I'm going to add a link a link on the ANI posting so other people can come back here to review if they'd like before adding comment. Good will is never a bad thing to demonstrate while trying to resolve matters. Datheisen (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All noted, thank you. ...And I did see that there was an admin reply to that sourced edit but it came as I was in the middle as I was writing this post so I just missed it! I dislike shutting down all discussion without an opposing view, but I do understand your position on it and can see it being reasonable. Your statement about notability per US-centric view is also solid, and you are correct... the Wikipedia people from Afghanistan group would be pretty small if we didn't try to open things up. On sources, I see no reason not to go with good faith if everyone just wants to pretend like we're starting over and nothing like 3RR will ever be a danger again! You have me moderately convinced now that the article would likely not be worth a AfD tag once completed, as I don't know how your view escaped me (I feel rather naive). I can't think of any standing policy about leeway toward being more inclusive on international matters and people, but so long as all is well in the general spirit of WP:GREY and there's some wiggle room in the middle that can be found, it seems perfectly reasonable. I'm going to add a link a link on the ANI posting so other people can come back here to review if they'd like before adding comment. Good will is never a bad thing to demonstrate while trying to resolve matters. Datheisen (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Miraki did not say that prostitution was sponsored by the Northern Alliance which is false information. This is the paragraph where he wrote about prostitution in Afghanistan:"The emergence of many brothels around Kabul is another fruit of democracy in Afghanistan. Many of these brothels have prostitutes from China, Thailand, and the former Soviet Union. There are unfortunately some elements from the Afghan minority community especially Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek that started brothels and service American soldiers. However, it is worth mentioning that this in no way insinuates a generalization. These elements by no means represent the majority of Afghan minority community. The major ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, considers such practice worse than death. That is why, the insurgents are Pashtun.". he clearly states that all of the Afghanistanis who are prostitutes are non-Pashtuns and the majority which are Pashtuns rather die than commit this crime. This is false because prostitution, pedophilia, and homosexuality is openly practiced in Pashtun communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan and this has been reported by many western newspapers and news agencies. Ketabtoon is pushing his own POV because he favors this person and is writing his own opinions on him.--Inuit18 (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all I would like to thank User:Datheisen for his efforts. User:Inuit18, if you don't mind, I will bold some of the sentences in your reply that you have quoted from Miraki's book. And, whether he is right or wrong is a different subject and we are not here to discuss that. I request you once again, please do read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Your edit contradicts wikipedia's core policies. I am adding biographies on a regular basis, that does not mean that I favor any one.   (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC))


 * The easiest way is to quote directly from his book and leave all interpretation to the reader. The quote should not be commented by the article's author. Saying that the quote "clearly proves his hatred" is not NPOV. Simply quote the selected section from his book, give its reference in the article (book's name, year of publication, page number, maybe a link to Amazon, etc) and try to keep the rest NPOV. A note to User:Ketabtoon: your edits in this article were correct, so I apologize for reporting you. I guess I was still very sensitive, keeping in mind that your latest edits in the Afghan Mellat article were clearly WP:POV and WP:OR. It would be helpful if User:Datheisen could also take a look at that article and the provided sources. Tajik (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Inuit18, thank you for stepping in quickly to make sure both major contributors to the article have some input before we decide what has diverging opinions that lack consensus. It's good to see the use of quotations in your evidence listed, but without references/citations added to each quote showing its source it would have very little if any weight in an overall review and improvement process. It would be great if you could fix the quotations above or post again below with a mark in your edit summary that citations were added. User:Ketabtoon's further objections are also noted, but until there is a specific source given for these quotations I can't remark upon any rebuttals. I will remind both editors try to limit their sources to those with a better apparent neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). This seems particularly important in this article because the original resources included content that was arguably self-published or did not meet Verifiability standards as a peer-reviewed secondary source. A major key to improvement here rests in the quality of sources used. Datheisen (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank both sides for giving updates on opinions in a timely manner so some kind of improvement outline can hopefully be written up as a next step, and it's quite possible more editors will come in to look at the discussion from the ANI posted. I'm inclined to wait a few days to allow the ANI to be resolved or archived to look for more opinions and to allow User:Inuit18 to add citations for he first comment. Obviously thee are specific points disagreed upon, but it's also worth noting that much of the information has not been contested in any way and can be cleaned up per existing tags (if necessary), and separate matters like these without a consensus should likely not be added to the article unless in the most generic of terms; A new edit war won't accomplish anything besides another ANI and eventual blocks. I'm going to try to look through previous article versions, along with sources that have held up in the process to see if anything accidentally got filtered out in undos or edits. Though technically not a Wikipedia guideline, it would show go a long way toward showing good faith in wanting to improve the article if edits or reverts could be avoided for the time being. Datheisen (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Inuit18 is a sockpuppet of the banned editor User:Anoshirawan. He's not suppose to be editing Wikipedia. He's a racist and spreading hate, lies, POVs, vandalizing pages, edit-warring, misleading people, etc. Do a simple checkuser at Sockpuppet_investigations and it will confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.14.133 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Inuit18 (from USA) and Tajik (from Germany) are online buddies in many sites who also chat in same chat rooms and spread hate on Pashtuns. They have nothing else better to do.

Thank you Datheisen for mediating in this article. I got the quote directly from Daud Miraki's article. You can find the quote in the following links to Miraki's article.Here and here  --Inuit18 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Enter Topics and Sources evaluation! ...And vandals!
Welcome vandals! Well. One vandal. ...And even if you meant well with your comment, I'm more interested in shuffling through information before I care at all about social alliances. However, by good faith of your assumption I will look into those logs, but a quick glance didn't show anything insanely evident. I will look at it further and I'm not even deleting it.

Concerns on both sides have given information related and their sources. I'm going to let the ANI clear into the archives to make sure no decision is made there or others don't come in with comment. Though I've already been looked through some of the information I am making a point to look into the verifiability and reliability of every source to give my opinion at least. You're free to talk about the subject in here (it's a talk page!), but again, content edits on the article page would be good to avoid and it seems that's been going okay. Part of consensus is talk between contributors and I can only give advice. So yes, go ahead and talk amongst yourselves, just please create another section and remaining civil will go far, but things have gone well these past few days! Datheisen (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

IP:119.73.14.133 belongs to the banned User:NisarKand. If you want more information you can ask User:VirtualSteve and User:Alison.--Inuit18 (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "He has also claimed that Prostitution is only done by the non-Pashtun ethnic groups and is unacceptable for Pashtuns, clearly showing his hatred towards non-Pashtun ethnic groups."


 * It is very obvious that it is both WP:OR and not WP:NPOV. There is no doubt about that. User:Tajik suggested that User:Inuit18 can quote that part of the book and leave all interpretation to the reader. There are 2 problems with that. There is so much to quote, and we can not just quote 1 or 2 lines because that won't be fair to the author - a reader needs to read the entire page not just those 1 or 2 specific lines to fully understand what he is saying. The second point is that we cannot just quote or add anything we want to push our POV and show our hatred toward a person. We know what his political views are without even quoting that part.


 * If we want the readers to learn more about Daud Miraki, they can read his writings and than make their assumptions about him. So the best thing would be to link his articles to the article - selective quoting is not the answer.   (Ketabtoon (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC))


 * It is fully legitimate to quote certain parts of a book, a publication, or an article. The article provided by User:Inuit18 is a primary source, that means that the article was written by Mr. Miraki himself. In it, he writes:
 * ... The emergence of many brothels around Kabul is another fruit of democracy in Afghanistan. Many of these brothels have prostitutes from China, Thailand, and the former Soviet Union. There are unfortunately some elements from the Afghan minority community especially Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek that started brothels and service American soldiers. However, it is worth mentioning that this in no way insinuates a generalization. These elements by no means represent the majority of Afghan minority community. The major ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, considers such practice worse than death. That is why, the insurgents are Pashtun. ...
 * Of course, it is fully clear that he is blaming Non-Pashtuns for prostitution, climing that prostitution does not occur in Pashtun areas. Yet, there is no need to comment that in the article. It's fully enough to simply quote the above mentioned abstract in the section "political views" as a reference to his opinion on the Northern Alliance, the NATO forces, and its effects in Afghanistan. It's not unfair at all, because it is a direct quote of Mr. Miraki. It is already highly controversial that he is speaking of "Afghan minority communities" while all experts agree that there are no majorities in Afghanistan. The Pashtuns themselves comprise less than 50% of the population, according to the most reliable sources somewhere between 35-45%. There are only two real majorities in Afghanistan: the Sunnite religious majority and the Persian-speaking linguistic majority. All others are minorities. Mr. Miraki speaking of "minorities" in contrast to Pashtuns whom he regards as a "majority" is highly controversial and reflects his Pashtun nationalist views. Tajik (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, whether he is right or wrong is a different case. We have given enough information about his political views in the article - the only thing that is missing is that he is very anti Northern Alliance and we can add that as well. The article says that he is a Pashtun nationalist, he is anti-NATO and their policies, he is a supporter of Greater Afghanistan and the removal of durrand line, he believes that Pashtuns make up 65% of the total population and Pashto should be the first language of the country clearly states his political views.


 * Daud Miraki is known to be an ultra nationalist Pashtun and most of his election goals were focused on giving the ethnic Pashtuns and the Pashto language its due rights.[7] According to Dr. Mirakai, Pashtuns of Afghanistan make up around 65% of the total population. Thus, Pashto should be proclaimed as the first language of the state while Persian as the second language - not equal. He is also a strong supporter of the removal of Durrand Line and formation of Greater Afghanistan (annexation of NWFP and Baluchistan Provinces of Pakistan with Afghanistan).[8]


 * Dr. Mirakai is also a staunch criticizer of the NATO forces and their actions/policies in Afghanistan.
 * You should also remove the title ( Dr. Miraki ...). It should be mentioned only once in the article, in the lead. Tajik (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)