Talk:Afghan Girl

Expansion of Afghan_Girl#1984_photograph

There should be more on how the National Geographic impacted the public and what makes the picture iconic, to the point people were still curious after decades. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The interest is still there, as this talk page itself shows! Andrewa (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

http://time.com/4351725/steve-mccurry-not-photojournalist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil123ll (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Post RM

The article now needs considerable work to reflect its topic. I have started with the lede [1], but several of the section headings do not make sense under this title either. Andrewa (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa: - re "The evidence so far (see the bottom of the previous section) is that the title and lede have never matched." & "I have started with the lede" - I agree Andrewa, and I support the edits you've made. The lede and the title should have been synched a long time ago.

You know, one potentially simple solution to this entire dispute might just be for User:Obiwankenobi to start a new BLP for Sharbat Gula. If she is in fact notable, as Obi seems to feel, the article should survive deletion...... NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Or anyone else who thinks that she is notable in her own right could and should do this. And there seemed no shortage of such people just a little while ago, so it may be a bit unfair to single one out.

I am of two minds on this. Policy seems to me to oppose a split or a new article.

(A split or a new article almost amount to the same thing, except that the split route could involve a page move to associate the existing page history with the new name, while the new article route doesn't. Particularly from the readers' point of view, this is a relatively minor consideration, as I've said above. If we'd managed a consensus not to move above, the two routes as I've called them would then be virtually identical, but we didn't. It still doesn't matter much IMO.)

On the other hand, our practice (which also represents an implicit consensus) seems to support a split or new article.

The precedent raised by of the Raising the flag on Iwo Jima article, raised in the discussion above, is a very interesting one. It seems to me to be a case in which notability has been inherited (even to the point that it might be good to discuss it in that particular essay, or elsewhere). I would see no chance at all of the deletion of the articles on the six soldiers in the photograph. Three of them (Harlon Block, Franklin Sousley and Michael Strank) were killed within days of the photo being taken, and frankly had done nothing notable up until that time. The other three, Ira Hayes, John Bradley (United States Navy) and Ralph Ignatowski were similarly NN up until that point, and did nothing notable afterwards apart from spinoffs from the photo (they appeared playing themselves in the John Wayne film Sands of Iwo Jima for example), in fact they all had rather sad lives, similar to many vets. One had a notable son James Bradley (author), a living person who has authored or co-authored three books on related matters that sold well enough to warrant an article in his own right, and that's fair enough. On the other hand there's a seventh dubious article, on Ralph Ignatowski (also killed on Iwo Jima) whose main if not only claim to fame is that he was a buddy of one of the flag raisers who survived. So he has successfully inherited notability that was already inherited!

And we also have articles on some but not all of the raisers of the first flag and others involved in that, for example Harold G. Schrier possibly later became notable, Navy Cross for later actions, Henry Oliver Hansen probably not, killed soon afterwards.

But these guys are all American war heroes, they probably all have living close relatives, and as I said above, there's IMO no chance of deleting or merging their articles. And does it really hurt Wikipedia to keep them? A very little, perhaps, and perhaps not at all. Certainly far less than several similarly hopeless US-centricities I can point out and have in the past.

Point is mainly, there's a lot going on there...! Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to deal with this, I need to pull some library books to get better cites on Sharbat on how she is covered in other RS after the event. Let's just leave the article as is for now pending a potential split, I will just correct some categorizations and apply them to the redirect in the meantime. As I mentioned above, due to the history, since day 1, of this article being ABOUT the subject, and the bulk of the article being ABOUT the subject, I think we should save the history and split off a new article on the photo. I'm assuming that those who !voted to not rename would find this acceptable, provided we had a new article devoted to photo and analysis of the impact of the photo.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds an excellent way forward to me. Andrewa (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For example, the photo was analyzed in detail in Beautiful Suffering: Photography and the Traffic in Pain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. in an essay by Holly Edwards, but this isn't available online.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of edit conflicts, and you've modified your comment to which I had already replied. To clarify, I think we should continue to clean up and refocus the current article, but not removing any material that will hopefully go into the split. Of course it's all in the history. Where that history goes is IMO unimportant so long as it's clearly accessible somewhere. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa - re "may be a bit unfair to single one out" - Perhaps. I'll strive to be fairer.

re "Raising the flag on Iwo Jima" - You know, somehow I'd missed this line of reasoning in the RM discussion. It's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but a darn good one! Those Iwo Jima guys really ought not have articles.

Looking at this a little more extensively, it seems like there's a whole bunch of "other stuff", which might be potentially relevant here;

Florence Owens Thompson - Biography on subject of artwork w/ no article for artwork

Nguyen Van Lem - Biography on subject of artwork w/ no article for artwork

Lunch atop a Skyscraper - Article on artwork w/ no biography article(s) for subject(s)

Whistler's Mother - Article on artwork w/ seperate biography article(s) for subject(s)

V-J Day in Times Square - Article on artwork w/ no biography article(s) for subject(s)

Girl with a Pearl Earring - Article on artwork w/ no biography article(s) for subject(s)

Leonard Siffleet - Biography on subject of artwork w/ no article for artwork

Vulture Stalking a Child - Biography on artist w/ no article for artwork or subjects of artwork

The Kiss of Life - Biography on artist w/ no article for artwork or subjects of artwork

Fire Escape Collapse - Article on artwork w/ no article(s) for subject(s)

& as previously mentioned -

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - Article on artwork w/ separate biography article(s) for subject(s)

Glancing through this quickly, it does in fact seem that the "other" generally stuff supports the idea that this article ought to be called Sharbat Gula.

I find this quite interesting. There doesn't seem to be a standard, which I'd ascribe to a lack of policy in this area. Frankly, I feel that WP:BLP1E ought to be amended to explicitly include individuals known only in the context of a single piece of photography/artwork. Either that or there ought to be WP:Notability (subjects of artwork), which enunciates a policy. NickCT (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new policy - WP:GNG covers this quite well. In the case of Gula her name shows up in dozens of books analyzing many different aspects of western involvement in Afghanistan and she clearly passes GNG. Some of the other subjects don't - they were mentioned at the time the photo was taken but rarely spoken of again. In Gula's case a multi-year effort was put in place to identify her and a number of articles were written about her and her life after she was found thus passing GNG.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably the quickest and easiest way to establish Gula's notability is to create a good stub article specifically on her, rather than on the photograph. I am not going to do this myself as I'm of two minds on it and so it would be arguably pointy, but if you're confident she satisfies the GNG that's no problem for you. If the move had gone ahead I'd have had no problems starting an article on the photograph, which even more clearly satisfies the GNG, but it was not to be. Andrewa (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's very interesting, and perhaps we're opening a can of worms! IMO this discussion has exceeded what's germane to this article, it should move to a more appropriate place... perhaps WT:Notability (people)? I notice that page has copious archives, a search of them is probably a good idea. WP:SOLDIER is also relevant to the Iwo Jima photo people, note that it's a WikiProject page but it is linked to from WP:Notability (people). Andrewa (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa: - re "opening a can of worms!" - Yeah. "Other stuff" arguments typically are cans of worms. Food for thought though. It would be nice if lengthy discussions like the ones we're having translated into policy discussions. Perhaps we can take a stab at policy after concluding here. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: Agree. I'm not even sure we need to go any further here.

Our other stuff essays could also use some work IMO... WP:OSE is linked to from WP:OTHERSTUFF, but is significantly more upbeat, and I'm on its side. OSE arguments can be valid, and both essays do concede this. But as you say, frequently a can of worms, and not for the fainthearted, but also likely to have policy and/or guideline implications. Logically, it seem to me that an OSE argument if both valid and germane to the discussion will always be evidence that either (1) policy and/or guidelines need work, or (2) they are being disregarded elsewhere. In either case further action is indicated elsewhere. Both essays should make this point IMO, and provide pointers to exactly how it's best to initiate this further action. Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa: - You are, as usual, most perceptive and correct. If you do start any policy discussions, please give me a shout and I'll participate! NickCT (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Another famous photo

In one of the previous discussions Phan Thi Kim Phuc was noted as an example of the subject of a famous and award-winning photo who has her own article, with the popular photo title Napalm Girl redirected to it. I don't think it's a parallel, as Phan Thi Kim Phuc has pursued a considerable public life since the photograph. Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Refocus

The above while important IMO has strayed from the topic of this section, which was intended to discuss development of the article Afghan Girl following the closure of the latest RM above.

My understanding is that, currently, the topic of this article is the photograph. Historically, this was confused by the subject also being known as Afghan Girl, but she's now more commonly referred to by her name, hence the RM. The position is not as clear-cut as I'd like owing to the no consensus close, but that's where we are at now.

On that basis, there's quite a lot of work to do. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose starting a stub article to focus on the photograph, remove most details of the photograph from this article, and then start a new move request to move to Sharbat Gula - the purpose being to keep the bulk of the relevant history here. The article on the photograph should be written from scratch with the photo as the core topic, not the person as this one is written.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's too late for that now. We've explored that possibility in the RM, at some depth. There was not sufficient support to justify moving the article, and I think you need to accept that, and move on.

On the other hand, if you're confident that a split is justified, there's nothing to stop you creating say Afghan Girl (photograph) and developing an article on the photograph there. It's an acceptable way to go forward, just not the best way IMO. We'd then need another RM to shift the article on Sharbat Gula to her name, and we'd probably then redirect Afghan Girl to the article on the photograph, and then have another RM to move the article on the photograph back to Afghan Girl undisambiguated. That seems a pointlessly roundabout procedure to me.

Or if you do go down this path, Afghan Girl (photo) seems to have been an earlier name for it. Andrewa (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Split the article by all means, but my advice is, create the new article at Sharbat Gula. That makes far less work for everyone, and better matches the RM result above. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting a new photograph article is highly inappropriate in light of the requested move. If you want to start a new article on the woman/girl, then go ahead. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion does seem to be finally addressing the issue. It seems to me that we have a rough consensus that the topic of the current article is the photograph. Perhaps surprisingly, its lede has never before reflected this as far as I can tell, but does now. [2] There have been several attempts over the years to move it to a title that would indicate that it's a biography rather than an article on the photo, and these have all failed.

And they have failed despite the proponents seeming largely or even completely unaware that one consequence of such a move would be that we can't use the photograph itself in such an article, see #Use of the photograph in the biography article. Once this point is grasped, I'm skeptical that a move proposal will have any support whatsoever.

Are we now agreed to continue to develop the article taking its topic to be the photograph?

In the hope that we are, I've now performed a far-from-perfect refactor. [3] It's a start. Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• disagreed there was no consensus, meaning no decision was arrived at. That said, there seems to be agreement to split. If you take the time to read the article, the bulk of the article is about the girl, the woman, the search for her, etc - all of that is about her. The inability to include her photo in the article is a technical issue and should not discourage us. Most importantly since the bulk of the material in the article now belongs in an article about the woman, we should start a new article on the photo and preserve the history for the bio -again pointing out that the lede has indicated this is a bio since day 1. I'm not sure why anyone would want to link the history of this article with an article about the photo which would look and read completely differently - indeed the 'search' for the woman is much more a story about her than about the original photo itself, and of course all of the follow up was about her. We need to find new sources that discuss the meaning of this photo and use that to draft a new article, I will take a crack at this next week. Let's leave it be in the meantime I don't see value in converting this towards a photo article and then undoing that to convert it back to a bio, as it's been for about 6 years.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This crossed my refactor. Disagree with most of it, see #Some detailed replies. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Some detailed replies

there was no consensus, meaning no decision was arrived at - wrong. The decision was not to move.

That said, there seems to be agreement to split. Disagree. There is no consensus on that as of yet, and little interest even in discussing it so far. I'll open a new section on that below.

Done, see #Proposed split. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the article - a personal attack. Please do not do this.

the bulk of the article is about the girl, the woman - Disagree.

the search for her, etc - all of that is about her - yes, but equally about the photo.

The inability to include her photo in the article is a technical issue and should not discourage us. Disagree.

Most importantly since the bulk of the material in the article now belongs in an article about the woman, we should start a new article on the photo and preserve the history for the bio -again pointing out that the lede has indicated this is a bio since day 1. It's not IMO important where the history ends up so long as it is clearly linked to and preserved.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to link the history of this article with an article about the photo which would look and read completely differently - As I've said repeatedly, because it saves a lot of work.

indeed the 'search' for the woman is much more a story about her than about the original photo itself, and of course all of the follow up was about her. I think the search does belong in the article on the photo.

We need to find new sources that discuss the meaning of this photo and use that to draft a new article, I will take a crack at this next week. Good.

Let's leave it be in the meantime I don't see value in converting this towards a photo article and then undoing that to convert it back to a bio, as it's been for about 6 years. And I don't see the point in waiting. It's all in the history. If there's consensus to revert, then we'll do that. Meantime, at least the lede, title and article structure will be in step.

Suggest you might develop this new article on the photo in your own userspace, and then see whether there's support for moving it to the article namespace as part of a multi-move. You'll need to use dummy images for the fair-use images, perhaps the paintings on commons. If the new article is well written I would not oppose that. It just seems pointless to me. Far better to develop the existing article, using your new material. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Andrew if you don't care where the history ends up after a split, but I do, why oppose me? There's absolutely no difference in the amount of work required.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Because I disagree about there being absolutely no difference in the amount of work required. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of the photograph in the biography article

I just stumbled upon an excellent point I'd missed... in the history of Sharbat Gula there's a move from that name back to Afghan Girl as follows: 03:30, 16 March 2009‎ Damiens.rf (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (33 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (moved Sharbat Gula to Afghan Girl (photo) over redirect: if this was to be a bio, we wouldn't be allowed to use this picture in the infobox). I reproduce it here because there's a chance that the next move my overwrite this history. It's the edit summary that is important.

The point is of course that File:Sharbat Gula.jpg is an unfree image and can only be used in this article because of the fair use rationale, which specifically relates to an article on the photograph itself. It can't be, and never should have been, used in an article on Sharbat Gula herself.

We don't seem to have a free photograph, but there is what appears to be a painting of her based on the photograph at File:ART-HABBACH " FACE TO FACE".jpg in commons, one of two such artworks there. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't that fail derivative work? (ie. should it even be on commons?) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it there... but that's a question for the Commons community. If it's there we can use it. And my opinion isn't the last word, I may be wrong about the artist's source.

But I'm not sure we should use it anyway. I find it unattractive, and I think its use would violate the spirit at least of WP:BLP.

Problem is, without any images the article on Sharbat Gula herself is going to be just plain boring. This may be an unusual but IMO valid argument against the split. Our bottom line, remember, is the reader experience. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Post refactor

As indicated above, I have refactored the article to reflect its topic as the photo rather than its subject. [4]

This may well be the first time in its long history that the article title, lede and structure are all in step.

There is still much to do. It's not terribly tidy, and there's still the unresolved question of whether the personal details should be split out to a biographical article. Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split

It's stated above that there is consensus to split the article into two, one on the photo and the other a bio of the subject. [5] I disagree that there's consensus as yet on this, in fact I see little interest in even discussing the proposal. But it should be discussed, obviously.

I have added a split template to the article. [6] Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• split obviously. The photo is notable, but the woman is as well and clearly passes GNG. BLP1E doesn't apply since there were several events - the taking of the photo and her discovery many years later, and has been the subject of coverage in multiple RS. Since the many years of history of this article it has been a biography, that history should be preserved and linked to the bio article, and relevant contents about the photo should be split off to a new article that would then be moved to this title (Afghan Girl).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • By the subject of coverage in multiple RS do you mean that she's mentioned in articles whose topic is the photo or the photographer? That is borderline notability at best. You have now had the time you requested to find sources that justify an article on the subject. Where are they? At the risk of arguing from silence, see my vote below. Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - As I stated above. I think the right move for the "splitters" would simply be to create a new article. I don't see much tangible difference between a "split" and a "new article". The image of the photo should remain on this page. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify... by this page I assume you mean the page currently at Afghan Girl, and if the image of the photo is to stay, that means that the topic of the page will be the photo, not the person, after any split? Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The topic of the Afghan Girl article should be the photograph "Afghan Girl". NickCT (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, for a pure bio, there is enough coverage to pass the GNG, but not enough for it to exceed a stub, and here is a better place for all of the content. BLP1E applies, as all stories are directly dependent on being the subject in the photograph. Also applying is the BLP guidance on private individuals, which also means that the bio article would remain stub level. A proper biography covers all aspects of a person, and this would not be appropriate. Further, what content there would be in a stubby bio remains appropriate in this article, and so a split would amount to a content fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Split since some editors seem to want to make this article into a biography, which it should not be, and not a photograph article. So, having a separate biography article will solve that editing headache. If it isn't split, I think the amount of biographic information in this article should be much reduced, since it isn't a biography article, and should not be one. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose split. A split would do no great harm, and if we had a strong consensus to split I'd happily go along with it, but we don't, to the point that I believe that the articles would just be merged again in time. There just isn't enough material for a biographical article available from reliable secondary sources (which also brings up the matter of her notability, of course... an AfD of the biography would most likely result in a merge and redirect). Not one of the references or external links currently [7] in the article is about Sharbat Gula (well, one is busted so I guess it might have been). Some appear to be by their titles, for example the Washington Post article National Geographic:Afghan Girl, A Life Revealed [8]], but the headline is misleading. There are five paragraphs, only one of them on Sharbat Gula. On the other hand, two of them are background on Steve Curry. The overall topic of the Washington Post article is the photograph. There's still work to do on this article, but the current arrangement, with a section in the photo covering what little material is available on the subject, is the right way to go. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support since the scope of the article currently does not match the title - e.g. the section on early life. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As I said in the RM, we would not create a stub for the the Venus de Milo model is all we knew about her was her name. We know more about Sharbat Gula than that, but not enough that a split would not be an artificial separation of two topics that ought to be treated in the same article per wp:overlap #2, there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Split: There is currently a lot of controversy surrounding this photograph, namely that Sharbat Gula wasn't named for 17 years. I think that we either need to change the title of this Wikipedia entry to her name Sharbat Gula or split this article into two: one about the "Afghan Girl" photo and the second about Sharbat Gula herself. Wikipedia isn't just an informational space, it is inherently socio-political since it is considered a legitimate reference of information/knowledge. We need to support the history of women and the history of countries in the Global South (especially where these two intersect) in order to alleviate the severe marginalization of these histories. In addition, the photograph "Afgahn Girl" and Sharbat Gula are not interchangeable, though she may be the referent of the photograph. Sharbat Gula is a human being with a history outside of this photograph and thus should be considered for her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF3C:A460:2D2B:E74D:2365:C156 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Split There is enough material and notability for her to have a standalone article. It will also help the categorization of the article with biographical categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. No notability w/o the photo. The story is one. Verne Equinox (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'm going to remove the tag since there seems to be no consensus for splitting. Sam Walton (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I found a wikidata item for the individual via the Wiki Women in Red project, so made a draft for a page for the person Sharbat Gula before I saw this conversation. I figure since five years have gone by there was room for a page for both the artwork and the individual, but I thought it important to leave a note here too. Thanks for all the work on this page to date! (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC))

Awkward wording.

"However, there were a number of women who came forward and identified themselves erroneously as the famous Afghan Girl. In addition, after being shown the 1984 photo, a handful of young men falsely claimed Gula as their wife."

How sure are we that all the women were just "erroneous" and all of the men were being deliberately "false"? In lieu of some evidence can we synchronize these terms? I'm going to be bold.122.221.182.178 (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Watch the NatGeo special where they chase down the false leads. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi may be this news helpful to expanding this article http://www.dawn.com/news/1165626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.215 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is surname?

Her name is "Sharbat Gula". I'd always understood Gula to be her given name, and Sharbat to be the family name.

If that's the case, the reference to "Gula" throughout should be "Sharbat" per WP:SURNAME.

It's also possible that I simply have no understanding of Afghan names, of course. TJRC (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Children

At one point in the article, it says she had three daughters and a fourth died as a baby. Then, shortly after, it says she lives with her sons. So does she have daughters or sons or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.70.180 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See this edit. Could probably use a better source; I don't recognize this one. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Afghan Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111105231356/http://www.montrealmirror.com:80/wp/2011/09/08/capturing-aisha/ to http://www.montrealmirror.com/wp/2011/09/08/capturing-aisha/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghan Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814100937/http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/enlarge/afghan-girl-before-after_pod_image.html to http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/enlarge/afghan-girl-before-after_pod_image.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Her date of birth and age

I've been following Sharbat's story for years since she was rediscovered, and one of the things that sticks in my memory is the fact that she had no idea of exactly how old she was, because she didn't know her own date of birth. I see this article has an exact date listed, but gives no citations for it. Where has the date come from? Does anyone know? And has it been independently confirmed elsewhere than this article? Cadar (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Good call. It looks like it was added in this edit with the misleading summary of "fixed typo" and no sources introduced. I've gone ahead and removed it. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd love to know how that user came up with the date.

Cadar (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of content from Italian Wikipedia article

This article has a template suggestion of including content from the equivalent Italian article, which gives much more detail from Steve McCurry about the photograph and about the search for Sharbat Gula. I'm happy to pitch in and organise the inclusion of the extra content - the above unresolved discussions notwithstanding, because I do believe that an article containing mostly biographical information on a photograph's human subject should not be entitled with the name of the photograph - but there are some issues with this proposal which need to be discussed. Firstly, the Italian article cites no external online sources except for a NG article about the search for Sharbat, and that's only in a citation on the lede. Secondly, the entire rest of the article is apparently based solely on what boils down to an eight-page excerpt from Steve McCurry's book about the story, and contains numerous "direct" quotations which have been translated into Italian for the purposes of the article or are quoted from an Italian translation of the book. As quotes, they do not survive the backwards-and-forwards translation and cannot be used in the current English article. And since I have no access to Steve's book, I'm also not able to verify the authenticity of the material or find the original quotations. In the interests of full disclosure, I should probably point out that I don't speak or write Italian, but since I have friends who are Italian, and I flatter myself I'm conscientious, I would naturally make sure the final English content is accurate to the source. Having said all that, I'm not convinced that a direct translation of the Italian article is the way forward in this instance. Surely going back to primary sources for material to include in any given article is a far better policy? Which in this specific case would mean using Steve's book itself as the source material. Thoughts, anyone? Cadar (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Subject of article vs infobox

Either this article is about the woman, in which case the title should be her name, or the image, in which case the infobox should also be about that. Either way, "c. 1972 (age 47–48)" does not apply to the image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: edited so the infobox is for an artwork, rather than a person, which seems to make sense. (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC))

removal of most biographical detail?

Looking at this article and that of its subject, I at first wondered why there were two articles. But I see the point now. That said, it seems to me most of the biographical information in this article should be removed or merged with the subjects biographical article. It is off the point and redundant with that article. Bdushaw (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I moved biographical material not strictly related to the photograph over from the Sharbat Gula article. An issue that needs developing is the extent to which the famous photograph put her life in danger with respect to the Taliban, thus resulting in her departure for Italy. I believe quite a few references go into this important detail - relevant to this article. Bdushaw (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional information

There should be reference to the fact that an NFT community called Onchainmonkey was also part of the rescue mission to move her to Italy. Can we get that added? What's needed for support? 2600:4040:A645:BE00:24D8:19B0:DC7:CCE2 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Should the criticism section be updated to show the circumstances of the controversy? The article from the Wire references a video by Tony Northrup that Northrup seems to no longer stand behind and has disavowed. Ysjet (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)