Talk:Prostitution in Afghanistan

"Afghan girls and women trafficked abroad"

There are many afghan women who are trafficked into Iran, pakistan and even Dubai and forced to work as hookers. I'm afghan myself, but we shouldn't tryt to hide this, but rather put it into the open and discuss it in order to solve these kind of issues which are huge in afghanistan due to poverty.

For example, he is an article about afghan women being trafficked into uae, Iran and Pakistan and even India. http://www.rawa.org/trafficking.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.31.195 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"bacha bereesh" article

I've added a second reference to the "bacha bereesh" related text - but they seem to actually be the same article:

1. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/246409/Boys_in_Afghanistan_Sold_Into_Prostitution_Sexual_Slavery
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSISL1848920071119?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Anyone know which is the original? Nuwewsco (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:Chrono1084

I'm removing the following information for a variety of reasons.

• Afghan women and girls are trafficked within the country and to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation and temporary marriages. Source: Trafficking in Persons Report 2009
• Impoverished Afghan families have sold their children into forced sexual exploitation. Source: Incidence and Nature of Child Labor
• Some Afghan men force their wives or daughters into prostitution. Source: Trafficking in Persons Report 2009

The 2 sources are not reliable in this case because they don't specify "prostitution in Afghanistan". Nikah mut‘ah is a fixed-term "marriage" practiced by the minority Shia Afghans and who says this is prostitution? There is solid evidence showing Chinese prostitutes working in Afghanistan but the source states "Afghanistan is also a destination for women and girls from Iran, Tajikistan, and possibly China trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation." That indicates that the source is not sure so it lacks credibility. Human trafficking and child labor doesn't always involve prostitution services, especially not in the Muslim countries and more specifically not in Afghanistan where the people are ultra-conservative.

Please don't re-add this information until you find more reliable sources which explain specifically about prostitution in Afghanistan, i.e. like the latest news reports we have added as sources for the other claims in the article. Also, don't remove my W:NPOV starting line in the introduction just because you may not agree with it. That is a fact, and if you disagree or want it sourced just add a citation needed tag. This is an encyclopedia and it must explain a little about the country and the people so that readers understand more.--Jrkso (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

All three sources are reliable so its content is as well. Commercial sexual exploitation and forced sexual exploitation are types of prostitution so it's relevant to talk about it in this article. Also start sourcing your edits especially the first line which is no fact but a POV until you source it. Read your sources because nowhere in the Reuters source does it say the following : "This was practiced in the south of the country also but was virtually eliminated due to the Taliban's strict moral code acting as a deterrent". The 2008 Human Rights Report doesn't say "strictly illegal" but "illegal". The USA Today source doesn't say "usually death by locals" but "Girls and women in Afghanistan who are accused of prostitution or adultery can be imprisoned or killed". So I won't revert all your modifications but I will make the needed corrections.--Chrono1084 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The information found at the 2009 US State department report is already explained in a much more detail way by using the information found at the latest reliable news reports so there is no reason to repeat the same thing in the end of the article. The State department is not clear on prostitution but more focusing on human trafficking which as I explained is not always involving sex and especially not in the case of Afghanistan. The trafficked Afghans pay money to get out of Afghanistan and settle in the west because Afghans have very higher chances of getting their asylum cases accepted. Many have family in the west and the money is paid by them, others are those who are making good income in the country today and they pay to get their children to the west by human traffickers. An average price to send someone to Europe is $20,000, half is paid in advance and the other half after the person lands in Europe.

Anyway, the news reports cited in the article contradict the State department's report on Afghans being trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation, this is why it is unreliable. There is no other source that mentions this, you will need to find at least one more that backs the US state department in order to make your point. This is why I removed that information and please don't add this again because the way you are doing it appears like you're trying to bash Afghans. Those are not facts as you claim, the fact is that prostitution in Afghanistan can get women killed and there are enough reports to convince you with. You are obviously not an expert on Afghanistan as much as I am but this is besides the point. The way that I edit is so that I prevent my self from copyvios because we're not suppose to copy text from other sources and paste it here. Read WP:Copypaste and WP:Plagiarism.--Jrkso (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're don't seem Afghanistan expert as all you've done is try to impose your POV. Start sourcing your claims, stop deleting sourced facts and read the sources carefully. Using one exact word from a source doesn't qualify for copyvio, but if you think something ressembles it you're free to reword it but by keeping its original meaning. Most of what I said was left unanswered by you and the comments you make are to vague for me take into account, so please explain for exemple this: "The information found at the 2009 US State department report is already explained in a much more detail way by using the information found at the latest reliable news reports so there is no reason to repeat the same thing in the end of the article". "Anyway, the news reports cited in the article contradict the State department's report on Afghans being trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation, this is why it is unreliable"-->which sources exactly and how does it contradict?--Chrono1084 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea about Afghanistan or the Afghan people. You are imposing your anti-Afghanistan POV with just using one source (2009 US state department report), which doesn't mention "prostitution in Afghanistan". However, I cited the 2010 US state department report (US embassy in Kabul) which tells us specifically who the prostitutes are that operate in Afghanistan. You keep adding that Afghan husbands use their wives as prostitutes, that indicates that you have no idea about Afghanistan and the Afghan people. You may be an anti-Muslim or anti-Afghan but please I suggest you stop your ridiculous POVs because you are making this article sound like a joke.--Jrkso (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I use many sources. Your source doesn't contradict the ones I use: they're complementary. I wouldn't make any accusations if I were you as you're clearly pro-vandalism and pro-POVs. And of course there's talk about "prostitution", "commercial sexual exploitation" in the sources I use. Your own source says the following: "Afghan boys and girls are trafficked within the country for forced prostitution""Afghan women and girls are subjected to forced prostitution" etc. Your wording concern about the number of brothels being reduced back to 3 as if that many existed during Taliban era has been taken into account, the new rewording shouldn't pose any more problems. You see if you stop being so vague and stop being so destructive, we can make a great article.--Chrono1084 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Afghan boys and girls are trafficked within the country for forced prostitution" and "Afghan women and girls are subjected to forced prostitution" etc is already explained and sourced. The sources are the news reports in which the actual prostitutes are interviewed and all their details are explained. So now why are you repeating this same thing again and using the 2009 State department briefing report? The state department is basically reporting the same stuff but along with other crimes such as human trafficking and etc.--Jrkso (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what you're talking about only exists in my edits. In yours you replace "Afghan women and girls" by "some local Afghan females who recently returned from living as refugees in Pakistan and Iran" I didn't repeat anything but I added precisions which you deleted once more (I will use the 2010 version for more up to date infos). I must say since Nuwesco's remak, you've been much more collaborative and I thank you for that but there's still unsourced claims or deletion of sourced facts.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 Human Trafficking report is not a strong source to be used so many times and that's the reason why I added the dubious tag. We need something else that support some of its claims. So please don't remove this tag again. You are also deleting relevant information that I added about the killing of women accused of prostitution. It is considered vandalism, instead of deleting this you should add a citation needed tag and then I'll search to find a source. The article must also explain how the Afghans deal with prostitution in their country. One more thing, all the news reports state that prostitution is in the north of the country and you shouldn't delete this important point, because the south is the Taliban territory and they don't allow prostitution.--Jrkso (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 Human Trafficking report is a strong source so unless you've got a good source saying something else, there's no reason to put a dubious tag. The Pajhwok source doesn't say the following : "Afghan women accused of prostitution are sometimes shot dead by unknown gunmen". Some sources mention north Aghanistan but a lot of sources talk about the whole country, saying it only concerns the north isn't what is said in those sources. Most of your deleting and editing amounts to vandalism so don't lecture me.--Chrono1084 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 U.S. State Department report is based on Afghan government reports which is what all these news reports show. There is not a single report about prostitution in the south, west, and east, so no it is not in the whole country as you wrongly assume. Pajhwok is a major local news group and their information is much more reliable, they know what's happening inside their country more than us and that's why I use that as a source in here. They only reported one crime but it's common sense that more than two women are killed for this business. You are deleting my edits and I'm just fixing your POVs because like I said you are not familiar with Afghanistan.--Jrkso (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you wanting to limit the phenomenon to the north of the country, contrarly to what at least the US today source. I have rewritten the two first sentences accordingly to the sources but in a different and more consensual way. Secondly, either you use another source for your statement or you leave what Pajhwok says, that's what common sense dictates. Finally don't make any assumption on my knowledge.--Chrono1084 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to limit the phenomenon to the north, this is what all the news reports suggest and we have to explain this to the readers as it is. I don't see why you wanting to push your POV on trying to mislead readers that this taking place all over the country when Taliban are there who just need any excuse to kill someone accused of prostitution. You failed to find a single report for the south, west, or east, and that's your own personal problem. I'm an expert on Afghanistan and I know that there is no such prostitution business in the Taliban controlled areas, which is mainly the whole country except some northern parts. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your own personal POV.--Jrkso (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's common sense to start by statting what goes on in the whole country, for instance USA today says that prostitution seems to flourish there. Then we can talk about the situation in the north, in the south and so on. I'm getting tired of you wanting to prove USA today false by limiting the phenomenon to the north, you could be the best expert on Afghanistan with no sources you can't push your POV in this article. Also why did you remove extrajudicial killings, it's the appropriate term and internal link?--Chrono1084 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no it is not common sense but your own POV, USA Today is talking about the same northern areas (Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul), you keep failing to find prostitution in the south, west and east. USA Today is a newspaper in USA, this is Afghanistan we are dealing with. Don't assume that news sources originating from USA are more reliable than the ones originating in Afghanistan or in Asia. It's common sense that the Afghans would know more about their country then the American news reporters who are sitting in USA and never been to Afghanistan. I have already provided reliable sources for all my edits, it's you who lack reliable sources for your POVs. You are the one pushing POVs and removing sourced content. You want to make Afghans what they are not by trying to put it in your words that they practice prostitution like people in Christian nations (i.e. South America) due to poverty. The fact is they don't and it's very clear that they are very conservative people and strongly devouted to their religion, yet only a small tiny number of them in the north do this and majority of those grew up in other countries. We have to explain this as it is.--Jrkso (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First off stop doing complete revert and do partial ones like me, there are some good in what you and I do Next it's normal to start an article by the broad picture as the USA today does and then talk about the different regions.--Chrono1084 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep stating "two Afghan women were shot", trying to be extremely precise there but when it comes to the introduction you want to think very broadly. This shows that you are a POV pusher.--Jrkso (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this shows I know how to read sources and that I don't interpret or generalize everything like you do.--Chrono1084 (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this? You went to search in google books.com and found this one sentence "Under the Taliban in Afghanistan, the traffic in women for prostitution thrived." and use this to support your POV? This further demonstrates that you are here trying to push your POVs.--Jrkso (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It just means that your POV that prostitution couldn't exist under the Talibans is false.--Chrono1084 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed anything like that.--Jrkso (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I found at least one : "I know that there is no such prostitution business in the Taliban controlled areas"--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't find anything and if you did you'd quickly use that in the article. In the "External links" section there is full details about prositution during the Taliban era and that also was just in Kabul or in the north. Kabul is generally a non-Taliban territory, the Taliban leader Mohammed Omar only visited Kabul 1 time during his leadership from 1996 to 2001.--Jrkso (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"I never claimed anything like that" vs "I know that there is no such prostitution business in the Taliban controlled areas" lol --Chrono1084 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant that I never claimed anything like that in my edits in the article. If you have information on prostitution in the south, west and east provide it or otherwise don't continue with this POV pushings.--Jrkso (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are very unclear on regions and so on. For example it is impossible to really say there is minimal/no prostitution in Taliban controlled areas; in fact one of the articles is quite clear that it is not possible to get data about those regions due to the stigmatism. The article needs to highlight that the main area the sources deal with is the north of the country. It would also be good to find a source that compared prostitution in more liberal/cosmopolitan areas and those under Taliban control. Sadly I've done a relatively exhaustive search using whatever resources I have access to and turned up nothing. Afghanistan is a pretty complex place and we are essentially building an article based on news reports and comments from Aid workers. There is nothing wrong with that - but care must be taken. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Tmorton166, thanks for your assistance but I believe that the news reports tell us very precisely that prostitution is only in the capital Kabul and in the north (mainly Mazar-i-Sharif). This is what all the news reports state, and the same few news reports are distributed into many news sites. I wouldn't call a couple of news reports from 2007-2008 about secret brothels in Afghanistan as a "common" practice. In fact, prositution is so offensive in Afghanistan that it is the only country in the world where religious death orders (fatwas) are issued for those involved in this sort of business.[1] The Taliban do not tolerate any type of prostitution or illegal sex.[2], [3] The recent 2010 Badakhshan massacre is some evidence that Taliban not only control the south, west and east but they also have some control over the north. This article should reflect on that instead of people writing their own theories and nonsense. Btw, I'm an expert on the Afghan culture, people and history.--Jrkso (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems broadly in line with my knowledge of the topic (apart from the religious denouncement - that is pretty common across conservative areas of the middle east & asia). In terms of using sources to show the Taliban control certain areas; we have to be careful there. It is WP:SYNTH to say "the prostitution is not in these areas [SOURCE] and the Taliban control those areas [ANOTHER SOURCE] therefore....". We really need a source that says this (shouldn't be too hard to find). On the issue of only being in the North, there are a number of reasons why the news reports might cover this area and not the others - but I don't think we can infer that none of it exists in the other areas. Again; we need a source to say "predominantly in the north" or some such phrase. However; it is also a good idea to identify the areas the sources cover explicitly (this gets round the issue somewhat). We also do need to deal with the reports from other areas of the country - there are probably quite a few sources, finding them could be an issue and the last time I messed (i.e. read up on) with prostitution topics was a while ago for a case. One of my colleagues, though, is pretty much an expert in the trade (academic :P) and his take is; the problem is very definitely there in the conservative areas but finding people who will "spill the beans" is a huge problem due to the stigma. He has said he will try to find some relevant sources to a) explain that there is a high probability of this existing and b) why it is so hard to put firm figures on it. That would appear to cover all of the issues, no? Short Version: broadly I agree but I think we can deal with other areas of the country too with the right sources --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tmorton166.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Death penalty" doesn't exist for Afghan prostitution

I've reverted back a change that's been repeatedly inserted into the text. Prostitution in Afghanistan does not carry the death penalty. Yes, there are relativly harsh punishments for it, but:

1. These are limited to imprisonment, and
2. Anyone having sex outside marriage, is subject to the same - not just prostitutes.

The cited sources only refer to extra-judicial killings - i.e. plain murder. The previous text misrepresents the facts. Nuwewsco (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Afghan government may not reward the death penalty for prostitution but the Afghan people do. This article is to explain about prostitution in Afghanistan so it should cover every thing, including how Afghans view it or feel about it. Historically, Afghanistan's people lived according to their local traditions. Each region has their own local rules that they abide by and much of the country hasn't been governed by a central government. In the south and east of the country I doubt you find a single prostitution service because that area is tribal society and they follow Taliban style rules.--Jrkso (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased the way you put it to better reflect this (previously it suggested that the criminal justice system turned convicted prostitutes over to the religious fundamentalists in the local village to be stoned to death!

As a sidenote, the BBC article[4] seems like a very weak reference - it states two women were shot, but the justification for killing them was not just because they were prostitutes (in fact, it doesn't even say they were prostitutes), but because they had been running a prostitution ring and assising the local police. I'm inclined to remove this reference, but will leave it in for comment first Nuwewsco (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nuwewsco. If you want to remove this sentence you've got my approval.--Chrono1084 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Women barred from venturing out of homes

(Adding comment here to explain the apparent ref deletion I've just done - and because of the recent edit history on the article, I'm sure someone's gonna question it!)
I've removed a citation and surrounding text relating to a PAN article ([5]) as:

1. It's not actually relevant to the article (only states women in general; the prostitute link looks almost coincidental to the main thrust of the cited article)
2. It mentions nothing about the police turning a blind eye!
3. The main comment (murdering prostitutes) is already covered in the intro para!

Nuwewsco (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Chrono1084 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you are one person trying to bash Afghans / Muslims with your ridiculous POVs. How in the world 2 users found great interest in this article, spreading same POVs? Most people are well aware about Afghanistan being a country of religious extremists but you think otherwise. You have no idea about Afghanistan and its people. The Afghans generally kill women who they suspect as being involved in prostitution. Today nearly the entire country is under the Taliban influence and during the night the Taliban, religious extremists, can go to anywhere and kill women suspected of prostitution and that those reports are the proof to this.--Jrkso (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

First me, now Nuwesco, you really got to stop with your ludicrous accusations.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples

We should only be really using examples (of deaths) that relate to prostitution. I removed two this morning that were related to illegal sex & adultery (not the same thing!). I note there are some more and that the examples now appear to be duplicated... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Chrono1084 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution is a very broad term, in many cases it includes illegal sex and adultery. Since you feel that way about it then I'll ok it that we only use clear prostitution killings. I rewrote the intro in an encyclopedic style. The source (Melissa) is not reliable, she contradicts the official U.S. State Department report. We cannot rely on her in here because we have more reliable sources to use. Some book writers use information we put in Wikipedia, I've seen one writer copy pasted an entire section of Wikipedia article in his book.--Jrkso (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

in many cases it includes illegal sex and adultery - we must have a source to say that (I don't see it mentioned in the article, which it should be if this is the case). My understanding, though, is that prostitution is generally a pretty distinct form of sex crime in the country and, so, the specific article fits OK within the global definition of the term. On the other hand, if a source exists to back up your claim then go for it. In my mind what we probably need to avoid is too much discussion of events not involving prostitution (in the global definition) because it becomes confusing. Perhaps, if a source can be found, we can make a specific section highlighting this information and including the examples. Some book writers use information we put in Wikipedia, I've seen one writer copy pasted an entire section of Wikipedia article in his book - this is misdirection. This happening somewhere you have seen does not undermine the reliablity of the source. Which state dept. material does Melissa contradict? If this is the case we can probably put the two differing opinions in together (but the State dept. report I read had no information on prostitution). The rewrite looked good though - vastly better --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I agree--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Taleban

Recents edits concern me; there seems a distinct effort to try and bring in the synthesis POV that a) the Taleban is extremely strict over sex crime (undisputed), b) that sex crime is unreported or lightly reported in anywhere but the north of the country (again, pretty clear) and c) that, as these are Taleban areas prostitution does not exist there.

Firstly this is not true (which is irrelevant in some ways, but worth saying).

More importantly we do not have a source that makes point c. As a result we must avoid making such claims in the article - even by association. The same goes for prostitution under past Taleban rule - we have a reliable source that says it existed, so far I have found no further information on that. Saying "the Taleban killed prostitutes so there was no prostitution under their rule" is incorrect (at least till we can find a source that says this!).

As I have said before - this article is built on a lot of news reports and rote data (i.e. state department reports). The amount of scholarly material is lacking somewhat. It's a difficult subject and we need to tread carefully. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. State department does not mention the word "prostitution" anywhere in their 2001 country report on Afghanistan but they do explain alot about how strict the the Taliban were especially toward women. See quote below This edit by Tmorton166 seems to disagree about the Taliban being very strict. The new source (Melissa) used for the Taliban states in her book: "Under the Taliban in Afghanistan, the traffic in women for prostitution thrived." but the U.S. State department below doesn't mention anything about that. This is the contradiction that needs to be corrected. Where did Meslissa get her information from? Melissa's book is not about Afghanistan so obviously she isn't an expert on this country. This RAWA report is about prostitution during the Taliban, with prostitutes being interviewed, and that also is focusing on Kabul but doesn't give us any clue that "traffic in women for prostitution thrived" at that time. I think we need to state something like this instead "Prostitution was more restricted during the Taliban rule but existed in Kabul." We don't need to get into details about prostitution being available or not in the Taliban-controlled areas, let readers make their own conclusions on reading the article with the news reports we have presented. The sentence below "Women accused of adultery also are subjected to violence. Adultery is punishable by death through stoning." includes prostitutes because according to the Afghan penal code married prostitutes are considered adulterers which is already stated in the article. In the RAWA report all the prostitutes were married women.

“ Women

As lawlessness and interfactional fighting continued in some areas, violence against women occurred frequently, including beatings, rapes, forced marriages, disappearances, kidnapings, and killings. Such incidents generally went unreported, and most information was anecdotal. It was difficult to document rapes, in particular, in view of the social stigma that surrounds the problem. Although the stability brought by the Taliban to most of the country acted in general to reduce violence against women, particularly rapes and kidnapings, Taliban members continued to threaten or beat women to enforce the Taliban's dress code for women. There were unconfirmed reports that the Taliban or foreign "volunteers" fighting alongside the Taliban abducted women during the military offensive on Taloqan. There were also unconfirmed reports that Taliban soldiers or foreign volunteers abducted women in the offensive in the Shomali plains in 1999 and that they raped and abducted women from Hazara neighborhoods in Mazar-i-Sharif in August 1998. The whereabouts of some of these women were unknown at year's end. The enforced seclusion of women within the home greatly limited the information available on domestic violence and marital rape. In a climate of secrecy and impunity, it is likely that domestic violence against women remained a serious problem.

Women accused of adultery also are subjected to violence. Adultery is punishable by death through stoning. At least one accused adulteress was sentenced to 100 lashes during the year; a female accomplice was sentenced to 30 lashes.

Overall, the situation of women and girls remained mostly unchanged, as the Taliban generally continued the application of its ultra-conservative interpretation of Islamic law.

In 1992 a new government was installed and the previous trend towards increasing numbers of women working outside of the home was reversed. Since the advent of the Taliban in 1994, the trend towards excluding women from employment has intensified.

The treatment of women under Taliban rule has been particularly harsh, although there was marginal improvement in some areas during the year. In the areas where it took control, the Taliban initially excluded women from all employment outside the home, apart from the traditional work of women in agriculture; women were forbidden to leave the home except in the company of a male relative. In urban areas, and particularly after the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, the Taliban forced almost all women to quit their jobs as professionals and clerical workers, including teachers, doctors, nurses, bank tellers, and aid workers. In a few cases, the Taliban relented and allowed women to work in health care occupations under restricted circumstances. The prohibition on women working outside of the home has been especially difficult for the large numbers of widows left by 20 years of civil war; there are an estimated 30,000 widows in Kabul alone. In August the Taliban issued an order closing down the World Food Program's 25 widows' bakeries but reversed the decision on the following day (see Section 4). Many women reportedly have been reduced to selling all of their possessions and to begging to feed their families.

However, during 1999, restrictions on women's employment reportedly eased somewhat. The Taliban allowed women to work in the medical sector as doctors and nurses, treating only other women. Medicins Sans Frontieres and other international NGO's reported that they were able to recruit both male and female health care staff without administrative obstacles and that the main difficulty faced in recruitment of medical staff was the lack of qualified female personnel. In 1999 there were reports that the Taliban reopened schools for doctors and nurses and that women were allowed to attend women-only institutions. A limited number of women were allowed to work for international agencies and NGO's, but they were not allowed to work in the offices of their employers; they were required to go directly from their homes to the project sites on which they worked. A Taliban edict issued in 1999 allowed needy widows with no other means of support to seek employment; but many widows reportedly were unaware of the change, and there was little work available. Women reportedly were allowed to claim international assistance directly rather than through their close male relatives, as a 1997 edict stipulated. However, male relatives still were required to obtain the permission of the PVSV for female home-based employment.

Girls formally were prohibited from attending school. Formal restrictions against the education of girls remain, apart from instruction provided in mosques, which is mainly religious in content. However, there are a growing number of girls educated by international NGO's in formal schools, community-based schools, and home schools.

Most citizens lack any access to adequate medical facilities, and the provision of health care under Taliban rule remains poor. Life expectancy rates are estimated at 44 years for women and 43 years for men. In most regions, there is less than 1 physician per 10,000 persons. Health services reach only 29 percent of the population and only 17 percent of the rural population. Clean water reaches only about 12 percent of the population. Health care for both men and women was hampered by the Taliban's ban on images of humans, which caused the destruction of public education posters and made the provision and dissemination of health information in a society with high levels of illiteracy more difficult. Tuberculosis rates for women and maternal mortality rates are extremely high. The Taliban significantly reduced women's access to health care, although it has since loosened restrictions somewhat. In 1997 the Taliban announced a policy of segregating men and women in hospitals; this policy reportedly continued at year's end. In 1997 in an attempt to centralize medical care for women, the Taliban also directed most hospitals in Kabul to cease services to women and to discharge female staff. Services for women were to be provided by a single hospital still partially under construction, which resulted in a drastic reduction in access to, and the quality of, health care for women. Later, women were permitted to seek treatment from female medical personnel working in designated women's wards or clinics; since June 1998 they have been permitted to seek treatment from male doctors only if accompanied by a male relative. In practice women were excluded from treatment by male physicians in most hospitals. These rules, while not enforced universally, made obtaining treatment extremely difficult for most women, and especially for Kabul's widows, many of whom have lost all such male family members. Further, even when a woman was allowed to be treated by a male doctor, he was prohibited from examining her except if she were fully clothed in Taliban-approved garb and from touching her, thus limiting the possibility of any meaningful treatment. The participants in a 1998 survey of 160 Afghan women reported little or no access to health care in Kabul. Most of the participants also reported a decline in their mental health. However, there were credible reports that the restrictions on women's health care were not applied in practice and that there were some improvements in access to health care for women during the last 2 years. By the end of 1999, all Kabul hospitals apart from the military hospital reportedly treated women. Rabia Balkhi Women's Hospital in Kabul provided a full range of health services to women, but there was only one maternity hospital in the country.

The Taliban decreed what women could wear in public. Women in public spaces were required to wear a burqa, a loose, head-to-toe garment that has a small cloth screen for vision. While in many, particularly rural, areas of the country, the burqa was the customary women's outer garment, the requirement for all women to wear the burqa represented a significant change in practice for many women, particularly in urban areas. According to a decree announced by the religious police in 1997, women found outside the home who were not covered properly would be punished severely along with their family elders. In Kabul and elsewhere women found in public who were not wearing the burqa, or whose burqas did not cover their ankles properly, reportedly have been beaten by Taliban militiamen. Some women cannot afford the cost of a burqa, and thus are forced to remain at home or risk beatings if they go out without one.

During 1999 there were reports of differences in the enforcement of the requirement for women to wear the burqa. Enforcement reportedly was relatively lax in rural and non-Pashtun areas, and there were reports that some women in Herat and in rural areas cover their heads with large scarves that leave the face uncovered and have not faced reprisals. The Taliban's dress code for women apparently is not enforced strictly upon the nomad population of several hundred thousand or upon the few female foreigners, who nonetheless must cover their hair, arms, and legs. Women in their homes must not be visible from the street; the Taliban require that homes with female occupants have their windows painted over.

Women were expected to leave their homes only while escorted by a male relative, further curtailing the appearance and movement of women in public even when wearing approved clothing. Women appearing in public without a male relative ran the risk of beatings by the Taliban. Some observers reported seeing fewer and fewer women on the streets in Taliban-controlled areas. Women are not allowed to drive, and taxi drivers reportedly are beaten if they take unescorted women as passengers. On October 19, taxi drivers were warned by the PVSV not to pick up unaccompanied female passengers or risk a ban on their driving privileges. Women only may ride on buses designated as women's buses; there are reportedly not enough such buses to meet the demand, and the wait for women's buses can be long. In December 1998, the Taliban ordered that bus drivers who take female passengers must encase the bus in curtains and put up a curtain so that the female passengers cannot see or be seen by the driver. Bus drivers also were told that they must employ boys under the age of 15 to collect fares from female passengers and that neither the drivers nor the fare collectors were to mingle with the passengers.

AI has reported that the Taliban have ordered the closure of women's public baths.

Women are also forbidden to enter mosques or other places of worship unless the mosque has separate sections for men and women. Most women pray at home alone or with other family members. Women also reportedly have been prohibited from appearing on the streets for certain periods during the month of Ramadan.

The Taliban's restrictions regarding the social behavior of men and women were communicated by edicts and enforced mainly by the PVSV. The U.N. and numerous other interlocutors noted that the edicts are enforced with varying degrees of rigor throughout the country. The restrictions were enforced most strictly in urban areas, where women had enjoyed wider access to educational and employment opportunities before the Taliban gained control.

After her 1999 visit, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women noted some improvements in the status of women, including the existence of home schools as well as limited primary educational institutions for girls run by the Religious Ministry in Kabul; increased access of women to health care; and the permission for widows to work. The Special Rapporteur also noted continuing violations of the physical security of women and the practice of lashings and public beatings, violations of the rights to education, health, employment, freedom of movement, and freedom of association, and of family rights, including the existence of polygyny and forced marriage. She also noted that minority women sometimes were subject to forced displacement and that there were some cases of trafficking in women and children (see Section 6.f.).

”

I will remove this quote later.--Jrkso (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The U.S. State department does not mention the word "prostitution" anywhere in their 2001 country report on Afghanistan but they do explain alot about how strict the the Taliban were especially toward women. - sure, but we cannot use that to support Prostitution was more strict in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule from 1996 to late 2001. Simply because it does not say that. It is original research to make the connection from the state dept. generalities about women and prostitution.
• Where did Meslissa get her information from? - no idea, but it is irrelevant. It is an acceptable WP:RS.
• but the U.S. State department below doesn't mention anything about that irrelevant; what would be important is if it counter claimed, which it does not. The fact that no information on that topic is given in the report is not something we can speculate on or use to redact other material.
• The quotation you posted doesn't seem to mention anything about prostitution - what is it showing?
• Do you have a link to the RAWA report? It sounds like excellent information we can work with. "Prostitution was more restricted during the Taliban rule but existed in Kabul." is not something I think we can quite get from the current sources but if the RAWA report is as good as you indicate then we may be onto something :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Here is the RAWA. Although Rawa is a controversial group, biased toward all Afghan governments, which is why the even the current Afghan government doesn't allow them to operate there. We can still use some of their information.--Jrkso (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, looks usable. By the way regarding your updated comment: The sentence below "Women accused of adultery also are subjected to violence. Adultery is punishable by death through stoning." includes prostitutes because according to the Afghan penal code married prostitutes are considered adulterers which is already stated in the article. In the RAWA report all the prostitutes were married women. - this is precisely the territory of WP:SYNTH, we can't do it I'm afraid. You need a source to say all those things (together and explicitly). Adultery may well include prostitution - but you can be a prostitute without being adulterous. IIRC the article raises the point that married prostitutes are considered adulterous and the consequences related to that - I think that is as far as we can go with the current sources. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead wording

I actually support Jrsko's alternative, on reflection. The wording in the sources is vague at best - and represent the kind of wording we need to avoid as statements of fact. Either they should be attributed or the alternate wording used. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with attributing.--Chrono1084 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I couldn't find "boomed" in the cited source, it says thrived..... oops, no idea how that managed to slip in. But I attributed the right comment. As to the "flourish" - I can't see it in either of the two sources, something must be mixed up somewhere (or I am having a blonde moment). Though, to be honest, it's such a vague point it's probably fine w/o --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Boom and flourish are equivalents for the verb thrive found in the USA today source and the encyclopedia.--Chrono1084 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's bad - we shouldn't be doing equivalent words when using them direct (non-quote) from sources when the original word is already pretty flowery. But the current compromise looks good --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Prostitution in Afghanistan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Prostitution in Afghanistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dos":

• From Prostitution in Vietnam: "Vietnam". Trafficking in Persons Report 2008. U.S. Department of State (June 4, 2008). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• From Human trafficking in Afghanistan: "Afghanistan". Trafficking in Persons Report 2010. U.S. Department of State (June 14, 2010). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• From Prostitution in Mongolia: "Mongolia". Trafficking in Persons Report 2010. U.S. Department of State (June 14, 2010). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• From Prostitution in Laos: "Trafficking in Persons Report 2008: Laos". www.state.gov. U.S. Department of State. 4 June 2008. Retrieved 21 September 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wild POV pushing by User:John B123

User:John B123 unnecessarily reverted my good faith edits. I'm an expert on Afghanistan but JohnB123 is someone who is sitting somewhere in England with no knowledge about Afghanistan and is putting any nonsense he finds on the internet. He is claiming in the article (to the world) that there were 12,000 prostitutes in Afghanistan in 2016 and cites a nonworking/dead link (which obviously cannot be used here as a reliable source) and another link but that one doesn't say anything about "12,000 prostitutes" in Afghanistan. In other words, John B123 wants us to believe what he believes regardless if it's true or false. He also claims that Mazar-i-Sharif is a prostitution capital. A bold claim like that must be well-sourced, and it must be well-known like how San Francisco in the United States is the capital of LGBT people. He also removed my statement ("which has members on both sides of the Durand Line"). The Shinwari tribe has relatives and even family members in both Afghanistan and Pakistan (on both sides of that border), this is well-known and the sources also say so. When we explain something about female prostitutes in England we don't repeatedly say British prostitutes or English prostitutes. The Taliban punish all prostitutes regardless of nationality, race or ethnicity. In other words, if British or Pakistani prostitutes are caught in Afghanistan they will also punish them.--39.41.71.211 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The only POV pushing is by yourself. Dead links do not mean does not mean a ref is not reliable. see WP:DEADREF. I would note that only one of the links to the UNAIDS estimate of number of sex workers is dead, and [6] clearly states 12,500 on page 134. I see that you have now removed the fully referenced 2019 UNAIDS estimate too.

The Mazar-i-Sharif statement is also sourced. --John B123 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No. I'm not a POV pusher but a person who simply likes to verify bizarre claims and very weak information. Bring an additional source that says there are (or were) 12,500 prostitutes in Afghanistan. UNAIDS is about HIV/AIDS. It just assumes that there may be 12,500 sex workers but does not cite any reference. It could write "120,500" and are we suppose to accept that? I read all the sources carefully and none of them supports your wild claim about Mazar-i-Sharif being the capital of prostitution. You're basically here trying to say you know something that the Afghan Ministry of Interior and the 35 million Afghans don't now. Do you know how foolish that is? You probably just began using the internet recently. I've been using computer since 1985 and the internet since the mid 1990s. Go do something more productive than just wasting your time putting garbage in Wikipedia articles. 39.41.71.211 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get much support in suggesting UNAIDS make their figures up. If you took the time to read the 2019 UNAIDS ref you'll see it gives an explanation of how the figures are worked out and the source.

If you look at the source given for Mazar-i-Sharif[7] it says quite clearly It is also Afghanistan’s unofficial capital of prostitution — so much so that “going to Mazar” has become a byword for Afghan men looking to pay for sex --John B123 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the news article about Mazar-i-Sharif, do you see where it says "By Azam Ahmed"?[8] That's this guy. "Mr. Ahmed worked for nearly three years in Afghanistan covering the war there."[9] Someone covering the war in Afghanistan is not an expert on prostitution in Afghanistan. If he were to say in another article that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last prophet of God, are we suppose to accept that as true? If multiple different experts say Mazar-i-Sharif is an unofficial capital of prostitution in Afghanistan then it would be fine but so far only one foreigner says so. There are many racist people in the world who will say anything. Many of these racist people happen to be involved in the media. Here we have to follow rules, one of which is to WP:VERIFY the content. By the way, I've been to Afghanistan and was there for more than 3 years and one thing you'll always hear there from the Afghans is crazy wild stuff, most of which of course is untrue. The Afghans in the north and in central Afghanistan would often say bad stuff about the southern Afghans, and the southern Afghans would say bad stuff about the northern Afghans. One thing true was that Afghan men looking for sex went to neighboring Tajikistan. It may also be available in neighboring Uzbekistan, which is accessible through the Hairatan border crossing into the Uzbek city of Termez. --39.41.71.211 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

POV Source "Pakistan Frontier" is not reliable

The article called Pakistan Frontier is not a reliable a source because it doesn't provide sources itself for its claims that afghan women are trafficked into India. Not only is it blaming the former Ghani Government and India (yeah totally not biased) but its first sentence literally starts of by ASSUMING that Afghan women are trafficked into India with no secondary sources to prove as a result. Its basically conjure and i am going to remove it .Akmal94 (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And if you do so, John B123 and I will reinsert it. Such newspapers do research; that's how they collect what goes into the news. If you have a problem with the 'Pakistan Frontier' as a news source, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There a WP:CONSENSUS can be formed, after discussion, as to whether it is questionable. After that, it can be considered for removal. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

What part of "no secondary sources" do you not understand? The article goes on to egnite its blame on India due the on-going Pak-India conflict and does not give a source to support its claims. There is no need for a census when the source is so obviously biased. It going to be removed. Akmal94 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As warned by Buckshot06, your changes have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, you need to gain agreement here before removing the content. --John B123 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

“Estimated”

Hello @Buckshot06 I hope you’re doing swell! I’m using the talk page because I wanted to discuss your revision. I understand that it’s an “estimate”, but I’m not really sure if that addresses my main concerns with the line. The article states that there are other sources which estimate 7000 girls being sold. But the issue is the article doesn’t provide the citations or the sources anywhere. Furthermore, the biggest issue I see is that there are no other sources that collaborate this statement. Not a single one.

I hope we can come to some sort of agreement or compromise. It would be great to see to your point of view and concerns. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the section above? It covers this *exact* point. If you have a problem with the Pakistan Frontier, take it to RSN. Otherwise the consensus is for this point to be included. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

yes I’m aware but the reliability of the source wasn’t really my focus for now(although perhaps I should look into that later). My biggest problem is the fact that this is the only source that collaborates this statement. I couldn’t find any info regarding this topic other than this one article. Do you have any other sources that collaborate this statement? Because if it only comes from this one article, then to me that’s a little concerning.

furthermore the other issue is that the article writer states they are sources which confirms the statement they put out, but it doesn’t provide any sources. That’s more of a minor focus though, my main concern is the lack of notable sources which collaborate this statement. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also the previous discussion did not appear to have held a consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In which case WP:NOCONSENSUS applies and the content is retained. --John B123 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes at the moment there isn’t consensus I’m aware. I’m not trying to change the article before discussing my proposal in the talk page.

But don’t you find it a little concerning that there isn’t any other source that collaborates the statement mentioned in the article? It’s especially concerning when the article writer claims that there are sources confirming this to be a fact. If so, where are they? They aren’t presented in the article. And I couldn’t find any other sources online which could back this up. If I may ask, do you have any sources on hand which can confirm the contents inside the article? Or do we only have a single source which states this?

but that’s just my concern. You have far more experience on Wikipedia than me so maybe I’m wrong. I just personally don’t see the value in leaving in this line at the moment but I’m willing to be proven wrong, especially if you have any other sources. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The only other mentions I could find refer back to the Pakistan Frontier article. Whilst we don't know what source the estimate came from there could be numerous reasons why the source wasn't revealed. Unless there is some reason to suspect the Pakistan Frontier isn't reliable, then we have to accept it at face value. --John B123 (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

All due respect, why would we have to accept it at face value though? Even if the source is reliable which hasn’t really been established, there’s no way to confirm the estimate in the article because it doesn’t provide a citation for the number and no other sources collaborate that statement.

“The only other mentions I could find refer back to the Pakistan Frontier article. Whilst we don't know what source the estimate came from there could be numerous reasons why the source wasn't revealed”.

This is the reason why I took this to the talk page in the first place. I couldn’t find any information on the web that that supports this claim. Failing to provide the source is one thing. The fact that we can’t find any other sources in our spare time is another. Judging from the fact that our search turned up with nothing, this supposed citation likely doesn’t exist.

Both of our search’s only ended up back to the same Pakistani frontier source. So going back to my original concern, is this the only article that collaborates this statement? If we can’t any other sources that support this articles claims, then that number is unverified. Again, unless you can somehow find the citation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are in the wrong place. If you have concerns with the source, go to WP:RSN and get it taken apart by the experts there. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that I have more of an issue with the fact that no sources collaborate this one article. I’m not exactly arguing about the reliability of the source although perhaps that would be an interesting topic as well if I had more time to spare for an RSN, maybe I could bring it up then.

The article doesn’t provide the citation for its number either. Again, I care less about the reliability of the source itself, because ultimately the writer claims that they got the information from another source somewhere else. But it’s no where to be found in the article.

Also why would the burden be on me? Correct me if I’m wrong but when it comes to asserting the reliability of the source, doesn’t the burden of proof fall on your shoulders? Because you’re in support of restoring/keeping the line.

“All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material”

Wikipedia:Verifiability

And the purpose is to let readers know that the information comes from a reliable source. Sure it hasn’t been proven as unreliable but it hasn’t been proven as reliable either. Considering you want to restore/leave the line as it is, It seems that you’re the one who should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard(if your interested). As it stands, theres no confirmation that the source is reliable, or unreliable(although theres a lot of problems with the article that I may list later if I have time) Again you can correct me if I’m wrong, but this is just what I got from looking over the rules.

But moving onto my main point(again my main contention isn’t really the reliability of the article although it doesn’t look reliable in the slightest), I believe the Onus is on you to provide a source that backs up the number in the article as well.

Because I am challenging contents of the article based on the fact that it doesn’t provide any citations for the number of people trafficked despite the writer claiming that there are indeed sources which confirm it. Not only is it not listed in the article, it doesn’t seem like any other source collaborates the statement of some unknown writer and article. So again, I believe a source that confirms this estimate is needed. And I’m basing this off of the same rules I just cited in verifiability.

Also I found this essay to be helpful(while not a rule or policy, the burden of proof part is linked to the same page I cited above).

“You may be confident that sources exist, but asserting this without proof is unlikely to convince anyone who believes that they don't.”

“ The burden of proof is on those who add or defend the contentious material to provide sources that satisfy the concerns of the challenging editor.”

Wikipedia:But there must be sources!

If I made any mistakes regarding wiki’s policies here then please let me know. As I’ve stated before, I don’t think we should leave this line if we can’t even find any other source that collaborates the statement in the article. Any search related to this will just lead to the same Pakistani frontier article. The Onus is on you to show me where that citation is. Because from my perspective, it seems like it doesn’t even exist. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no requirement in WP for source materials to provide citations to where they obtained the information.

As a general rule, sources are presumed to be reliable unless there is evidence to suggest they are not. It is not the case that a source is considered unreliable until it is proved to be reliable.

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires a single inline citation to verify a fact, it doesn't require multiple sources for verification.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The full sentence is The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. This is fully met. --John B123 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to include: The burden of proof is on those who add or defend the contentious material to provide sources that satisfy the concerns of the challenging editor - this refers to unsourced content, which is not the case here. --John B123 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response John. I could have continued trying to convince you guys otherwise but I figured it would be faster if I just went to the reliable sources noticeboard. We’ve concluded there that the source is unreliable(for largely the same reasons I mentioned here mind you) which should end this debate.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

look under Pakistani frontier. Firstly the website is dangerous, not only is it filled with ads, one of the users anti virus software did not allow them to view the website. So it likely has malware. Secondly, as we discussed, the source is not backed up by any mainstream source(or any citation for that matter). This is the only source that mentioned this. Furthermore let me reference what one user “abecadare” wrote.

“ No, Pakistan Frontier is not a usable source for this or any other information. It is just a random website of recent (mid 2021) origins and of unknown bona fides and publishers set up to give the superficial appearance of a news organization. That becomes obvious if one takes a look at its non-informative About us, Contact and Privacy policy pages; its lack of bylines; or, numerous placeholder sections. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)”

There is a complete lack of information about the website and its creators. There’s nothing about its editors, founders, or anything. It’s almost completely unknown from the public eye, and once again, the site doesn’t share any important information about the organization. Seeing as how I took this to the reliable sources noticeboard, is there any more issues you guys wanted to hash out or have we covered everything spread? Let me know because pretty soon I’m going to make the change and edit this source out. I hope I covered all your concerns, but let me know if I haven’t.

@Buckshot06@John B123 Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's good that you have taken this issue to RSN; you are effectively saying that we cannot rely on that one single source (because you want a citation, thus a non Pakistan Frontier source). What is the link to the discussion so that we can contribute at RSN? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: You seem to be getting ahead of yourself, please wait until the discussion at RSN reaches its conclusion before taking any action.--John B123 (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I had no plans on performing any actions until the discussion at RSN was over. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you buckshot! And that’s one of the issues you just listed but there are other problems which we brought up in the discussion page. I’m glad this discussion can finally find its conclusion. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has closed with a consensus on RSN, where we concluded that the source was unreliable. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can view the RSN discussion here

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s another source that needs attention.

User:John B123 User:Buckshot06 Apologies for pinging you two for another conversation after we just ended the previous topic, but I found another line/source that much like the “Pakistan frontier”, is quite problematic. I felt that if I edited the page without using the talk page, my changes would probably be reverted again, so I’m here to go over something too long for the summary page. Salon appears to be cited for this line.

“Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of brothels and prostitution around US bases”

And this is the line from the salon article.

“Even during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been multiple reports of brothels and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors.”

Now I can get to the crux of the issue. So at first glance salon seems to be a bit of a better source than Pakistani frontier(which it is although that’s not saying much), but Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there’s no consensus on its reliability, it’s considered biased and opinionated, and more importantly, additional considerations apply. I’ll show what those considerations are.

“There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed”

The last part is important because that means every and any statement from a salon article should have a source attributed to that statement in the newsletter(like a citation to another author). But this Salon article simply states that there have been reports of prostitution near U.S bases, without any sources/citations to back that claim up(much like the Pakistani frontier article) So if there’s no attribution, then this source shouldn’t be used. Because per the Perennial sources page, for there to be a salon article cited in wikipedia, it requires an attribution, which this source doesn’t have. That means this article shouldn’t be used. And this is just considerations for Salon in particular. Other articles may have different citation guidelines if there is an issue with the source much like there is for Salon.

Another issue is that this article isn't collaborated by any other reliable source. Which means that even if it was usable on wiki(which it isn’t/shouldn’t), it would need at least one other source backing it up, and in this case there isn’t.

I don’t think there’s a need to take this to RSN. Look at what’s written above the search bar in the perennial page.

“Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions.”

there’s already been multiple discussions about the newsletter and the article is listed in the perennial page. But if we can’t come to an agreement then as a last resort we could use an RSN, or ping the uninvolved users that had just voiced their opinions on the Pakistani frontier source. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I should probably clarify. My question is do you guys have any concerns or disagreements

regarding the removal of the line that uses the salon source? If not then I’ll move on with its removal. If there are concerns, please let me know. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

oh and I forgot to mention WP:EXTRAORDINARY

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

basically an exceptional claim requires multiple reliable sources in which case there isn’t currently(just one source that hasn’t been verified as reliable) I mentioned a little bit about this in my previous comment but I forgot to specify which policy I was writing about. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Before I got to the point of the final referral to RSN re the "Frontier," I did a set of searches to look for figures to back up the 7000 figure, and found nothing. But US troops attract brothels and DynCorp personnel ran some of that kind of sex trafficking in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's very possible; are there any other sources?

And you do not need to apologise. If you wish to scrub the article like this, it's great!! I have learnt something from this - "exceptional claims need exceptional sources.." Buckshot06 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Prostitution around US bases is well documented in most countries where they have based. I don't see how a claim that the same happens in Afghanistan would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I can't find any other sources to back up brothels and prostitution around US bases, but there are multiple reports of US personnel and especially contactors working for the US military, being involved in prostitution and sex trafficking (which is what Salon reported rather than what was written in this WP article). I suggest this section is rewritten to reflect the actual situation back up by reliable sources. --John B123 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:EXTRAORDINARY again. let me show you the most important bits.

“Any exceptional claim requires multiple-high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags)that should prompt extra caution include:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest

So two things. The claim from salon is not backed by any mainstream reliable sources. This is the only newsletter/source that has made the claim. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it’s a red flag if this is the only source that makes the claim.

That’s pretty much my main point regarding exceptional sources but there’s also a second factor I haven’t brought up yet.

“Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;”

Per Perennial sources this article has a conflict of interest because editors have determined it to be biased and opinionated.

So it doesn’t really matter if the U.S has set up brothels in other countries outside of Afghanistan.

sidepoint: Afghanistan is also very different culturally, socially and politically from the nations that do provide those services. It’s far more conservative than say South Korea. If this was true in Afghanistan, there needs to be more sources to back that claim up.

This source is filled with red flags and it’s the only one which supports the assertion that it also happened in Afghanistan. So yes per the red flags under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it definitely is exceptional.

All right moving on

“I can't find any other sources to back up brothels and prostitution around US bases, but there are multiple reports of US personnel and especially contactors working for the US military, being involved in prostitution and sex trafficking (which is what Salon reported rather than what was written in this WP article). I suggest this section is rewritten to reflect the actual situation back up by reliable sources”

okay now let me show the line from the article.

“ Even during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been multiple reports of brothels and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors.”

It seems to me that all it’s saying is that the U.S troops were involved in brothels and sex trafficking. Not that some U.S troops engaged in providing sexual services to other service members, which I assume is what you meant by that line. If not that let me know.

I can understand rewriting it but that still doesn’t really address my concerns. The problem is there is no other sources that collaborate this article. Due to the fact that it’s considered biased and opinionated per perrenial sources, it requires Wikipedia:Attribution. And the article does not attribute its claim to any other sources, so rewriting it doesn’t seem like the proper solution. It’s best to remove this part of the article.

if we disagree and can’t figure this out, than I can always ping the uninvolved users to help us reach consensus. But I hope we can come to an understanding before that happens. And thank you for letting me know your concerns. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you buckshot for your understanding! I also learned a lot from this conversation. Including how to use RSN.

To answer your question “are they any other sources”. No, they aren’t any other citations that backed up the salon newsletters claim. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Salon is used as a reference in around 17,000 Wikipedia articles so it could be argued that the community has accepted Salon as a reliable source by its widespread use. Quoting one editor's opinion from a discussion about one Salon article sets no precedents. Even if Salon was biased and opinionated it is irrelevant as the article is an extract from a book, Women's labor, sex work and U.S. military bases abroad, not an article written by Salon.

Going back to your opening post, Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of brothels and prostitution around US bases isn't supported by the source text Even during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been multiple reports of brothels and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors i.e. The source doesn't say the brothels were around US bases.

I can find no other sources that report brothels involving U.S. troops and contractors in Afghanistan, but there are many reporting involvement, especially by contractors, in prostitution and sex trafficking. My suggestion is that the wording be changed to something along the lines of There have been reports of prostitution and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors prior to their withdrawal from the country and additional citations added.

Prostitution around US bases, I don't see that as surprising. What would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY would be a claim that it didn't happen. --John B123 (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem like we will come to an agreement on our own. @Valjean User:Abecedare @TrangaBellam

Deepest apologies for pinging you 3. I’m not sure if it was appropriate or not but I think we need other users feedback to reach a consensus. We are currently trying to figure out if the salon article used on the wiki page here is valid.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/08/womens-labor-sex-work-and-u-s-military-bases-abroad/

This definitely won’t be a regular occurrence, just felt like we needed some more feedback if that’s okay. There’s another problem with the salon source like there was with the Pakistani frontier. If pinging you all wasn’t okay then let me know and I won’t make the same mistake again.

Anyway moving on to Johns points, I think you kind of ignored a really crucial point here. The community has already determined salon not to be a source that’s generally reliable per Perennial sources page. There’s no consensus. At the moment it’s not generally reliable or unreliable. But there are more considerations for this source.

I’m not sure how salon existing in other pages matter. If there is a problem with sourcing on those wiki pages perhaps someone should take a look and change it. Or maybe in those pages there was a salon article that actually attributed its statements with a source. One thing you seem to miss is that it’s possible for Salon sources to be used on Wikipedia if there is an attribution(source tied to their statements) Which doesn’t seem to be the case here. So I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that salon is reliable because some users have used it for articles before. That doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be there. It may do us a favor if we actually took our time to read some of the previous conversations involving salon at RSN.

Also it seems that the author of the article is also the author of book. Either way it still needs a citation for its claims.

“The source doesn't say the brothels were around US bases.

I can find no other sources that report brothels involving U.S. troops and contractors in Afghanistan, but there are many reporting involvement, especially by contractors, in prostitution and sex trafficking”

I was a little confused but now I think you made a simple mistake here which is okay. But the source does in fact mention brothels. You quoted it too. Here let me show.

“Even during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been multiple reports of brothels and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors.”

so I’m not sure what the difference is.

And finally let’s talk about WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is really important because I noticed that you didn’t actually respond to the argument I made here(you mentioned it but left out crucial points). It’s not about what you personally find to be surprising or not. You need to look at the red flags listed which details the signs of an exceptional source. Look at these two signs for example.

“Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;”

“Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;”

So for one and perhaps the biggest reason, these claims are not covered by multiple mainstream reliable sources. If this is the only article that exists on the topic for example, then that’s an exceptional source. It needs multiple mainstream sources at the least, which it doesn’t have.

The second problem is conflict of interest. This source was described by editors as biased and opinionated which is partially why its statements require attribution.

But to conclude, this source is definitely WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I hope this conversation concludes sooner once there is more users participating in the talk page. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I have no idea what you are after here. I have already suggested that the wording in the article be changed so that other sources can be used to verify the text.

Pinging the users that agreed with you at the previous RSN, but not those who disagreed is WP:CANVASING.

Please give a link to where it is stated Salon is not a reliable source. --John B123 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m just pinging uninvolved users that took part in an RSN that happened very recently. They may have agreed with me last time sure but it doesn’t insure that will be the case this time. I just wanted more feedback because it doesn’t seem that we would agree with each other otherwise, and the conversation will go no where. It’s the best way to find consensus.

plus at the beginning of the article you cited it clearly mentions this.

“In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus”

There is only two of us actively engaging so far. We definitely need more users if we want to achieve consensus.

“Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.”

My intention is not to influence the outcome. My intention is to get a consensus. For 2 of the 3 users I pinged, RSN was the first time and only time I interacted with them. Again someone can correct me if I’m wrong because if I am canvassing, then I would like to correct that mistake.

But it doesn’t seem pinging them was inappropriate based on what you cited. Look at appropriate and the inappropriate notification sections. I didn’t break any of the inappropriate rules to my knowledge.

and it seems like abecadare agrees with you anyway. So after reading his response I’m fine with simply rewriting it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:APPNOTE: The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. --John B123 (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t select the audience based on the matter of their opinion. Again I barely interacted with them and one of them agreed with you.

The only thing that seems to be required is sending a notice to all those that voiced their opinion. And you were already engaged in the talk page. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Excluding myself, Valjean, Pecopteris, Abecedare, Buckshot06, TrangaBellam, Elinruby and Sawerchessread contributed to the previous RSN. Only pinging the 3 that agreed with you out of the 7 sure looks like canvassing to me. --John B123 (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay I’m not sure how this argument serves to benefit the article but I’m only responding due to the fact that you’re accusing me of something.

Elin was just a passerby who answered a question on what sawerchess wrote. She/he/they had no opinion on the actual topic itself. It didn’t seem like that user was interested on the actual matter we were discussing. So…why would I ping Elin?

Pecopertis wrote like one sentence and didn’t expand on their opinion. Again like Elin, they barely contributed to the conversation. That users comment was so unnoticeable that I didn’t even realize they contributed to the conversation until you mentioned it. That’s why I never pinged Pecopertis.

Sawerchess didn’t really expand on what they wrote beyond saying newsletters don’t generally have citations but if there’s only one citation, then it should require an attribution. They didn’t really voice their opinion on the topic either, and stopped responding midway through. Again, it didn’t seem like something that would interest them.

Buckshot? That was the first person I pinged alongside you at the beginning of this conversation…why would they need to be pinged again?

I pinged 4 out of 7 of the RSN participants. The only people who were left out were the ones who either barely participated, weren’t interested in the actual topic, and/or went unnoticed. In fact I pinged buckshot (who originally agreed with you) long before those RSN members(one of which agreed agreed with you btw).

I never thought those users would be 100% behind my back. I have full confidence that they will always observe the conversation and topic objectively, which they did. They are senior members.

I have no ill will towards you and hope that we can come to an understanding by the end of this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• (responding to ping) No issues at all citing a well reviewed book by a professor of anthropology that has been cited by dozens of scholarly articles. Indeed this is the ideal kind of source that we should be relying upon. The fact that Salon excerpted a section of the book doesn't affect the credibility of the underlying source unless one suspects that Salon did not quote the book accurately, which can be easily confirmed not to be the case.

Though not necessary, we can also cite the book Base Nation (p. 163) itself instead of the Salon article; the tradeoff being ease of access vs directly leading the reader to a more comprehensive source. FYI, in the book Vine cites this Washington Post article for the claim of prostitution around US bases in Afghanistan and involving US personnel; we can add a citation to it too. Abecedare (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I pinged because I wanted to get a consensus and it seems like you cleared a lot of my concerns. I’m fine with rewriting it now.

quick question about that citation. Reading the link, it seems to specify that women from Eastern Europe were trafficked for prostitution in Afghanistan. Is this also the case in the book “Base nation”? I’m currently trying to get access to it so I can read what it states instead of relying on the salon link because there’s probably a lot of information left out that can fill in the context. I also agree that the salon link should be replaced with the book itself.

And correct me if I’m wrong. Reading this gives me the impression that it was foreign women outside of Afghanistan being trafficked into the country for U.S soldiers. I mean I could be wrong and there was use of local women but maybe this source should specify that because it possibly gave me the wrong impression upon first reading it. And that’s just based on the link that was sent. Hopefully we can get access to the book so we can specify.

“Nearly a decade after Dyncorp International employees were accused of buying and selling women from throughout Eastern Europe -- and were not prosecuted -- the State Department alerted the U.S. Army to allegations made by a freelance journalist. The journalist said she had interviewed women held in Iraq as involuntary servants in debt slavery.

The February report, posted online as part of an Army PowerPoint presentation, alleged that supervisors of an Army subcontractor in Iraq had sexually assaulted some of the women.

"The women were recruited from their home nations with promises of well-paying beautician jobs in Dubai," said an Army summary, "but were instead forced to surrender their passports, transported against their will “

seems like they are talking about girls who are taken from their home countries and transported into Iraq and Afghanistan but again, correct me if I’m wrong. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I found a little bit more information on page 225.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6Ww5BgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

“Each corporation has enjoyed a “mini monopoly over logistic services in Afghanistan and other locations. DynCorp…has a history littered with charges of overbilling, shoddy construction, smuggling laborers onto bases, sexual harassment, and sex trafficking”.

If there was full access, I could find more information about this. But this seems to back up the source you cited from the Washington post, which mentioned DynCorp. Also looking at page 2, of the Washington post article, it seems that the brothels are serviced by women who were forcefully trafficked to Afghanistan from China.

“In Afghanistan, evidence of trafficking came to light when 90 Chinese women were freed after brothel raids in 2006 and 2007. The women told the International Organization on Migration that they had been taken to Afghanistan for sexual exploitation, according to a 2008 report… In late 2007, officials at ArmorGroup, which provides U.S. Embassy security in Kabul, learned that some employees frequented brothels that were disguised as Chinese restaurants and that the employees might be engaged in sex trafficking. A company whistleblower has alleged in an ongoing lawsuit that the firm withheld the information from the U.S. government.”

If I were to suggest a change, we should get rid of the salon source and cite the book and Washington post article instead. Write out something like

“Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of brothels serviced by Chinese and other foreign prostitutes around US bases” or “Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of brothels and serviced by foreign prostitutes around US bases”. Maybe after the word “prostitutes” add (Chinese, Eastern Europeans, and others). But I still haven’t decided

Maybe add another line detailing how the girls were forcefully trafficked to detail how this is in essence a form of modern sex slavery. I think this would be better than just implying there to be prostitution and brothels around U.S bases because it doesn’t specify that these girls were taken against their own will, sent to a faraway land, and are than exploited by members of the U.S military and contractors. Basically highlight the fact that this is an instance of sex slavery because I think that might be an important detail in an article about prostitution and would correctly inform the reader.

But that’s just my suggestion. Do you abecadare or anyone else have any thoughts on this? If there’s anyone that thinks that I’m wrong for whatever reason, or have any concerns, please let me know. But maybe if I have time, I’ll change the line. Only if everyone here is okay with what I came up with. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Going back to my earlier point, around US bases isn't supported by sources. They say servicemen and contractors used prostitutes and brothels but don't specify a location, the brothels could be miles away. --John B123 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think salon did mention that it was around U.S bases but Im not sure if that collaborates the book until I can get full access to it. So maybe you’re right here and I wouldn’t be opposed to reflecting a change like that in the wiki article.

Did you have any thoughts on my proposal? Maybe instead we can change the line to something like this.

“Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of brothels serviced by Chinese prostitutes around US bases” (we can also ditch the term “brothels” and just write about the Chinese and other foreign prostitutes who are forced to service the American military). or “Prior to NATO troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of foreign prostitutes around US bases”.

I know you think the brothels are miles away instead of around US bases so maybe we can make a change that reflects that too. Either way the Washington post did say there was brothels serviced by Chinese prostitutes(no mention of locals so it would be good to specify foreign instead of the natives to Afghanistan)

My final suggestion was maybe adding another line after all this which reveals that these girls are forcefully trafficked to Afghanistan against their own will. I just think it would better inform the reader about the situation. Reminding them that these are women who were forced to come serve the military in a strange faraway land against their own will. Basically, make sure the reader knows that these people were trafficked and it wasn’t consensual.

what do you think? Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We need to reflect what sources actually say and not draw assumptions from it. From the book/Salon:

Commercial sex zones have developed around U.S. bases worldwide. Many look much the same, filled with liquor stores, fast-food outlets, tattoo parlors, bars and clubs, and prostitution in one form or another. The evidence is just outside the gates in places such as Baumholder and Kaiserslautern in Germany, and Kadena and Kin Town on Okinawa. Even during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been multiple reports of brothels and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors.

It doesn't say Commercial sex zones have developed around all U.S. bases worldwide, I doubt if it is the case at McMurdo Station, Antarctica for example (where the 1,000 + service personnel are obviously only there to support the scientific staff as military operations in Antarctica are prohibited by international treaty). Nor does it say the brothels were around US bases in Afghanistan. They may well have been, but this is not something we can say with certainty.

The Washington Post article includes about trafficked Chinese women being used. We can't conclude that all the women being used by the US military/contractors were from China or that they were all trafficked. I would suggest something along the lines of Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of prostitution and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors including women sex trafficked from China

@John B123 for some reason I must reply down my own comment so I’ll just ping you.

(Minor point. I don’t think I ever claimed that all U.S bases worldwide had access to commercial sex zones)

I mostly agree with your suggestions and think that’s a great baseline, but there’s a few minor caveats.

One thing I think the Washington post source makes clear is that the women were trafficked to Afghanistan for exploitation.

your quote: “We can't conclude that…they were all trafficked”

“ In Afghanistan, evidence of trafficking came to light when 90 Chinese women were freed after brothel raids in 2006 and 2007. The women told the International Organization on Migration that they had been taken to Afghanistan for sexual exploitation, according to a 2008 report...

In late 2007, officials at ArmorGroup, which provides U.S. Embassy security in Kabul, learned that some employees frequented brothels that were disguised as Chinese restaurants and that the employees might be engaged in sex trafficking. A company whistleblower has alleged in an ongoing lawsuit that the firm withheld the information from the U.S. government.”

It’s pretty clear that most or all of the girls were trafficked and taken to be exploited as they all attested to that in the interview. It’s a minor moot point anyway because either way we are going to mention sex trafficking.

As for the country of origin of these women, I’ll reveal to you some of my findings

for one I finally got full access to the book through pdf drive.

David vine actually doesn’t add too much detail himself but he cites the same authors of the Washington post article abecadare sent. He mentions this on page 233. So it appears he got this information from them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/17/AR2010071701401.html?sid=ST2010071802771

The only ethnicity that seems to be mentioned are Chinese women. Nobody else. DynsCorp was accused of trafficking Eastern European women per the example I cited not too long ago but this was outside of Afghanistan proper. All the brothels were Chinese styled resteraunts and all of the women freed were from China. There may be a possibility of other ethnicities being trafficked into Afghanistan for sexual exploitation by the U.S military but there should be more evidence that suggests some of the trafficked women came from another country. Because again, the authors cited only seem to mention Chinese women.

But again I mostly agree with you on this point. This conversation seems to be near it’s end as I think we already hashed through most of the important points, and seem to be close on agreeing with a new change with the exception of a couple of minor points I highlighted.

Again you came up with an almost flawless line, but I have a few minor suggestions to make it a little better.

“Prior to foreign troops withdrawing from the country, there have been reports of prostitution and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors, specifically women trafficked from China”

I only really changed up one word or two words to make it clear to the viewers. When I first read the line without the Chinese line, it made me think the U.S military were using local women which would probably be a bad idea/big problem in a deeply conservative nation like Afghanistan. But given that it doesn’t mention that, I think we should specify so it doesn’t confuse the readers like it confused me.

Do you think that’s a good compromise? If so we can probably move on with making the edit change. Again this conversation is very near its end. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure why I can’t reply directly below your comment on anymore, which will probably confuse the readers of this talk page but oh well. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I've also had the same problem at times when replying on a mobile. To avoid confusion to other readers I've moved your post down. --John B123 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate that. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The US Department of State's 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Afghanistan includes Traffickers have subjected women and girls from the People’s Republic of China, Iran, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Tajikistan to sex trafficking in Afghanistan (last paragraph). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's Appropriate Legal Responses to Combating Trafficking in Persons in Afghanistan reports There are significant reports of internal trafficking in Afghanistan. Forms of trafficking occurring within Afghanistan include exploitation of prostitution, prostitution of minors (most often girls but also boys) (section vii, page 16 of the pdf). These documents show trafficking in Afghanistan includes Afghans as well as foreign nationals other than Chinese. The Washington Post article reports raids on Chinese brothel, but likely this isn't the full picture. There may well be other brothels that haven't been detected, or not raided due to corruption, which may have contained other nationals. I didn't want to give the impression that only Chinese women were used by US personnel. That said, as the Washington Post only reports Chinese so changing the wording in the proposed change to specifically is ok. --John B123 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

All right it looks like we are at the conversations conclusion.

(Minor point: I’m aware trafficking in Afghanistan as a whole includes a wide variety of different ethnicities but I’m only referring to women trafficked by the U.S military in Afghanistan for this case, and only one ethnicity is mentioned)

Anyway the important thing is I think we are in a final agreement than. There needed to be some type of change and it looks like we have a good framework of what that is.

Should I make the edit or would you rather do the honors? Doesn’t matter to me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References