Talk:Bacha bazi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs references

No sources, unref tag added. --FloNight 09:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Inadequately-sourced

Almost every source in the document traces back to the same PBS Frontline documentary. If there isn't any more literature to support such assertions that this practice "thrives" in northern Afghanistan (which it very well may for all I know) how can we bestow them with any more than speculative verification? This is a serious issue which must be addressed - such work as this would not pass as a undergraduate-level research paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.18.2 (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure it would. Investigative documentaries are citable sources. Here is the MLA citation if someone wants to properly cite it in the article: "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan." Narr. Will Lyman. Frontline. PBS Television. 20 Apr. 2010. Television. Cheers. 174.5.104.204 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

biased approach to references here...

Can we try to find some more scholarly sources than an attack anti-Muslim site such as this for a source on a sensitive topic? The moral panic aspect of this article is high: Is WP going to inform or inflame? There are plenty of people online to do the inflaming. Let's try to find the best sources, not the most inflammatory.

footnote seven refers to: http://newcrusadenow.blogspot.com/2011/02/dirty-little-moslem-secret-boys-turned.html I do not think we need to refer to crusades and then attack a practice of some people as a "Muslim" practice. Note that the spelling Moslem is like George Bush saying Eye-rock for Iraq. Biased and attempting to display disdain.

Just because people who do something are Muslims, it does not justify making a stereotype and generalization. The same attribution is made about Greeks (ancient and modern), and check the etymology of bugger if you like. We are talking about culturally shaped practices, and we need to be careful in describing them, especially to avoid making prejudiced generalizations based on extremely limited knowledge. That is opposed to WP ethics, not to mention good sense.

Another reference here goes under the title: "Sodomy and Sufism in Afgaynistan." Perhaps it makes some valid points, but the approach is polemical. Again, this is complex issue. But Sufism 1) is not a single set of ideas or practices, 2) uses images of love as representations of passionate desire for the unattainable love of God. The image of the lover that often comes up in Sufi writings is the unattainable one, who gives pain. It may be used in other ways by some people but I have not seen any concrete description of this. Think of Catholic priests. Some are pederasts, others not. It cannot be attributed to the religious ideas of Catholicism regardless of its positive images of love for people of the same gender. This is part of the metaphorical idea of love as part of the religion. Sufism has the same idea. There are images of love for women as well, but it is not meant to be sexual.

There are plenty of academic sources on this topic. Only a few are mentioned here. these are better ones: Murray, Stephen O. And Will Roscoe, eds. Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature. New York: New York University Press, 1997.

Southgate, M. S. "Men, Women, and Boys: Love and Sex in the Works of SA'DI." Iranian Studies 17.4 (1984): 413-452.

Wright, J. W. And Everett K. Rowson, eds. Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.174.248 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Islamic

"Though after the Russian conquest the Muslim tradition was suppressed for a time by tsarist authorities, early Russian explorers were able to document the practice. It was resurgent in the early years of the twentieth century as the boys were increasingly sought as entertainers by the new Russian (Orthodox) settlers, a practice criticized in the Central-Asian Russian press of the time.

The bacchá tradition waned in the big cities after World War I, forced out for reasons that historian Anthony Shay describes as: "the Victorian era prudery and severe disapproval of colonial powers such as the Russians, British, and French, and the post colonial elites who had absorbed those Western colonial values."[1]"

I think these two paragraphs should be edited. Referring to bacchas as "the Muslim tradition" seems to imply religious approval as well as Islamic origin. As Sikandarji pointed out, it's recorded that the ulema didn't approve of the practice. Also, referring to it as "the Muslim tradition" implies that bacchas somehow came out of religious tradition, when the practice of boy-prostitution in the East predates Islam by millenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouad Bey (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Haiduc 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "local customs" may be preferable to "Muslim tradition". Although this phrasing would obscure the fact that the commercial pederasty represented by the baccha were not locally specific to Uzbekistan or Russian Central Asia but spread across the Muslim world, not to mention the fact that the contemporary observers and authorities thought so. This is not insignificant. While the ulema may have disapproved of the baccha, and pederasty may have long preceded Islam in the region, it is still worthy of note that the colonial powers (British, French, Tsarist and Soviet) interpreted the practice as Muslim. So when they were "stamping out" the practice, they saw themselves as "civilizing" the area by stamping out a backward, Muslim tradition. [References to this can be found in the introduction and first chapter of Dan Healey's book Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia, as well as Rudi Bley's The Geography of Perversion: Male-To-Male Sexual Behavior Outside the West and the Ethnographic Imagination ]--Speed jackson 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) ___

Yes, as the President of Iran noted, in his country homosexuality doesn't exist. That's why they execute homosexuals there, because they don't exist. 76.105.254.23 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"(British, French, Tsarist, and Soviet) interpreted the practice as Muslim. So when they were "stamping out" the practice, they saw themselves as "civilizing" the area by stamping out a backward, Muslim tradition."

The Colonial historians deliberately interpreted these practice as Islamic practice due to them writing history with the motive of spreading the white man's religion;i.e. Christianity. That's why they have to spread this notion that Bacha Bazi was an Islamic tradition (It isn't, homosexual acts are to beheaded by Islamic laws),so as to show the superiority of their religion and their culture over Islam. If this was really an alleged Muslim tradition, one would have found it to be practiced in every Islamic region outside the Shia dominant areas such as Malaysia,Saudi Arabia,Indonesia,Mauritius.

But only people adhering the Shia faith practice this act,and this was also well-known (by historians),in which they described post-Safavid Persia as a place where "boy love flourished spectacularly, art and literature also made frequent use of the pederastic topos. These celebrate the love of the wine(ironically, wine is also forbidden in Islam) boy, as do the paintings and drawings of artists such as Reza Abbasi (1565 – 1635). Western travelers reported that at Abbas' court (some time between 1627 and 1629) they saw evidence of homoerotic practices. Male houses of prostitution Amrad Khaneh, "houses of the beardless", were legally recognized and paid taxes.

It was evident this was practice in mostly Shia dominant area, as you can see that even their jurisprudence text sanctioned it(to an extent). Though there is no doubt that was also practiced by some Sunni Muslims(in the Central Asian region), it was largely due to it being influenced from the period of Safavid (Shia) empire onwards, where the cultural genocide committed by the Safavid regime forces the Sunnis to convert to Shiaism and adhere to the Safavid culture. None of the Sunni scholars approved it in any of their text, in contrast to the Shia scholars who allowed "fondling" to an extent. And Bacha Bazi was unknown in other Muslim majority areas (based on the British lawmaker records of the land at that time) such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore,Saudi Arabia (they were records of them trading female slaves for pleasure,but none related to Bacha Bazi).210.195.14.82 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

In modern Persian, bache just means "child," not "catamite." --Jpbrenna 8 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

I understand that it also means "cub." A Persian etymological dictionary would be very useful. Haiduc 9 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

Recent changes doubtful. Schuyler, Eu. (1876-7) documents "(Pers. bachcheh = catamite)" in [1] Also, from the same page: "Jazayery[70] (p198n1) assumes that the terms bachchihbâz and bachchihbâzî (Persian, homosexual, homosexuality) imply the other "partner" to be "a child (bachchih), or very young boy"." Haiduc 9 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

It's not doubtful at all. Stop any Persian-speaker and ask him or her, and they will tell you, bache means "child" and bachat means "kids." I don't know much Persian myself, but it was one of the first words I learned.

A search of an online Persian dictionary brings up several words for catamite, none of which match the source you mention. I can't link directly to the results page, so you'll have to go here [2] and search yourself. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide transliteration. The first term in the entry reproduced below is transliterated bache kooshgl, and the second is bache bin reesh, and the third koon. I'm not sure what the literal meanings of the adjectives are. I believe the last word means, literally "pussy" - and not the cat. (See the link to the "dirty Persian" site below.) Note that the first two terms are compound nouns or noun phrases. It's like saying that the primary meaning of "boy" means "catamite" because it's one of the words in "pleasure boy." Obviously, the "pleasure" changes things a lot.

Results of search

English Persian

Catamite بچه‌ خوشگل‌، بچه‌ بي‌ ريش‌

An online, Latin alphabet Persian swearing dictionary [3] gives:

bacha bawz (noun) † young pederast note bacha = boy; this indicates a boy who submits to pederasts. Again, note that the unadorned bacha means simply "boy," and by itself has no sexual connotations whatsoever.

What probably happened here was that the Turkic languages dropped the original modifiers in the Persian terms, so bacchá may very well mean "catamite" in Azeri, Turkish or Uzbek - but you should check an appropriate dictionary for one of those languages to make sure. In the same vein, I would suspect bachibazi is just a Turkification of bacha bawz. Again, check an appropriate dictionary. --Jpbrenna 05:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You are approaching the term's meaning too literally, and as a non-native speaker. The term is slang, and means "party brats" in modern Farsi/Dari. It is considered low class terminology, and though the phrase is non-gender specific(neither male of female), it nowadays relates to male child rape/sex slavery in backwards rural areas, i.e mountain villages, the entire nation-state of Afghanistan, etc. The Scythian 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Persian (Tajik) is still the principal language in the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand - Central Asia is not a uniformly Turkic-speaking region and people would have been familiar with the ordinary Persian meaning of 'Boy' or 'Child' for بچه I remember hearing children addressed as 'Bacheha' in Bukhara when I was there (I didn't know any Persian at the time but the word is the same in Urdu). Maybe it simply depended on the context, or the tone of voice used? At all events there seems little doubt about the derivation. Excellent article by the way - reading it I thought I would add the Schuyler reference, then I saw that it was already there! One interesting aspect of Schuyler's acount is that he states that performances by Bachas in Tashkent were suppressed by the Russians at the request of the local ulama, who strongly disapproved of the practice. This seems quite plausible to me, and suggests that the 'Victorian Values', 'Colonial Prudery' line is perhaps not the whole story. Sikandarji 08:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bache simple means "brat" in the modern general usage of Persian, and it's inference is only nominally negative. It is not uncommon to here one's uncle or grandfather referring to kids playing too loudly as "brats," i.e "bache." By itself, it has no sexual meaning. "Bache Bazi" is a perverse take on the term, and it's initial meaning. Similar to how such things are done in English. The Scythian 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

New York Times article removed

109.188.127.38, why did you remove the New York Times article I cited?

For those interested, Craig S. Smith, "Kandahar Journal; Shh, It's an Open Secret: Warlords and Pedophilia" New York Times February 21, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/21/world/kandahar-journal-shh-it-s-an-open-secret-warlords-and-pedophilia.html

Does anyone think it should be restored? Previous talk complains about shortage of reliable sources.

The citation is obviously relevant to the article. The deleting editor had no right to remove it without giving a clear and convincing reason for doing so. It sounds like censorship, not editing. Editors are not entitled to censor articles based on emotional reaction or moral indignation. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"improper relationship"

The editor who added this sentence seems to believe that the massacre of eight border guards was caused by a non-consensual Bacha bazi relationship. There is nothing in the citation that suggests that the massacre of the guards was caused by the relationship, which had existed for several years, apparently without incident up to that time. The other guards said that the relationship between the commander and the youth was "obvious", which makes it clear that the youth never complained to them about it directly, or that they were themselves complicit or participated. He and two friends, drugged and then shot the guards, after which they fled to the Taliban in Pakistan. It was about ideology, not sex. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Improper relationship" is in quotes in the source and is explained in the next paragraph at the source to mean "bacha bazi." I'm the editor that added the sentence. The intent was to show such a contemporary relationship. Whether the relationship was consensual or the massacre was caused by the relationship is not relevant. Readers can find out more at the source. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

northern afghanistan vs pashtun regions

it's wrong to say just pashtuns in the south do it, since tajiks also live in the south - also, it's wrong in the first place to mention an entire ethnic group of which not many do this filth, it's most common among warlords in the north with uzbeks being the main offenders and tajik children being the main victims, and in the south both pashtuns and tajiks do it. Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter, I've lived in afghanistan for years and am a tajik saying this about my country.

You just don't go around saying X ethnicity does Y crime. Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.114.251 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Either mention tajiks/uzbeks also do it in the north or don't bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. However, there are numerous sources in the text that specifically mention Pashtuns, one of them is even called Pashtun Sexuality. Take the time to search for sources which prove your position rather than using an appeal to emotion and deleting facts which make you feel uncomfortable. - CompliantDrone (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't delete any of the references you made, I'm just saying putting either north or south is wrong and mentioning an ethnicity is even worse, since it's found primarily among warlords EVERYWHERE in afghanistan. I agree that pashtuns, like uzbeks and tajiks also participate in this but your document doesn't even mention that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no dog in this fight for me either but the fight of misinformation and stereotyping. Keeping it at 'parts of afghanistan' is best, either that or mention all the 10+ ethnicities living in afghanistan as they all indulge in this practise to varying degrees in various provinces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.114.251 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC) This also doesn't affect me much either since I'll reiterate, I'm a tajik. You can check my IP history to see that I edit only things that are wrong or biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.114.251 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a cursory look at the sources in the article as well as Google seems to specifically emphasize the Pashtuns:

• "Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan's most important tribe. For centuries, the nation's leaders have been Pashtun."
• "Some estimates say that as many as 50 percent of the men in the Pashtun tribal areas of southern Afghanistan take boy lovers, making it clear that pedophilia is a pervasive issue affecting entire rural communities."
• "Whereas rural Pashtun culture remains largely misogynistic and male-dominated due to deeply-ingrained Islamic values, teenage boys have become the objects of lustful attraction and romance for some of the most powerful men in the Afghan countryside."
• "Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships in several contexts."

What would you suggest as a compromise here? Do you really feel that all mention of them should be purged from the article? - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CompliantDrone, you're not an expert on this subject but simply cherry-picking opinions, which is a played-out and foolish act in Wikipedia. The very name "Bacha Bazi" is Persian, and that alone says it all. If you take enougn time to do a proper research you'll realize that this is mainly part of Persian (non-Pashtun) culture. Not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is also wide-spread in Iran, Arab countries, Central Asia, you might as well say the entire Middle East and South Asia. Some Pashtuns who reside closely to the Persians have naturally adopted it and engage in this, and you're simply emphasizing on that. In other words, your edits are misleading readers.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I think you need to take a breath and look at this exchange in the context of the edits. I became involved because an IP editor was wantonly removing material. You have no idea whether I am an "expert" or not, but one thing I am definitely not is an Afghani /Pashtun nationalist with an agenda to push. I have no problems whatsoever with your most recent edits. - CompliantDrone (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you were expert on Afghanistan, you would've quickly realized that these here are ethnic Uzbeks. Always edit with W:NPOV. We're simply telling you that homosexuality/pedophilia is everywhere but this particular Bacha bazi custom is connected to Persian-speaking Afghans. It's not really homosexual acts but just a boy is dressed as a girl and he dances at weddings. Women are not allowed to dance in front of men.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It happens most in the north whether you want to believe it or not. I'm an advocate for 'parts of afghanistan' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's not a ruralized thing but rather it happens frequently in urban areas at all male parties, especially in places in the north like mazar-e sharif which you can even see in the documentary showing uzbek former northern alliance commanders luring young children into their business. Pleaase leave such matters for people who actually are from and know the area and all the good and bad in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't place a high degree of trust in such articles used as propaganda, put your trust rather in the multitude of documentaries on the matter, all of which display the occurrence in the north of afghanistan which not only coincides with the history of bacha bazi but also the reality as it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know what, there's no winning with people like you, you won't believe what I have to say anyway. The british invaded afghanistan long ago and could have talked about bacha bazi a lot, but they didn't because the practise was non-existent in the area until after the soviet invasion had occurred and even then it was among warlords and their friends, so you see, the british who are the same people who spread propaganda like rural women peeing into the mouths of soldiers to 'drown' them did not write a single thing on this matter, and today you want to talk about this as if you know anything from an article or two while not respecting the opinions of myself or the other guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing dispute

Looks like we can start with a fresh discussion. I myself was partly involved in it because of the activity by Krzyhorse22 (falsifying sources and violating WP:BATTLEGROUND). This has gotten a bit out of hand. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to accuse me of this and that but you cannot prove it. Control your emotions, this is not the place to accuse people of nonsense because everything editors do is recorded. Where did I falsify anything? You began editing last month [4] so I like to know how come you're so familiar with Wikipedia?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the sources before you angrily reverted all my edits. [5] When it comes to sources, it's quality that matters, not quantity. They state: "Known as 'bacha bazi' (literal translation: 'boy play')" [6] [7] ... "it is seeing a revival in the north province of Afghanistan" [8] [9] What part of this you can't comprehend? Why are you disregarding these facts and trying to connect this Persian Bacha bazi custom with Pashtuns and Pakistan? Pakistanis don't even use Persian phrases, they either use Pakistani English or Urdu phrases.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

According to some other users, you've been accused of lying about users, ignoring talk page messages, and falsifying sources by adding other countries as if they were already there. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My contributions prove them wrong. You should focus on content of articles, not on editors.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Second Image

Bacha Bazi almost always happens to boys, so I think the painting should be of a boy not a girl. the main victims should be portrayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:8843:709A:3597:EA08 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source

The Guardian's December article describes this practice and the WikiLeaks revelations.

I removed the following as an unreliable source. http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Please see related discussions in my recent contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• comment -- actually a little google research pretty clearly indicates that houstonpress.com & blogs.houstonpress.com are a credible journalistic source. just because it uses the word "blog" doesn't make it "bad"; & it's actually part of a professional journalistic organization/"newspaper" (whatever the term "newspaper" means, these days).

see this: Houston_Press for more info.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

the passage "In December 2010, a cable made public by WikiLeaks revealed that foreign contractors from DynCorp had spent money on bacha bazi in northern Afghanistan" doesn't explain the nature of the investment. it could mean they paid a prostitution fee or it could mean paid for the bacha bazi's freedom. the passage requires a disclaimer. the company dyncorp was tasked/contracted to destroy poppy fields. the lack of explanation for the payment, itself, needs to be explained as destroying the contract lead to all time record heroin production and bacha bazi raping. since the passage was never delineated and left as inference, the source cannot be considered a legitimate non-subjective reporting agency. 107.77.208.56 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Bacha Bazi is a p edophilic relationship

For some reason when I try to define it as such Wikipedia blocks it, that is ridiculous. I cannot even write the full word of pedophilia without it being blocked, so I have to write it like this; "P edophilia". Bacha Bazi involves sexual relations between an older man and a boy, it is by definition a p edophilic relationship. In fact in the exact same article, P edophilia is mentioned multiple times: "When the Marine suggests that the barracks be searched for children, and that any policeman found to be engaged in p edophilia be arrested and jailed" and here "But the U.S. soldiers have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out p edophiles, the U.S. military was arming them against the Taliban and placing them as the police commanders of villages—and doing little when they began abusing children." Also, a source mentions the word p edophilia when describing bacha bazi: Nordland, Rod (January 23, 2018). "Afghan P edophiles Get Free Pass From U.S. Military, Report Says". The New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2018.

Also many other websites define bacha bazi as being a p edophilic relationship.

The fact that Bacha Bazi cannot be defined as being a p edophilic relationship on Wikipedia is insane. It makes me thing that p edophilia is being protected from anytime of negative stigma that could be attached to it. This needs to change now.Peppapig123456 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no trouble writing pedophile or pedophilia, or the non-american spelling paedophile and paedophilia. Perhaps the problem is at your end not on WP. --John B123 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

When you try to edit the main article itself it does not allow you to write Pedophilia, at least for me.Peppapig123456 (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Works fine for me. See this test edit (first word) --John B123 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The kite runner

I reverted this section [10] and I told that The Kite Runner is not about Bacha bazi.--Khan Sher Khan (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Khan Sher Khan: You need to give reasons for your objections not just say "I told that The Kite Runner is not about Bacha bazi". Also you should not keep reverting back to how you think the the content should be until the issue is resolved on this talk page. Please read and understand the principle of WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what is the reason for removal? It's not the entirety of the book/film, but it does appear as something done by the antagonist. I rearranged the wording if the concern is that it makes it sound like the whole thing is about bacha bazi. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I have said my reason several times. I can delete this content, which is not very relevant to the article. [11] as you deleted this important and large content [12]. Can you tell me why you deleted this large historical content with its sources? --Khan Sher Khan (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said at the time, it's because it is propaganda glorifying this practice from a banned user. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit tells us pretty much all we need to know. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So what is this article about?

It appears to be about a term for "Male-on-male child sexual abuse in Afghanistan/Pakistan". Isn't this more deserving of just a Wiktionary entry? This article should be merged it into Child sexual abuse in the Middle East. Of course, that page would first need to be created.

Dieknon (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It has multiple sources, is relevant to an understanding of the Taliban, and, importantly to your point, Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Bacha bazi seems to not be a thing in modern Afghanistan...

Aside for the United States allies in Afghanistan.

"The Taliban banned and publicly punished the practice when they came to power in the 1990s, but after the collapse of their regime in 2001, when the former Islamist commanders from the days of the anti-Soviet insurgency came to power, bacha bazi again became common in certain regions of Afghanistan and evolved into boys being kidnapped, trafficked, and raped without any semblance to or recognition of the cultural nuances that used to embody the practice such as dancing at events or social gatherings. In today’s Afghanistan, it has become an avenue for wealthy or powerful men, particularly those involved in the factions that were part of the former Northern Alliance and the ANSF – the U.S. allies in the region – to sexually abuse young boys under the pretense of engaging in the historical practice of bacha bazi." https://newlinesinstitute.org/afghanistan/what-about-the-boys-a-gendered-analysis-of-the-u-s-withdrawal-and-bacha-bazi-in-afghanistan/

According to the page I link to, Washington's pedo buddies aren't doing "traditional Bacha bazi". They are "just" raping children.

The article should reflect that the "modern" practice is different and conducted by a particular group (of criminals). Referring to culture doesn't work.

Are these things broadly speaking more common in Afghanistan than in the United States? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

The Child marriage in the United States page never refers to tradition. Thomas Jefferson had sex with at least one child. It was "just" part of a tradition of marrying children in the United States.

"Modern Bacha bazi"--if Bacha bazi is even a thing in modern Afghanistan--is as much a Pentagon thing as an Afghan thing. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

5753 cases of sexual abuses?

The linked article had an errata which says:

"Correction: Jan. 26, 2018

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to 5,753 cases from 2010 to 2016 involving the United States and Afghan militaries. Those were cases in which the American military asked to review Afghan units to see if there were “gross human rights abuses,” not the number of times the American military reported such abuses."

So this Wikipedia article should be corrected as well to not claim the old statement, which arguably lets US military shine in better light. Asking about sexual abuse and reporting them are two different things altogether! 93.197.51.16 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No, because the only Afghans who rape children are Washington's buddies. Why do you think the United States lost in Afghanistan? The Taliban is hated in Afghanistan, but the United States made them look good in comparison. The children raped at U.S. bases were stolen from villagers. The U.S. military then told those villagers to not to worry about the Taliban because these guys will protect you. The U.S. spent 20 years in Afghanistan and never had any interest in learning about the country. They left as hated as the Russians and they don't even understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kite Runner

The Kite Runner isn't really about that. The Kite Runner has its own story, so let's relate this issue to the The Kite Runner, the main story of that becomes meaningless.--شارستانی (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to give reasons for your objections not just say "The Kite Runner isn't really about that". Also you should not keep reverting back to how you think the the content should be until the issue is resolved on this talk page. Please read and understand the principle of WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

John B123 The story of the kite runner is not like (The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan). It is about many other issues. شارستانی (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

John B123, Thanks for your guidance on Wikipedia rules. شارستانی (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)