Talk:Taslima Nasrin

message: Taslima's tweet advocating for eugenics against disabled people certainly deserves a mention, likely in the Political views section. It would be against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality to omit it due to inconvenience. We should find a common ground of agreement in this talk section as to what extent. I would think that a mention of the tweet under 'Political views' would be sufficient. Vaurnheart (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial stuff needs WP:RS and not rely on original interpretation, as per WP:BLPSOURCES. I have now added a reference to an op-ed by a neuroscientist who is also the editor of the fact-checker AltNews.in, but keep in mind for the future, thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 09:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just putting in someone's tweets and drawing a conclusion as to what that means it supports is original research. This needs a secondary source to be included, and should be carefully worded to reflect what that source says. Melcous (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the advice, the entry is sourced now. Vaurnheart (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry  but I have again reverted your edit because you did not take into account how carefully these kind of claims need to be worded. The source you provided explicitly said her tweet "knowingly or unknowingly" "echoes" those views - that is a far cry from saying she has "publicly expressed support for" them. Melcous (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fear there has been a misunderstanding, as the source says her statement "echoes" those of certain eugenicists, not eugenics itself, since her statement is unambiguously an expression of eugenics by any dictionary definition of the term. I believe the wording was suitable, but I would be happy to change it if you wish to identify something more specific. For example, Taslima didn't express whether this should be voluntary or involuntary, an important element, and I could include such a sentence. All the best, Vaurnheart (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's the problem , you say "her statement is unambiguously an expression of eugenics". You may well be correct. But we need a  secondary source that says that. That is how wikipedia works, we don't draw our own conclusions or interpretations - see WP:OR. From the source provided, the most that could be said would be something like "in a tweet she echoed the views of eugenicists", because that is the interpretation/conclusion the source draws. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added the revised version as per this advice. Vaurnheart (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics 

message: Restored the controversy section that has been removed from an IP. AniksDutta (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Is there a reason she is listed in the category "female critics of feminism," when everything on this page about her association with feminist seems to be supportive and Nasrin is repeatedly mentioned to be a feminist? Plenty of feminists criticize aspects of the movement, of course, but that's not what that category is for; it largely consists of anti-feminist women such as Phyllis Schlafly. I was wondering if someone could provide more information (perhaps in the article) explaining Nasrin's listing there.  Beggarsbanquet (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category issue