Talk:Taslima Nasrin/Archive 1

npov
have brought in NPOV alert as the page was quite biased in its style. have done some major edits myself. will remove alert shortly if other editors can oblige with some further changes. J O I B A N G L A ! Aloodum 01:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as a rule of thumb it's a good idea to mention what you basically find to be the POV issue(s). gren グレン 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me! I thought that the author/s was/were pushing a simplistic anti-islamist line and pro-feminist slant. It was better for the subject matter if her supporters instead allow the reader to feel they have a neutral first sight of her. Then the reader could determine that in fact Nasrin is herself maybe so-called 'anti-islamist' or 'pro-feminist' rather than that the article was written by people who are also sympathetic to this. That is all! J O I B A N G L A ! Aloodum 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am also removing the POV alert as the editing has eliminated any objections I hope. J O I B A N G L A !  Aloodum 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Former Muslim?
She's been added to category:Former Muslims. Is this true? No mention in the article. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a citation from a reliable source (READ: Not yet another hearsay website, but a legitimate news media). --Ragib 07:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Muslim reformer
I see that she is in the category "muslim reformers". I know very little about her, but having read some of the links, I see no mention of her wanting to reform islam. Nor does it look like she is a muslim any more. She simply does not seem to like Islam.DanielDemaret 20:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I won't comment on her religious preferences, I would agree that "muslim reformers" is a wrong category here. She is a feminist, to begin with. Because of her feminist agenda, she was threatened by the fundamentalists, but that really doesn't make her a muslim reformer. --Ragib 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense, but Taslima Nasrin is a Muslim reformer. Would it be too much to ask that you do a minimum of research on a topic before voicing your opinion. As a tip I would suggest that you begin by her website .here --CltFn 03:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Having known and read Taslima's writings since 1990s before she became famous worldwide, I don't really need that advice. I'd really like to see you justify the "Muslim reformer" category. Really. She's quite good as a feminist, but that doesn't make her a reformer. But then again, I'd appreciate if you show me the reason. Thanks. --Ragib 03:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go read her website then for starters.--CltFn 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did. But still don't see your point. Would you like to clear up your point by pointing to the specific book or quotation, rather than redirecting me? Thanks. --Ragib 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do not see the point by reading the home page of her web-site then I am afraid that I would not be able to help you, I have no cure for blindness. Sorry.--CltFn 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I asked you politely. If you don't want to follow on likewise, no problem by me. Since I can't find the justification, and neither you are willing to point out, fine. I'd try rereading her Bangla novels and newspaper columns to find something I missed the first time, but I doubt I'd find anything. But thanks anyway. --Ragib 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You just can't click that link can you. Are you afraid of what you might read there?--CltFn 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I looked there and couldn't find the reference you referred to. All I'm asking is your help in pointing out the link. Being rude isn't the solution, trying to pick a fight isn't the solution. If you know which page you are referring to, let me know. That would at least be a "Cure for my blindlness", so to speak. I have been visiting the website for years, but it is possible that I have missed something along the way. So, help me find the reference!!. Thanks again. --Ragib

Some quotes from the home page:
 * If any religion allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can't accept that religion.'


 * Humankind is facing an uncertain future. The probability of new kinds of rivalry and conflict looms large. In particular, the conflict is between two different ideas, secularism and fundamentalism. I don't agree with those who think the conflict is between two religions, namely Christianity and Islam, or Judaism and Islam. After all there are fundamentalists in every religious community. I don't agree with those people who think that the crusades of the Middle Ages are going to be repeated soon. Nor do I think that this is a conflict between the East and the West. To me, this conflict is basically between modern, rational, logical thinking and irrational, blind faith. To me, this is a conflict between modernity and anti-modernism. While some strive to go forward, others strive to go backward. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not.'

'Freedom of expression for some is not enough. We must work for freedom of expression for all. Human rights for some is not enough. We must work for the human rights for all. Peace for some is not  enough. We must work for peace for all. I, come what may, will not be silenced. Come what may, I will continue my fight for equality and justice without any compromise until my death. Come what may, I will never be silenced.'

--CltFn 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, finally!! Though I may not agree with the applicability of the issue, I at least know what you were referring to. Thanks again for pointing it out clearly. --Ragib 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Those quotes seem to indicate her opposition to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, rather than a desire to reform Islam. "... then I can't accept that religion." The conflict she sees is between secularism and fundamentalism, which appear to be just different words for atheism and theistic religion. She still does not appear to be a "muslim reformer," based solely on what's been presented on this Talk page. (I for one know nothing else about her.) Wesley 14:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! there is no way to mark her as a muslim reformer, as she herself proclaimed privately in Dhaka that she did not like to be quoted as a muslim. Rather she wanted to be ticked as an aethist. So former muslim seems to me to be the right category for her.Murad67 05:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nasrin is an atheist
see List of atheists and this link in which she says "I was born in a Muslim family but I became an atheist." mirageinred 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sympathetic to gays & lesbians

 * She is also sympathetic to gays and lesbians as is apparent in the article Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA)in wikipedia !!She happens to be the Vice President of GALHA!!! Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Balance
This is a ludicrously unbalanced article. The first section is "Criticism" (!) and there is no discussion of her education, early life, and her career in non-controversial terms. Listing only the events in which she has become a firebrand risks making this an attack page and violation living persons biography policy. We really need to have a section that describes her life, her books, and her awards. If there is one in history it needs to be restored. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed wholeheartedly. The article as it stands now looks like a compilation of only sensational and recent news about the author, while neglecting to provide crucial details about the author and her books. Long before the current "controversy", the author had become popular with her columns and poems. Of course, the literary critiques of her work need to be included. --Ragib (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely agree...I looked this page up to see what exactly Taslima Nasrin wrote, and I still don't know. This is mostly a compilation of all the mud Islamic fundamentalists have thrown at her. More information on the actual author, please.Lexington1 (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is certainly very poor for the main reason said above, that nothing is said about her work. In addition, however, it has clearly been, if not written from A to Z, at least edited in a particularly devious way, effectively drowning the pretty salient fact (as far as biography is concerned) that Taslima Nasreen is at serious risk of being killed by a fundamentalist muslim, in a sea of ridiculously mondane "controversies", involving former friends, explicit sex in her writing and even an allusion to some kind of drug taking (detoxification in Sweden???) and other anecdotes, as if to make you think: she is trouble, anyway. (And for the grand finale, we learn that "she is enjoying herself"... no comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.199.1.20 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting
I have checked the following: (a) There is no error in data or information; (b) More information on her works is difficult to gather simply because they do not exist; (c) Approach is apparently neutral although criticism about Taslima Nasreen is often removed by contributors; (d) More reference may be needed but not available. What I feel is is the whole article may be recast and rewritten ab initio. Who is going to shoulder the burden? - Faizul Latif Chowdhury, 21 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizul Latif Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reckless rewriting since May 2009
The original article has been replaced by one or more anonymous contributors since 3, 4 May 2009 who has tried to promote Taslima Nasreen. Many importants facts have been recklessly trashed including her name at birth and names of divorced spouses. All anti-Taslima facts have been removed. Facts have been distorted wishfully. Now totally biased, incomplete, truncated. Why this? Who is the devil. He must be blocked. The earlier version needs to be recovered first and then re-cast into a better structure. BdEdit (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Promotion of people is not the job of Wikipedia. However, I sincerely doubt the devil has been at work here. I have begun cleaning up the article by removing unverified praise and unqualified condemnation of Nasrin's opposition. As a biography of a living person, extra care must be taken to ensure that all information is backed by reliable sources. The reinsertion of unverified material or of puffery will be treated as vandalism. Nasrin is an important author and her article must be treated with respect, but also with proper diligence. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, what's going on? This important article has been vandalized. The vandalizer should be reported. Drmies efforts must be appreciated. But do not please rely only on Websources only. More informaiton is available in her interviews and five or six autobiographical volumes, in addition to various written texts published from Bangladesh. There is no need to be pro- or anti-Taslima. ... I have recently returned to Dhaka after six years life abraod and intend to help you in June, with colleciton of almost books and writings on her published from Bangladesh. There must be separate sections on her works as a Poet, Novelist and Columnist. There must be a separate section on Political Taslima, with subsection on Anti-Islam views, Feminist views and Anti-establishment views. The Exile part needs to be written. There are repitations. Faizul Latif Chowdhury (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Faizul. I have no interest in being pro or con. I see you added these sections, but they have yet to be filled out. I'm still working on the article, which (still) has many problems--poor sourcing (many unreliable sources), no reference templates, much duplicate information. Hold on, it's coming, with reliable sources. One of the things the article needs is a good bibliography, with her works (properly done in templates) and translations. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lajja link
removed the Lajja link as it directed me to a article that had nothing to do with the book aside from its title. the article's talk page even says that they have nothing to do with each other. there should be an article about the book. Tydoni (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Could someone familiar with the book's plot write an article on her Lajja book. I would wright one but because I have never read the book I would not be able to write a good article about it. Tydoni (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I have reverted a large number of changes made by IP 24.215.173.252. The IP did not explain any of their edits, which changed a moderatly OK article into a bad article. Sources were absolutely butchered: ALL templates were replaced simply by URL's--just look at this version to see how awful it looks. Decent English was replaced by poor English, full of grammar and punctuation errors. The structure was affected as well--just look at the long list of "Attacks" in that version: that is not encyclopedic writing, it's a shopping list. The IP should be aware that all positive edits are welcome, but some edits are simply disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Bengali Lady
Hey! The bitter fact is this lady could not live in any of the two megacities of Bengal ...Dhaka & Kolkata. Why? Cant we tag her in Controversial Bengali category? In essence, she is not acceptable to the majority of Bengalis in both sides of border. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murad67 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "majority" you mean the tyranny of religious and misogynistic zealotry, sure. "Majority" as expressed by a popular vote, that is another matter. I don't believe there is such a category, and I don't believe there ought to be one. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't decide whether she is controversial or not, rather we can only report that source X termed her as such. (if X is a reliable source). --Ragib (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I now understand both of your points of view.Murad67 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Murad, She is very much accepted in India as a brave reformer. I wish the fundamentalists muslims will learn to take criticism without taking to insult and violence. We adore her here in India.122.173.234.187 (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Islam Activist Category
I put her in this category because she has spoken out against Islamists in Bangladesh with her book Lajja. I don't understand why this would be considered vandalism. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! I presume this is absolutely correct.Murad67 (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does "Anti-Islamism" and "Anti-Islam" mean the same ?? . Arjun  codename024 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "neo-Jihadis"
The section about her expulsion from Kolkata calls protesters against her "neo-Jihadis". This is a term I've never heard before. Is there any reliable source that calls them that? What's the definition of a "neo-Jihadi"; how do they differ from regular Jihadis? Is there not a better term that could be used? "neo-Jihadi" is something that I have literally never seen or heard anyone use before, and it seems to me that the prefix "neo" is intended to subconsciously equate them with neo-Nazis, and this would seem to me to violate WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.201.11 (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jihadis is not as common as neo-Jihadis in search. You ought to Google Jihadis.  With diligent search you may be able to figure it out.  There may be no authoritative answer, but I suppose it's connected with spite level.  -  67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubts about the Edit of 04:32, 8 July 2011
On 8 July 2011, there was this edit, but there was no citation at all. So I doubt whether it is an improvement, or whether it is just an attempt to conceal or to play down the violent tendencies in some Muslim communities. What do you think: Should this edit be undone? --Helene T. (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether the "All India Muslim Personal Law Board" mentioned in the article is the same organization as the "All India Muslim Personal Board (Jadeed)" mentioned in the reference. So I don't know what to do with the article. Can anybody help? --Helene T. (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should be more WP:BOLD. Research things very carefully. If you're sure you have the facts down, edit the page. If you are worried that people will argue, leave an explanatory message here. Also, always use clear, descriptive edit summaries. If you see someone putting unverified stuff on the page, just remove it (WP:BLP) and leave a message here on talk (with its own subheading, in this case). If you see anything that looks derogatory or even suspicious (e.g., someone parachutes a non-English word into the text) just remove it. – Ling.Nut 02:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So I was "bold" enough to remove the edits I had doubts about, and to replace "All India Muslim Personal Law Board" by "All India Muslim Personal Board (Jadeed)", as the organization is called in the citation–although I do not know the answers to my questions. If that was not correct, anybody may revise it. --Helene T. (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both organizations exist: All India Muslim Personal Law Board, but Jadid later split: "In November 2004, Tauqeer Reza Khan of the Barelvi school of Sunni Islam deserted the AIMPLB to establish a separate and somewhat makeshift organisation known as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid), representing a partial split from the original AIMPLB of one of the largest subdivisions with Indian Sunni Islam." Jones, Justin (2009). Signs of churning’: Muslim Personal Law and public contestation in twenty-first century India As for which one is relevant, that's for you to research. – Ling.Nut 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ling.Nut, for these informations. Apparently you know more about these things than I would be able to find out with a reasonable amount of work–I don’t intend to specialize in ‘’Islam in India’’. As “Jadeed” is now mentioned in the article, I think that now it is as correct as I can provide. I think that for now my part of the work is done. --Helene T. (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation allegation by author on Facebook
The author has recently written a post on Facebook where she has showed her dissatisfaction with this article (original post, Archived post (WebCitation failed to archive the page))

She has written--
 * "সম্ভবত আমার নামটাই ওদের খাতায় সাইবার ক্রিমিনাল হিসেবে লেখা হয়ে গেছে।" -- Wikipedia is identifying me as cyber criminal
 * "আমার মা নাকি আমার বাবার দ্বিতীয় স্ত্রী। " -- Wikipedia is wrongly stating that her mother was his father's second wife
 * "তারপর আমার হরেক রকম স্বামীর প্রসঙ্গ তো আছেই।" -- Wikipedia is gossiping on her personal relations ("husband" word was used).

Generally many people do not understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. STILL, even if some of these are true, these are BLP violation. Probably we should inspect here. I tried commenting on their Facebook post but the option was not available. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taslima Nasrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110035931/http://www.secularvoiceofbangladesh.org/Prof.kabir%20chowdhury.htm to http://www.secularvoiceofbangladesh.org/Prof.kabir%20chowdhury.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)