Talk:Saida Muna Tasneem

Reasons

@Hemiauchenia: Sorry about this edit summary, I was working on it and accidentally submitted. What I was planning to write was this: first, your addition is not supported by the source, it's your personal interpretation. Second, either the reason she was recalled is encyclopedic and should be discussed in her biography, or it's not. I happen to agree that it's not. But if it's not, then we shouldn't discuss it at all, rather than making vague and somewhat mysterious remarks about it. Nomoskedasticity's edit accomplished what needed to be done. --JBL (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Joel, try not to insult other editors additions to articles as "terrible", it is incredibly rude. Nomoskedasticity thanked the edit. I am not interested in being scolded and you should refrain from acting like this to editors in the future. Unkind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason I added it in the first place was to avoid casting unwarranted aspersions about a BLP subject, which is supported by the citation. The fact that you felt that it was appropriate to @ me to scold me and tell me I am "wrong" for trying to adhere to the BLP policy when you could have simply undone the edit and have been done with it is asinine.Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove your comment Joel, I simply moved it to where there was already a pre-existing thread for coherency. Perhaps in your 9 years on Wikipedia you should've learnt to assume good faith of editors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

For anyone else who is confused by the third comment, it is a response to this. I chose where to place my comment, and you are not entitled to unilaterally remove it from that place to put it somewhere else. Also please learn how to indent your posts, I have fixed it for you. --JBL (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Saida Muna Tasneem article include the 2003-4 strip club incident?

• Should the article mention Tasneem's recall in 2004 after her husbands strip club incident?
• Should the article give a summary of the incident or just mention the recall?
• If only the recall is mentioned, should it be made clear it was not her fault?

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The previous version was:

While working as a senior consular official to Bangladesh's mission to the United Nations, on October 23, 2003, her husband spent US$129,626 at a strip club in New York City on four credit cards. After news agencies began to report on the incident, the Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled Tasneem from her position on June 4, 2004, alerting her and Chaudhury to return to Bangladesh immediately.

This has previously been discussed at the BLP Noticeboard Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Responses

• Yes, this absolutely should be included, with a brief summary. The previous wording was perfectly fine, although the specific dollar amount isn't absolutely necessary. The link to the BLP Noticeboard conversation is mostly notable for the fact that the subject is trying to get mention of this scrubbed from their article. Unless there are strong BLP reasons to do so (and I see none for this embarrassing but properly sourced and relevant incident), we should not allow PR folks to determine what the article does or doesn't say about a subject. Retaining the information that she was recalled without explaining the context of that recall is an unnecessary contortion, and not something we should do simply out of appeasement. Grandpallama (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Mention recall it's reasonable to mention the recall and it should be made clear it wasn't to do with her conduct. However this is an article about Saida Muna Tasneem not her husband. Superflourish details about what he husband did therefore should not be covered unless they are essential to the understanding of the subject, and what her husband did that cause the recall is clearly not essential. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Early recalls for ambassadors, in the absence of a regime change, are usually understood as a sort of punitive act. To mention her recall without context or explanation is jarringly odd. Grandpallama (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Recall should be mentioned, but with context I agree with other commenters that the recall should be mentioned in some capacity. However, I agree with Grandpallama that mentioning the recall without context would be misleading as recalls of ambassadors are usually understood as puniative, which in this case it was, however it was not directly for Tasneens conduct, and that should be made clear regardless of whether the incident is mentioned in full or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• We should mention the recall along with context/clarification that it was not because of her actions, and no more. Details about what the husband did belong in a theoretical article about him, not the subject. Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit details that do not pertain directly to the subject of the article, per WP:TOPIC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed the details -- and I'll make it clear that I did not do this because someone connected to the subject asked for it. I learned about the situation because of the post at BLPN -- but if I had learned about it via some other mechanism I would have removed the details for exactly the same reason: they do not pertain directly to the WP:TOPIC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I am interpreting this as a vote to include her recall but with no details. @Nomoskedasticity: Do you think it is important to make clear that it wasn't to do with her conduct? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here are the other two versions that have been in the article recently: Nomoskedasticity's reads

The Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled Tasneem from her posting to Bangladesh's United Nations mission in June 2004.

and Hemiauchenia's reads

The Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled Tasneem from her posting to Bangladesh's United Nations mission in June 2004, for issues unrelated to her conduct.

Of the three versions, Nomoskedasticity's is the best: the fact that she was recalled is obviously significant, but the details are sensationalism and only tangential to the biography of Tasneem (as opposed to of her husband). The version by Hemiauchenia is not good for the reasons I outlined in the section above. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• The incident itself is tabloid bullshit, but the fact of the recall makes it significant, much that I would prefer it not to be. Guy (help!) 16:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed about the tabloidy nature of it. I'd be happy with a more general statement like "recalled over concerns about her husband's behavior" or something along those lines that doesn't delve into the specifics. Grandpallama (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, as the sordid details were relevant to her public role or as the BBC put it: "Diplomat recalled over strip club row". Vici Vidi (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Joel B. Lewis: @Grandpallama:, @Nomoskedasticity: @LSGH: who have all previously expressed an opinion on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nomoskedasticity, could you elaborate a bit on how you see this as a violation of WP:TOPIC? Grandpallama (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is about her, not about her husband. We can relate the fact that she was recalled; we don't need the details about the husband. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand that her husband is not the subject of the article, but where are you seeing the disconnect between his actions and her recall, if the recall was based on his actions? From my perspective, it seems like the Bangladeshi government basing the recall on the husband's behavior specifically causes the details (or at least some brief mention about her husband's actions) to be, by connection, about her. It might be possible to argue that they are somehow too salacious to merit inclusion, but I'm not understanding the argument tied to WP:TOPIC, which would require that his actions be irrelevant. They were clearly relevant to her career. Grandpallama (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Aside from hubby's misbehaviour - there is a great deal of reporting of trivia - meeting the Queen, exchanging pleasantries etc, which is mind-numbingly routine and insubstantial. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)