Talk:Soma Mukhopadhyay

This page was proposed for deletion by NahalAhmed (talk · contribs) on 13 July 2019.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

"Mukhopadhyay also did not does not discuss the fact..."[edit]

"... that a letter board can be more easily repositioned than someone else’s hand or wrist."

Regardless of the edit remains botching the grammar: What does this sentence mean? Should she discuss the fact? Who says so? What is the relevance of that fact and what follows from it?

A WP article should say what a person did, not what she didn't do. I think the sentence should be either deleted or explained. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it with something more relevant. Ylevental (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?[edit]

Not sure if this is where to put this but... this article represents a person connected to a polarized subject, but all of the sources are for one side of the controversy.

While there are situations where that is acceptable, I believe this article is unfair because it sets out to paint this woman's contribution in a negative light before even telling the reader what it is - see the line "The *scientifically unproven* Rapid Prompting Method" (my emphasis)

It is fair to have a section on the controversy, but the initial paragraph should simply state that this woman created this method, or should state that said method is considered negative by some and positive by others.

(A sample of a positive source: http://idoinautismland.com/?cat=16) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7F:2850:5CF8:C813:B145:3A7E (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]