Talk:Alamgir Hashmi

Untitled
I would like to see more NPOV in this article. For instance, statements like these seem to be pretty clearly opinion:


 * both his early and later works were published to universal critical acclaim and widespread influence...


 * his series of lectures... drew interest both for the originality of their content and their lucid prose


 * a remarkable new voice... poems of peerless beauty

The entire article has a similar, highly promotional tone that, if I were not an eternal optimist, would scream out autobiography to me.

I would also like to see the second paragraph edited for clarity and concreteness. For instance, a list of books or major articles by Mr. Hashmi, and responses to them, would be more informative than a blanket statement that


 * His contributions to literary theory, literary criticism, historiography and cultural studies had a far-reaching impact as several disciplines began to be remade in the 1980s.

Furthermore, the next sentence seems to imply that his work in itself caused enough changes to constitute a paradigm shift in curriculum[s] and pedagogy (which curriculums and what type of pedagogy isn't clear):


 * As a result, curriculum and pedagogy underwent substantial changes, so that a paradigm shift was clearly in view.

This is a pretty major claim to make for any writer, and it should be backed up by sources. thither 09:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Talking about Alamgir Hashmi
Thither's talk is talking for its own sake. Indeed elaboration and more information would be helpful to many of us interested in the subject. However, the complaint about clarity or concreteness or opinion is uncalled for. The piece is objective and clear enough and gives the basis for an evaluation. If important work out there is unknown to one, or appears to be from sources not all too familiar already, Foucault would agree that one may as well scream and confess, and then possibly make the effort to learn. To suggest edits for a subject not known or understood takes a special kind of audacity reserved for a few; one hopes very few.--Hitherhither 12:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this view but I still think that this article needs quite some working on, it is not even organised/structured properly by wiki standards. Regs, 39.54.68.48 (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20191123051835/https://www.alamgirhashmi.com/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)