Talk:Farhat Hashmi

I wrote this article
I wrote this article, but it's pretty one-sided. Help!67.118.240.18 04:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Does this link have to do with her?
Thank you for writing this aritcle, I find it interesting The following link: The Taliban's ladies auxiliary Salon article by Asra Q. Nomani

Does it have to do with Farhat HAshmi?? Bless sins 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking when I started reading it, I'm removing this link. Waqas.usman 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this link clearly does have to do with Farhat Hashmi, based on the following quote from it: "She is Dr. Farhat Naseem Hashmi, 43, a Quran scholar who started the non-political foundation called Al-Huda International Welfare Organization in 1994, not long after she earned a Ph.D. in Islamic studies from the University of Glasgow, Scotland." I don't understand why the link -- to Salon.com! -- would have been deleted (I had to do a search to find it). It's http://www.salon.com/2001/10/26/mujahida/ alacarte (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed Photo Request
I've uploaded a photo of Farhat Hashmi, so I removed the photo request. Hope that's okay. Leena 09:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a Controversy section
I added a controversy section to the article and did some other minor edits -- but I'm thinking that what I wrote in the controversy section may be too one-sided. Can anyone suggest/make some changes? Rehansalvi 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has been updated with a neutral viepoint and referenced properly.UmmAaminah (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This article can hardly be called neutral. Most of it seems to be antagonizing her. Please someone recheck it. (Anas Javed) 19:56, 7 December 2011

Balance / Focus
I am surprised that in places this articles strays away from the subject (Farhat Hashmi) and wanders into only tangentially related wider discussions about Wahhabism, extremism, veiled women, etc. The inclusion of information on loosely related topics impacts negatively on the proportionality / balance / focus of the article. I don't mean neutrality. That seems ok. I mean emphasis.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also surprised that information is removed due to "brevity and balance" - repeatedly. First your edit summary said, that the source newsline did not cover the information. Once the link was updated, you removed again. So clearly not truthful when going by your previous edit summary. It is certainly not straying from the subject Farhat Hashmi, but rather relevant. This link and information will stay as the person making the comment is a well known commentator on extremism etc with comments available in other RS coverage too. Secondly the Al Huda International chain of schools have been criticized for the same said reasons by others. You may personally percieve the information as negative, but wikipedia does not cater to personal likes/dislikes. We seek to cover RS information. It is not uncommen to include quotes so to preserve the originality. The topics are not loosely based but are often linked with the name of Hashmi when reading through RS press coverage be that Newsline or Daily Times or the Express Tribune. You are welcome to discuss this further instead of unconstructive removals. Nimom0 (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We disagree. That happens on Wikipedia. By the way, you are mistaken. My view has nothing to do with perceptions of "personal likes / dislikes". I do not know the subject of the article or anyone connected to the issues. I have nothing to gain. I have no preferences. I merely like tight, focused articles that stick only to the subject at hand. So ... rather than play table-tennis, why don't we ask for another set (or two) of eyes to look at this BIO article?GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have refered this to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and will live with the consensus view. I am not in any way connected to the person the article is about. I have no axe to grind. I try hard to be a responsible Wikipedia user at all times. Thank you.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. But you have failed to address the issue I raised above. I specifically pointed out the discrepency in when you sought a RS for Newsline and I provided such (the old link was dead), you again removed it again. It is difficult to work with misleading edit summaries. I have also provided you with multiple RS which support the link between the subject and the mentioned topics as closely linked in many RS. So it is not a case of loosely related topics. You have failed to address both issues, and keep repeating yourself. It does appear you are not really reading or using the links inserted to understand what I am saying. I would advise you do that and refrain from speculating in my mood, which you percieve to be anger. We disagree because you fail to address the issues raised, whereas I have addressed your concerns. Your reverts show you don't even read what you are reverting. You blindly revert thus also removing my other edits. So it does seem to be a case of personal dislike/like. Nimom0 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Nimom0, we BOTH seem to be repeating ourselves, which is why we should now step back, leave the page alone for now and trust the Wikipedia community to solve the problem. I have nothing at stake. I am not involved in any of the issues described in the article. I have no personal view on those issues. I'll live with whatever consensus emerges, even if it results in a decision I might not have considered ideal. If I have upset you it was not my intention and I apolgise. Like you, I merely try hard to be a useful and responsible Wikipedia user.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, GorgeCustersSabre, NOT both of us. And you didnt step back actually. You went ahead and reverted again. That makes the gesture of talk hollow and an empty formality. I simply raised 2 clear issues and provided ample proof and expected you would address that if you genuinely wanted to pursue a talk on the matter. Instead of replying, which would've been helpful in order to discuss and find a solution, you repeatedly ignore and repeat something which in no way address the concerns, I raised - originally in reply to your issues as stated above. A talkpage is for that purpose. But seeing as you are not forthcoming on that front, obviously that leaves me little choice other than to await external review. Nimom0 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GeorgeCustersSabre, would you mind bringing the disputed content to this talk page, and explaining why you specifically removed each section? That would be the normal practice. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Farhat Hashmi. 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/20080414060608/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329215310/http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/06-May-2005/farhat-hashmi-operating-in-canada to http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/06-May-2005/farhat-hashmi-operating-in-canada

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) 21:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

My recent edits
It seems to me that this article relied too much on weak or unacceptable sources, such as social media and, in particular, Hashmi's own website. I have tried to rectify this, removing things that are not adequately referenced. Wikipedia requires citations to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. In good faith I have tried to remain faithful to the VERIFIABILITY and NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW guidelines found HERE and HERE. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC) :@George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) thanks for the edits, I agree that we should use third party sources as you mentioned. I will add them as I continue to edit the article, I have also emailed the organization if they can send a picture so we can upload it and add it to the information frame. Elektricity (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC) per Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat.
 * Dear Elektricity, you are welcome. I have no axe to grind either for or against Hashmi. I just want a reliable, accurate and neutral article. We need to keep the tone neutral. Regardless of the sources, if the article becomes a puff piece other editors will wade in. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Source of contention
Editors continuously tried to amend one sentence in the lede. I have no axe to grind, but refused edits that weren’t referenced or at least explained. The simplest thing, given that the sentence is touchy and entirely unnecessary, is merely to remove it altogether. The lede is strong without it. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, but care to explain why you repeatedly added unsourced objectionable content on this BLP? --Saqib (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, friend Saqib, the sentence was never mine. The edit history shows that it originated with someone else in January. I merely noticed that repeated changes were occurring without evidence or explanation. That was my objection. I probably could and should have simply removed the sentence earlier. In hindsight I wish I had. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)