|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated Stub-class)|
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, 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan