Talk:Asma Gull Hasan

No affiliation with copycat user

Just for the record, my last editions to this article took place on 07:32, 24 August 2009. I have absolutely no affliation with user "Femjihad", who was clearly lacking imagination when thinking of a nickname. Perhaps a deliberate step for whatever purpose. It really is not acceptable to create suspicision by copying and re-writing a nickname. Quite absurd and strange display of behaviour. I also have no affiliation with any of the multiple IP numbers. Femwar (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to ban USER 99.201.131.202 / 166.205.131.14

These users are most likely the Hasan siblings themselves, who are known to edit their own entries and for their "seething conniptions" at anything less than glowing written about them (no matter how true), which itself is a reason to ban them.

In any case, I have gone through the trouble of remedying their concerns by adding in ALL the links they want cited. I don't have a problem with that. I have removed the Sunni Sisters link, and added back in the Muslim Woman's League link, the Feministe link, the Beliefnet link, and so on as they requested. I have even added in the Clifford Chance link they cite, even though it only confirms what I have written.

They are keen to remove any reference to the Knight material, but it was newsworthy enough for the Denver Post to report it and it is therefore newsworthy enough for Wikipedia. The statement there is fully sourced and does not go beyond what the Post has reported. If they have further documented evidence to add, then they should add it, along with a link to a major new source. The suit that they did file WAS unsuccessful, dismissed because Knight had insufficient contacts with Colorado to support the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. I have added in the reference.

They should not delete any reference to the money the family has given to Republican causes, as this too is an important matter of public record and is a critical piece of biographical material. Many wikipedia articles indicate whether the subject was of modest means or a child of enormous privilege, and also the fact that they have given so much money deeply colours their other activities, including the touted trip to Ethiopia, which was a perk gained by their massive donations. It also provides vital insight into their political background.

Finally, sufism is not a 'sect' of Islam, so it is incorrect to say it is; it just demonstrates ignorance of what sufism actually is. (They could start by reading the Wikipedia article on it!) Nevertheless, I have left in the reference to the "Why I Love Sufism" article on BeliefNet.

96.52.197.9 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

The cited material on Michael Muhammad Knight does not specifically mention Asma Gull Hasan failing in her lawsuit. Thus, it is assumption, not verified fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.135.174.34 (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the language to read "dismissed".

REPLY - Yes, but you still included unnecessary information. I have re-written the article with references to Knight and the lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.135.174.34 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

96.52.197.9 (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to ban USER 96.52.197.9

I believe that USER 96.52.197.9 should be banned for editing any parts of the wikipedia page of Asma Gull Hasan because USER 96.52.197.9 has demonstrated a clear intent to slander Hasan on these grounds.

1. Sourcing Non-Existing Blogs

USER 96.52.197.9 has posted many negative comments about Hasan, while referencing blogs that do not even exist. This would include the blog listed below, which goes to a GoDaddy.com purchase page:

http://www.sunnisisters.com/?p=174%7Cdate=2004-08-17%7Caccessdate=2006-11-22%7Ctitle=Who%20are%20%22Muslims%20for%20Bush%22?%7Cpublisher=Sunni%20Sister%20

2. History of Vandalism

At 00:42, 25 August 2009, USER 96.52.197.9 deleted an entire section about Hasan's trip to Ethiopia, which was sanctioned by the United States Government, and replaced it with quotes from Michael Muhammad Knight, information about Malik Hasan, and links about Muhammad Ali Hasan. USER 96.52.197.9 proceeded to say that he had "undone vandalism," when indeed, he actually deleted information about Hasan and replaced it with more irrelevant information about Malik Hasan, Michael Muhammad Knight, and Muhammad Ali Hasan.

3. Deletion of Important References

USER 96.52.197.9 has deleted important references about Hasan, including her educational history, her personal life growing up, and accomplishments, in favor of quotes from Michael Muhammad Knight and information about Muhammad Ali Hasan and Malik Hasan. Such deleted references would include the following:

http://www.mwlusa.org/books_films/authors/asma.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/145/story_14526_1.html

http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/international/Islamic-Feminism-03.html

4. Deletion of Publishers Weekly Note

Asma Gull Hasan received a starred review from Publishers Weekly which is considered a high honor in literary circles, a note of accomplishment worth placing upon a wikipedia page. USER 96.52.197.9 deleted this note in favor of an irrelevant quote from Michael Muhammad Knight and irrelevant information about Malik Hasan and Muhammad Ali Hasan.

5. Deletion of Sufism

USER FEMWAR went to special efforts to include a section regarding Hasan's views on Sufism, a topic that Hasan has spent much time writing about. USER 96.52.197.9 deleted this section in favor of irrelevant quotes from Michael Muhammad Knight and irrelevant information on Malik Hasan.

6. Clifford Chance

According to California legal documents, Clifford Chance paid damages to Asma Gull Hasan. Such a point would have to be included in any discussion of dismissal from Clifford Chance. In addition, The American Lawyer magazine reports of possible prejudice from Clifford Chance offices, as Senior Partners at the firm were known to refer to Muslims as "Chemical Ali" in front of Hasan, in addition to baiting arguments, as well as denying requests to help support US State Department missions that would promote American and Muslim understanding.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pygr9TPekA8J:www.islamophobia.org/news.php%3Freadmore%3D226+%22clifford+chance%22+%22asma+hasan%22&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

7. Michael Muhammad Knight

USER 96.52.197.9 is thoroughly incorrect on this point. It would be incorrect to say that Asma Gull Hasan's suit was "unsuccessful," as the cited source, the Denver Post, never said such information. Such action is vandalism. In addition, according to Colorado court documents, the Kominas band has entered into a settlement with Hasan and a damages hearing is being held on September 9th of 2009 in Denver, Colorado. In addition, Colorado court documents also show that Michael Muhammad Knight was never served papers and that Hasan may file a lawsuit against him in his home state of New York. Hasan was successful against the Kominas and may pursue Knight. Lastly, the Denver Post article cited by USER 96.52.197.9 does not say that Kominas or Knight were successful in defending themselves. Thus, USER 96.52.197.9 has no proof to cite the success or failure of any lawsuit. Including a quote from Michael Muhammad Knight has more to do with Knight than Hasan, not needed in this wikipedia article.

USER 96.52.197.9 cited for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.131.202 (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that this AFD include research with links that could be used to expand this article further. GRBerry 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Information

I have deleted information dealing with Asma Gull Hasan's lawsuit towards Michael Muhammad Knight. First, the reference written contained more information and attention about Knight than Hasan, thus, it seemed unnecessary to even mention it, in terms of this wiki.

In addition, according to blogs, Knight was never even served court ordered papers? Other blogs show that the Kominas have actually compromised and agreed to remove Hasan from all references within their songs, in addition to paying her damages. I would link these references, but I don't know how trustworthy the blogs are?

Overall, the facts on this entire suit are very murky. Some say that Knight was never even served, since he is outside the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado, and other sites say that Hasan won her case against the Kominas.

All in all, in regards to Hasan's career as an author and lawyer, I think the mentioning of the lawsuit against the Kominas and Knight is unnecessary because it has little to do with Hasan's larger work, and more importantly, the facts are heavily murky and the details are still being worked out. For that reason, I request that there be no mention of the lawsuit, at least until the finalized results can be proven. Thank you for everyone's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.48.43 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not merely about Hasan's conception of herself; it is about her public actions, and the court case -- especially one concerning a fellow author and freedom of speech -- is very important information to include. The facts are not murky and still being worked out; they have been published in the Denver Post, a very reputable newspaper. In fact, if we are going to talk about her career as a lawyer, we could mention her firing from Clifford Chance.

96.52.197.9 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Asma Gull Hasan won her case against Clifford Chance and they paid damages. In addition, the Kominas also be looking to pay damages to her. It seems that those facts are omitted from your version of the writeup because they do not slander her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.134.99.49 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is indeed the case, then this information can be included too provided you have reputable sources.

96.52.197.9 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Revent Reversions

I note that someone recently removed several lines of text about Ms. Hasan that could be construed as containing negative biographical content. However, the additions did contain external references. As neither the editor who added this information nor the editor who removed it, I would like to point out to both parties (in case this escalates to a dispute) that, while a Wikipedia article can contain verifiable details that could be construed as negative, Ms. Hasan is a living individual and thus the standards outlined in WP:LIVING should be closely followed.--Caliga10 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who added in the additions. I am aware of the WP:LIVING criteria, and have followed it strictly here; everything is NPOV, verifiable, and properly referenced. It's all publicly available information. I don't have a problem with Ms. Hasan adding more positive information to page, but it seems bad form to delete material that has been reported on in reputable newspapers.

96.52.162.82 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed blog link via reference

I removed <ref name="sunni">{{cite news|url=http://www.sunnisisters.com/?p=174 |date=2004-08-17|accessdate=2006-11-22|title=Who are "Muslims for Bush"?|publisher=Sunni Sister (blog)}}</ref> because a link to blogs are to be avoided (see: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided item 11. Also, I don't see the relevance of the reference to the statement. It may also be that a subscription is needed for readers. If that is the case, that too makes this link inappropriate. Pknkly (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Ok, so, what's the deal with this edit war? As far as I can tell you, one side doesn't want her father's organization noted, while the other does. So far, so good? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the section about the lawsuit, in any case, since it seems to be plagiarized from the Denver Post source. It follows the original language and structure far too closely, e.g. "influenced The Kominas to write defamatory lyrics describing her performing a sex act." (Post) vs. "influenced the Kominas to write a song depicting her performance of a sex act." (WP). Someone needs to actually write an original summary of the events, preferably relying on multiple sources, before that aspect can be considered for inclusion in the biography. Dominic·t 10:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I'll look around for sources later and see if I can rewrite it. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 16:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing the article, I agree with one of the past users above. The details of this lawsuit have not been resolved. One USER above attempted to provide links, but there is no webpage out there that confirms that Asma Gull Hasan's lawsuit against Knight was resolved in any way. One linked website claimed that Knight was dismissed from a lawsuit, but it did not name Asma Gull Hasan specifically. In addition, the lawsuit against the Kominas is ongoing, at this time, from the sources I've gathered. Nonetheless, as said above, the details are "murky" at best. In regards to the Denver Post, the Denver Post article that everyone is citing simply announces the lawsuit, it has no information about its outcome or the transpiring events, as the article is very old. In all, I do not think a section about this lawsuit should even be included on the basis of a lack of reliable sources, as well as the fact that no proof of resolution is available on the internet. Lastly, is this lawsuit strong enough for inclusion into Hasan's wikipedia page, considering that Hasan is a three time author, a Muslim political pundit, and a State Department designee for peace operations? To me, the entire event seems like a footnote in one long career. Thank you for reading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.43.206 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asma Gull Hasan. 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/20090108100234/http://www.muslimsforamerica.us:80/fullstories/april2006_asmaafrica.html to http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/fullstories/april2006_asmaafrica.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812021115/http://healthtrio.com:80/bios/aHasan_bio.html to http://www.healthtrio.com/bios/aHasan_bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)