Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Birth and early life in LEDE

The lead section should also briefly include information about his birth and early life. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What in particular do you think is significant that would need to be added? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think some information about the year and the place of his birth, and his immediate family. Similar to other high-quality biographical articles. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Year is there, but the other info you mention may not be significant enough for the lead section. I would presume that "high quality biographical articles" would include featured articles like Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, which don't seem to have such info. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Stating the place of birth should be avoided in this instance because there has clearly been some ambiguity and lead sections are particularly prone to edit wars when such details are mentioned. We can do without the back-and-forth. Alternatively, we say that his place of birth has been the subject of some debate, and mention none of the options (per WP:LEAD, we are summarising). The latter approach is the consensus for dealing with the equally contentious mentions of varna in the lead sections of Indian caste articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research query

We say "Jinnah's involvement in this controversy showed a greater inclination towards Islamic politics and a shift away from being an advocate for Hindu-Muslim unity." with regard to Jinnah's acting as defence in the 1929 legal case. The source is an op-ed in the Huffington Post but I cannot see where that op-ed makes any such judgment on Jinnah's political development etc. Am I missing it? - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

I have recently removed some content that Gimmetoo restored with this edit. The edit summary for the restore said "restore; based on a dispute and sources used elsewhere". I disagree for the following reasons:

that the sources are used elsewhere is not a reason to retain the statements that I removed, and they are automatically rescued by a bot, although usually I do make the effort myself
the dispute is already dealt with in the opening sentence of the Early Life section, which has plenty of citations explaining the back-and-forth
the genealogy of Jinnah does not in any way impact on that dispute, since Jinnah's father had moved prior to his birth and that appears not to be disputed
Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, nor are either the father or grandfather notable in their own right
articles are intended to maintain focus, and the restored information really is trivial unless we can make a connection between Jinnah's ancestry and his notability.

The relevant bits should be removed once more. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Gimmetoo also restored this. I accept that my edit summary was poor. Nonetheless, we have no need to use Jinnah's words here and, since he was a politician, there must always be doubts about why and where he says things. Are we sure that he did not say things differently when he was elsewhere? Yes, that is not usually an avoidable situation but in this instance it is, because of the numerous other citations. WP:CITEKILL is an issue in this article, so we may as well start fixing it near to the top. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The restored information under discussion in your first post is "some time before Jinnah's birth". My recollection is that that was the dispute. You want to argue about a bloody 5 words? Really? Let me remind you that this article has had a long history of disruptive and abusive editors repeatedly removing sourced material for less-than-noble motives. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not get annoyed with me. I am not those past "disruptive and abusive editors" and you would do well to AGF. The dispute is already explained and cited, and the additional content that you have restored is trivia for the reasons that I have stated. Who cares about his grandfather? Why do we not mention his great-grandfather? His great-great-grandfather? - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah's family's religious history is relevant to Jinnah, and has been a long-term subject of dispute here. Removal of sources is not helpful. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If anything is relevant then it needs to be made clear why it is relevant, otherwise it is detritus. If his religious history is significant then explain it in connection with a statement concerning his religion, rather than leaving it for the reader to hunt down inferences. And how does his father's occupation have any bearing on his religious history? (Yes, I am aware that his father worked for the same business as he did, but that again can be addressed more directly, if required at all, at the point where Jinnah's employment with Grahams is stated). This is wishy-washy stuff and needs to be tightened. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Given this edit [1] asking for a cite that followed immediately in the text, I think you should slow down editing, and stop tagbombing. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And I think that you should start to AGF and focus on what matters, not to mention checking why that particular confusion occurred with the edit that you have just linked to . I have been clear with my reasoning in this discussion and you are jumping about all over the shop. Please can you respond to my queries: it is early days & I am already becoming concerned about attitude. I am sure that you have invested much time in this article but that does not mean that it cannot be improved. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have now removed the grandfather bit. That is a start. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is routinely subject to numerous forms of editing that remove sourced material; it has also had a so-called admin edit-war to remove sourced text and then threaten to block me, the editor in opposition. Given the long-term abuse this article has endured, above-average caution is warranted when editing here. The article needs work, but if the sources get removed then there won't be much left when some editors finally have the time and interest. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not be at all surprised if there have been long-term problems here. But someone who is out to disrupt an article does not usually make an edit, see it reverted and then raise the matter on the talk page. You are an admin, although I did not realise it until a few minutes ago. Frankly, I think that your handling of this situation was not great until your last message above. I was unaware of your admin status etc due to you using > one account, whereas it would have taken you all of a couple of minutes to research me.

Anyway, let bygones be bygones etc. I don't have decent access to a lot of sources relating to Jinnah but can and will offer some improvements and suggestions in good faith. This is the sort of article subject that really should be rated at least GA, although clearly it is inadequate for that status right now. Perhaps we can get it there over the next few months. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sensitive here to source removal, but please do other sorts of improvements to writing and structure. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth, 25 December

This edit is plain wrong.

It does not address the cite request because the provided sources seem not to refer to the named biographer or the passport.
The Story of Pakistan website contains both unattributed and attributed articles, where even the attributed contributors often /do not seem to have any authority - it would therefore fail WP:RS.
The Jinnah.pk website is so POV-y it is scarcely credible. Even though d.o.b. is usually a bare fact, I would not trust a source such as this. Even more so, perhaps, given there does in fact appear to be a discrepancy regarding his d.o.b. and this source is silent on the matter despite being easily updated by the site admins etc
The book is voluminous but does not appear to be particularly academic, despite the grand-sounding name of its publisher. Can we have some more information about the author and the publisher, please?

I propose to remove the two web sources on reliability grounds. If the reliability of the book can be determined then it looks as if we still need cites for the passport/biographer statement, but we could drop that statement and replace it with a different one referencing Syed's work. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, this edit barely touches on the issues that were raised in the now-removed tag]. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1st concern: I added the references to prove his date of birth, not to give reference to the biographer or the passport. Although the picture of the passport is present on the article from where one can verify from.
2nd concern:story of Pakistan can be used but I agree that it may fail WP:RS as it can be altered.
3rd concern:It can be used as a source for the date of birth, though not very reliable.
4th concern:What kind of information would you require for the author to be notable?
5th concern:This reference was added to prove that he passed his exam from University of Bombay. I haven't studied encyclopedia Britannica for this particular topic, but I think that this reference qualifies for WP:RS.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In a bit of a rush and will return to this. However, the point of a citation is to add verifiability to a statement. If a cite only verifies a part of the statement then it needs to be placed against that part. There are common-sense exceptions but this is not one of them: the statement specifically says that his biographer noted something and the source does not. So, we either cite that biographer or remove the statement. Ditto for the passport (this is a weird one, by the way, because the image is a primary source). Personally, I think that I would change the statement and see where we go from there. It really doesn't matter who said it, as long as it was said and is reliably verifiable. My first GA was a bit of a nightmare while I got to grips with just how important these issues can be, but everything since then has been a stroll. Even the FA wasn't too much of a hassle. That shows how experience kicks in, I guess. But I still make mistakes. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant to add, WP:PRIMARY - it is probably ok to mention the passport & somehow cite the image of it, provided that the image is rock-solid as being Jinnah's passport.. I would accept that, and I am prone to pedantry when it comes to sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the advice. I hope that you will continue to guide me in these situations as this is my first time for getting an article upto GA or FA.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Query re: Urducolumns

This edit seems to be problematic. Firstly, there is the WP:NOENG issue; secondly, and somewhat dependent on the first, there is the issue of whether the linked article is reliable; and finally, the edit summary suggests that the source only verifies a small fraction of the statements in the paragraph, all of which needed sourcing.

I am generally averse to using newspapers for historic facts such as these because they should be available in books & such books tend to have less mistakes in them + source their information - many newspapers, especially in the Indian subcontinent, just plagiarise stuff from their competitors. Can these issues be resolved? - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an issue of language here and I totally agree with you that these historic facts should be mentioned in books. I am currently working on it and getting a reference from a published book. As for the news paper reference, Jang News is the largest urdu newspaper in Pakistan so competitors wouldn't be of importance here. As for the urdu translation, for confirmation you can ask any Pakistani user for the translation. User:TopGun User:Mar4d User:Smsarmad are some of Pakistani editors which I know. Secondly it is a complete summary of the history of Dinna Jinnah. Let me know if I could be of any more help here.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 14:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's hang off on this until you have a chance to delve through books etc. The whole layout of that web page looks a little odd to me, almost as if it is a blog section that might not be subject to the usual editorial controls etc. I am not doubting your translation, btw, but rather pointing out the requirements here on English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure I'll get to them and will update the article as well as the talk page here. For the requirements, I think main stream press publications are authorized to be used on Wikipedia as per WP:GOODREFS. But since you have raised concerns, I'll definitely use a book.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 14:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dinna Jinnah's reference from Encyclopedia Pakistanica, p. 725 by Syed Qasim Mehmood published in (1998) by Qadir Printers, Karachi has been added for further verifcation.
Also a reference from same encyclopedia has been added for Jinnah's first wife' EmiBai.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 17:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that Encyclopedia reliable? Or the publisher? Or the author? This could be a systemic problem, but I can find almost no-one citing it and nothing to indicate that Mehmood has any academic credentials (he does own a publishing house, it seems). - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes the encyclopedia is reliable though it is in Urdu Language. It had gained a lot of attention among the readers of Pakistan and is present in every major library. It was first published under the name of Shahkar Islami Encyclopedia in 1983 and in two years time it had already got 5 editions published. The version I have is of year 1998. It has been modified. Almost 20 authors have worked on it but they were headed by Syed Qasim Mehmood
Though I have three more encyclopedia's also in Urdu language that support these facts and are present in the libraries. Should I refer them too?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 18:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the author's confirmation, I don't think that many authors in Pakistan have been subject to gain online attention. Though there are many known authors but all about their biographies is limited to newspapers or books.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 18:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What I can do to help is I can scan and take the picture of the encyclopedia's and the pages that I mentioned, and any Urdu knowing editor can confirm that they verify the statements I have made. What do you suggest?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 18:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gujarati script

I am not sure why Mar4d insists on removing the Gujarati script from the LEDE with edit summaries that do not clearly specify what changes are being made – [2]. Gujarati was one of Jinnah's languages and therefore should be included in the article. See Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 4#Jinnah and Gujarat and Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 4#Jinnah was a speaker of Gujarati!. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The two threads you quote do not show any consensus for adding Gujarati script. They are individual comments. There is absolutely no reason to impose Gujarati script in the lead because Jinnah preferred and espoused the Urdu language throughout his political career. The Gujarati language had no influence on his political outlook or personality whatsoever. It is entirely a personal family background. As you can see, Gujarati script is included in the early life section next to his native name. It is entirely appropriate there, though we should only keep Urdu in the lead, since this article is about the national founding father of Pakistan (of which Urdu is the national language), and for the aforementioned reason that Jinnah identified with Urdu rather than Gujarati. Mar4d (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Another way to say it, that an astronaut's life in space is more likely to be covered in his article rather than his family background (which will get a bare mention unless notable itself). Also, is there a source that even says he was ever heard speaking Gujrati? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is. Here is one from the Times of India. Also "Gandhi Against the Tide" by Anthony Copley on page 40 notes that Jinnah spoke Gujarati before the INC in 1917. It is also well established that Gujarati was Jinnah's native language. I see no real reason to delete Gujarati from the lead.Pectore^talk 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To address the other "fact" (though I think its quite obvious that Urdu should be in the lead). Jinnah could not even speak Urdu for the longest time, and spoke it badly even though he advocated for it. Here are some selected quotes:

"Jinnah was not parochial in this exercise. He spoke Gujarati, since he came from that linguistic group in western India. Yet he supported Urdu as the language which would unite the Muslims of India and thus gave them a lingua franca." (Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin, Akbar Ahmed - p107)
"Jinnah himself knew no Urdu, Gujarati being his mother tongue and English the language of his survival." (India: the siege within : challenges to a nation's unity, M. J. Akbar)
"More at home in English than his native Gujarati, Jinnah spoke little Urdu, which he would later designate as Pakistan's official language, knew neither Persian nor Arabic, " (The Selected Writings of Eqbal Ahmad, Eqbal Ahmad, p 416)
"It is poignant to note that this declaration was made in English as Jinnah, a Gujarati, could not speak a word of Bangla and was not particularly fluent in Urdu either" (Language and National Identity in Asia, Andrew Simpson, p 42)

Jinnah actually spoke Gujarati and was of Gujarati ethnic origin. That in itself should merit its inclusion. However Jinnah advocated for Urdu (a language he spoke badly) as the official languauge of Pakistan. Obviously both should be included in the lead, even though Gujarati is actually more relevant than Urdu.Pectore^talk 13:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Who really cares how fluent he was.... since when has that become a criteria? The only criteria here is notability and context, which Urdu has over Gujarati. Barack Obama has Kenyan Luo ethnicity, does that mean we add Luo script in his article? Gujarati is not relevant to the context, wherein Urdu is. MA Jinnah's policies of a state language were centred and emphasised on Urdu. On the other hand, Gujarati played no significant role, it's more of a personal thing (and there is already his name in Gujarati in early life section, where it is entirely appropriate). People identify Jinnah with the Urdu language more than they identify him with the Gujarati language. Gujarati has little notability, because even though he may have spoken it at home, it is not something that he is widely connected with. Thus I see very less logic behind imposing it in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have provided multiple sources indicating Jinnah spoke Gujarati, and often even in the public sphere. Therefore he is notable as a Gujarati speaker. In the future, do actually provide informed argumentation based on policy, rather than linking to it meaninglessly. Your analogy to Obama is laughable, since Jinnah was not only born in Gujarat, but he was purely ethnically Gujarati, grew up speaking Gujarati, spoke it in a professional context, and is notable with regards to his linguistic background for Gujarati, as I have demonstrated from multiple reliable sources. Obama's Luo ancestry came from his dad, who he did not even know, and Obama grew up speaking English. Next time you attempt to make another analogy, please actually do your research.Pectore^talk 15:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How about you start with some research first? Jinnah was not born in Gujarat, he was born in Sindh. And if that ain't enough for you, he did not grow up in Gujarat either, his father was a Gujarati merchant who migrated to Karachi shortly before his birth. Secondly, you're loading up heaps of synthesis here; the quotes you have given do not make anything clear about Jinnah "growing up" speaking Gujarati at home, rather they just say that he "spoke" Gujarati presumably because of his ethnic background. And according to p. 48 and 49 in My Brother written by Fatima Jinnah, Jinnah and his siblings were "multilingual" and could also speak Kutchi and Sindhi alongside Gujarati, so you're argument which solely puts emphasis on Gujarati being the only language Jinnah knew flies out of the window. Thirdly, I have no idea what you mean by "professional context" - I have said it before and I shall repeat, Gujarati had nothing to do with his professional and political career. I have nothing personal against the Gujarati language, my contesting of the issue is entirely based on notability and context. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah's religion

There is contradiction in it. If we see his early life, it is mentioned that (Jinnah's family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam, though Jinnah later converted to Twelver Khoja Shi'a Islam.) meaning he was a follower of Shia Islam while in the last paragraph of illness and death it's mentioned that he converted to Sunni Islam and later on it is mentioned that he was neither a sunni nor a shia but a Muslim.
Though both of these sects are considered to be Muslims in books, it may be subject to serious discussion that which sect he followed. I have been searching on it for a while and still unable to find any reliable reference, though many more books are there with me which may consist any information on his religion.
As quoted in Early life the following references are present. You can see the notes, [1] is a dead link,[2] is a blog on Wordpress (Haven't come across the book yet and don't have it either), [5][6] seem to have no relation with the topic, [25] is regarding his religion by birth making him a shia follower(Which is proved that he was from a Shia family). As for [96] it seems to contradict in itself and seem to me to fail WP:RS. [96] is used in illness and death last paragraph.
I have studied the books which I have and almost all of them, which have any knowledge of Jinnah's religion have confirmed, that he, by birth, was a shia follower but later on when asked by a journalist he replied that "I believe in Allah and Quran but I am not a very religious person(not a maulvi{considered to be a person who follows with full practice}). I have studied The Glorious Quran and seen that it has guidance on every walk of life.... etc.." (Rest of it is about Quran). What should be done here?
Any suggestions or proofs that satisfy WP:GNG?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 19:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You surely mean WP:RS instead of WP:GNG? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well both can be used. But WP:RS would be more appropriate. Thanks for the correction :)
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 19:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah's religion is a rather complicated issue. For this reason the infobox describes it as just "Islam" without specifics. For all I can tell the Sunni conversion is rather poorly sourced; it was advocated by people who had a financial interest because of the differences between Sunni and Shia inheritance laws. [1] was a newspaper article detailing Jinnah's religious convictions and the lawsuits about his inheritance; as the title "The secular Mussulman" suggests, it argued that Jinnah was neither Sunni nor Shia, but simply a Muslim. [2] is Vali Nasr's book itself; the link to the blog is just for the convenience of readers who do not have easy access to that book. [5] and [6] are another two broken links; I remember that [5] was a newspaper article on Jinnah which explicitly stated Jinnah converted to Twelver Shia Islam; I can't remember what [6] was, but it wasn't what it is now. [96] was another Dawn article on the inheritance cases; [97], the Rediff piece, indeed seems less than reliable. I'll try the Wayback Machine on all those broken links. Huon (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mostly successful. [5] seems to be gone from the web for good (or maybe I didn't check thoroughly enough), but I recovered the Dawn article at [96] and the very helpful Financial Express piece at [1]. And [6] actually does say that Jinnah was originally a Khoja Shia but later converted to Twelver Shia Islam; so that apparently is still what it used to be, though most of it is indeed irrelevant to Jinnah. My suggestion would be to get rid of [5] since for our purposes it was just a duplicate of [6] (I don't think it covered the Swat ceasefire, but that's not what we are interested in anyway). Huon (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[5] was [3] (still live at this moment). It was used because it included this quote: "Islam, in this case, was a national melting pot not a revolutionary religious slogan. Jinnah himself was incapable of adopting a hardliner approach; he was born Agha Khani [Ismaili Shia Muslim] and was said to have converted to the Shia Twelver [Ithna Ashari] doctrine. He was an Indian Muslim who sensed the catastrophe that would befall the Muslims in India if they handed over the leadership of the INC..." Gimmetoo (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see if I can find any more reliable sources on Jinnah's religion in any published books in the city libraries. Thanks for the reply.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a good decision to leave it to Islam... let's not dig up the claims which, as Huon pointed out, were for interest in inheritance. The claim for conversion to Sunni Islam is quite dubious. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure TG, I'll stick to whatever is already present in the article. I heard it from a professor of mine that he didn't follow Shia, in 12th grade and the professor was a PhD in P.S. He also mentioned the books in which it was written. I was trying to find those books. I agree with Huon also that the claims were made for the inheritance's interests because if he was a Shia then according to Shia law everything will go to the family (but that's another story...). I'll try to stick to what is already present here and do some work on the rest of the article.
Thanks--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 07:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually even his funeral was carried out per Shia customs with the Alam (even though two prayers were offered) and for some one who actually converted to that sect, it becomes unambiguous. Such accusations of not following one's faith fly around too often, won't be surprised if there's one that says the same about following Islam at all - and all originating for the obvious political motives. Anyway, good to keep it this way; it by-passes the dispute and is more neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Then I won't be taking this discussion any further as this was also a concern that two funeral prayers were offered. It's better to stick to Islam and rectify other issues.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

Images should be of appropriate ratios and positioned such that they do not displace headings or edit links, please take this in to account while editing images. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit of the picture done by User:Masalai, by placing the picture of Jinnah and Louis Mountbatten back in the center again.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the title "Quaid-e-Azam"

A user seems insistent on adding the origins of the title of Quaid-e-Azam, which he/she claims is attributed to a person called Maulana Mazharuddin, an editor of a newspaper in Delhi. I have reverted the edit as the information seems trivial and would require coverage in multiple reliable sources to be verified. Even then, I do not understand how it is notable or significant to be mentioned in the article, let alone in the lead, which is probably not the right place to include it. The user is invited to discuss here before making further changes. Mar4d (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While the Quaid-e-Azam papers might be a reliable source (though I'm not sure - the snippet crediting Mazharuddin with the invention of the title was not written by Jinnah himself, who is supposed to be the author of the Quaid papers, and I have no idea who else wrote it), the blog definitely is not, and the inventor of the title is rather irrelevant to Jinnah anyway. In fact, the reference says that Jinnah disliked the title - if it is reliable, that might be information worth including, probably in the legacy section. Huon (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Gallery

I have been reading some featured articles lately so that I can have a better understanding of what is required by reviewers. I haven't seen any galleries on any page and I am thinking of removing it from Jinnah and making up a category on Wikimedia for the pictures and then linking it back to the Wikipedia page. Any suggestions?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sentences without references

There are some facts which have no references mainly under the main heading Early Life, sub heading Years in England. I tried to find out some references to support these facts but haven't found any evidence on the internet or in the book collection on Jinnah which I have. If anyone has not come across any supporting evidence, I think it would be better to remove these sentences. Any recommendations or opinions?
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 18:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these. For now, add ^{[citation needed]} tags where you think citation is needed (if not already there). Also, I hope these citations and content is later present in the body for which you removed citations [4]. If not, better copy it to the body and add citations there. Lead does not have citations because it is a summary of what body states, it should not have any content not cited elsewhere in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. Justice007 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I thought to add the sentences from the lead paragraph which have ^{[citation needed]} added with them in the body of the article. I am going to add the [5] reference and the others with their sentences in the body. I was just confused about the ones which are already present in the body so I thought to take an opinion from other editors in case my judgement is wrong.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If they are already present in body, your removal would have caused a ref tags error, so I'm not sure if they were present else where, you can recheck though. Add them to body structure instead... lead's just a summary but that content is sourced in the body. We don't want to loose the refs ;] --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks TopGun :)
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 17:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Law carrier

Law carrier? This appears a few times. I guess this is a typo??? Shouldn't it be "Law career"?? PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should be Career instead of Carrier. Career means a profession or occupation while Carrier means a person or a thing that carries something.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 09:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material from the article

I am removing unsourced material from the article temporarily. It already exists in history but even then I am mentioning every removed sentence here so that if anyone has any RS, he can feel free to add them back.

Years in England:*He particularly admired William Gladstone and John Morley, British liberal statesmen.^{[citation needed]}
*he worked with other Indian students on the former's successful campaign to become the first Indian to hold a seat in the British Parliament.^{[citation needed]}
* Political Carrer:In 1906, Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress, which was the largest and one of the oldest democratic political parties of subcontinent. Like most of the Congress at the time, Jinnah did not favor outright independence, considering British influences on education, law, culture and industry as beneficial to India.^{[citation needed]}.
* Founding of Pakistan:Jinnah gave the League's assent to both plans, knowing that power would go only to the party that had supported a plan. After much debate and against Gandhi's advice that both plans were divisive, the Congress accepted the 16 May plan while condemning the grouping principle.^{[citation needed]}
* Illness and Death:held according to Shia rituals and was led by Allama Anees-ul-Hasnain,while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside.^{[citation needed]}
* Legacy:In the Iranian capital, Tehran, one of its most important new highways^[which?] is named after him.

If anyone has any RS regarding these sentences, feel free to add them back and notify it on the talk page.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For the highway in Tehran, see Tehran#Highways and streets. I'm assuming this: Mohammad Ali Jenah Expressway. Mar4d (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same, but in the article the complete sentence was "In the Iranian capital, Tehran, one of its most important new highways^[which?] is named after him, as is the city's Mohammad Ali Jenah Expressway" so I thought there might be two of them named after Jinnah. edit. But if you are sure that it is only Mohammad Ali Jenah Expressway, I'll add it back.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 09:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Images

I'm concerned about the lead image, here. A quick check of the Commons page on licensing indicates that photographs published in Pakistan go into the Public domain there 50 years after publication, which is of course OK as far as it is goes, but under US law, images which were not in the public domain on January 1, 1996 have had their copyright extended in the US. WMF's servers are in the US so we must obey both Pakistani and US law. This means not only that photographs of Jinnah (or anything else, assuming first publication in Pakistan) from 1946, 1947, and 1948 are no good and won't survive an image check at FAC, but if first publication was in India, the latest date seems to be 1941. We'd probably be OK with images subject to Crown copyright though I am not certain if that applies to an employee, say, of the British raj. However, we are handicapped by the fact that the image has no source information beyond a dead link to the Pakistani government's website.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this is going to be an issue with several images, though a number look good, as well. The one with Mountbatten, for example, should be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping to finish a first cut of the article sometime later this week. That doesn't mean done, but it means my work will shift more to polishing than writing. Images are still a major issue. I see very few I'm happy with for the reasons I mention above. I took a quick look for public domain images on the net of Jinnah, but saw nothing I could swear by.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

hello my friends 

I AM ANUJ KHANNA I WANT TO TALK OVER THE MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH  AS WE ALL KNOW HE WAS THE FIRST PRIESIDENT OF PAKISTAN 

ISS HE DID RIGHT FOR PAKISTAN FOR THE SEPRATE NATION ... AND WHAT IS THE FATHER NAME OF JINAAH  ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujdeep10 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Poonja, sorry, I've put it in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nom for GA?

I'd like people to consider if this article should be nommed for WP:GA. There is still a major problem with images. Most of the images are not proven to be in the public domain, as the 50-year rule only applies to images first published in British India pre-1946. It's showing the publication that is the problem. One thought I had was to suggest that any contributing editor who lives in the subcontinent consult local libraries that may have microfilm or similar from then. However, I don't think it will make a difference for GA purposes, it surely will if we get to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As most of the images are hosted on commons, it's really up to commons to work them out. I haven't really got through the whole article after the changes, but it seems mostly OK. However, the birthdate is a point of contention, so the first note needs sources. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but FA reviewers won't take that view on images. I'll look at the birthdate.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked two Commons admins to look at the matter and two images are nommed for deletion. We'll see what happens. It would really be helpful if people in the subcontinent who have access to (microfilmed?) back issues of newspapers would help.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to contact the local libraries for the microfilms but I doubt that the libraries would have them as people in Pakistan rarely go to libraries and the libraries are not that up to date as they should be.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the institutes that study him? And we don't need up to date, we need before 1946. Even if the images are grainy from microfilm, if we can establish that publication, we can sometimes find better copies online.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently went to Lincoln's Inn in London to see whether the statement over the main entrance to Lincoln's Inn were the names of the world's great lawgivers, including Muhammad is true or false. The main entrance didn't have anything like that but I asked the librarian there and she gave me the contact address of the head of archives department. I'll ask him if he can give me some of Jinnah's pictures there and whether such a place or such an entrance exist which has the names of world's great lawgivers.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I understood it to be a mural. Wolpert says where it is, but I've taken my copy back to the library. I think we should avoid an image of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Then I think I can get it for my own collection, but I can get some of the pictures of Jinnah's time here like group photographs and stuff. Hopefully Lincoln's Inn would have them preserved and I think that they might have more of his pictures as he proved to be an exceptional alumni of theirs. Let's see what I can get. I'll let you know once I get the permission to take the pictures.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If the photographer died before 1942, it would be OK to use. It's the copyright of the original image that counts. As for the mural, we have had considerable conflict on Wikipedia over depictions of Mohammed and it is best to avoid that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that I saw that there is a lot of conflict going on those depictions but I think that only the names are mentioned in Lincoln's Inn. Name can never be a problem, pictures are the cause of concern. Let's see what I can find. As for the death of the photographer, I'll ask the archives department what they are willing to offer. If the Lincoln's Inn archive department is willing to give the pictures (release the rights), I think it would be great.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

They may not own the rights, just hold the physical picture, which is not the same thing. And finding someone in authority to do may be difficult. If the photographer died before 1942, it's PD. Of course, they may not know ... sigh. The images are the major hold up.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see what I can get. I'll ask them if they know whether the photographer died before 1942 or not.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If they don't, get the name (if they know) and we can research the guy. Better yet, get them to send you an email with the info, then we can forward it to WP:OTRS. The British government probably has additional photos taken at the same time as the one showing him between the Mountbattens. They may have more than that, given the number of times Jinnah met with British officials. The question is, where would they be?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess with the national archives or national gallery. Lets see what I can find.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some rare images of Jinnah at National Archives of Pakistan at Islamabad. If anyone can contact them its good otherwise I may visit them (can't confirm when, but may be in a month) and check if there are any of them taken before 1946 or if they can give it to us under some acceptable license. --SMS ^Talk 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, and I would remind you that it is publication that counts, not where it is taken. In other words, we need publication (hopefully first publication) in British India before 1946. And again, I stress that just because they have the physical photo, they don't necessarily own the copyright. If it was taken by a government employee (like the Mountbatten one), it's probably OK, but we have to know, not guess. FAC is very rough on images with dodgy copyrights. I've been through 77 FACs (73 passing). Trust me on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think that the National Archives of Pakistan will definitely have the pictures because they keep the collection of all old stuff, 90% of being the private collections and almost 60% of the Pakistani government. I have emailed the Lincoln's Inn archives, lets see what their reply would be.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I got the reply from the archives department of Lincoln's Inn. The head of archives department has forwarded my request, for the pictures, to the higher authorities and have given me the link to the fact sheet that they have on Jinnah. Here is the link to it (click on Mohammad Ali Jinnah), in case it is needed for any reference on the article. I'll keep you updated on what the authorities say regarding the pictures.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you may do better contacting people than me, although I intend to start looking once I am home tomorrow. Ideally what we want is the name of the publication, date, and page number. However, keep in mind that we are not limited to newspapers. An election poster, say, featuring Jinnah for the December 1945 election would be great.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like Lincoln's Inn administration isn't interested to help. I have repeatedly mailed them but they aren't replying. I think that we would have to contact the National Archives of Pakistan. I'll ask any friend of mine who can get them for me. If I am unable to get them, then I think User:Smsarmad may be able to help. But I'll still try to arrange some from the local libraries or from somewhere else.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I haven't found anything yet either. No big deal on the Lincoln's Inn, they would have been able to illustrate a very small part of Jinnah's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion

This discussion has been open for a few weeks, and at this point consensus is clear: the infobox should say simply "Islam" in the "Religion" field. I'm therefore closing this discussion as resolved; when and if any new editors change this field without discussion, this discussion can be pointed to in the "undo" edit summary to familiarize them with the current consensus. 28bytes (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a dispute that should be discussed here before further reverting. Sources about Jinnah's belief are just the statements of the politicians, and one source is blog, not reliable. The statements are WP:UNDUE that cannot be applied for that. Justice007 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to come to some sort of consensus on this, for my guidance as I maintain the article, which I do for all articles I have helped to bring to FA. My thoughts are to either say "Islam" or else omit the religion field, and I'l leaning towards the latter. It's impossible to read about Jinnah without learning very quickly that he led the Muslim League. The field is causing conflict. I've given up reverting on this, but if we can all agree on this, we can avoid these perennial conflicts.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think just having "Islam" in the infobox is sufficient and there is no need to mention the sect in brackets as it 1) Causes edit wars; 2) His sect is discussed in greater detail in the section/s detailing his personal life; and 3) As someone pointed out, Jinnah was not a staunch follower of Shia Islam (or for that matter, any other claimed sect). 'Islam' alone in the infox should be adequate to indicate that he was a Muslim by religion. To be honest, I don't support having sects on infoboxes in any BLP article (unless the person is notable as a follower of that sect and the sect has significant influence on his/her life); it gets too personal in my opinion. Just mentioning the religion is okay. Mar4d (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The religion is again changed in the info box. I think that it should either be Islam or the religion section be deleted. Editors will keep on changing it again and again. Shouldn't we just delete the field instead of having a useless debate of he being Sunni or Shia?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 20:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

While I understand Wehwalt's rationale for removing the religion entirely, I'd prefer to go with "Islam", which is undoubtedly correct. Huon (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur, please see my comment above. 'Islam' alone is sufficient for the infobox. The denomination should only (and I repeat, only) be discussed in the article body as Jinnah was not a hardcore/staunch follower of Shia Islam (or any other sects that others claim). He identified himself as a Muslim and for that, mentioning the religion alone in general is sufficient for the infobox without going into extra details like his sect. If we can establish consensus here and right now, any future edit-warring in the article over his sect can be rightfully reverted I think, based on everyone's agreed views here. Mar4d (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with Mar4d. Zia Khan 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I second agree with Mar4d.Justice007 (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Mar4d.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Me too.Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Mar4d is right! Quaid was not a denomination observant leader, he wanted us to be only "Muslims"! Faizan (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

history of partition of India 1946-7

The history of how India was partitioned as demanded by Jinnah is not complete and accurate.

During WWII, the British Government invited the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League to form ministries to govern the hindu-majority provinces and the muslim majority provinces, respectively, for limited self-government. The Congress refused, because it had been demanding full independence, but the League formed governments in Bengal and Sindh. When Jinnah's demand for partition was not accepted by Congress leaders (including Muslim leaders such as Abul Kalam Azad who was the president for about ten years during the 1930s, and the Pakhtun leader Abdul Gaffar Khan), Jinnah called for Direct Action on 16 August 1946. Nobody knew what that meant. But it turned out that the Muslim League government under Suhrawardy in Bengal had imported Muslim strongmen from Bihar into Calcutta to start the worst communal riot up to that time. See excerpt from TIME magazine article below -- an unbiased source. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ INDIA: Direct Action Monday, Aug. 26, 1946

India suffered the biggest Moslem-Hindu riot in its history. Moslem League Boss Mohamed Ali Jinnah had picked the 18th day of Ramadan for "Direct Action Day" against Britain's plan for Indian independence (which does not satisfy the Moslems' old demand for a separate Pakistan). Though direct, the action was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta's streets.

Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta's British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem...

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,933559,00.html#ixzz2OfsfXoUf __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I leave it up to your editors to correct the article. Contemporaneous documents should still be available.

The other aspect (that should be added) is that a reasonable conjecture can be made that without the encouragement of Winston Churchill, Jinnah may not have taken such a stand for partition of India. It is known that Jinnah communicated with Churchill during those discussions -- using a pseudonym for Churchill at a different address to avoid publicity. Churchill is known to have hated the Hindus (and nationalist Muslims) of India as traitors because they demanded independence and praised the Muslims as loyal subjects of the crown. The British voters removed Churchill from power immediately after WWII, so he did not have any direct authority to stop India's independence in 1947. But he tried to do the most damage by partitioning the country. Both Churchill and Jinnah had hoped that the Muslim-majority provinces on Bengal and the Punjab would be given to the new country of Pakistan. However, Governor General Mountbatten decided to partition those to provinces into the Hindu majority and Muslim majority parts. Documentation exists that Churchill refused to speak with Mountbatten for several years afterwards.

Incidentally, your article on Direct Action Day should also be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestabewiki (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean the source that says the direct action "was supposed to be peaceful"? What exactly do you want corrected?

Regarding Churchill, I fail to see the relevance to Jinnah, and we don't deal in "reasonable conjecture" anyway. Huon (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, we rely on WP:RS reliable sources. In this article we have for the most part relied on biographies of Jinnah of varying perspective, well-known history books, and scholarly journal articles. Since Jinnah is a controversial figure, it is best so. I recognize little of what you have written as the sort of thing found in high-quality sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes Wehwalt is right in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________- Since the editors have not updated the write-up in two months, the following is offered (1) There is a quotation from biography of Jinnah by Wolpert which was written in 1984. A quarter of a century later, Wolpert published another book, “Shameful Flight,” where he states that he had “failed to grasp” certain facts when he wrote his earlier books. In this book, he quotes Mountbatten saying “I fucked up” (his words) referring to the partition of India and expressed strong dislike for Jinnah.

(2) Jinnah himself was secular, lived a western lifestyle, married a non-muslim woman, ate pork, but used religion to divide India. Because Congress leaders were against partition, he called for “Direct Action” (see TIME magazine excerpt above, also Wikipedia entry) on August 16, 1946 leading to the “Great Calcutta Killing” (see Wikipedia entry). This led to continued riots climaxing at the time of partition when millions lost their life and tens of millions were uprooted from their homes. This is Jinnah’s legacy.

(3) On pp 567-8 of the 2008 paperback edition of the book “Gandhi and Churchill”, historian Arthur Herman writes that “To Churchill, the creation of a Muslim Pakistan with ties to the empire seemed the one way to “save a bit of India” for Britain ...” Churchill strategized with Jinnah hosting him at his country estate of Chartwell, and instructed Jinnah to use pseudonyms to correspond in secret. Jinnah insisted on the partition of India along communal lines but wanted the whole of Bengal and the Punjab provinces to be included in Pakistan and opposed their partition. Mountbatten sought Churchill’s help who said, “give Jinnah a personal message from me. Tell him this is a matter of life of death for Pakistan, if he does not accept the offer with both hands.” Jinnah was stunned hearing the message. He could not speak and only nodded his assent. Although Churchill at the time was out of power, Jinnah knew that without Churchill’s backing he had no leverage in the negotiations. Herman uses a statement “If Jinnah is regarded as the father of Pakistan, Churchill must qualify as its uncle.” Indeed Churchill acted like Jinnah’s big brother in creating Pakistan. Mountbatten’s ADC, Sarila, who had an opportunity to observe Mountbatten’s performance from close quarters, published a book, “The Shadow of the Great Game,” in 2005 with more details of the British plan to partition India.

68.55.154.116 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)HonestAbeWiki, May 29, 2013

I've read Shameful Flight, in which he finds Mountbatten and Nehru working together to make the partition more satisfactory to India than to Pakistan, because Mountbatten was miffed at being denied being GG of Pakistan. I think you are cherry picking to some extent. Given the potential for wiki conflict over any great discussion of Partition, I felt it best to stick to the basics. It is not helpful to say that Direct Action Day was Jinnah's fault, as different people may differ about that. Clearly, it's a reason for Indian dislike of Jinnah, which is covered in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only these few points but there are many more. Capitals00 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, there's huge amount of criticism also by Ayesha Siddiqa, K . S. Sudarshan, etc, then his 121 old residential building was attacked recently. But i guess, if we have to insert this all, there should be a whole new page for it, because it won't fit in this biographical article. Capitals00 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Murder attempt

Stanley Wolpert talks about a murder attempt on Jinnah in his book but I don't find any information about it here. Shouldn't it be added? --SMS ^Talk 20:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you remind me of the circumstances?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The murder was attempted in October 1947 at Karachi when two persons with revolvers appeared at his house and injured a police officer. Wolpert mentions it while talking about the disappointments Jinnah was facing related to events in Kashmir (at page 353). He says that some elements within and outside Pakistan were after him and his country. --SMS ^Talk 16:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nora Ahlberg in New challenges, old strategies: Themes of variation and conflict among Pakistani Muslims in Norway (1990) writes:

"Another movement fighting virulently against the idea of Pakistan was the Khaksar founded by Inayatullah Khan Masriqi in 1930. This party was accused of being Nazi-inspired, its members wearing military dress and marching in formation with spades on their shoulders like guns. They were thus organized to do rough menial work that others left undone but, it was also believed, in order to create a fighting force. It was one of their members who made a murder attempt on Jinnah."

Wolpert also refers to Khaksars but not with certainty like Nora Ahlberg did. --SMS ^Talk 16:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also: Not all Muslims looked up to Jinnah. Many criticized him, some because they found him too Westernized, others because he was too straight and uncompromising. One young man, motivated by religious fervour and belonging to the Khaksars, a religious party, attempted to assassinate him on 26 July 1943. Armed with a knife he broke into Jinnah's home in Bombay and succeeded in wounding him before he was overpowered. Jinnah publicly appealed to his followers and friends to 'remain calm and cool' (Wolpert 1984: 225). The League declared 13 August a day of thanksgiving throughout India. from Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin by Akbar Ahmed. [6]. This appears to be a different attempt (1943) and perhaps the Khaksar reference is to this one rather than the one in 1947.--regentspark (comment) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably the event referred by Nora is the one you cited and it seems this was the reason Wolpert relates the second incident to Khaksar. --SMS ^Talk 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have strong views on adding it, either way, as long as it is brief. Surely no more than two sentences, (regular size) and cited using the existing article format. I'll polish it if it is added, but please do your best to minimise my work.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I forgot to mention Wolpert calls it "an apparent attempt". Wolpert writes in Jinnah of Pakistan:

"Dark "forces," both inside and out of Pakistan, were "after" him, seeking to snuff out his own feeble life and to choke his political offspring. Only a week earlier, on the eve of his leaving Karachi, "an apparent attempt on Jinnah's life" had been made by "Two men with the lower parts of their faces masked and wearing moon and crescent hats," who rushed the guard at the government house, whipped out "revolvers," and wounded one police officer before they could be frightened off by his "whistle." Were they Khaksars? Or were they a different, still more fanatical, sect of orthodox Muslims who considered him the "enemy?""

--SMS ^Talk 17:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As of now with that few sources discussing this event or the one RP mentioned this doesn't sound notable for a person like him. And the fact that Wolpert calls it "apparent attempt" I don't strongly pursue addition of this. Neither can I think of a single section where these two events combined can be added in summarized form. And if I do I will surely try not to make a mess for you to clean it up. --SMS ^Talk 17:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

⊃--182.186.172.171 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)--182.186.172.171 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Muhammad Ali Jinnah

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Muhammad Ali Jinnah's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Encyclopaedia":

From Pakistan: Aqeel Abbas Jafari (2010). Pakistan Chronicle (in Urdu) (First ed.). 94/1, 26th St., Ph. 6, D.H.A., Karachi: Wirsa Publications. p. 880. ISBN 9789699454004.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
From Pakistan Zindabad: Aqeel Abbas Jafari (2010). Pakistan Chronicle (in Urdu) (First ed.). 94/1, 26th St., Ph. 6, D.H.A., Karachi, Pakistan: Wirsa Publishers. p. 880. ISBN 9789699454004. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
From Qaumi Taranah: Aqeel Abbas Jafari (2010). Pakistan Chronicle (in Urdu) (1st ed.). 94/1, 26th St., Ph. 6, D.H.A., Karachi, Pakistan: Wirsa Publishers. p. 42. ISBN 9789699454004. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace

Surely the article should mention the birthplace controversy, that he was enrolled in the primary school of Jhirak near Thatta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.44.1 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to sources?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Hindu Rajput" ancestry

Pk041 wishes to use this to claim Jinnah came from a Hindu Rajput family. A politician's claims are not reliable sources for historical ancestry and religion isn't even mentioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Never a Madrassa

In early life section it says that he may addressed Gokaldas Tej School or possibly a madrassa. That madrassa bit is completely inaccurate. Other than the fact that Jinnah belonged to the Shia Twelver, his family was modernist and would never have enrolled him in a Madrassah. The confusion is often created with his school's name "Sindh Medressa tul Islam". SMI was never a Madrassa in the religious sense. Founded by Hassan Ali Effendi (President Zardari's great grandfather) it was a modernist school and even its headmaster at the time was an Englishman who was Christian by faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindh_Madrasatul_Islam

TyrionLatif (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll omit the madrassa.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Javedriza (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No edit request was made. -- SMS ^Talk 10:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Caste/tribe

I've left a note at Talk:Lohana/Archive 1#Mohammad Ali Jinnah regarding the claimed membership of the Lohana caste/tribe. Is there some reason why the information that I've just removed from that article is not in this article? It seems odd not to have it in a featured article unless there have been some major concerns about it. I've searched this article's archives for a mention of "Lohana" and cannot spot one. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Either I didn't see it in the sources or I didn't think it significant, and the Pakistanis who looked on as I did the writing didn't say anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just hastily consulted three bios of Jinnah (I could not find Wolpert, probably the best, but still, three) and glanced over the early life sections in each. None of them mention it. So that is likely why.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Founder

Is he generally credited with being the founder of Pakistan? "Founder" really doesn't seem appropriate for him, any more than it would for George Washington or Mohandas Gandhi; it's best for people such as Atatürk ("founder of Turkey", by being a rather dictatorial president) or ibn Saud ("founder of Saudi Arabia", by being the king who conquered territory and established the present state). Unless he's uniformly called that in the sources, perhaps we ought to describe him as the founding father, or the preeminent early leader, or something like that; it seems much more appropriate for someone like Jinnah who leads a mass popular movement, and "founder" more appropriate for a monarch or dictator. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the sources support it. It does not seem inappropriate to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Jinnah did not have any Punjabi ancestry!

This bit about him having some male Punjabi ancestor is a complete lie: "According to a Pakistani Author, Jinnah once said that his male ancestor was a Rajput from Sahiwal (Punjab) and had settled into Kathiawar (Gujarat), [5] Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Yousaf Raza Gillani also ascribes Rajput ancestry to Jinnah."

And this is the source given: https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/ahmed-jinnah.html?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C1790062921

^According to what Pakistani Author? Name him and provide a source for that author's claims. The truth is that Jinnah's ancestry is well documented. He was a Gujarati Muslim of Lohana ancestry. His forefathers were Lohanas from the state/region of Gujarat and that is common knowledge. They were not Punjabis and they had no Punjabi ancestry.

The source that claims Punjabi ancestry also states a possible Persian ancestry for Jinnah. In either case, it's a complete fabrication. Its re-writing history and its very offensive. So I am removing the erroneous text. If anyone wants to dispute these facts, then post here and make your case.

ShamusHarper (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Akbar S Ahmed is very reliable source and see Yousaf Raza Gillani is also saying he was lohana Rajput. What Jinnah said himself is very important and your claim of lohana is covered with details. You seem to have a bias against Rajputs. 202.69.11.28 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Akbar S Ahmed is not at all a reliable source and Jinnah never stated he had Punjabi ancestry. Show me that quote of Jinnah because I searched and found nothing.

I put up 5 different, neutral, sources that explain Jinnah's ancestry in detail. The source I put up in-fact, also stated that Pakistani nationalists and pseudo historians have tried to fabricate aspects of Jinnah's ancestry and family history, claiming he had some sort of long forgotten Pakistani Punjabi or Persian ancestry. Both are untrue.

"You seem to have a bias against Rajputs" - This is a personal attack. But I do have something against conjured up lies, and fabrications to further some misguided nationalistic agendas, which is exactly what's happening in this case.

Lastly, Jinnah was of Hindu Lohana ancestry. And Lohanas are a Mercantile community, not Rajputs. They haven't been Rajputs for several hundred years now. ShamusHarper (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea which version is correct but we should not be edit warring over the issue. I suggest that everyone takes a step back, reads WP:NPOV and notes that we should reflect all valid opinions. If there is an inability to gain consensus regarding the reliability of source(s) then the correct course to take is to refer the specific source(s) and the specific statements to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. This thing is a Featured Article and any resolution really does have to be done carefully, not disruptively. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush. ShamusHarper (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What Jinnah said himself is very important, and there's no issue of unreliability. see how many times Akbar S Ahmed is cited as a source in this featured article. 70.39.185.121 (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, what Jinnah said himself is indeed very important. So, can you show me where Jinnah stated that his ancestor was a Punjabi that migrated to Gujarat? I mean, could you show me that quote? He must have made that statement in an interview or through some other public medium. Correct? Otherwise, how would Akbar S Ahmed come to know of his supposed Punjabi ancestry, considering that Akbar never met Jinnah. Am I right?

We know of Jinnah's Gujarati Lohana roots and the names of his parents as-well as grand parents (Poonjabhai Thakkar and Prembhai Thakkar). We also know of the reason behind the family's conversion to Islam; that Prembhai Thakkar had a fallout with his community of Lohanas/Thakkars following his change of profession. Now, his community of Thakkars practiced rigid rules and they were strict to the point where they would not tolerate his change of occupation (entering into trading of fish), then why would they permit a Punjabi male to marry into their clan? Given the circumstances, does a 'Punjabi male ancestor' not seem farfetched to you? And remember that Lohanas and Thakkars were a highly endogamous community especially in those days (even Jinnah's first wife was his cousin). Marrying into a different Caste, let alone a different ethnic group entirely, would have been a very big deal. Members of his community would certainly have made an issue out of it. ShamusHarper (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Shia Islam and Jinnah

Jinnah was reportedly a Shia Ismaili Nizari Muslim. This fact needs to be ascertained and updated here. -Sahir 11:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

see second paragraph of the "background" section. Huon (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This should be mentioned where it states religion. It has been mentioned for other leaders see and see Pakistan's other founder.

PashtoLover (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why was 'Sindhi' language deleted from this page? You do realize that Kutchi and Gujarati both contain accent and variation similar to Sindhi! This prejudice treatment of the page should be avoided. SarfarazLarkanian 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Patna vs Parma

A picture caption says he addressed a meeting at Parma. It was at Patna per the pictures link. OldAndTired (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

recent reverts

@Adjutor101: Lets discuss your concerns regarding recent content dispute. The matter you are deleting is relevant and sourced, and it was part of article when it got "featured" status. Before doing drastic change in featured article you need to discuss the issue on article's talk page and should get consensus. "Criticism" is part of everyone's biography, you should discuss your issues here before blindly reverting multiple users. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I do not think Quaid-i-Azam i.e. the Great Leader should be criticised, he is the founder of Pakistan and deserves our utmost respect ! Adjutor101 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101: You should talk about content, you should talk about reliability or relevance or any mistake in content and not about greatness. Every great person is criticized. Prophet Mohammad is known as greatest person in history but still there is a special page for Criticism of Muhammad, so that is not issue here. You talk about content. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Human. Khestwol (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101:, any criticism does not degrade anyone, it is the part of the life of everyone/every great subject, we have to follow the policies, not the personal feelings that do not endorse the project guidelines and policies state. Your removal is as; I don't like it'. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "Patronage of TouleIslam"

@FreeatlastChitchat I don't think your removal of this section is justified so I have reverted your deletion. DAWN News is the oldest and most respected source of news in Pakistan and a citation from it should be fine for a featured article. Please do not arbitrarily remove sourced material. Code16 (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have learned that this user FreeatlastChitchat is involved in multiple investigations and has been warned on edit wars. Please refrain from vandalizing this article, or I will be opening a new case on the administration board WP:ANI Code16 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is in accordance with the reliable sources for that content.Justice007 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Justice007 my two cents on the issue are that an opinion piece, written almost 70 years after the event occurred cannot be used as a source of that historical event in a featured article. I'll just quote something from the reliable sources essay and then I'll wash my hands off of this.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

To be frank we should not be using any primary sources in a featured article.

So there you go, my two cents on the issue, I hope other editors can join this discussion and give their input as well. btw the editor who added the material seems to be in a flurry of activity adding Tolou-e-Islam and Ghulam Pervez mentions in every article he can edit. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is published in the mainstream newspaper, written by Nadeem F. Paracha, an authoritative writer and notable journalist. It is third party source, not the primary source. I do not know how do you see the context toward reliability? while the policy is very clear as;

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks

Books published by respected publishing houses

Magazines

Journals

Mainstream newspapers". Justice007 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat If I'm in a "flurry" to add SOURCED factual information regarding a scholar where it is relevant, that means I'm adding to wiki in good-faith. You're the one who seems to be arbitrarily censoring sourced information, which is the actual problem here. So yes, please "wash your hands" as you said, and use the good kind of soap. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Justice007 The information comes from an 'opinion piece'. Hence my concerns, but as I said before, I've given my opinion, I'll let other editors decide the case, perhaps you can ping some contributors who work regularly on this article. If I ping anyone it may look like canvass lol. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Return to Politics" needs an overhaul

In its current form, it completely neglects the influence of Iqbal, who is generally considered to be the single most influential source over Jinnah and his "conversion" and return to India to renew the struggle for Pakistan. I'll begin to revamp this section, using Akbar S. Ahmed's scholarly work soon. Others who find the time, please contribute freely. Thanks Code16 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Code16 This is a featured article, therefore material inserted into this article must be of the highest quality. Inserting material from a single source will just not cut it. I, myself, wanted to insert some mention of Iqbal's role but there are just not enough RS on the said role. Perhaps you can be kind enough to first present your text here on the talk page, get a consensus and then insert it into the article, it will save a lot of time on reverts and other changes. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of sources on this subject, I think have at least two books on my shelf, both of the highest scholarly quality. I'll present the edit here before changing the main page. I'll try and put it together this weekend. Code16 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, one of the best books on this subject, which is on my shelf, is already in the bibliography of this page: Akbar S. Ahmed's "Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin" I'll eventually get around to adding some important content from this book that was missed in this article. He comprehensively elaborates on the importance of Iqbal on Jinnah's "conversion". I might actually need to create a couple of new categories. I'll post details here before I edit the main page. cӨde1+6^{L o g i c B o m b !} 00:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Birth and early life in LEDE

Original research query

Trivia

Date of birth, 25 December

Query re: Urducolumns

Other recent problematic contributions

Gujarati script

Jinnah's religion

Images

Origins of the title "Quaid-e-Azam"

Removal of Gallery

Removal of sentences without references

Law carrier

Removal of unsourced material from the article

Images

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Nom for GA?

Religion

history of partition of India 1946-7

Murder attempt

Orphaned references in Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Birthplace

"Hindu Rajput" ancestry

Never a Madrassa

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014

Caste/tribe

Founder

Jinnah did not have any Punjabi ancestry!

Shia Islam and Jinnah

Why?

Patna vs Parma

recent reverts

Deletion of "Patronage of TouleIslam"

"Return to Politics" needs an overhaul