Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

“Jinnah devoted much of his time to his law practice in the early 1920s”

In its present form, this sentence makes no sense. The article discusses his legal career up until about 1916, then it says that he was an active barrister “in the early 1920s” – and then it goes on for several lengthy paragraphs to discuss his political involvement through the 1900s and 1910s, before his election to the Central Legislative Assembly in the early 1920s. Most likely it means he was an active barrister until the early 1920s, before concentrating on politics thereafter. At the very least, if Justice007 is determined to edit-war about this, it needs to be tagged for somebody to check exactly what the writer meant – not simply reverted back to an obviously non-sensical claim.Paulturtle (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I did not go to check the sources. It is a feature article, you are telling the history without citing the sources. If you provide the sources, I have not the problem. If you cannot support your claim or guess with reIiable sources that violate original research. It is not an edit warring, read the policies. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not original research to correct obvious error (either on the part of a writer or of somebody copying stuff into the article), e.g. if somebody has obviously got a number wrong by a factor of 10 or if somebody writes that Jinnah was Prime Minister of India. Sadly the meaning here is not 100% clear.Paulturtle (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for new categories

Hi everyone, I propose we add the following information from Akbar S. Ahmed's book, "Jinnah and Islamic Identity". I'm just hitting on the main key points in the brief summaries below, but there's a lot more here that can fit into these categories (or fitted in existing sections, if you guys decide.)

• Jinnah's Conversion (actual title of chapter 3)

Originally Iqbal was opposed to Jinnah, as he was aloof from the crises affect the Muslims in India (p62, p70). In Iqbal's last days, before his death in 1938, Iqbal began to "draw Jinnah into his world". Jinnah accepted Iqbal as his "mentor" and became "unerring in the grasp of Iqbal's position." Jinnah, in his comments regarding Iqbal's letters, expressed unanimity with Iqbal's views that Muslims required a separate homeland. p73

• Jinnah vs Secularism

Unanimity with Iqbal did not just extend to his politics, but his general convictions; Jinnah began to believe in the the Islamic community and shared Iqbal's reverence for the prophet; Iqbal's influence began to be revealed in Jinnah's speeches from 1937 onwards; He began to echo Iqbal in his speeches, started using Islamic symbolism, speaking to the underprivileged, "something had clearly changed" p118. While Jinnah advocated freedom of religion (p175) and protection for the minorities (p178), the model which he was aspiring to was that of the prophet (p176). Scholars have misread the speeches of Jinnah, they must be read in the context of Islamic History and culture; Jinnah defined an "unequivocal Islamic nature of Pakistan" p177

• Distorted Scholarship (this doesn't need to be a separate category, but should be mentioned in some capacity)

Jinnah has been the greatest victim of prejudiced and guesswork by scholars p21. British Narrative: Jinnah was "cold", "egotistical", "selfish", "vain", narrative based on Mountbatten and Attenborogouh p21. Most Western journalist accept this view as standard, except for the British officers who actually knew Jinnah personally, p23. Indian View: Jinnah was "secular", involved in a powerplay between the British and Indians p25. Pakistani Scholarship: Neglectful, rigid, unreadable and orthodox. Some views are heavily biased e.g. Ayesha Jalal p30-31

cӨde1+6 ^{L o g i c B o m b !} 23:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose

This is a single book, you cannot put so much material from a single book into a featured article. Furthermore this guy is just giving his own opinion, therefore Jinnah's biographer will have a greater reliability in this regard. So , in a nutshell, this type of material cannot be inserted unless there are 'Multiple' Reliable sources supporting it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Reasoning

This source is not listing an "opinion", all his conclusions are supported by facts, which I can insert with the material if needed, like Jinnah's collection of letters he recieved from Iqbal, his notes, and speeches etc. This work by Ahmed is considered "scholarly", it's not an opinion piece. You can't admit certain views from this source, while excluding others for no good reason, when they are both equally well supported by the source. That would be against NPOV. @Justice007:, sir, please contribute your opinion on this matter. Also, if any other users have an opinion, please make it known. cӨde1+6 ^{L o g i c B o m b !} 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the discussion on the sources reliability; the question is that what will be your frame of the writing that would endorse the neutrality. A large content can be summarised within the few lines too. I would like to see that that passes the encyclopedic writing frame without spoiling the feature article.Justice007 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Justice007: Sir I would think that the reliability of Akbar S. Ahmed is already very well established since he is a renowned scholar, as is clear from his own wikipedia page which lists his credentials. He is also cited in this wiki article and this book which we're dealing with is already placed at the top of the bibliography.[1] The framing of the content I placed above is the scholar's own conclusions. He very clearly argues that Jinnah's conception of Pakistan was not secular and that he was fully on board with Iqbal's ideology, giving evidence for his claims along the way. If you wish, I can scan and email you the relevant chapters so you can confirm that the framing is the author's own. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 02:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So it's been a few days without the discussion moving forward. I've made the edit, as per the WP:BOLD guideline.[2] Hoping this will move forward the discussion and regenerate it. If there are counter-arguments to including this content, please list them here. I think I've provided valid reasons why this info should be included. The source is highly respected (and already cited) and the content is clearly important and has encyclopedic value. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 I've edited your insertions to remove undue weight that they carried. The so called "conversion" is only sourced to one book where the writer HIMSELF says that everyone else has been mistaken and only he is right about what happened, this is therefore WP:FRINGE. Therefore I have removed this separate section and put in the mention elsewhere in the article. Similarly you have given undue weight to his "patronage" of tolou-e-Islam which has not been given any importance by prominent authors, therefore that has also been relegated to inside another heading. Feel free to give your reasons here as to why this weight should be given to such unimportant pieces of information. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat Firstly, the patronage section has already been discussed on the talk page between you, me and @Justice007: and consensus was established. For you to delete that section now, seems like edit warring. Secondly, undue weight applies to "fringe" scholarship, which you cited as the reason. Not mainstream scholarship, such as a source that is cited at the top of the bibliography of the article already. Read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. This is not original research, and it qualifies under "neutral" and "independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." Akbar S. Ahmed is clearly an expert in the field, and his conclusions are well researched and evidenced. The guideline also states "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Firstly I did not "remove" your text , I merely repositioned it to remove undue weight. The BURDEN is on you to show that it is important enough to be under a separate heading. Just a single author's opinion and an unknown little magazine , which no good author has heard of and which played no role in Jinnah's life are not going to get a section here no matter how hard you try. Secondly You are lying about consensus. Consensus was never established on including it in a new section. To be frank I contested even its inclusion and asked Justice to get some new editors here. Anyway, your edit has been reverted so lets discuss why you want them included in new sections. Why are these things so important? Have multiple authors spoken of them? Or just one author who claims that he is right and everyone else is wrong? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat Regarding the "conversion" section. I think it fits exactly where it should, under a dedicated section because of its importance cited by the author who's book is listed at the top in the bibliography. The importance of the content is also self-evident, and belongs before the "Return to politics" to provide context for that category, which is lacking. If other neutral editors object to this, then we can discuss the merits of this category being seperate further. But if it is just you, then I'll create this category again. And regarding TouleIslam, I'm not "lying", you stated "I'll wash my hands off of this" after Justice007 confirmed the source is appropriate. Afterwards, no one supported you, so the matter fizzled out. Now you are resuming the conflict arbitrarily. But it doesn't matter to me much if you moved it under the "Post War" heading, you can leave it there. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16It does not matter what you "think", you will have to provide rationale why this should be given so much weight in a featured article. You say it should be "before" return to politics while the text suggests that it is an event(possible event, not sure it even occured) of circa 1938. Also you can't put controversial text in a FA even if one guy objects, this is not a democracy. I have raised an objection you will have to provide rationale before putting in the text. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat I have provided reasoning, that no one (besides you) is objecting to. The source is an expert in the field (clearly established) who has concluded (with solid evidence) that Jinnah was "converted" by Iqbal BEFORE is return to politics (it was the cause of his return.) Therefore, this information belongs BEFORE the "return to politics" section. Keep in mind, no scholarly source has challenged Ahmed's conclusions (not one). It doesn't get more mainstream than this. I will also point you to the qualifications of this scholar, listed on his own wikipedia page, and the evidence he presents (Jinnah's own notes and speeches) which you can analyze yourself (or if you wish, I can include them within the category). As for why it requires a separate category, there is enough content for it, after all Iqbal's influence on Jinnah is surely more important then that of A. R. Dard, who right now is getting a lot of attention for no apparently reason (considering there's not much to back it up). Whereas the content I'm providing is coming from perhaps the best scholarly source there is on the topic. So does any one here support your argument to counter this reasoning? ((By the way, I think you may have a bias to give A.R. Dard undue weight, since you yourself are surely an Ahmadi (given your activity.) So since I don't consider you a neutral party, unless neutral editors back you up, I will make the edit.) cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Firstly, the incident of A.R Dard "actually" occurred. There is no "incident" which occurred during this "supposed" conversion to "Iqbal". It is just an opinion of an author, who says everyone else is wrong and he is right. Sure if Jinnah says anywhere "I am now converted to Iqbal's view" that will be an incident, as he says about Dard that his persuasion left him no escape. So don't compare actual events to imaginary things which occur only in an authors fantasies. Feel free to add any actual "events" which happened. As I said before, the BURDEN is upon you to show the rationale, why is this so called incident important? Which events show his so called conversion? DID JINNAH EVER ADMIT THIS? As Jinnah never admitted that he had converted to Iqbal's view why should we put it into the article? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat Now you are simply lying. The scholar cites Jinnah's own words that he wrote in his letters he received from Iqbal as proof that he "converted". I put this fact in the content, so don't pretend like there was no verified event backing up the "conversion". The correspondence between Jinnah and Iqbal is much more valuable then some remark he made regarding A.R. Dard probably out of politeness and courtesy. Which reliable source claims that Jinnah was actually persuaded by A.R. Dard? Certainly not Ahmed who doesn't even mention this. You're simply pushing the importance Dard, at the expense of Iqbal, since you yourself are an Ahmadi and want to pitch this narrative out of sheer bias. The category reflects a chronological order, and is based on real EVENTS as evidenced by the reliable expert scholarly source. So stop edit warring. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Please don't make me laugh. Jinnah's Letters to Iqbal have been lost forever, this has has been admitted by the author himself. So did a genie divulge to him the said letters? LOL. As far as your statement that Jinnah verified this conversion, well the only thing Jinnah said was 'His views(i.e Iqbal's) were substantially in consonance with my own'. I added the bracket here. Anyway, this clearly shows that Jinnah did not 'convert' , he simply said that Iqbal had the same view as him. So the only real 'event' here is that Jinnah said Iqbal's views are similar to his own, no conversion, no nothing, only the rantings of an author who is saying something no other author is corroborating. Therefore this kind of mumbo jumbo should be deleted from the article until a coherent statement can be found. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat You're clearly confused. Jinnah's letters to Iqbal are lost, not the letters Iqbal sent to Jinnah, on which Jinnah wrote his notes in margins etc. Jinnah kept detailed notes of his own and diaries etc. to which this scholar had access (this is how professionals conduct research, it's not "mumbo jumbo"). This is all part of the evidence the scholar is citing. And since the source's reputation is stellar, your attempt to show that his evidenced conclusions don't matter is completely ridiculous. It is all much more powerful than then your weight to A.R. Dard, which who no 3rd party source backs as a major influence on Jinnah. Also, contain your immature attitude, this is not a forum. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Yup the notes in the margin said what I quoted. 'there are no notes where Jinnah says that he has been converted by Iqbal'. If you can just find a quotation where Jinnah admits that he has been converted by Iqbal, as he has said about A.R Dard then this discussion be closed very quickly. So instead of just throwing around weird fringe theories, just provide the quote where Jinnah admits that he was converted by Iqbal. Simple as that, no further reason to start an edit war, provide the quotation and put it in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat He doesn't have to say "I am thus converted", but his notes make this message clear, and we can rely on the expert's conclusions regarding this. Also, stop lying and calling this "fringe", that only applies to non-mainstream sources. You are the one who has started this edit-war, not me. And it will continue until you stop. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Well he did say such a thing in case of A.R Dard. Anyway please provide the quotation from his notes where it is clear that he has been 'converted' by Iqbal. As far as your "experts" opinion is concerned, no other "expert" shares his views, so it is highly suspiciuos. Anyway, less debate, more quotation, just provide where in his writings and "notes" has jinnah made this messege 'clear' that he was converted by IQbal. I told you in my last msg, just give the quotation we will go from there. Again I'd like to say that without a direct quotation this debate is useless FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat Unless I am requested by other editors, I don't have to do any such thing. The reasoning is provided, the source is solid, that is enough. Your motives are clearly biased so you are in no position to be making demands here. As for the Dard issue, it is being discussed already below. Let's see if you can defend it. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: I've also just added another reliable 3rd party source in the category which corroborates Akbar S. Ahmed's position. And I'm sure I can find even more, even though Ahmed's source alone was already enough, for all the reasons I've stated previously. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat You just deleted a sourced paper that has been published in "The Dialogue: A Quarterly Research Journal" 2010, June 30, 5, 2: page 151. I will be adding this back, and will include the journal volume, issue number etc. And I will be adding additional sources in due time as I have time, but this category is already very well sourced. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 12:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Just for good measure (even though it should've already been obvious that this is not a "Fringe" theory, I've compiled a (long) list of 3rd party scholarly sources to confirm Iqbal's influence on Jinnah and his persuading him to end his exile and get back into the struggle for Pakistan. I will be integrating the following into the category. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 17:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Undue weight for A.R. Dard?

Editors, please analyze the following content which currently exists in the "Return to politics" category, to see if this belongs in a featured article such as this, or requires modification. (Guideline: WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations "Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research).") Please check it for flowery language, peacock terms, and 3rd party reliable sources (All the commentary is sourced from (1) which is a self source WP:USESPS). Should that newspaper quote be backed up with context from a reliable 3rd party source? Seems like undue weight is being granted to A.R. Dard by non-neutral sources commentating on a newspaper quotation. This is a featured article after all. Please judge if the weight of A.R. Dard should be reduced and flowery language made more neutral as well. Also, the option of opening an RfC on this issue is available as well (although it's a simple matter that I think editors here can arrive at a consensus on easily).

Abdul Rahim Dard , a prominent Ahmadiyya missionary and a prolific writer met Jinnah in March 1933 and tried to convince him to return to India being sorely needed by the Indian Muslims. Dard told Jinnah that Jinnah's abandonment of politics in British India was dire for the Muslim cause. Jinnah agreed to return. To symbolize his return to politics, A R Dard arranged a lecture titled The Future of India which was presided over by Sir Nairne Sandeman in which Jinnah criticized the recent White Paper on Indian Constitutional Reform and argued for self-government by Indians. at the Fazl Mosque in London in April 1933 to facilitate Jinnah's return to the political scene. In fact, Jinnah is quoted saying:"The eloquent persuasion of the Imam (A R Dard) left me no way of escape".

References

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, Civil and Military Gazette, alongwith Madras Mail and Sunday Times (London) are pretty solid sources. Can't find any peacock terms, the guy was pretty high up in Ahmadiyyah society and he wrote a bunch of books, no wonder Jinnah listened to what he had to say. And in Jinnah's own words this seems to be the turning point in his career. To be frank there should be more detail of this event. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who is not himself involved in promoting Ahmadism on wikipedia agree with FreeatlastChitchat? cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What is your reason for questioning Civil and Military Gazette, Madras Mail and Sunday Times (London)? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm questioning the self-source which provides the context for that quote. Do you have a reliable 3rd party source to provide said context that Dard was actually relevant or important? Or maybe Jinnah just said that to be polite and courteous? How do we know? This is a featured article. I don't see any reliable 3rd party sources which attest to the importance of Dard's influence on Jinnah. Can you provide even one reliable source to back up the self source's claims? And words like "prominent" and "prolific" are peacock terms not backed up or needed. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The context is the same as in the newspapers. I will remove the dubiuos source if it bothers you lol. As far as prominent and prolific is concerned, well he is highly prominent in the Ahmadiyyah so its a fact, not a peacock term, and he wrote a lot of books for them, so again, he is prolific. I have no Idea what your beef is with this information to be frank, it is well sourced and supported by multiple sources. Also it reuires no interpretation, Jinnah's own words are there for all to see. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any 3rd party sources (even one) to back up the claim that Dard was highly influential on Jinnah? Like I said, how do we know Jinnah didn't just say that out of politeness? And yes, if you can't back it up, then you should remove that source and the associated peacock commentary. Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Added third party source number four, they all agree on the event. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, you added a newspaper article which interviews a nephew of Dard, who seems pretty eager to give all the credit for the creation of Pakistan to his own uncle Dard ("Pakistan Exists, Thanks to Uncle", is the actual title). We already know that the other newspapers cited don't provide any actual context for this quote whatsoever (I've already asked, how do we know Jinnah didn't say that out of politeness?) So basically, you're relying on Dard's nephew, interviewed by some newspaper, for the entirety of the context you're presenting. Tell me something, if you wrote a paper in a second year course, and your key source which backed up your entire thesis, was the subject's own nephew, what mark would your TA give you? 45%? Maybe 55%? That blocked quote is taking up a lot of weight in this featured article, and unless you can support Dard's actual influence on Jinnah with some scholarly sources (peer reviewed journals, published books on the subject by 3rd parties) that blockquote should be replaced by a regular in-line quotation (at most) and the weight of the whole Dard-thing be reduced. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an event. It happened and lots and lots of newspapers reported it. Whatever the newspapers reported has been written here, if you find any book which says that this event did not happen as written by newspapers then feel free to show it. Rest of your argument is just WP:Bollocks, i.e WP:BS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about the "weight" of said event in a featured article, not about whether it occurred. If the newspapers reported that Jinnah liked Craven As, should we put that up in big block quotes as well? The significance of events is established by reliable scholarly sources. Has any scholar mentioned Dard as an influence on Jinnah? Even one? cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If newspapers quote Jinnah as sayings that he liked Craven so much that cravens words left him no escape and they absolutely convinced him, you bet we should put that in quotes. Such a statement is not made about every tom dick and harry, only people who have had the greatest influence are mentioned thus by Jinnah. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Guideline: WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations "Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)." You're not relying on a reliable secondary source for your interpretation. Is there anyone besides a nephew of Dard who has said his uncle had greatly influenced Jinnah? cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 13:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are pretty confused arent you. The sources I have used are all reliable newspapers, which are considered Reliable sources. It is laughable and ridiculous that you think that all these newspapers are not reliable. And please stop your ridiculous formatting, use the style normal people use and understandFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see any constructive edits. Abdul Rahim Dard is a minor subject to add to this article, there are more subjects that are also not mentioned, the proper place is to add to Dard's article, not in this article. I totally disagree to spoil the feature article adding unnecessary and minor content.Justice007 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Stanley Wolpert who has done considerable research on Jinnah and his life writes (in "Jinnah of Pakistan") that it was Mr and Mrs. Liaquat Ali Khan who met Jinnah in summer of 1933 (that is I suppose June-Aug) and convinced him to return. -- SMS ^Talk 14:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for participating, I'm very glad to see we arrived at a consensus. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Brought here by a deletion discussion, @Smsarmad:, I was just reading "Jinnah in Pakistan", the only conclusion one can draw from this is that Liaquat Ali attempted to influence Jinnah to return to Pakistan. It says that "Liaquat's imprecations, offers of asistance; and flattery were, of course, an added factor, [to influence his return to India]." This is not the same as "convincing" someone, as opposed to a number of refs that have just been removed, which do show that he was "convinced".--Peaceworld 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Peaceworld111 If I remember it correctly there was more to it than what you have quoted it, and in the text preceding there was mention of other individuals who directly or indirectly asked him to return. But since I don't have access to the book now and for the coming some days I won't push it further. -- SMS ^Talk 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, @Smsarmad: there were 2-3 individuals mentioned who requested Jinnah to return. But this is not the same as "convincing". Take your time.--Peaceworld 20:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Peaceworld111, besides the notability issue which Justice007 brought up, the other main problem is with regards to WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations "Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research).") So far the only commentary which was provided was sourced from a nephew of Dard in a newspaper, who was eager to give all the credit for the creation of Pakistan to his uncle. This was problematic, with regards to the weight that was being given to Dard in this featured article. If you have a scholarly source which provides commentary on Dard having notably influenced Jinnah, please provide it. Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Exact, I am asking all the time to provide such sources to support content and notability of the subject. I suggest that issues should be discussed on the article talk page.Justice007 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is related to Abdul Rahim Dard which is being discussed for deletion. I am moving that to subject's article talk page for further discussion. please discuss there rather here. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what "A Man of God" by Iain Adamson says "Mr Dard eventually succeeded [in persuading Jinnah to return to India] and a garden party was held at the London Mosque to celebrate his departure where Mr Jinnah announced to the 200 distinguished guests that it was Mr Dard who had persuaded him to return to India." A similar claim is laid in "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah," Vol 3 by Prakash K. Singh.--Peaceworld 07:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss that issues on that talk page of the subject, I have already moved that comments there.Justice007 (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Peaceworld111 I can't determine the publication or credentials of this author Ian Adamson, or this book ""A Man of God: The Life of His Holiness Khalifatul Masih IV". Amazon lists the publisher as "Imprint unknown", seems like this is a self source or non-major work by a non-notable individual. Can you provide a reliable scholarly source please? Also, you mentioned "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah" makes a similar claim, can you please post a quote from it if possible? cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a self-source. It appears you're thinking from the perspective of it being authored by an Ahmadi. Even if it was, then it still wouldn't count as self-source. The author need not be notable. "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah" states that "It took Mr. Dard three hours face to face talk successfully persuaded him [(Jinnah)] to return to India." Personally, as an editor on Ahmadiyya projects, I take little interest in Pakistan projects, even when there is an intersection between the two. In my honest opinion, there are sufficient sources for my case. I'm not interested in arguing with you over and over.--Peaceworld 20:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to determine the publication information, and was pointing out that Amazon doesnt list it for Adamson's book, and I can't find any credentials for Adamson either. So I was wondering if it's a self-source. As for the Encyclopaedia, I'll take your word for it, but the weight has to be minded, well over 10 secondary sources exist for other influences on Jinnah so this issue is still minor and hasn't received much notable attention in academia, it has to be represented accordingly.cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to show more respect to the Great Quaid-i-Azam

I have a suggestions:

• Call him Quaid-i-Azam [the Great Leader] than by his personal name

What are your opinions ? And what other suggestions do you have ? Adjutor101 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think info table should have this honorific. Sheriff (report) 17:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to Sitush

@User:Sitush, I've reverted your edits on that section and will discuss the reasons here, we can proceed forward accordingly:

• I re-added the sources you removed citing WP:Citation overkill for now, the reason why there are so many citations for that is because of the debate on this issue that took place here. I've seen a large number of sources used before for contentious points, so I think it's a good idea to keep all of those references, especially considering these are all reliable scholarly sources.
• I added 3 more sources for that one point on which you were claiming that the encylopedic source is not enough, now it has 4 sources in total (but I've left that one encyclopedic source in there because such sources are generally allowed, especially now that there are 3 scholarly sources to back up the point.)
• You mentioned something about the stuff sourced from Akbar S. Ahmed's book not supporting the views? I have this book on my shelf at home, and can scan the pages and email them to you (or upload in the wiki commons if that's allowed?) Let me know which specific points/pages from the book you need verification on.
• I've reworded some of the copy as per your complaint of "editorializing"

Let me know if I missed something. Thanks cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Name in Gujarati

I do not understand why we have Quaid's name in Gujarati in first paragraph and in the info table. I tried to remove it but my change was reverted by Justice007 citing that this is a featured article and we should discuss every change at the talk page before making it, to which i do not agree but i am opening up this discussion. I need reasons as to why we should have the name in Gujarati and not just the blanket statements that this is a featured article and we should not change it. Sheriff (report) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I will later comment if necessary, but if you do not understand, please do not remove. Why should not be that? You can remove if you reach the consensus.Justice007 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed necessary for you to comment. The Gujarati name seems somewhat out of place. Please justify its inclusion. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, My laptop is making the problem, please revert that on the right place. As I told, later I comment.Justice007 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Justice007: That is not a proper response and does not justify you to revert my edit. Help me understand if i am not understanding or keep the disputed text out. "I do not understand" was a way of saying that "I do not think the text belongs there". Do not take the literal meanings of every thing. Cite a policy, a rule, an example as to why we should have the name in Gujarati. Sheriff (report) 17:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Per community consensus on names in Native scripts in lede, shouldn't we be removing both the Gujarati and the Urdu names ? SheriffIsInTown, my apologies for removing your edit earlier. I believe we must have been editing at the same time and I got Edit conflict message and somehow your material got deleted. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The detailed discussion and consensus about the Native languages in the lead, Indian related articles does not apply on Pakistan-related articles. Jinnah article is the feature article and reviewed and edited by the experienced editors, no one objected to the name in Gujarati transliteration. Though we have not any concrete policy on that, but the best way is to discuss on the talk page to avoid edit warring and reach the consensus. Transliteration is helpful for the readers to search the names in both languages. I remember that I was the first to remove Gujarati name, but Mar4d reverted that. Personally, I have no problems with that if we reach the consensus to remove Gujarati transliteration.Justice007 (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Though this is not exclusively Pakistan related article, it also comes under WikiProject India still I think that Indic script issue does not apply here. Im agree with Justice007 regarding keeping name in Gujarati for search purpose. Jinnah has Gujarati origin so maybe Gujarati is relevant here. --Human3015^TALK  23:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that WP:INDICSCRIPT does not apply. Beyond that, I am still awaiting a cogent argument for inclusion of the Gujarati script in the English Wikipedia. That this thing is FA status does not mean it is set in stone and, frankly, if people are searching English Wikipedia using Gujarati terms then they need their heads examined. Wikidata pulls together all of the variant spellings, IIRC, because it replaces the old interwiki links. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The Urdu name is obviously relevant as this is an article on the national figure of Pakistan. The Gujarati seems out of place as we don't know if the Gujarati language had any notable influence in Jinnah's personal life. Neither does Gujarati have an official or provincial status in Pakistan. He was indeed a staunch advocate of Urdu even though his native language was Gujarati. I think it will be WP:UNDUE to have Gujarati in the lead, but it can be mentioned elsewhere (like next to his birth name in the Early life section or as a footnote). Mar4d (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Justice007: & @Human3015: I was just checking the diffs and coming to a conclusion that Justice007 has switched around the diffs as he was the one who included Gujarati in the lead while Mar4d reverted it saying

Gujarati was not significant nor did it have a role in MA Jinnah's personal life; the only appropriate section seems the early life

Which is exactly my opinion why Gujarati should not be in this page. Having Gujarati ancestry does not mean that Gujarati language had a significant role in his life. He was born in Karachi and spoke English all his life and Gujarati was never a significant language in Karachi anyway. Urdu is there only because it's the national language of a nation whom he founded and headed as first governor general. If we take ancestral language into account then we will have to put Irish on John F Kennedy's page and Pashto on Dilip Kumar's page. Sheriff (report) 02:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is no tradition to write "national language name" in article. At most we write "native language name" because infoboxes does have option for "native name" and not for "national language name" (but national language can be a native language in some cases). In this case as Mar4d said Jinnah's native language was Gujarati so it seems case to write "native name". If Gujarati does not have any official status in Pakistan still it does not affect to Wikipedia. --Human3015^TALK  03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

'If we take ancestral language into account then we will have to put Irish on John F Kennedy's page and Pashto on Dilip Kumar's page'. /facepalm FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, and a request to use the grey matter This is a pretty absurd discussion to be frank. A very absurd discussion. Let me elaborate, Jinnah created Pakistan so it goes without saying that he was not a fan of India and the NPOV version of the article would be one that does not give his name in Gujarati, but even if we throw out this NPOV discussion; is there no one here who has bothered to click on the article about Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Now these guys were big fans of hindi but nowhere in their infoboxes do we see Hindi, Gujarati or any other shenanigans like that. In all seriousness continuing this discussion about Jinnah, when even Gandhi's infobox does not have any other language crosses the realm of absurd into the territory of total hilarity. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How does "Jinnah created Pakistan so it goes without saying that he was not a fan of India" is relevant to Gujarati? Urdu is also Indian language. Does Jinnah was hater of Indian origin Urdu language? Pakistan got independence from British, so does Jinnah was hater of English language? Don't talk irrelevant here. Infobox has space for "native language". It is not place for "national language". And do not compare featured article with non-featured articles of Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi and Nehru were global leaders, so no one tries to write their name in local languages like Gujarati and Hindi. But it can be written, Gujarati for Gandhi. --Human3015^TALK  04:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Dude every time you try to say something, you stop making sense. Jinnah was born in Karachi, the language of Karachi is not Gujarati the last time I checked, it is Urdu. Also allow me to say what has been said earlier about this "excuse" that Infobox has space for "native language". 'If we take ancestral language into account then we will have to put Irish on John F Kennedy's page and Pashto on Dilip Kumar's page'. Also your comment that Gandhi and Nehru were global leaders, so no one tries to write their name in local languages like Gujarati and Hindi is not making any sense to me. Anyway, there is no reason for including gujarati and there seems to be high consensus at the present that it should be removed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If Gujarati can be removed then on what basis Urdu should be kept?? Urdu was neither native language of Jinnah. Jinnah was born in Karachi and I question if Urdu was official language of Karachi at that time.--Human3015^TALK  04:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Urdu is the language of Pakistan, a country which he created. So I am sure that Urdu will be kept no matter what. Just like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's name is written in Turkish. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Gujarati can be removed. Urdu can be kept. --Human3015^TALK  05:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The primary consensus is to remove the Gujarati name that is relevant or not, but Gujarati is not a national language. My purpose was to reach the consensus to stop the practice that someone comes to remove, and other to add that. There are many articles that have regional languages in the lead section, but no one dares to remove that as Malala Yousafzai. Gujarati name may remain at info box as the symbolic name.Justice007 (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Muhammad Ali Jinnah is Jinnah's Urdu-ised name and it makes sense to have it in Urdu only. His birthname is in Gujarati and it should be transcribed in Gujarati. I think the lede becomes cluttered with transcriptions so it is better to have them inside an {{efn|...}} template. Hence this.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• If we do that, it means we have to remove the Urdu names from many other articles. As Mar4d said, "The Urdu name is obviously relevant as this is an article on the national figure of Pakistan." You may remove only the Gujarati name that we have reached the consensus so far.Justice007 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding how WP:CONSENSUS works. Consensus is based on policies, not votes, and yet it is entirely possible in grey areas for different articles to adopt different outcomes. Whether or not that is a good thing is debatable but it does mean that what goes on at other articles might be irrelevant to this one and that whatever outcome is determined here might not apply to those other articles. The only consensus that has overarching impact is community consensus in the strictest sense of the term, ie: the consensus that caused the policies to exist, with their warts and all. Local consensus is just that: restricted to an article or perhaps to a set of articles that are within the scope of a specific wikiproject.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure what policy you are relying on here. Please note that WP:MOS is not even a policy, so relying on that might be tricky. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand, and nor it is tricky, we have not yet reached the consensus to remove Urdu name, I am not discussing the policies, there are not specific policies on that, you know that yourself too. To reach the consensus generally or particularly is the advantage of the others too. We do not start that to start awkward move to discuss the same issue on every page related to that subject of the area. What does harm that if in the lead section is any other language beside the English language, is it so serious, please explain how and why? Anyhow, I have no problems if we reach the consensus whatever it is. Voting and consensus, in my view, is just the tricky game that we are playing here, I see very view that comply the consensus, and you are very well aware of that.Justice007 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are making no sense whatsoever. You seem to be misunderstanding consensus and yet claiming that you have consensus for your misunderstanding? There is an infinite loop somewhere in your logic. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, since as it is the feature article, no one made the objection to transliteration, when it was removed by an editor, I just maintained the community approval to stay as it was, instead of engaging to edit warring, I preferred to ask other editors view in this regard. Personally for me it is not the important issue that whether Wiki articles should include the transliteration or not. I simply discussed the issue without having any motives, the way, I adopted that may mislead you to think that my view on the consensus left to compel you thought that there is the infinite loop somewhere in my logic. Honestly, I presumed good faith to stop further edit warring to show my collaboration with other editors. You took that in the wrong direction. Have the nice moments.Justice007 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you are misunderstanding the nature of Featured Articles. Editing them is no different from any other article, merely having gained approval as one of the best examples of writing at the time of promotion. This particular article has quite clearly gone downhill since that time, with many poor changes - just look at the stuff I have recently taken out of it as an indicator of this. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. I removed the Gujarati transliteration of the Urdu name only. And added the Gujarati transcription for his birthname. For the clutter thing, I didn't remove Urdu at all, only efn'd it to appear as a hover-footnote-marker. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You did remove this the Urdu name from the lead section, didn't you!Justice007 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't remove Urdu. Only added a hover-footnote to reduce clutter. It is still there in the lede. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 16:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Late to this discussion, but objectively looking at this, I say either keep both or remove both. Keeping Urdu and removing Gujarati doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever, since Jinnah could not speak a word of Urdu. But he could speak, read and write in Gujarati. 104.148.145.238 (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Jinnah couldn't speak urdu, lol'd 2 that. there is clear consensus to remove Gujrati and put in urdu. the "hoover footnote" should be of Gujrati, as per the norm on all other wikipedia articles. I will remedy this now. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what are you implying by "lol'd 2 that"? It is a historical fact that Jinnah could not speak Urdu. So help me understand, why we are then using Urdu text. Jinnah however, has given a speech in Gujarati and he has also written for a Gujarati magazine, 'Vismi Sadi'. And consensus as I understand, is to reflect wikipedia policy, it is not based upon a system of votes. 104.148.145.238 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not matter if the person could speak the language or not. Urdu script should stay for four simple reasons:

1. It's the national language of the country, he founded.
2. It's one of the major languages of the city where he was born.
3. There is no consensus to remove it.
4. Almost, all Pakistan pages have their names in Urdu.

Sheriff (report) 15:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Death place

@Mar4d: Please check the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As far as I am aware, he spent his last days in Ziarat but did not die there. I quote the following from the article text:

"By 9 September, Jinnah had also developed pneumonia. Doctors urged him to return to Karachi, where he could receive better care, and with his agreement, he was flown there on 11 September. Dr. Ilahi Bux, his personal physician, believed that Jinnah's change of mind was caused by foreknowledge of death. The plane landed at Karachi that afternoon, to be met by Jinnah's limousine, and an ambulance into which Jinnah's stretcher was placed"

Per the above, his death occurred after he landed in Karachi. Mar4d (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And, please replace the current source (for Ziarat) by one for Karachi. I think there was an anonymous edit that changed Karachi to Ziarat recently. It is likely to happen again if there is no reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Jinnah's religious views

There are multiple reliable sources which say that Jinnah was an atheist. Shouldn't this featured article have that information? Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Where did you get such a WP:FRINGE view? Even the sources you used don't state it. Actually that would be the biggest hogwash quoted on this talk page, above the pork story (which has been academically refuted) :) Mar4d (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: He did represent Muslims. That's out of question. A political leader having his own religious beliefs is not a fringe view in a free and civilized society, at least not on Wikipedia. A leader may/may not believe in any religion to endorse a political movement that he wanted, or believed was necessary. I don't think his food habits are any noteworthy, and that's not what I pointed out here. The third reference I placed doesn't state that he's an atheist, and I misread it. But the rest of the four scholarly sources do state that he was an atheist, if you haven't checked them properly. If you find the observations from well-published books as "hogwash" without disproving them with multiple better sources, its your affair. I did not come here to push anything or start a war. I know this is controversial and I had second thoughts on what I read. And that is why I brought this to talk page, and not to the article. Now I won't take it to the article anyway, as I can assume the battle it can erupt into, and I have no interest in it. From the point of an average Wikipedia reader, which is what I am here, it is quite interesting and important for me to know about the exact religious views of this significant personality. And find out the extent of truth in what I have read. So I came to the talk page. As you seem to be arguing this does not have a scholarly consensus, I'll be happy to see the scholarly sources that refuted this claim. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of Tyler's point in particular, I think some attention should be given to the points in the article (infobox and early life, really) that touch on Jinnah's religion. It seems every month someone's playing with it and I couldn't guarantee the listed sources actually say what we claim they do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

^Yes, exactly. After I read this, I came to this article and was quite hopeful when I saw that this is a featured article. But to my amazement, I couldn't find any relevant discussion in the body, or detailed information from the list of references, regarding this. I'm not particularly asking to document that he was an atheist if it is ambiguous, I have no such ambitions. But please do elaborate a bit about his religious views in his biographic article. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've heard the pork and whiskey claim before, but I don't see how that would make him an atheist. He was a secular Muslim. Are there any accessible memoirs of him? They would be useful in this case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He didn't leave a memoir. My objection is that people keep altering his religion and family background, the Sunni/Shiite matter most prominently but also various sects within them, and in most cases not bothering to cite their additions. As for the atheism, I'm pretty sure that this is going to come out at best a minority view, as most of the main bios of him describe him as a secular Muslim. Now that TFA has changed its policy, this article could run on the main page, but there's some cleanup needed. This, the other uncited matter, a few things like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The early life isn't as bad as I thought but we should still check it against the source. Regarding the question of atheism, most of these are not people who themselves have studied Jinnah. At least one of the books, just looking at the title, may have an axe to grind.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Early years / Religion

There seems to have been a lot of POV edits done to the entire structure of the section "Early years" and its subsection "Family and childhood" in the past year alone. Previously, there were statements and citations stating the subject (Jinnah) had been born into an Ismaili family before converting to Twelver Shi'ism. However, as of now, any mentions of a conversion to Twelver-ism in his youth seems to have been scrubbed.

Any mention of a possible "Shia" faith seems to be indicated at the bottom of the article in the section "Aftermath", where there are varying arguments presented on the presumed religion of Jinnah at the time of his death. With that debate being in that section, I have to question the statement in the "Childhood" section where it states Though born to Khoja Ismaili parents, Akbar Ahmed states that there is evidence later, given by his relatives and associates in court, to establish that Jinnah was firmly a Sunni Muslim by the end of his life.

Since there is clearly a 'debate' on his religion, this isolated statement should NOT be inserted into "Childhood" as it gives undue weight from one scholar/opinion while excluding the others in the same section (if one is to include the former at all). My recommendation is to remove the quote (above) from the section and include it with the rest of the arguments/opinions in the "Aftermath" section. Furthermore, the info about his conversion to Twelver-ism in his youth should also be restored, as that's clearly a notable fact (since there's debate where he died a Shia or Sunni, which presumes that at some point he had BEEN a Shia) that has been made absent following recent edits. DA1 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that his faith at the time of his death at stated by Akbar S.Ahmed, be it Sunni or otherwise is irrelevant in a section titled "Early years#Family and childhood" (which should be reserved for details about his Early life, not his latter years or death). Hopefully, some users can restore the previous edits, and move the statement on his latter faith to its appropriate section(s). DA1 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So no comments as of yet, after 2 months?.. Given the lack of response, and the separate discussion below, I'm forced to mark an {NPOV} tag on the article. DA1 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: My template was removed [1] (twice [2]) in addition to adding a further line (on top of the existing line) affirming his "Sunni conversion" (already off-topic per section title: "Early life"), which only further confirms the need for the WP:NPOV template. DA1 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Although born into a Khoja (from khwaja or 'noble') family who were disciples of the Ismaili Aga Khan, Jinnah moved towards the Sunni sect early in life. There is evidence later, given by his relatives and associates in court, to establish that he was firmly a Sunni Muslim by the end of his life (Merchant 1990).

That contradicts the "Aftermath" section; in addition to the existing statement & citation in the "Early life" section which states he converted to Sunnism "by the end of his life" not early in life. DA1 (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

it is from same quote of akbar ahmed about both the his early life and later life too

From the section Aftermath: Witness Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada stated in court that Jinnah converted to Sunni Islam in 1901 when his sisters married Sunnis.

First of all, its not my objective to judge which opinion is correct; since you're putting all your WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on one particular account, when the "Aftermath" section cites one of those very sisters (Fatimah) and the various other sources claiming differing opinions.

Secondly, 1901 (age 25) is not "Early age" – especially considering the entire section covers his life up till the age of 19. So that out-of-place statement should be move to the appropriate section. DA1 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made a balance with the religious views, hopefully this should settle it for now. It should be noted that all academic references are unanimous on the fact that he was born into a Shia family. This is undisputed. However, the views about him adopting other influences later in life will obviously need to be presented as such with supporting references of course. I don't think the article should delve a great deal on this controversy, to the point that it becomes WP:UNDUE. One thing that is quite clear from his biographies is he only identified himself as a Muslim (and a moderate one at that), and never publicly espoused any particular sect. I would not say he was a strong ideological Shia either. Although the Sunni influences also have to be mentioned, given Akbar Ahmed goes into them in some detail. Hopefully, this version is more neutral. Mar4d (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: I saw that and appreciate your objective restoration. However, I must refer to my OP above (highlighted in yellow). 1. I don't think it (yellow) is appropriate to be in the "Early life" section, period (reasons stated immediately before yours). 2. It actually does contradict the "Aftermath" section, of note:

After Jinnah died, his sister Fatima asked the court to execute Jinnah's will under Shia Islamic law.[213] This subsequently became the part of the argument in Pakistan about Jinnah's religious affiliation. Vali Nasr says Jinnah "was an Ismaili by birth and a Twelver Shia by confession, though not a religiously observant man."[214] In a 1970 legal challenge, Hussain Ali Ganji Walji claimed Jinnah had converted to Sunni Islam. Witness Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada stated in court that Jinnah converted to Sunni Islam in 1901 when his sisters married Sunnis. In 1970, Liaquat Ali Khan and Fatima Jinnah's joint affidavit that Jinnah was Shia was rejected. But in 1976 the court rejected Walji's claim that Jinnah was Sunni; effectively accepting him as a Shia. In 1984 a high court bench reversed the 1976 verdict and maintained that "the Quaid was definitely not a Shia", which suggested that Jinnah was Sunni.[215] According to the journalist Khaled Ahmed, Jinnah publicly had a non-sectarian stance and "was at pains to gather the Muslims of India under the banner of a general Muslim faith and not under a divisive sectarian identity." Liaquat H. Merchant, Jinnah's grandnephew, writes that "the Quaid was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni, he was simply a Muslim".[213] An eminent lawyer who practised in the Bombay High Court until 1940 testified that Jinnah used to pray as an orthodox Sunni.[216]

So we have exactly one sister (the only one publicly known) who says Jinnah was Shia. Which contradicts the original highlighted statement "Akbar Ahmed states....given by his relatives and associates in court, to establish that Jinnah was firmly a Sunni Muslim by the end of his life. Furthermore, his presumed conversion (according to one POV) at age 25 in 1901, should not be in the "Early life" section.

If needed, we can rename the "Aftermath" section to something more specific so editors are aware what belongs where (maybe "Aftermath#Religious debate") DA1 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@DA1: Fair enough, you can make the changes as you deem fit per WP:BOLD. As long as all the viewpoints are represented, it should be fine. Mar4d (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

i have moved akbar ahmed opinion about later life to aftermath, leaving akbar ahmed statement about the early life in early years as per source. it says in source that he moved to sunni early in life, so that should go in early years section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasooo (talk • contribs) 10:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I would give religion its own section or subsection and thoroughly check it against sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am formally challenging this revision. Any assertions to Jinnah's actual religious background by third parties seems to me to be attempts at obscuring the truth of the matter in a region that is volatile with respect to a person's religious views, i.e., Pakistan, where today the difference between being Shi'a or Sunni can mean life or death. I think Jinnah himself knew this and perhaps this was one of the reasons why he himself did not delve into the topic too much personally, as creating the foundation of Pakistan was perhaps the primary priority as opposed to creating any kind of internal Sunni-Shi'a rifts in the newly formed country. This is why it makes no sense to include any of the above suggestions that "so and so thinks he was definitely a Sunni by the time of his death," and so on. If this was the case, Jinnah would have cast aside all doubt himself. Here is a photo from his death where one can see a Shi'a-affiliated flag: Jinnah Funeral Flag

The reason I challenge this is because it can have far reaching effects, radical Sunnis in Pakistan can in no way fathom or accept the idea that their country was made by a Shi'a, thus, they find statements that incorporate him into the Sunni fold and therefore their extremist violent views of Shi'as are justified within this context. So I repeat, this warrants further investigation and any such changes should be thoroughly discussed by all sides before greenlighting one POV and moving ahead with it. Thank you for your time. 152.130.7.195 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Real birth date?

The article currently says that the birthday was on 25th December 1876. Is there a source for this? Some sources say he was born on 20th October 1875. Therefore, probably we should use both dates for neutrality. Khestwol (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

According to a note in the article which is backed by reference: "While Jinnah's birthday is celebrated as 25 December 1876, there is reason to doubt that date. Karachi did not then issue birth certificates, no record was kept by his family (birth dates being of little importance to Muslims of the time), and his school records reflect a birth date of 20 October 1875." In my opinion, the best option would be to either don't use a birth date at all, or use both possible birth dates in the infobox and lede for neutrality. Khestwol (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are the first few sentences of Jinnah's ODNB entry: "Jinnah, Mohamed Ali (1876–1948), creator of Pakistan, was born on 25 December 1876 at Wazir Mansions, Newnham Road, Karachi, the first of the seven children of Jinnahbhai Poonja (c.1857–c.1901), a successful merchant, and his wife, Mithibai (d. c.1894). He had two brothers and four sisters, of whom Fatima (1883–1967) was to be his companion for much of his life. He was a member of the Shi‘i Khoja trading community, whose origins reach back to the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries in the Sind and Kathiawar provinces of the subcontinent." I would accordingly not place the October date on the same level as the December, and since the December has more scholarly backing, it make sense we go with that. Basically, I'd keep things as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the tertiary source. However, we need a good quality, reliable WP:SECONDARY source to back up the December claim in the infobox and lede. (The body of the article gives almost equal weight to both the October and December claims by omitting the month and day altogether, and uses the wording "he was born most likely in 1876".) At present, the article has no reliable secondary source to favor the December claim in the infobox or lede. Uncited content can be removed/changed from a Wikipedia article anytime. Khestwol (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I would think the lede reflected the sources appended at the end of the first paragraph which appear to say that he was born on the 25 December.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

He was born in a Gujarati Family and his all ancestors were Gujarati people too. He was fluent in reading, writing, listening and speaking in Gujarati. so wanted to add his name in Gujarati language. મુહમ્મદઅલી જિણાભાઈ Jackgausvami (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. 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/20130311105035/http://www.fatimajinnah.com/index.php?page=profile to http://fatimajinnah.com/index.php?page=profile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050206230128/http://www.quaid.gov.pk/ to http://www.quaid.gov.pk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050206230128/http://www.quaid.gov.pk/ to http://www.quaid.gov.pk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

ADD PBUH AFTER PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH) NAME !! 182.186.86.134 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular document, and editors may be of various religions or none. While I understand it would be appropriate for a devout Muslim to add the phrase, a secular site like this does not. ("Peace be upon him" is meant).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Jinnah did not consider Bengali to be a Hindu language

This is an absolute fabrication. Two sources are given- the second one fails verification. The first one - hardly an academic source- merely comments "Jinnah even described Bengali as a Hindu language" and quotes no reference or source for it... on the contrary, Jinnah is on the record as saying that Bengali must be the provincial language of East Bengal. Furthermore Jinnah chose an East Bengal Hindu to be the first Law Minister of Pakistan. Nor did Jinnah declare Urdu as the national language- he declared it to be the state language. The former would imply that it was the exclusive language whereas the latter would be a language of communication between the federating units. Jinnah clearly said "state language" and also declared that Bengali ought to be provincial language of East Pakistan. So whatever the case, this accusation is a lie and no biographer of Jinnah, critical or otherwise has ever claimed what is being claimed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.109.47.105 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 July 2009

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

I would like to make some changes on his personal life and also add valuable information. I shall do so with proper citations. Ahmed Orakzai (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

I need to change remove some misleading information about Jinnah's personal life under the tab "Aftermath". I shall remove the in-correct information using citations which are not only giving misleading information but some citations don't actually serve as a reference. Ahmed Orakzai (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. 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/20120914032831/http://nazariapak.info/quaid/Quotes_from_the_Quaid.html to http://nazariapak.info/quaid/Quotes_from_the_Quaid.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003205336/http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/Quaid/life_quaid.htm to http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/Quaid/life_quaid.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814001904/http://www.quaid.gov.pk/speech03.htm to http://www.quaid.gov.pk/speech03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. 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/20131018024943/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C07%5C09%5Cstory_9-7-2011_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C07%5C09%5Cstory_9-7-2011_pg3_6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515043103/http://www.financialexpress.com/old/ie/daily/19980523/14350814.html to http://www.financialexpress.com/old/ie/daily/19980523/14350814.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Main page as TFA?

The recent policy change on running important TFAs a second time applies to this article. I guess I'm hoping for views from editors on whether this article, if run on December 25, would cause any problems, and if everyone thinks it is properly sourced and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Please change Jinnah moved towards the Sunni sect early in life. There is evidence later, given by his relatives and associates in court, to establish that he was firmly a Sunni Muslim by the end of his life (Merchant 1990).</ref> To that Jinnah was a dedicated shia in his life. He remained a shia until end to his life because this line is accurate and first line is historically in accurate.

}} Alihaider101022 (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The information in the article is well sourced. You need to provide reliable sources to back your claim.  samee  converse  09:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography section

I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection and subordinates below that. This is a relatively minor adjustment but as a section this title is usually placed first in the appendixes related to biographies or named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography" per MOS:BIB. Using a separate source related "Bibliography" section is out of place, confusing, and relatively few articles use this style. We commonly practice placing relate subjects in a subsection so it seems appropriate to follow this with source links (generally listed), and links providing inline text-source integrity, that combined (directly related) form the citations. Otr500 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2019

Ref-197 Seems to be incorrect as there is no official document which states that jinnah had cancer of any sorts. This seems to have been edited to prove a political stance being made in Pakistan by a party so i would request you to look into this matter. Mrehman123 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is the biographers say so. I don't know anything about Pakistani official documents, but we'd need something to show us the biographers are wrong (or that they didn't say so, but I'm pretty sure they talked about lung cancer and Jinnah's cigarette habit).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Simple Comment

Good Day, everyone,

Well written article. neutral, specific and well presented. I believe you should just maintain it as it is.

I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed to this article. All of you are the best.

Note: I write this as a positive notion, and do not want to begin any feuds whatsoever. If people believe I'm rude, then I would be apologetic.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slayer 1991 (talk • contribs). at 17:18, 27 January 2007

Yeah but also give an article about funeral of Quaid e Azam. Hassan Ali Hashmi (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

quaid azam was born in jhirk city not in karachi Aqeelpalijo (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Did Jinnah found Pakistan or Dominion of Pakistan? SPQR10 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Founder of Pakistan or Dominion of Pakistan?

The wiki page mentions that M. Jinnah was the founder of state of Pakistan, which negates the existence of West Pakistan from the user point of view, unless extensively sourced and learned from.

Would it not be politically,historically correct to say that he founded the Dominion of Pakistan? SPQR10 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact of matter is that he is de facto the founder of State of Current Pakistan, because before the partition of Pakistan, the majority of Pakistan's population went to Bangladesh, Now is he founder of East or West Pakistan?

The simple answer is Dominion of Pakistan carved out from British Raj.

The only matter of concern is that the then West Pakistan is nowhere being mentioned which was founded by him. is this fair ? SPQR10 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you're being too picky. Despite changes in form, a nation called Pakistan has existed since 1947, and considered Jinnah to be its founder. That's as far as we need to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying Jinnah founded this http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dominion_of_Pakistan which later broke into

1) http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pakistan

2) http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bangladesh

i'm not being picky sire, Just historically correct.

Please pay a little bit of heed to what i'm saying,

SPQR10 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

He is the founder of both. All things Pakistan. Stating just simply “Founder of Pakistan” is likely the best and most accurate wording. JasonMoore (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)