Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 4

Jinnah did not go to Oxford
Jinnah did not go to Trinity College, Oxford. He only went to Lincoln's Inn. Correction made. Poloplayers (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jinnah died in Karachi, not Quetta
Jinnah did NOT die in Quetta. He died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi. Correction made. Poloplayers (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening Para Too Long
The opening para should, ideally, not be more than 2-3 lines. It should be as brief as possible and describe in one sentence who the man was. If somebody wants to find out more about him he can read the rest of the article and if he doesn't he can leave the page at that point. I have shortened the opening para into one sentence and to 2 lines. Poloplayers (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. The relevant guideline is WP:LEAD, which says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." For an article this size, a lead should be 2-3 paragraphs; see WP:LEAD. Gimmetrow 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Illness and death
The way he died has not been properly eloborated in the article. Please see this link and this link which describes the full story of his death. I am told this is similar to the writings by Ms Fatima Jinnah, in her book, "my brother".

In particular the following paragraphs:

- From first link -

At 2pm on September 11th, a Viking plane took off from Quetta carrying a feeble Mr Jinnah to the nation's Capital. A bed had been made up in the front cabin and oxygen cylinders and gas masks were kept at hand. The plane landed after about two hours at the Air Force base at Mauripur. This was the same place where Mr Jinnah had arrived from New Delhi about a year ago to take over the reins of the new Pakistan. There were thousands who had come to greet him then. But on September 11, there was no one at the airport.

Mr Jinnah was carried into an army ambulance which then sped south of the highway towards Karachi. After about four or five miles, the ambulance came to a stop. There was a breakdown due to some engine trouble. It could not start. The afternoon was humid, the September heat was oppressive and flies buzzed around Mr Jinnah’s face. He had no strength left to brush them off though his sister Fatima helped by fanning him. Meanwhile Mr Jinnah’s pulse started becoming weaker and irregular even as hundreds of cars, trucks and buses rumbled by. The highway was lined with huts belonging to refugees who had come from India. They had no idea that their Qaid-e-Azam lay dying right there on the road.

One hour passed this way.

Finally another ambulance came and Mr Jinnah reached the governor-general’s mansion at 6.10 pm. Four hours and ten minutes later he was dead. The last word he uttered was to his sister Fatima – ‘Fati’.

- FROM second link -

He died on a railway level-crossing inside an army truck which had broken down. When Miss Fatima Jinnah addressed the nation on the radio after his demise her speech was “switched off” at the point where she was to reveal the true state of affairs.

-- LogicDictates (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert
I have (once again) removed the Shia categories as well as the Shia label in the infobox. Jinnah's religion is a rather difficult topic, and claiming him as a Shia without qualification is inappropriate - it ignores the plethora of opposing sources, including the courts. Whether Jinnah "techincally" was a Shia or not, we can probably all agree that that wasn't a defining characteristic. I've also removed the phrase "and few others strongly believe"; there's no indication of the strength of people's beliefs, and "few others" counts as weasel words. The source given was a blog, hardly a reliable source per WP:RS. I also removed this Daily Times artilce. While it may be a reliable source for part of Jinnah's family history (though the relevant passages refer to "some historians", and it would be better to directly quote those historians), that's not what it was used for, and it didn't support the statements in connection with which it was cited. Huon (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are certainly a Shiaphobic person, you can't stand anything regarding Shia personalities or Shias in general. You need to get over with this nuisance. The Daily Times article this Daily Times artilce is fully satisfying the criteria of reliable sources, and shouldn't be removed even if you aren't personally satisfied with it for some particular reason. So far i have noticed that you aren't able to digest this fact that Jinnah and his Family were Shia. Please stop it, find something better to tamper with. Asking someone to prove that the Jinnahs are Shi'a Muslims is like asking to prove that Lenin was a communist, grow up. Stop reverting reliable sources, just because you don't like. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Daily Times article may indeed be a reliable source, as I said before. But it's used to provide a reference for the sentence Jinnah's family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam, though Jinnah later converted to Twelver Khoja Shia Islam., especially the second half. The article doesn't mention "Ismaili", "Khoja" or "Twelver" at all, and "Shia" only in connection with families other than Jinnah's. While it discusses the naming of Jinnah's father and Jinnah himself, it's silent about any conversions Jinnah may have had. We already have sources for that sentence that actually agree with what the sentence says; why should we add this one which doesn't do so?
 * Concerning the categories, I agree there are reliable sources stating that Jinnah was a Shia. But there are also reliable sources stating that he wasn't a Shia. Given this ambiguity, it's inappropriate to categorize him as member of a specific denomination. We can't just choose those reliable sources we like and disregard the others. Huon (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Brother your logic is too illogical to understand, i know that you have complications regarding Jinnah's religion and it also seems like you lack basic knowledge regarding Shias and Shia sub-sects. Let me explain, see the Daily Times article truly indicates that the name Jinnah is actually derived from a famous Horse named "Zuljanah", Zuljanah was the horse of Prophet Muhammed passed on to his grandson Imam Hussain, the Shia Twelver therefore hold this with respect, and let me specify Zuljanah has no significance outside the Shia Twelver Islam, which indicates the allegiance of Muhammed Ali Jinnah to Shia Islam to be evident. Majority of renowned close associates of Jinnah many historians firmly believe that Jinnah was a Shia. Though people who have repeatedly tried to tamper with history or fabricate stories out of it shouldn't be given importance, since the 1984 court decision that "the Quaid was definitely not a Shia", was politically motivated and on sectarian grounds since during the reign of Zia-ul-Haq Shias of Pakistan was victimized and oppressed, hence this ruling is nothing but an attempt to minimize the historical role of Shias in the independence of Pakistan. There isn't any ambiguity it is just a clash of ideological acceptance, some aren't willing to accept the fact that he was a Shia. Though Jinnah was a secular person yet a Shia Muslim. His Nikah with Ruttie Bai Petite clearly indicates his firm believe on the Shia Twelver ideology now no one can tamper with that document and her burial took place under the Shia rituals at a Twelver Shia Khoja cemetery in Bombay. You should realize this fact, and clear up the confusing regarding Jinnah's religious domination specially that misleading edit in he Death section. Reagrds! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two problems regarding the Zuljinah source. One: Even if all your reasoning above is correct, that's not what the source says. While it does mention Shias, all it says about Jinnah's family is that it "converted to Islam". Saying that they converted to Twelver Shia Islam would probably be original research - while I don't doubt the Shia part of your reasoning, we still need a source to say so. Luckily we indeed have other reliable sources that do so, so there's no reason to use this one.
 * Two: The "Twelver" part of your reasoning. Are you saying that Jinnah didn't convert to the Twelver denomination, but that since the time of his grandfather his family already belonged to it, and not to the Ismaili? That interpretation is at odds with quite a lot of reliable sources, including some found by yourself. Given the choice between several reliable sources and your reasoning, the article will have to follow the former.
 * Concerning the categories, you still deliberately ignore all sources disagreeing with your point of view, even those found by yourself. For example you just added this blog to another article, which ends its discussion of Jinnah's religion with this sentence: He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim. Now I wouldn't call this blog a reliable source in the first place, but it shows that Jinnah's denomination is hardly as clear-cut as you claim. Furthermore, you seem to be making up "sources" to support your view, too. Let's just take Ruttie: The link you provided and which supposedly should support that "her burial took place under the Shia rituals at a Twelver Shia Khoja cemetery in Bombay" doesn't contain any mention of "Twelver" whatsoever, calls her final resting place just "a cemetery in Bombay", and "Khioja" or even just "Shia" is only mentioned in a comment which reads: … so Ruttie converted to Shia Ithna Ashari Khoja Islam … strictly on paper. It continues: There was nothing Islamic or Muslim about her life and lifestyle. Thus, your own source doesn't support your claim at all.
 * Given this ambiguity, tagging him as "definitely a Shia" is inappropriate. Huon (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is famous saying lack of knowledge is too dangerous. Now your argument has convinced me that you are arguing for the sake of an argument, since you can't accept the mire reality. This makes me realize that you even lack basic knowledge regarding Muslims, Pakistan's Political scenario and sectarian enmity at personal level. Now don't take this personally but you can't find every thing by a single Google hit and sometimes facts should be realized based on ground reality rather then by finding the respective sources.
 * First of all you should look at your own comment. "Let's just take Ruttie: The link you provided and which supposedly should support that "her burial took place under the Shia rituals at a Twelver Shia Khoja cemetery in Bombay" doesn't contain any mention of "Twelver" whatsoever, calls her final resting place just "a cemetery in Bombay", and "Khioja" or even just "Shia" is only mentioned in a comment which reads: … so Ruttie converted to Shia Ithna Ashari Khoja Islam … strictly on paper. It continues: There was nothing Islamic or Muslim about her life and lifestyle. Thus, your own source doesn't support your claim at all."


 * Now lets try to understand few basics regarding the word "Twelver" in-comparison with the word "Ithna Ashari". "Ithna Ashar" is an Arabic word that means number "twelve". And when its is written Ithna Ashari it means Twelver. Hope this clarifies your confusion. Now you should realize that Ruttie converted to Shia Ithna Ashari Khoja Islam and hence was buried by Jinnah's will according Shia rituals, read the second last paragraph of this artcile & this link. Now it clarifies Jinnah believed in Ithna Ashari ideology before getting married to Ruttiebai Petite or Rattanbai Petite, and also makes evident that the marriage took place according to Shia rituals. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Urdu or Arabic, and when I tried to read up on that specific branch of Islam I wound up with the article on Ashari - which is about an entirely separate branch. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. But my main points remain: The relevant guideline here is WP:NPOV: The information we provide must respect a neutral point of view. If the sources are ambiguous about Jinnah's precise denomination, we should err on the side of caution and just let the infobox and the categories state the uncontroversial, ie that he was a Muslim - I don't think anybody disagrees with that. Huon (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are reliable sources stating that Jinnah was a Shia. We have Vali Nasr, for example, or the Saudi newspaper. These two are better at making that point than either the inferences drawn from Ruttie's marriage (the article I misinterpreted still doesn't say anything concerning her burial or the cemetery - and the article whose second-to-last paragraph you asked me to read is just a rehash of our own article, and Wikipedia doesn't accept itself as a reliable source) or the "Zuljinah" source, both of which require a synthesis of published sources to arrive at the desired conclusion - expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy and completely unnecessary as well.
 * But there are also reliable sources stating that Jinnah wasn't a Shia: The Indian Express article, for example, and the 1984 High Court verdict (which may well have been biased; if it was so, it should be easy to find a reliable source that says so, and we can add the court's bias to the article). As I pointed out, even some of the sources you added in other contexts, while less reliable than the newspaper article, state that Jinnah wasn't a Shia. (Some sources even claim he became a Sunni, but although they include at least one published biography I have doubts about their reliability.)
 * Since the reliable sources disagree on Jinnah's religion, adding "Shia" to either the infobox or the categories gives undue weight to some of them while ignoring the others.

Well soon I'll get back to you regarding Rattanbai Petit, since her Shia faith would make this evident that Jinnah was also Ithna Ashari yet a secular person and not really a religious observant man though he was very spiritual, as far as further editing is concerned i guess we all should agree that there wouldn't be any further editing regarding Jinnah's religion until we reach a consensuses and we would stop any extra editing regarding his religion, And i still firmly believe that the 1984 High Court verdict was biased and politically motivated since there was no need to hide his religion 40 years after his death make be curious why did they initiate it, and as you may know how corrupt the Pakistani Judiciary use to be and how it was like a puppet used by the government to protect their prejudice interests. Till then take care brother! And please help me improve Allama Anees-ul-Hasnain's article instead of repeatedly nominating for AfD. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism revert: No sources, once again
I just reverted SyedNaqvi90's addition to the Criticism section according to which "some critics believe Maududi's opposition stemmed from sectarian differences, as Jinnah came from a Shia Muslim background ". Our source doesn't mention that as a reason for Maududi's opposition. What critics believe so, and where did they publish their belief? Huon (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dina Wadia
Hi, The article states that Jinnah's daughter Ms. Dina refused to stay in Pakistan. Thats sounds as if she did so to make a political statement. Did she really refuse to stay in Pakistan because of some ideological or personal differences with her father or because her family, her husband et al were settled in bombay? There is a difference between the two. If the later then I would like the sentenced to be changed unless someone can show that Dina refused to live in Pakistan because of her certain personal/political beleifs. Omerlives

continued
I had the same thought when I read the article and changed it to say that Dina STAYED in present-day India because her family was there. The article makes it seem like the way the person above says so. This is just one of many slight slandering remarks against Jinnah throughout this article.

jinnah refused to come to pakistan because she had married a parsi from bombay against her fathers wishes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.36.206 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jinnah and Gujarat
Jinnah definitely was a Gujarati and spoke the language, even if he preferred to make speeches exclusively in English. He was the president of the Gujarati traders association in Bombay. This is where Gandhi and Jinnah first clashed. Jinnah spoke in English and Gandhi interrupted asking him to speak in Gujarati because he was a Gujarati in a Gujarati function. Jinnah ignored him and continued to speak in English. See http://books.google.com/books?id=MCz682epff8C&pg=PA87 for more. This incident has been described in many books. It actually doesn't matter much either way. But I am reversing the change because it is based on an inaccurate assertion that Jinnah didn't speak the language and otherwise dissociated himself from Gujaratis. He didn't, though there is little question that English was by far his preferred language of public expression. Also, for Pete's sake, there is a picture of him in traditional Gujarati dress in this very article from a Govt of Pakistan source! --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gandhi?
I refer to these lines: ''Unlike most Congress leaders, Gandhi did not wear western-style clothes, did his best to use an Indian language instead of English, and was deeply rooted to Indian culture. Gandhi's local style of leadership gained great popularity with the Indian people.''

Is it true that when Gandhi was addressed and referred to as Mr.Gandhi by Jinnah in a public meeting, the followers of Gandhi made a hue and cry and literally made Jinnah step down from the stage? I have seen this in some websites.

As to Gandhi being a supporter of Indian culture, and language: He went to England in the early part of the last century. Was he from such a rich family? Moreover, Indian languages are quite feudal and oppressiveness of the lower person. What is great about being a person who knows English, but would use only the oppressiveness Indian vernacular to the local people?

--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the "Mr. Gandhi" incident, but I doubt it's significant enough to mention it in the article. The "no western clothes, Indian languages" stuff refers to a time after Gandhi had returned to India; his stance on these issues had changed. Whether his use of Indian languages was an act of oppression might be debatable, but the Jinnah article is hardly the right place to do so. Huon (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Great Case
"even if one appraised Jinnah as barrister,It would be acknowledge that he had won the most momental judgement of history. He fought and won The Great Case of "PAKISTAN". K Welfred (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In Other Political Affiliations, wikipedia has written: Indian National Congress (1896 - 1913). Both of these years are wrong. Kindly correct them as follows: (1906 - 1920). I belong to Muhammad Ali Jinnah's nation and country. He is our Quaid-e Azam and Father of our nation. I have been studying in all our text books right from class III till now (from 1947 till today) these dates. Moreover, for a short period he was also the leader of Home Rule League from 1915 to 1920. Thus he belonged to these three political parties simultaneously from 1915 to 1920. There are some self-contradictions also in your accounts of Jinnah under Direct Action Day, which I shall point out later. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farooq alvee (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In Other Political Affiliations, wikipedia has written: Indian National Congress (1896 - 1913). Both of these years are wrong. Kindly correct them as follows: (1906 - 1920). I belong to Muhammad Ali Jinnah's nation and country. He is our Quaid-e Azam and Father of our nation. I have been studying in all our text books right from class III till now (from 1947 till today) these dates. Moreover, for a short period he was also the leader of Home Rule League from 1915 to 1920. Thus he belonged to these three political parties simultaneously from 1915 to 1920. There are some self-contradictions also in your accounts of Jinnah under Direct Action Day, which I shall point out later. Thanks. Farooq alvee (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the INC dates; thanks for pointing out the error. I'm not sure the Home Rule League affiliation is important enough to be mentioned in the infobox; while we do mention Jinnah's role in the founding of the League, the article offers no additional details. We don't even mention when or why Jinnah and the League parted ways. Huon (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Great Case
"even if one appraised Jinnah as barrister,It would be acknowledge that he had won the most momental judgement of history. He fought and won The Great Case of "PAKISTAN". K Welfred (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In Other Political Affiliations, wikipedia has written: Indian National Congress (1896 - 1913). Both of these years are wrong. Kindly correct them as follows: (1906 - 1920). I belong to Muhammad Ali Jinnah's nation and country. He is our Quaid-e Azam and Father of our nation. I have been studying in all our text books right from class III till now (from 1947 till today) these dates. Moreover, for a short period he was also the leader of Home Rule League from 1915 to 1920. Thus he belonged to these three political parties simultaneously from 1915 to 1920. There are some self-contradictions also in your accounts of Jinnah under Direct Action Day, which I shall point out later. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farooq alvee (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In Other Political Affiliations, wikipedia has written: Indian National Congress (1896 - 1913). Both of these years are wrong. Kindly correct them as follows: (1906 - 1920). I belong to Muhammad Ali Jinnah's nation and country. He is our Quaid-e Azam and Father of our nation. I have been studying in all our text books right from class III till now (from 1947 till today) these dates. Moreover, for a short period he was also the leader of Home Rule League from 1915 to 1920. Thus he belonged to these three political parties simultaneously from 1915 to 1920. There are some self-contradictions also in your accounts of Jinnah under Direct Action Day, which I shall point out later. Thanks. Farooq alvee (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the INC dates; thanks for pointing out the error. I'm not sure the Home Rule League affiliation is important enough to be mentioned in the infobox; while we do mention Jinnah's role in the founding of the League, the article offers no additional details. We don't even mention when or why Jinnah and the League parted ways. Huon (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Earned Praise
This is on of the most well-written and unbiased articles I have seen on Wikipedia. I like how the contributors mention all his contributions and the events in his life but maintain the neutrality of the article. I also like the tremendous number of photographs contributed for this article and it's historical accuracy. The unique style of writing, that mentions all the facts without revealing the writer's personal opinion or view should be encouraged and adopted for other historically significant people as well.( My Rating: 10 / 10 ). Intermediate-Hacker (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Assassination
I just removed the following paragraph:
 * On July 26, 1943, Jinnah was stabbed and wounded by a member of the extremist Khaksars in an attempted assassination. Bombay High Court did not find any validity in Jinnah’s testimony; in his decision, Justice Blagden pointed out twice that assassin was not a Khaksar, stating, “Actually, you have no evidence at all that this man [Mazangavi] is a member of that movement [Khaksar Tehrik]…you have no evidence that he [Mazangavi] is a member of the movement, still less that he holds any particular position in it.” Jinnah’s nephew, Barrister Akbar Peerbhoy, recounted this judgment in his book entitled Jinnah Faces An Assassin.

The source is hardly a reliable secondary source; it's hosted at a website closely aligned with the Khaksar movement. The conspiracy theory advocated by that website would require much better sources to be taken serious. Still, that's more of a source than what we had on the assassination before. So until we find a reliable source covering that assassination attempt, removing it altogether seems better than having badly-sourced theories on the attacker's supposed motivation. Huon (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jinnah was a speaker of Gujarati!
"Soon after Jinnah had started his fine English speech in Gandhi's honour, Gandhi interrupted him and quite innocently suggested that he should speak Gujarati as this was an audience of Gujaratis. Jinnah resented this interruption deeply and continued his speech in English, the more so as he would have been unable to give a good speech in Gujarati as he was used to speaking Gujarati only to illiterate people". Source:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MCz682epff8C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=jinnah+speaking+gujarati&source=bl&ots=m69dB5ruAB&sig=9Lq4ZX2r6CvkVzyNj-eQMoeB1lU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOf9TovGFIiB8gO0g5W8Aw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=jinnah%20speaking%20gujarati&f=false

IGNORANT biographers have made much of the fact that at a reception in his honour on January 12, 1915, Gandhi asked Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was presiding, to speak in Gujarati; implying that he was embarrassed because he knew only English. But Gujarati and Cutchi were the only two languages Jinnah spoke perfectly; "beautifully", M.C. Chagla recalled. His devoted follower M.A.H. Ispahani put it delicately: "Even in this language [English] the meticulous don would have found some flaws" (The Jinnah I Knew ; page 107).

--174.138.162.218 (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

jinnah died of heart break
it is more than clear that Jinnah died because of heartbreak as his daughter Married A gujarati Hindu boy after eloping with him, the man who loved his daughter more than his life and she eloped with a gujarati hindu wadia who was from a prominent family of businessman from gujarat.But his commitment towards Hindu protection in pakistan must be lauded that to protect hindu from muslims he spread the news that Wadia are parsi(really funny), hence was able to calm muslims of world as Parsi are considered more close or more acceptable than Hindu Son-in-law otherwise if his son-in-law is parsi then why they use "WADIA" as surname which belonged to gujju hindu baniya(merchants and traders) caste. Further many things raises doubt over his son in law being a parsi in reality he is hindu.

1-Discussion between father-daughter- The leakage of this discussion where it is tried to show that dina married a parsi but how can a private discussion btw father and daughter get public.

MOTIVE- a lawyer or investigator can sense that all the intention behind this is to show to muslims and world that "WADIA" are parsi even though "WADIA IS GUJARATI NAME".

2-If they are parsi(from iran) why will they use "WADIA" which is hindu name i dont think any "IRANIAN USE WADIA AS SURNAME".

3-Anyone can search any amount of hindu name with wadia surname such as cn wadia, vikram wadia, manish wadia, varun wadia or any hindu name you can thought with wadia surname on matrimonial or facebook sites all of them are "HINDU".

Jinnah died of heart break but till last moment he protected HINDU OF PAKISTAN.122.161.111.67 (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Member of Indian National Congress
With regard to this edit, wasn't Jinnah a member of the Indian National Congress (political party)? Why is it listed under "other political affiliations" in the infobox? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out. I was fixing the other removed content. Your are right, let me move it to the "political parties" along with the duration. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually on second thoughts, wouldn't it be right to list it in 'otherparty' as he left them in 1920 for the Pakistan Movement and the differences related to that? -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since he was directly involved with them (in fact he played a major part), I think it's proper to include Indian National Congress with the years clearly provided, so there is no confusion. Other political affiliation could refer to some non-mainstream political groups. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's been moved I think. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Profession
Why was the profession removed from the infobox? The spouse name should also be the changed one as that is the article name and the legal name by which she was always known after that. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added it back as you indicated in the edit summary of simply adding back what was removed. Please take care when improving content that you don't mistakenly delete some without explanation. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Qaideazam maj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Sheikh Mujiburrahaman of Bangladesh (Former East Pakistan) changed the course of history, changed the map created a new nation-state and disproved two nation theory ,by dividing Jinnah,s promised land Pakistan, that also within 25 years from his(Jinnah) Death.Thus the assertion of Stanley Wolpert that he is only one two all the three is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh Kumar69 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujiburrahaman of Bangladesh (Former East Pakistan) changed the course of history, changed the map, created a new nation-state and disproved Jinnah's Two Nation Theory ,by dividing Jinnah,s promised land Pakistan, that also within 25 years from his(Jinnah) death.Thus the assertion of Stanley Wolpert that he is the only one to do all the three is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh Kumar69 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)-Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah&oldid=478391193"
 * That's incorrect... there are notable claims that to prove the two nation theory wrong, Bangladesh should have merged into India. As for the nation state... it was hardly that, it was a civil war. Also, you're just presenting original research. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This might not be relevant, but for the sake of argument, I was reading something interesting the other day somewhere about how Pakistan was actually a state meant for the Muslims of northwest India and that Bengal's inclusion was debatable. There are frequent references from Allama Iqbal where he specifically referred to a state for Muslims located in northern India only... for example, in the Allahabad Address, he emphasised his ideas when saying:


 * {|style="border:1px; border: thin solid white; background-color:#f6f6FF; margin:20px;" cellpadding="10"


 * "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.
 * }
 * }

Another noteworthy point of interest is that the acronym Pakistan itself coined by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali refers to Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. Note the absence of Bengal. I am not overlooking history....whatever was destined to happen has happened. But the notion that a Pakistan without Bengal is incomplete or that the independence of Bengal proves the failure of the Two-Nation theory is something that is entirely debatable keeping in mind the historical context of how it was not mentioned in the initial ideas for a Muslim state in the India subcontinent. Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah the "Great" Leader of "Indian" muslims..?
Jinnah represented the muslim population of Pre-partitioned British India who were willing to join the nation of pakistan.He isnt any "Great leader" for muslims who wished to stay back in India.Moreover presently he doesnt just represent the muslims but he represents the citizens of pakistan who could also be non-muslims. Hence changed the sentence to-- 'Jinnah the Great Leader of Pakistan'. Scourgeofgod 15:00, 28 June 2006 (IST)

87% of the Muslim electorate of India voted for Jinnah in the 1946 election. His main support came from areas that now form the Indian republic. He represented mainly a Muslim constituency in the central legislature of India for 30+ years from Bombay as well.

BBC poll
Dannygeorgedgp removed a BBC poll for "South Asia's greatest ever leader". This was not any kind of scientific poll, but a rather useless internet poll. A grand total of 300K votes suggests heavy use of vote bots, making the results not indicative of popular support or anything else. I therefore agree with the removal of the poll. Huon (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The solution to that is attribution (which is already done, or can be expanded if needed). Because it is published by an RS, it is suitable for inclusion... let's leave the judgement to the reader. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Huon. Not everything published by an RS is suitable for inclusion just because an RS published it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that statement, but why this should not be included is in question here. My remark was it being suitable and in context. And since it is attributed, any issues with the poll are visible to the reader (I wont have any problem if sample size is attributed as well). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me ask the converse question: Why should it be included? What is it supposed to tell the reader about Jinnah? It shouldn't be included because of the likelihood of vote stacking and the general lack of relevance of internet polls - it's useless trivia, even though the BBC reported it. Huon (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple, a comparison with other figures... in terms of popularity. The fact that BBC reported it makes it notable, even if considered as trivia. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An internet poll is not actually a comparison in terms of popularity. Huon (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Death
Why does the article not say he died of lung cancer? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently tuberculosis was a more significant factor in his death. Jinnah is almost a textbook case in the history of tuberculosis. See for example this book on tuberculosis. Huon (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Islam
I just created a new article on Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Islam. I think it is important. Jinnah has an interesting relationship with Islam. I am hoping that this turns into some like George Washington and religion or Thomas Jefferson and religion. There are some academic sources that I have come across that cite his relationship with secularism. I plan to cite them in the following days as I try to build this page. It was silly of me to provide a link to it this early. However, I do hope you will join me in developing it. It is an interesting subject. Casprings (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dr Mehdi Hassan a renowned scholar told in "Shahid Namaa" Dr Shahid Masood's TV programme on 24-03-2012 "Muhammd Ali Jinnah submitted an affidavet in Bumbay (Mumbay)Court of Magistrate in 1898, that I and my sister Fatima leave Ismaili Maslik and joine Asna Ashri Maslik."

http://www.awaztoday.com/News-Talk-Shows/21234/Shahid-Naama-Part-2-24th-March-2012.aspx or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLmfa1k_4w&feature=related or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqnCw29CLAw&feature=relmfu

And yes I read a book in Urdu written by Khawja Razi Haider "Rati Jinnah" He wrote there love story of Rati and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and wrote every thing which happened then. He was Shia Muslim. Nazim Shirazy Pakistan (Living in Spain 30-03-2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.157.108 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominion of Pakistan (pipe to Paksitan)
This was removed atleast twice by without any explanation.. I will be reverting it again if the due explanation is not given. Pakistan was (and still is) the common name and used name for then dominion of Pakistan and now Islamic republic of Pakistan. Thus piping "dominion of Pakistan" to "Pakistan" was completely reasonable. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I just think it refers to "Pakistan" (the current Pakistan) already in the top line of the article, It out and out shows the difference between Pakistan and the different "Dominion of Pakistan". The Madras (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of the country's naming, you might know that simply Pakistan was the common name both before and after it became a republic. The main article Pakistan already states this name as such. The difference is clarified by the internal link, but does not need to be shown as such, because dominion of Pakistan is actually the exact same country before it became a republic and this would confuse an unaware reader. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The Dominion of Pakistan also included East Pakistan/Bengal, now Bangladesh, whereas the common simple name "Pakistan" refers to the current Pakistan. It isn't the same country. The Madras (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The change from the Dominion of Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has nothing to do with East Pakistan. Since Karachi isn't in Bangladesh anyway, I don't think we need make the "dominion" part explicit. "Pakistan" was the common name of the state at the time of Jinnah's death, and it still is today. Huon (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it does, the Dominion of Pakistan included East Pakistan. The modern Islamic Republic of Pakistan doesn't include it. The Madras (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then you are definitely wrong and not aware of the facts. Pakistan became a republic in 1956 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan included East Pakistan. The secession took place in 1971. There's no difference other than constitutional. And Pakistan has always been the common name. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jinnah died before "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (1956) came into existence. That's why I said "The modern" (i.e recent) - I am aware of that Pakistan has always been the "common name" but many articles on Wikipedia reference their full names, especially in the infobox if the person died before the current incarnation of said country The Madras (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well your reasoning about the East Pakistan is invalid per my comment above, as far the referring goes, the actual article is already referred. Articles also title the articles to their common names. Since that name is being disambiguated with Pakistan article, piping here is the precise solution to both use the common name and refer to the correct article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with TopGun. Using the common name and linking to the precise article has no downside that I can see. Huon (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this decision. Pakistan is commonly used. -- I am Agent   X  11:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and alcohol

 * "According to Akbar S. Ahmed, some books about Jinnah outside Pakistan allege that he drank alcohol. Several sources indicate he gave up alcohol near the end of his life."

I find it strange that this has been mentioned in the section detailing criticism of the subject. What is the context? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the context is that according to sufficiently strict interpretations, drinking alcohol is un-Islamic. Huon (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the word allege should be used as it is his opinion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An "opinion" that X authors say one thing and Y authors say another? That's a literature review, and it would be rather odd to use "alleged" with that. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case he's using the weasel phrase "nearly every book outside Pakistan" which itself might be considered a fallacy ones statistics are compared (not a statement that X authors say something... "who" would be brought in question). Wikipedia does not use weasel words even if sources do, we try to be specific. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the assertion made by one author/journalist warrants mentioning this in the criticism section. It seems to me that the sentence simply sits there to make a point.  Can we also get rid of the section on criticism and integrate it with the rest of the text?  I suppose there are enough precedents on "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections on biography articles. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem a bit pointy now that you asked a question... it is not actually clear to every one what it means except those who know alcohol is forbidden in Islam... even then, it does not have much context. Either it should have that, or completely removed. But I'm not sure how it can be adjusted. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny. The author is used elsewhere and nobody has a problem with it. Context could easily be added. But by all means, let's not have any "assertiions made by one author", even those which refer to multiple other authors per a literature review. How much content in this article and on Wikipedia is the "assertion made by one author"? Quite a lot. Apply that principle and you would gut everything.; most content doesn't even have one source. And what about a statement like: "Professor X says most authors call Jinnah the father of Pakistan" - yep, that would clearly be the assertion of just one author, so must be removed, because the assertion that most authors say that is somehow disputable? No. This particular phase is in there as it is to avoid the constant fighting by "political" editors over whether the subject drank or not. It's a well-sourced meta statement: most authors in X class say yes, while other authors say no.Gimmetoo (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the example you gave, other sources will verify that information. In this case, only this author claims that nearly all authors outside Pakistan (which is itself ambiguous) mention this fact, so this is actually a single source... and the point I made was, this is not a literature review; it is a claim about other sources. So the author here happens to be the second party making the assertion and not verified by the third party sources claimed. This is an allegation by author and should be attributed as such. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the source? And yes, the claim is attributed to the author who made it, and has been for years, so why did you bring that up? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not challenge the content as appearing (Nicholas did though), rather its attribution, which is not attributed as an allegation. Since when is being in Wikipedia for a certain amount of time a measure of reliability or anything other than a silent consensus (which is the weakest form of consensus)? brought it up with his edit, I didn't anyway, I have it on my watch list and decided to give input. Btw, your current editing appears to be a slow editwar... keep a light hand on the reverts. It can always be put back in per consensus. Let us wait for other comments, I'll leave a talkback to Mar4d since he is apparently missing this debate. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is sourced information. It is been in the article and atrributed to its author for years, so why did you bting up "attribution"? Removal of sourced information without a good reason is likely POV editing. Why did you tag it as verification needed? Did you look at the source at any point? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff you've dug up dates back to November, I definitely wanted some one to verify it at that point, isn't the tag self explanatory? Nicholas removed that information and he isn't even Pakistani (and he actually did give a reason), I don't think POV has anything to do here other than the statement itself now that it has been moved out of the criticism section and the second half doesn't seem to be attributed to the author. And it was not properly attributed before either. It is actually an allegation. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference to alcohol consumption is not a majority-held (or should I say, widely-known?) perspective, hence I believe it needs to be attributed adequately. By attribution, I mean that it should be presented as the view of the writer and as an allegation, since it is something that is controversial, debatable and not entirely verified/corroborated/extensively proven when reading many other sources. As far as the phrase "nearly every book" is concerned, this is improper WP:SYNTHESIS and also WP:WEASEL. Are there any statistics or figures to show that "nearly every book" discusses alcohol when talking about Jinnah? Has the writer done a count of all the books and verified it? For all we know, it could be a hyperbole too. Hence, "every book" should be replaced with "some books", to be more specific and avoid weasel language. This is my opinion.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of sources which say he drank alcohol, he also smoked and ate pork. Dragons and Tigers: A Geography of South, East, and Southeast Asia p177 Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * May I ask, how did you end up here? There is no way you got here unless you obviously went through my contributions. So much for all the recent chaos over hounding.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "According to Ahmed" attributes the statement to him. Have you checked what he says? The phrase "Ahmed says this" is a simple, verifiable statement. "Synthesis" and "original research" is something Wikipedians shouldn't do, but WP cites authors who do original research. There is nothing controversial about the statement that Ahmed says this. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement itself is highly controversial. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that "Ahmed says this" is not controversial. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that is not the statement then, is it... the statement the author made is the one I am referring to... that as such, is an allegation. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, can someone quote the relevant text as it appears in the publication? Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reference to alcohol consumption, if properly sourced, may make sense in the context of the unislamic comment in the criticism section. That said, it might be better not to have a criticism section at all. The material relating to Junagadh and Kashmir could easily be moved up to the founding of pakistan section and the unislamic references to either "vision for pakistan" or "legacy". One can critique the views or actions of a person but criticism of the person itself doesn't make much sense. --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are three levels of statements here. First is whether or not Jinnah drank; this is viewed as a political criticism by some groups. Second is whether or not an identifiable class of authors say so or not. That's where most "controversial" points on Wiki get stuck - we end up with texts that say "Some authors say X, others say Y", with each phrase followed by a zillion refs. Third is whether Ahmed says that most authors outside Pakistan mention that he did. That Ahmed says that is a simple, verifiable statement. It avoids the controversy of the second level of statement; we have an author who directly says something about the range of authors (and refers to them by name). It's ideal for the wiki. It also avoids making a claim about the first level statement, which would be subject to endless fights. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is properly contextualized, I don't see a problem including alcohol or even pork, particularly if the accusation was made by islamic groups. If, however, islamic groups never said that, and this is merely stated, uncontextualized, in biographies, then I'm not so sure. Lots of people, muslims included, eat pork and quaff the occasional glass of scotch. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care about alcohol, but the statement about pork consumption is acknowledged by numerous independent observers/academic sources as a smear campaign (or to put it bluntly, polemic crap) that has no credibility whatsoever. A simple Google search shows just the lack of reliable sources on this. Not surprisingly, the claim was made by Mahommedali Currim Chagla, a staunch political opponent of Jinnah (here's a phrase about him from a book: When partition came in 1947 Chagla remained on in India, rising to the post of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and eventually becoming ambassador to the USA and Foreign Minister of India. Chagla needed to show loyalty to India and also wished to project Jinnah as a "secular" and a flawed Muslim). He was not a reputed historian, and his only major contribution was his own autobiography (which is the only source of this claim). Any other sources, including Stanley Wolpert, always quote Chagla whenever they discuss this allegation. Books such as Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic identity has an entire page refuting this claim, citing credible sources close to Jinnah, including Jinnah's daughter who also dismissed it (see page 201). Anyone who tries to buy this theory or intends to put it into the article should go get their heads checked.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For more, refer to this.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, the source I gave above is quite clear in the fact he ate pork. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me why are you such a fan of pork how is pork notable. --I am Agent X (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, your book has nothing more than a sentence on it. There are refutations of this piece of information from credible sources, thus the theory is polemic and non-WP:RS.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When did Akbar S. Ahmed count all the books outside Pakistan to put this in his book? Does he even claim in his book that he did research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am Agent X (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Akbar S. Ahmed is a scholar and professor of Islamic Studies, which would be relevant to the issue at hand. His statement that nearly every book about Jinnah outside Pakistan mentions that he drank alcohol is exactly what WP:RS requires for us to add such information to the article. It's hardly our place to ask a scholar who published a book with a reputable publisher to show his work. Furthermore, the word "allege" is addressed in WP:ALLEGED as a word to be used with caution; I don't think we need it when a scholar reports on the scholarly consensus (besides, drinking alcohol is not a crime anyway). Whether Jinnah drinking alcohol is relevant enough for this article in the first place is debatable, but that Ahmed spends more than two pages of his biography to discuss the ham-and-alcohol issue makes it significant enough, I'd say. Huon (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relevant for a biography of a person on whom many scholarly works have been published? I agree that eating pork and drinking alcohol is not a crime, but as an encyclopedia we do not have to list out these trivial facts within our biographical articles. Currently, the text can be found under the section on "Western influence" – so drinking alcohol and eating pork is a part of Western culture? I asked for the text from the relevant works be presented here on the talk page, but no one has really volunteered to help me out with that request. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem ahem.... since when did pork come into the discussion? The articles does not mention pork, I only raised the issue after a comment by Darkness Shines.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the re-included assertion in the "Criticism" section. I have asked the proposers to present some of the text from the book so as to provide the ride context for what goes into the biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been no comments here for 3 days. The source has been provided and you can look it up. You cannot expect other editors to type up a lengthy extract from the book for you. That other editors have not done your work is not a reason to remove sourced information. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it important to mention? I read biographies regularly and I do not think they mention if a person drank alcohol in his life according to some one out side his country who never met him. If it is some one's favorite drink, that is a thing for discussion maybe. -- I am Agent   X  17:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important to mention as the majority of sources which speak of Jinnah mention it, which makes it notable and should then be mentioned here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as stated above, saying a muslim leader drinks has political significance. To muslims that drink, it's supportive. To muslims that don't drink, it says the drinker was an imperfect muslim, which is viewed as a commentary on the state he led. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The description you just gave is WP:SYNTH because you implied it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:29 pm, Today (UTC+5)
 * User:Top Gun seems to neither understand WP:SYNTH nor be willing to perform due diligence by getting the source in question. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the Wikipedia policies and I link what I exactly mean. Thank you. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have still failed to state in what way my comment violated WP:SYNTH. Have you looked at the source yet? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is irrelevant for talk page comments anyway. It's not as if that analysis had been added to the article without a source. Back to the topic at hand, the fact that most books outside Pakistan mention Jinnah's alcohol consumption (for which we do have a source) makes it significant enough for us to mention it too. A little more context would be desirable, of course. Unfortunately my local library does not carry Ahmed's book; I'll try to find some other source for that context. Huon (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH was cited to the explanation to support the content without context, not to the talk page comment per se. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? You asserted, without providing any support, that a comment made on a talk page was synthesis. Since you still have not looked at the source in question, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not expect others to give context and reasons for the references you've added or want added... that is similar to asking others to look for sources for your content. See Tendentious editing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source was provided. Have you looked at it yet? Gimmetoo (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and removed. Do not add again now without consensus. First I was inclined on the context, but now I see that this is blatant cherry picking and POV. Page 201 is discussing the opposite of what is being cited. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As questioned below, your statement provides no evidence from the source supporting your assertion. Have you, in fact, read the source in question? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've checked the source's page 201 and you would know that if you read my comment. As for page 200, no.. and you have to give the context yet. Have you read it? If so, a context is what you need from there to back up your reasons for inclusion. What I understand from page 201, the discussion is concluding about Muslims being specifically against drinking and pork. This includes a context to Mr. Jinnah. So, again... I'll ask for context. If you do not have access to the page which you are referring to, the content stands unverified. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you state unequivocally that you have not looked at page 200, yet you removed sourced material from this article again without looking at the source. Is it your assertion, without looking at the source, that you can state the information cited to p.200 is "unverified"? What does "unverified" mean to you - that someone unwilling to look at the source must be able to "check" the information without looking at the source? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed the material because no context has been given and rest of the text (with preview available) sums up to the opposite conclusion in general (though specifying the ham incident) and gives that context to Mr. Jinnah. Before you add the content and ask me if I have full access to that page number (and I don't, so I can not check - or I would be willing to - and it is not necessary or required of me to have that access), you need to note whether or not do you have access to page 200 of that book? I've replied to your question, and am waiting for your answer to that. If the answer is no, then the content is not verified because 1) you don't even know if it is there at all on that page (which is your claim and the burden of proof is on you) and 2) if that page does state it as such, what context is given (I'll remind you that context can often change the meaning to a completely different one). If you do have access, please verify it now (doing so before could have saved us all this discussion). See WP:V, all content must be verifiable regardless of whether online access is available or not. You can not add a source that you don't even know states some thing (or what I see from this discussion atleast as of now). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to do anything for you. You have disrupted this page, removing information with an inline citation from this page for apparently no other reason than that you were not able to look at the source. That's ridiculous. Please review WP:V yourself. At least two editors in this discussion have the source, and clearly you do not. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just looked at p200 and it says exactly what you say it does. "The fact that Jinnah drank alcohol is discussed is mentioned almost every time he is discussed outside Pakistan" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, any editor claiming to have the source has not verified it here. There are atleast four users who reverted you. You've just editwarred the content back in because a consensus has not been formed at talk. See WP:BURDEN, actually you do need to give the required reasoning if you want it to be in the article or you will be reverted. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough of this nonsense, User:TopGun. You don't have the source. Those that do verify that the source supports the text here. If you attempt to remove this again, you will need to provide clear, policy-based reasoning in support of your proposal, and get agreement prior to removal. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware the inclusion needs a consensus in the first place, which it does not have. You have failed to give any context of why this text has a context in this article or why (according to the source) this should be included, and you ask others to look for the source and give reasoning for the converse. This is a blatant vio of WP:BURDEN. I'll also advise you to read WP:CIVIL before you reply further. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN may authorize you to remove content lacking an inline citation, but this content has an inline citation. What policy-based justification can you provide for removal of this sourced, verified content? Your assertion that "I have failed to give any context" is simply false. Had you bothered to get the source and look at it, you would know this. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse, you've yet not revealed whether or not you have access to the source you are using. That is an issue. I have openly said that I do not have access to the non preview version that includes page 200 and that's why asked for a context so that I know that there's no WP:SYNTHESIS going on here (which is Wikipedia policy actually). Hope my objections are clear now. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer above to details from the source that are not in the article; of course I have the source. And others have verified it. And since the cite is a single source, it's difficult to imagine why you would suspect "synthesis". Gimmetoo (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can quote where you referred to the detail above, because either I can't find any or we're not on the same page. I suspected synthesis when you gave the implication above, which you took as a personal attack (and that it was not). I want to know how the source describes this assertion. Well if you have the source, it will be pretty easy to quote us the text which includes the assertion (no we don't expect you to type in the whole page, but enough to show what your source means to point out and in what sense). That's what Nicholas asked. PS. what's with the indentation, you need to use od to out indent. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree importance is not mentioned and context is not given. I will revert this edit war. -- I am Agent   X  12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cite policy supporting and justifying your edit removing cited and verified content. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced and cited text is serious; it is frequently disruptive and often viewed as vandalism. The editor who removed cited and sourced text 1) did not discuss here first (had abandoned discussion days before), 2) failed to respond promptly with cogent arguments proposing removal of sourced text, and 3) apparently has not even looked at the source. I wouldn't call that good editorial practice. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, p. 201 is, unlike p. 200, part of Google Books' preview. It talks about the "ham sandwich" episode (which it dismisses as a "silly story" and which we do not mention at all) and speaks about the relative importance of pork vs. alcohol for muslims. It does not discuss Jinnah's alcohol consumption at all. How precisely is that the opposite of what TopGun removed? Huon (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
In light of this repeated removal, I am resetting discussion. The subsequent WP:RFPP by one of the editors removing this content has resulted in the page being protected for the next 65 or so hours. The status quo ante is the presence of cited and verified content in the article. Those removing will, within the next 24 hours, provide any policy-based arguments justifying and supporting the removal of this particular cited and verified content. In the following 40 hours, we will discuss and analyze the validity of the arguments for removal presented in the first 24 hours. Begin. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:The Wrong Version. Explanations have been given and your support of content is awaited. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above "discussion" is winding. This is a reset. Please provide any policy-based argument for removal of this information that you would like considered and discussed further. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See my last reply for a clear cut objection. I can move it in to this subsection if you like. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do so quickly, along with any supporting evidence you wish considered. As this is sourced and verified information, it has prima facie met WP:BURDEN and the onus is on those proposing deletion to justify the deletion from policy. That justification should also include reference to any policy supporting and authorizing repeated removal of sourced and verified information without prior discussion and agreement. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can quote where you referred to the detail above, because either I can't find any or we're not on the same page. I suspected synthesis when you gave the implication above, which you took as a personal attack (and that it was not). I want to know how the source describes this assertion. Well if you have the source, it will be pretty easy to quote us the text which includes the assertion (no we don't expect you to type in the whole page, but enough to show what your source means to point out and in what sense). That's what Nicholas asked. Your criteria of inclusion is one of my objections, so WP:BURDEN stands before including this. If something unjustified sneaks into the text, it doesn't mean WP:BURDEN is automatically on the other side when it is brought up. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN does not authorize you repeatedly removing sourced content without discussion and prior agreement. You have been asked not only for justification from policy for proposing and discussing removal of the content, but also justification from policy for the repeated removals. Are you saying that your repeated removal of sourced and verified content was based on mere "suspicion", without evidence? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't verified. That's the issue. Will you keep on going on this forever or will you quote something at all? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is verified. I have said so before. Why do you call it not verified? The only reason I can come up with is that you haven't verified it. But that's not a policy requirement. Also, what specifically makes you "suspect" synthesis? If you want the text, you can get it from a library or purchase it in paper or ebook form. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Verified by whom? I requested you to produce the evidence, you did not and asked me to buy the book instead.  This is the problem.  You are the one re-introducing the assertion, and therefore you are the one responsible to produce the evidence of its reliability.  If that is not clear to you, then we have a problem at hand that will require resolution around user conduct. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "evidence" of verification is the cited source, what WP:V requires: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." Ergo WP:BURDEN is prima facie met. If you have any other arguments, it is your job to engage in discussion with informed, policy-based arguments, rather than repeatedly remove cited and verified text without discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation refers to a book, and it appears neither you or I or anyone else in the conversation has access to the book. So how does anyone of us prove what the source says and in what context? If you are not careful, your repeated incivility and disruptive behaviour  is likely to attract admin intervention and a block in the near future. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I have the book; at least one other participant clearly does also. I find your accusations offensive. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the issue is the material in this diff, it is not relevant to the article. As I say somewhere above, lots of people drink and eat pork. So, even if he did, that's not really news or relevant to the life of a person. What would be relevant is if the idea that Jinnah ate pork and/or drank the occasional scotch was controversial in some way (whether or not he actually did do so). If reliable sources comment on it being controversial, such material is includable and should be properly contextualized. But, as written, I'd say the material is meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been asked and answered already. Context was provided. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that 24 hours have passed and all issues to be considered have been raised, discussion will commence. On the other hand, at least two editors reviewed the source and said the info here accurately reflects the source. The source is reliable and is inline cited to the page number; It is verified. There is nothing in WP:BURDEN authorizing any of these editors to remove the material. No cogent reason has been presented for removing the material. The arguments presented in this section come from 2 users who have explicitly said they haven't looked at the source, and 1 who doesn't seem to have either but hasn't been involved enough in the discussion to be asked; these editors have no informed arguments, at most "suspicions", all contradicted by editors who actually have the source. Therefore, the status quo ante should be restored promptly. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:TopGun "suspects" synthesis. WP:Synthesis involves the combination of two sources. Since the cited material comes from one source, it prima facie cannot be synthesis. User:TopGun needed to provide evidence supporting the assertion that synthesis is involved.
 * User:Nicholas briefly mentioned "reliability" without making any argument. The author of the book is a recognized subject expert in Islamic studies. (Our article on Akbar S. Ahmed says considerably more than that.) No serious argument has been made anywhere in this discussion that he is not a WP:reliable source.
 * User:RegentsPark brings up context. That's a discussable point, I agree, but context has been provided and nobody seems interested in that. In any event, I see no reason why this would require repeated removal of cited material prior to discussion and agreement.
 * User:Agent X last post (in the prior section) basically said "revert edit war". That is obviously not a policy-based reason for reverting, but User:Agent X is a recent registration and may be unfamiliar with WP policy.
 * It is not necessary for synthesis to be between two sources. You're combining it with your implied view. But does source talk about such, you've given not context. And I've given other objections, so have other users, but you seem to be counting them out as null. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The text in the article was simply a statement of what Ahmed says. It's Ahmed's view. What other view was combined with that? I don't know what "other objections" you are referring to. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Gimmetoo. I am exasperated by your attempts to undermine the contributions made by other users in this discussion.  When I asked you to quote the source you are attempting to use, (i) you asked me to go buy the book instead and later (ii) claimed that you were in possession of the book.  At the same time, you are yet to produce a short excerpt from the text here so we could all examine it for the context.  The real question is not whether the book exists, but essentially (i) what the author has stated in the book and (ii) in what context. Is this really too difficult to grasp?  TopGun is of the view that you are combining two assertions made by the author (Ahmed) to derive a conclusion (see WP:ORIGINALSYN). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source supports what the text here says. I said so. Both you and TopGun refused to take my word for it (or the word of any other editor who has the source). Instead, you attack and threaten me. You won't even accept my word that I have the book. Given that behaviour, I have no reason to think you would accept anything. You have also neglected to cite any policy that requires anyone to provide you the text of material. if you want to examine the source, then get off your lazy ass and get the source yourself like any good editor would do. You have asserted "originalsynthesis". I don't see it; describe specificailly and in detail what you think is synthesis. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that hard to quote the text. Much easier, I should think, then expending energy on miles of comments here. I can take a look at the book tomorrow and tell you what's on page 200 if you like but it would help if TopGun would indicate what the synthesis part of the deleted text is and if gimmetoo would explain the context for including this material. FWIW, here is the NYTimes review of the book (by their then India correspondent) which indicates that Jinnah did drink and that this was controversial in Pakistan (but no mention of pork). --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what's on the page. User:Huon explained the context at the start of this thread. I also explained the context. I have responded to all issues and I have patiently waited for informed responses; NHN has edited elsewhere and not responded here, and TopGun has not responded here in a day and a half.. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean according to sufficiently strict interpretations, drinking alcohol is un-Islamic, then that is insufficient context. It is not our job to define 'unislamic activities'. Neither is it for us to associate these 'unislamic' activities with any individual. It has to be relevant to that individual and the relevance should be made clear by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 21:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is plenty context for good faith discussion. I provided more detail later . What leads you to think it's not "relevant to that individual"? Do you think I just made this up? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of what I (or you or Huon) think is relevant to that individual. The question is whether reliable sources state that it is relevant. The deleted text makes a claim about his eating and drinking habits. But, there is nothing about relevance there.--regentspark (comment) 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing "relevance" and "context". The article states facts - Ahmed says most authors say this, etc. The "relevance" of that should be self-evident - most authors discuss this point about Jinnah, and a reliable source says so. The "context" is the way Islam views drinking. If that's not clear, then something could be added to the text, eg
 * According to Akbar S. Ahmed, nearly every book about Jinnah outside Pakistan mentions that he drank alcohol. Ahmed says that portraying the Quaid drinking alcohol would weaken Pakistan's Islamic identity. Several sources indicate he gave up alcohol near the end of his life.
 * Gimmetoo (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both relevance as well as context should be clear in the article and should be well supported by reliable sources and should not be synthesis or OR. My point is straightforward (and I don't see it as confusing). The deleted text simply states one writers opinion about what Jinnah ate or drank. No relevance. No context. As I say somewhere above, lots of muslims eat pork and drink alcohol. If no one cared, then it shouldn't be included. If someone did care then it should be included in a section that makes it clear who cared and why that caring is important. I'll read the text tomorrow and provide a summary here.--regentspark (comment) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful: "one writer's option". Um, no. Ahmed's survey based on many other writers who discussed it in relation to the subject. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO context should not mean here that as in Islam drinking wine or eating pork is prohibited, as there are many other acts, done by Jinnah that some school of thought among muslims consider forbidden, like shaving beard, marrying a non-mulsim (or not a follower of People of the Book) girl, or smoking. Now as his marriage to Rattanbai Petit is described here with sufficient context same should be in this case. -- S M S  Talk 09:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with regentspark and SMS that we could do more to provide context, and Gimmetoo's extended version seems a good step in that direction. We can also explicitly state that awareness of Jinnah's dietary habits was usually raised to attack his (and by extension Pakistan's) Islamic identity; while I can't read Ahmed's p. 200, p. 201 makes that point pretty thoroughly. We could even mention that (wrong!) accusations of Jinnah eating ham were used to that purpose along with the (true) alcohol issue. Finally I'd advocate moving it into the legacy section; for all I can tell, this kind of criticism was only raised after Jinnah's death; it wasn't an issue while he was still alive. Where I don't agree with regentspark is relevance. We don't just have Ahmed's opinion on Jinnah's dietary habits, we have Ahmed's review of the literature. We could just as easily add Wolpert, Christina Lamb or Emma Duncan to the list of authors discussing the issue, but Ahmed's review is exactly what we need (per WP:RS/AC) to show widespread discussion, better than a bunch of individual sources. What more could we possibly want to show relevance? Huon (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the mysterious page 200 and, yes, the author does say that Jinnah supporters have tried to 'black this out of his life' but he also says 'it is not a defining part of Jinnah's character'. He does say that this is mentioned by writers outside Pakistan (but this is qualified with a "usually as innuendo") and ignored by books published inside Pakistan. Nothing surprising here. The author, unlike our wikipedia editors, places these alcohol drinks well in the context of Pakistan's need for an identity. In particular, he focuses on the importance, for liberal Pakistanis who drink, of the creator of Pakistan having a few drinks and on the possibility raised by other writers that allegations of Jinnah drinking are part of a plot to show the creator of Pakistan as flawed. Far more meaningful than the "He Drank!!!" text that is at issue here. --regentspark (comment) 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Could you summarize that in a few sentences for the legacy section? That section indeed seems to be where it belongs, especially in the light of Jinnah's drinking as an example held up by liberal Pakistanis. (I'd love to do it myself, but as I said above, my local library does not carry the book, and I'm too lazy to bother with inter-library loan.) Huon (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, the context is what I said it was. Not OR/SYN as I was accused of. Let's not forget the part following "it is not a defining part of Jinnah's character" - "it has assumed a special place in the Jinnah mythology". Gimmetoo (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The author does say "yet it has assumed a special place in the Jinnah mythology". In which case, it should be easy to find other sources that discuss the nature of that special place. --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to incorporate more sources, go for it. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure if this will work. While Ahmed has listed several non-Pakistani authors who allege (through innuendo) that Jinnah drank and has listed several Pakistani authors who say nothing about drinking, the reasons that he gives for this are mostly uncited. The 'plot to show the creator of Pakistan' opinion is cited (S. S. Pirzada) but the liberal view is uncited (and, from reading the text - he describes them as "the so-called secular and liberals belonging to Pakistan's elite" - I get the impression that Ahmed is a bit of an Islamist himself). So, the context that he gives boils down to mostly his own opinion. Are there other sources about Jinnah drinking being controversial in Pakistan? I do get the impression that Ahmed believes that Jinnah drank as a young man but then gave it up when he got Pakistan, but that also tends to support the Islamic Pakistan bent on the part of the author. Our problem is straightforward: we have a good source that says that there are allegations that he drank at some time in his life but no good sources that say that this was controversial or is an issue in Pakistan. There must be something out there? --regentspark (comment) 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have references to Pirzada claiming the plot was from the government of Pakistan, Dina Wadia lamenting "Pakistanis who only seemed to be interested in whether Jinnah ate ham and drank whisky", and Wolpert's book Jinnah of Pakistan being banned in Pakistan supposedly because it "referred to his drinking and eating habits". I suppose none of these contain any suggestion this might be an issue in Pakistan. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a thought why would an irreligious person demand and lead a movement for an independent country based on a religion? Apart from this and context I think like RegentsPark said ...some time in his life ..., time period also need to be mentioned. Btw please read page 78-79 of Wolpert's book, this is a lot relevant to this. -- S M S'  Talk 12:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cited and verified information restored, with some context. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Perhaps we could move the rest of the criticism section into Legacy as well? --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)