Talk:Pakistan Movement

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.nazariapak.info/data/quaid/statements/two-nation.asp
 * In Pakistan Movement on Mon Jul 17 15:34:22 2006, 404 Object Not Found
 * In Pakistan Movement on Thu Jul 27 00:50:29 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')

maru  (talk)  contribs 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tehrik-e-Pakistan
I suggest using the "Tehrik-e-Pakistan" or "Tehrik e Pakistan" name as a redirect to the Pakistan Movement page.Suprah™ 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also redirected Tehrik-e-Pakistan to the articel as well.-- Isles CapeTalk 16:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Malhi
May I request anon editors to provide proper references for the claims of Malhi's national leadership, otherwise his name is very well situated in the article.-- Isles CapeTalk 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Muhammad Ali Jinnah.jpg
Image:Muhammad Ali Jinnah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Layout
Shouldn't the conclusion section be in the lead section as this is an encyclopedia article and not an essay?

Statistic does not back claim - Is statistic correct? What is the source?
The paragraph that begins "In 1909" under Muslim Minorities section states that "In the United Provinces, Muslims made up only 1/4th of the population but held 18% of the civil service jobs." The paragragh insinuates that the Muslim minority, an elite group, was over-represented, but if 25% of population was Muslim, then wouldn't 18% in civil service jobs be an under-representation (18 < 25)? Sherylchilders6 (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's like this article is trying to rebuild the case for Pakistan. As a newcomer to this entire historical debate I feel it would be incorrect for me to rework this.  However, if anyone could please clean this up, it would be incredibly beneficial.  As it stands I feel like someone is using this article for political purposes.  If the case for Pakistan is difficult to reconcile with the numbers presented here, that should be represented in the article.  This is still a very touchy subject, which is exactly why I'm interested, but that just requires greater scrutiny for accuracy and objectivity.  marnues (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable sentence
"The Muslim elite of UP saw their influence being challenged by the Hindu elite who benefited from their much more speedy integration into the English medium education system." This statement is unclear, has grammar issues, and is of questionable bias. Could we see some statistics and expounding on this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherylchilders6 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up due
I will be performing a clean up of this article after 48 hours of posting this notice. Until that time, anyone can add required references and remove unverifiable cruft. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kindly move the content removed to the talk page as I might be interested in finding the sources over time and adding back. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed content
For record, this content was removed as it was unsourced (to be added back if sources are found):. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pakistan Movement. 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/20130510050513/http://www.radio.gov.pk/newsdetail-43745 to http://www.radio.gov.pk/newsdetail-43745
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504131756/http://jang.com.pk/jang/may2013-daily/03-05-2013/index.html to http://jang.com.pk/jang/may2013-daily/03-05-2013/index.html
 * Added tag to http://www.pakistanmovement.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Independence of Pakisatn" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Independence of Pakisatn. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Expansion
Come on! We have a lot of Pakistani wikipedians, we can make this article much bigger and more detailed, at least a ga level! Titan2456 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversial
, in the, "Conclusion" section, at the end of the second paragraph, there is a link to Sind with the words, "Gateway of Islam". Given the atrocities committed under the Arab rule, is that link redirecting to Sind controversial? Can that link or redirection of the page, "Gateway of Islam" be challenged?-Haani40 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Put it in quote marks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic
While doing a somewhat overhaul of the lead, trimmed it to 4 paras and removed unnecessary sentences not found in body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Including irrelevant WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:OR sentences. Moved the social campaigns by the Muslim minority heading downwards per alphabetical order to which more relevant content is to be added later (will do so in future). Codenamewolf (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)