Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 189: Line 189:
{{od}}
{{od}}


: @[[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. [[User:Code16|<span style="color:white; background:black">c<span style="background:white;border-radius:7px;color:black">Ө</span>de1+6</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Code16|<i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i>]]</sup> 16:38, 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. [[User:Code16|<span style="color:white; background:black">c<span style="background:white;border-radius:7px;color:black">Ө</span>de1+6</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Code16|<i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i>]]</sup> 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. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


== Undue weight for A.R. Dard? ==
== Undue weight for A.R. Dard? ==

Revision as of 16:44, 21 September 2015

Featured articleMuhammad Ali Jinnah is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 7, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 27, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 25, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
October 24, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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

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

recent reverts

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

@Human3015: I do not think Quaid-i-Azam i.e. the Great Leader should be criticised, he is the founder of Pakistan and deserves our utmost respect ! Adjutor101 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adjutor101: You should talk about content, you should talk about reliability or relevance or any mistake in content and not about greatness. Every great person is criticized. Prophet Mohammad is known as greatest person in history but still there is a special page for Criticism of Muhammad, so that is not issue here. You talk about content. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Human. Khestwol (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adjutor101:, any criticism does not degrade anyone, it is the part of the life of everyone/every great subject, we have to follow the policies, not the personal feelings that do not endorse the project guidelines and policies state. Your removal is as; I don't like it'. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Return to Politics" needs an overhaul

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

@Code16 This is a featured article, therefore material inserted into this article must be of the highest quality. Inserting material from a single source will just not cut it. I, myself, wanted to insert some mention of Iqbal's role but there are just not enough RS on the said role. Perhaps you can be kind enough to first present your text here on the talk page, get a consensus and then insert it into the article, it will save a lot of time on reverts and other changes. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a lot of sources on this subject, I think have at least two books on my shelf, both of the highest scholarly quality. I'll present the edit here before changing the main page. I'll try and put it together this weekend. Code16 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one of the best books on this subject, which is on my shelf, is already in the bibliography of this page: Akbar S. Ahmed's "Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin" I'll eventually get around to adding some important content from this book that was missed in this article. He comprehensively elaborates on the importance of Iqbal on Jinnah's "conversion". I might actually need to create a couple of new categories. I'll post details here before I edit the main page. cӨde1+6 L o g i c B o m b ! 00:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Patronage of TouleIslam"

@FreeatlastChitchat I don't think your removal of this section is justified so I have reverted your deletion. DAWN News is the oldest and most respected source of news in Pakistan and a citation from it should be fine for a featured article. Please do not arbitrarily remove sourced material. Code16 (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned that this user FreeatlastChitchat is involved in multiple investigations and has been warned on edit wars. Please refrain from vandalizing this article, or I will be opening a new case on the administration board WP:ANI Code16 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is in accordance with the reliable sources for that content.Justice007 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Justice007 my two cents on the issue are that an opinion piece, written almost 70 years after the event occurred cannot be used as a source of that historical event in a featured article. I'll just quote something from the reliable sources essay and then I'll wash my hands off of this.

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

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

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

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

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

University-level textbooks

Books published by respected publishing houses

Magazines

Journals

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

@FreeatlastChitchat If I'm in a "flurry" to add SOURCED factual information regarding a scholar where it is relevant, that means I'm adding to wiki in good-faith. You're the one who seems to be arbitrarily censoring sourced information, which is the actual problem here. So yes, please "wash your hands" as you said, and use the good kind of soap. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Justice007 The information comes from an 'opinion piece'. Hence my concerns, but as I said before, I've given my opinion, I'll let other editors decide the case, perhaps you can ping some contributors who work regularly on this article. If I ping anyone it may look like canvass lol. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. Please check it for flowery language, peacock terms, and 3rd party reliable sources. There is only a self-source providing explanation/context for a quote in newspapers. Should that newspaper quote be backed up with context from a reliable 3rd party source? 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.[1] 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".[2][3][4]

cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Any one who is not himself involved in promoting Ahmadism (and therefore clearly biased) agree with FreeatlastChitchat? cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Pakistan Exists
  2. ^ Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, 8 April 1933.
  3. ^ Madras Mail, 7 April 1933.
  4. ^ Sunday Times (London) 4 September 1933
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah&oldid=682112875"