Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 1
|
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX X XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX X XX XXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX X XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
Political Career
Call me a jaahil (ignoramus), but i don't know what someone is trying to say in the following:
Governor General of Pakistanmore amenable to British interests: he supported Indian participation in World War II while the Indian National Congress opposed the war.
Is it?
Factual Error: Jinnah wasn't the Governor General of Pakistan when he allegedly supported the World War II (ended in 1945). He became the Governor General of Pakistan in 1947. If it is result of bad editing, then someone (may be I?) can correct it.
Ideological Issues: I would also like the know if there are links (or bibliographical references) to support the notion that the Indian National Congress opposed the Indian participation in World War II for the sake of being anti-colonial, and Jinnah (or Muslim League) supported the British as pro-colonial. As far as I know the Congress took a political position -- that was shrude but legitimate -- which linked the support to the British with independece of India. The Congress was not a pacifist, anti-war political party. Nor was the Mulsim League a war-mongering political party. Both were political parties, and both wanted INDEPENDENCE from the colonial Britsih rule. Whoever inserted the above line wants to give an impression that Jinnah/Muslim League were pro-British. This is wrong, and I would be happy to discuss it here. I am all ears, given that the discourse remains within the boundaries of civility and confirm to academic rigour.
IJ. --203.130.9.24 11:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
If you are interested, I would recommend a book . Its called "Freedom at Midnight" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. Its a book commending the life of Ghandhi. Although it is extremely biased against Jinnah, It does portray the facts of the histroy in great detail. You will find the answer about the facts in there.
dear commentator,
i have read "Freedom at Midnight". it is indeed a very good book, in spite of all its biases. since you are referring to "facts" in that book, may i recommend you to read this two-part article published in Frontline India (August 2002): "Cripps and India's Partition" by AG Noorani. the URLs are http://www.flonnet.com/fl1915/19150860.htm (Part I) and http://www.flonnet.com/fl1916/19160820.htm (Part II). the said article presents some contrarian "facts".
IJ. --61.5.131.84 08:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Reply:
I am afraid while Lapierre and Collins wrote a readable book, historical authenticity was not their aim and objective. They were presenting history as Lord Mountbatten saw it. Nothing more... While the book is against Jinnah, it shows Mountbatten's grudging admiration for the man.
Pizza Puzzle's Comments
Why has Dan Keshet decided to delink parts of this article; what grounds does he have to determine that the links are "silly". I believe one can easily turn off all links, if they are bothersome. Pizza Puzzle
Family
Photos
Wonderful photos added. They need frames and captions.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- There seem to be more photos here than text. :D
- The odd thing is that the most common image of Jinnah in Pakistan, the one with a Karakuli cap and in sherwani, is not here.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:18, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
POV in "Political Career"
I have rewritten Mohammad_Ali_Jinnah#Political_Career to reduce the level of POV. It still needs a longer quote from that speech to provide more perspective--and show what it is that the theocrats quote.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
hhhmmm ....
a very poorly written article indeed.... seems to be written by a bunch of fifth graders.... i think i need to rewrite quite a large part of it, but can anyone (ifaqeer..?) look for some better quality pictures ..?
Very biased against Jinnah
Is it me or this this article very biased against Jinnah, constantly citing sources and writing in a manner that shows him in bad light as the source of ultimate evil or something. Hitler's article shows him in better light than this one about Jinnah. Totally biased.
Biased, but somewhat true
Well you gotta admit, the guy was responsible for more deaths of Muslim brethren than Hitler's extermination camps were, and more than the US lost in WW I and II combined. And Hindus, Sikhs, and other people were also killed, while many millions more were displaced. Not to mention the effects today (two nuclear armed nations indulging in what seems like constant warfare).
reply
The community that was massacred the most were the Muslims who were migrating to Pakistan. They were attacked by Hindu/Sikh raiders and killed, this led to retaliatory killings by Muslims, though not on the same scale. Jinnah tried very hard to stop this. He is not to be blamed, it is the Hindu/Sikh killers who initiated the attacks who are guilty.
reply
so you are asking that we should have not asked for our independence and would have stayed with india, so that they would have got some more people to kill in Indian state of Gujrat, in Kashmir, in Asaam and many other states....
reply
I think it is unfortunate what the person above is trying to do. May I refer him to a fine book by H M Seervai, a leading Indian jurist, called "Partition of India: Legend or reality" in which he pooh poohs the idea that Jinnah insisted on partition. I am afraid, we "gotta admit" nothing... because history of partition as it has emerged from the transfer of power papers points fingers elsewhere, specifically the first Prime Minister of India, for forcing partition on Jinnah.
Obnoxious comparison with the Holocaust
Mate, if you want to show your bias against Jinnah, the Muslim League, and Pakistan, then do it with intelligence, common sense, and grace. Please don’t get carried away in emotions.
If you need to know how many people were killed during Hitler’s rein, then please check Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust. The numbers are too large for the humanity to be ashamed of itself. However, to me, killing of even a single living being is a terrible thing. I condemn killing of people in any and all circumstances (I am a non-violent, pacifist, anti-war, and an anti-death penalty campaigner), and feel sad for the death of many Indians -- and Pakistanis -- during and after the Independence of India and the Partition of the Subcontinent (1947). But there is no comparison between the two events. What Hitler did was clearly genocide -- systematic killing of a particular (ethnic/religious/ideological) group. During the Independence of India, a large number of human beings were killed in violent clashes. It was kinda a civil war -- equally condemnable and terrible. But, please, there is NO comparison with the Holocaust.
Also if you try to look at it objectively, Jinnah alone wasn’t responsible for the mayhem. The British were, probably, in a hurry to leave India. The Congress wasn’t happy with the Partition. The Muslim League wasn't satisfied with a "moth-eaten" country [reference to Jinnah's reaction to 3 June 1947 anouncement]. The Punjabis (of all three religions) were upset too. Humans, often, act in ways that are cruel and brutal. Everyone knows what happened in 1947. But try to look a bit deeper why it happened. And you will find leaders from all side in the trial box.
Work in progress
Im working on this article ...gathering data/information. Wisesabre
Wisesabre, more power to you, but...
you could become wiser if you learn a thing or two about editing. i have fixed some of your typographical mistakes, especially punctuation marks. You may benefit from any basic book on English grammar and composition.
I have reservations about the way you are presenting Jinnah – and I suspect that your primary source is some Pakistani secondary school textbook that eulogizes Jinnah a bit too much. The previous version was not well-written too (style wise), but presented Jinnah in a some-what balanced way.
There are several POVs in your article. I would like to highlight just a few, and would leave it up to you – or someone else – to re-write. i) Jinnah was once a member of what you call "Hindus' Indian National Congress". I wonder if you mean that Jinnah was a Hindu when he became a member of the Congress. ii) You mention Jinnah’s place and date of birth as if it is agreed upon that he was born on 25 December 1876 in Wazir Mansion, Karachi. Pick any good biography of Jinnah -– I would recommend Wolpert’s –- and you will find that scholars and historians have doubts on the accuracy of the [Pakistani] official version regarding Jinnah’s place and date of birth. iii) I found your comments on Jinnah’s faith quite obnoxious. While you declare him a firm Sunni Muslim, Jinnah always declined to be labeled either as Sunni or Shia. Instead he always said that he was a Muslim – without mentioning his sectarian affiliation, if there was any. Since I would not like to enter into debate that he was not even a practicing Muslim, may I request you to remove the unsubstantiative statements about Jinnah’s sectarian beliefs. -- IJ
Errors and omissions
Thanks alot IJ
- this is hardly my second article on wikipedia.i learning how to edit/write here.im trying to improve my skills.
- my source of information is only my college library which holds only 8,9 books about Jinnah.
- It is possible that i may be wrong, so please feel free to correct it
A Communal Jinnah
Cam someone remove this article and replace it with the less biassed "A Secular Jinnah?" article that used to be there before. I understand people have sentiments when it comes to Jinnah as he was a major player in the Partition saga but this is a neutral factual encyclopedia not an opinionated essay website.
- I have preserved version http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Ali_Jinnah&oldid=18174021 of Jinnah, because I am on WikiVacation and can't engage fully right now.
Secularism
I would like to ask my friend " Does a Islamic state means to force all the non muslims to switch their beleives to that of islam? Does the islam ask to disobey your leader if he is non muslim ", definitly the answer is " No ", then how these words of Mr. Jinnah reflects that he was of the views of secularism. Revealed from the islamic history, non muslims in medina were fully allowed to practice their faith. Muslims who migrated to ethopia lived their lives according to contemporary government (a non muslium one). So this is not secularism, This is true islamism Mr. XYZ (The writer of the article)
Reply:
Secularism means that the state would be impartial to the faith of an individual. This was very much Jinnah's vision.
Counter-reply: Then secularism and Islamism are very similar in their treatment of non-Muslims. An Islamic state simply seeks to respect Islam, while a secular state respect or regards no religion. Muslims prefer the Islamic state for that reason. Jinnah fought for Muslim causes, not for secular causes.
Jinnah's secularism
A.G. NOORANI
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the statesman, awaits a fair assessment, warts and all, which must include his own mistakes and grave lapses.
At the historic conference in New Delhi on June 7, 1947, at which Lord Mountbatten disclosed Britain's "partition" plan for India. (From left) Jawaharlal Nehru, Lord Ismay, Adviser to the Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, president of the All-India Muslim League.
THERE is an aspect to L.K. Advani's comments on Jinnah at Karachi which has been overlooked. A month or so earlier, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the rabid Jamaat-e-Islami leader of Pakistan, had denounced Jinnah's famous presidential speech to Pakistan's Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. Advani's praise and quotation from the speech has boosted the morale of Pakistan's secularists who always cited it.
The speech has been quoted in bits and pieces; never analysed as a whole. Nor for that matter the entire and considerable corpus of Jinnah's record from 1906 to 1948. There is no single complete series of his Collected Works. One such effort ended in 1931. Historians in India, Pakistan and abroad propound fanciful theories from their own standpoints; never mind the record. The speech was neither an act of contrition or repentance nor a reflection of two Jinnahs. He had unwisely used the poisonous two-nation theory to promote under the slogan of Pakistan, his real objective - a power-sharing accord. Gandhi, Nehru and Patel sabotaged the Cabinet Mission's Plan of May 16, 1946, for United India which was done in complicity with Stafford Cripps (vide "Cripps and India's Partition", Frontline, August 2, 2002).
Jinnah's speech was a crie de coeur. He had not changed his outlook. In 1919 he gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee of the British Parliament on the Government of India Bill. His answers to questions by one of its members, Major Ormsby-Gore, bear recalling today.
Q: You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian nationalist? - I do.
Q: Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community? - I think so.
Q: That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus? - Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q: I am only referring to them, of course? - And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
JINNAH was then a member of the Congress, a president of the Muslim League, and architect, along with Tilak, of the Pact between the two bodies at their sessions in Lucknow in 1916.
It was the same Jinnah who famously declared on August 11, 1947: "Now, if we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make."
He did not stop there. What is little recalled is that he proceeded to put intra-Muslim differences on a par with Hindu-Muslim differences: "I cannot emphasise it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities - the Hindu community and the Muslim community because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalees, Madrasis, and so on - will vanish. Indeed, if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if had happened nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time but for this."
Jinnah's reference to "a nation of 400 million" rather than the "Muslim nation of 100 million" implied rejection of the two-nation theory. He concluded: "Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state."
These extracts read together reveal that the man's outlook on nationalism and secularism had not changed since 1919. It was an extempore speech. Few care to study it carefully. He said that their first duty was "to maintain law and order"; that is, protect minorities. The next duty? Combat "bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand". Thirdly, "black-marketing is another curse". Fourthly, "the evil of nepotism and jobbery. This evil must be crushed relentlessly."
It was after these four points that he went on to dilate, first, on the partition and, next, on secularism: "I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal." He was reaching out to them. He then went on to say the things quoted above. It was straight from his heart: "I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement, at this moment."
He made another pronouncement in 1925, which provides a clue. When discussing the Indian Finance Bill (1925), he stated on the Legislative Assembly floor: "I Sir, stand here with a clear conscience and I say that I am a nationalist first, a nationalist second and nationalist last... I once more appeal to this House. Whether you are a Mussalman or a Hindu, for God's sake do not import the discussion of communal matters into this House, and degrade this Assembly, which we desire should become a real National Parliament. Set an example to the outside world and our people."
Few people have cared to study Jinnah's pronouncements on secularism as a whole. One of the few is Dr. Awajeet Jawed. Her father Dr. Balwant Singh was a Congressman and freedom-fighter. Jawed's book Secular and Nationalist Jinnah is based on solid research (Kitab Publishing House, Jhandewalan, New Delhi; pages 318, Rs. 400).
How many know that Jinnah was once president of the Postal Union, which had 70,000 members, or that the Governor of Bombay, George Lloyd, included his name in a list of eight for deportation to Myanmar?
His vision of Pakistan was of a democratic secular state based on the rule of law. Cordial relations with India were crucial for its fulfilment. He told the communist lawyer, A.S.R. Chari, who then represented Daily Worker (London, October 5, 1944): "We will say `hands off India' to all outsiders." Eric Streiff of New Zurcher Zeitung was told (March 11, 1948) that the paramount interests of India and Pakistan demanded that they "should coordinate for the purpose of playing their part in international affairs... and jointly... defend their frontiers... but this depends entirely on whether Pakistan and India can resolve their own differences."
He had a curious notion of an India which comprised two member states - Pakistan and "Hindustan". He angrily wrote to Mountbatten on August 26: "It is a pity that for some mysterious reason Hindustan have adopted the word `India' which is certainly misleading and is intended to create confusion."
If Jinnah, the partitionist, had a latent sense of an India above the two states, Jawaharlal Nehru, the ardent Unionist, not only contributed to the collapse of the 1946 plan but adopted a policy that would congeal the partition: Congress leaders demonised him systematically. So did Indian academics and the press. Jinnah yet awaits a fair assessment, warts and all. That must include his own mistakes and grave lapses as well. The Congress spurned him in 1937-39. But he went overboard and did much harm by his miscalculations. Indians and Pakistanis must reflect on all aspects of his life, not selectively as they do.
By any test Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a truly great man. In personal integrity this tragic figure had no peers. His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate. Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.
New Edits
Hello all, please don't panic about an Anon adding new stuff to this article. I've done my best to add as much info as possible with the least possible bias.
Enjoy!
Reply
"Least possible bias"... you literally took the most biased Indian view and splattered it all over.
There are many good works from India that give a much more balanced picture which need to be taken into account.
Counter-Reply
I assure you that the most biased Indian view of Jinnah is that of a "Muslim Antichrist," or at least a "Muslim Hitler." I have made strenous efforts to dignify my edits.
Contested legacy is fine, but that section is solely for criticism, which is clarified as unproven and controversial, but still criticism of Jinnah that exists.
And oh, btw, why is it that Pakistanis can never take any criticism?
reply: Pakistanis can take criticism, we dont tolerate emotionally driven nonsense from Indians. The article on Jinnah is very biased and insulting and needs to be changed to accord him the proper respect this man deserves. He defeated the Congress, the British and opponents from within his community, and here in this article he is portrayed as a selfish meglomaniac. This is insulting and wrong and a waste of space on Wikipedia.
REPLY
So that is why you've taken references to some of the leading books on Mr Jinnah by H M Seervai etc (All Indians) out? If the biased Indian view is of a Muslim Hitler, then that is ignorance of history... I don't know why that is relevant. Also try using a thesaurus or something because you seem to use "intensely" a lot. May I ask what books you've read on the man? Have you read Dr Ajeet Javed's "Secular and Nationalist Jinnah", H M Seervai's "Partition of India Legend or reality", Asiananda's "Jinnah a corrective reading of Indian History" etc? These are all books by Indian writers. These are the sources for my edits. Now... you on the other hand have quoted no sources whatsoever... If there is "criticism" there has to be an answer to it ...you have a problem with me editing the section (with criticism unchanged) to set the record straight?
I tried to add criticism the other day to Gandhiji's profile, which unlike the criticism you provided, was substantiated by Gandhiji's own writings. Instead of editing my edits to include the other side of the story (as I have done here), the admirer of the Mahatma deleted everything as is. I didn't do this because I thought perhaps you'd be mature about it. But should I generalise about all Indians based on that incident? Or should I generalise about all Indians on the basis of the fact that you deliberately took out my references to Ayesha Jalal, Alan Mcgrath and HM Seervai while keeping the Collins etc ?
Do us a favour. Dispense with the double speak dear fellow.
Counter-Reply, as usual...
Dear misery...Presentation of biased materials by authors Indian or otherwise helps no Wikipedia article.
I deliberately took out your crap becoz it was biased and in the wrong place. If you wanted to clarify points on criticism for Jinnah, that's what the next section is for. a rebuttal, sort of .
I can't really blame your Pakistani blood for the shit u've put in. After all, you can't even spell or format any of your words properly.
However, don't expect me to get involved any further in this edit war. Its bloody pathetic as it is quarrelling with an Anon IP over some bloody net account of Jinnah.
Jai Sri Rama!
Reply
Kindly refrain from personal attacks. Calling authentic sources (Indian ones at that) "shit" and "crap" isn't going to cut it I am afraid. As for "rebuttal sort of", encyclopedia articles are rarely in debate form. The criticism that you have put up (which is intact in entirety) is wideranging. Therefore, the "other side of the story" should follow every single point of criticism.
"Mahomed"?!!
I have never seen Mr Jinnah's first name spelled that way. Though, okay, let's check on the historical documentation on how he spelled it himself...wait...Okay, here's how he spelled it before he dropped the "-bhai":
http://www.urdupoint.com/jinnah/view.shtml?158.jpg
I will keep looking.
—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Reply
Here is a post card from 1942 sent by Mr Jinnah which shows that he always spelt his name Mahomed.
http://www.ya-hussain.com/int_col1/others/1942imgs/majin.htm
Jinnah always spelt his name "Mahomedali" - I am reverting the spellings
- You cant change his name only because of a postcard, bring in more proof.
The Pakistani Gov spells his name Mohammad, should we trust them or a postcard? The Pakistani embassy in Washington spell his name Muhammad (http://www.embassyofpakistan.org/facts&figure.php), it is always spelt Muhammad or Mohammad.
reverting --Khalid! 15:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
That POSTCARD was printed by Jinnah himself... also Jinnah's records at Lincoln's INN prove that he spelt it MAHOMED. The government of Pakistan does a lot of other things too... does it become Jinnah's own legacy? Let us be historically accurate than what a corrupt government says it is...
- The views on Gov of Pakistan are your own opinions. He is officialy known as Mohammad/Muhammad. A postcard is not enough of an evidence to change his name. And could you provide the proves from Lincoln Inn, you were mentioning. And plz dont revert untill we come to
a desicion. --Khalid! 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Reply
His lincoln's Inn records can be found in a compilation called
Jinnah : The Founder of Pakistan in the Eyes of His Contemporaries and His Documentary Records at Lincoln's Inn/edited by Saleem Qureshi. Reprint. Karachi, Oxford University Press, 2003, xii, 122 p., ills., ISBN 0-19-577851-0
The records clearly state "Mahomedali Jinnah" even after he dropped the "Bhai". The link provided by Ifaqeer also proves it. This is how Jinnah spelt his name through out his life. Besides that SOUVENIR you reject was PRINTED by Jinnah himself... so your argument that it is "not enough"... is not plausible.
Reply 2
Khalid... I have provided you a primary source document. You have provided nothing but what Pakistan government says... Let me remind you that under Zia-ul-Haq, the military dictator, Pakistan's government decreed that Mohammed/Mahomed/Muhammad could only be spelt "Muhammad"...
Why don't you learn to be honest instead of making Pakistan the laughing stock of the world?
- Is the current version okay? --Khalid! 10:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Brilliant compromise sir!
- )
Wonderful
Why do we insist on our own little hang ups? ... Jinnah spelt his name "Mahomed" ... then why should one spell his name otherwise?
Cabinet Mission Plan
Muslim League had to balance the popular demand for Pakistan and the demands of statesmanship. It is unfair to say that Muslim League leadership saw this as a stepping stone. Ayesha Jalal's book as well as Seervai's book seek to challenge this view... and show conclusively that Muslim League was committed to Indian unity.
The problem here was that the Congress was not ready to take the challenge of appeasing the Muslims ... and making them realise that their betterment lay in staying united with India.
To raise this point is unnecessary ... and could be raised elsewhere in the article.
RJ Hayes
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx\ sadjsdaflksdjflka ɖfdjafallaqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqi Hate this page lol ha ha hah aha haxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx