text:
Pakistan Movement

The Pakistan Movement was a political movement in the first half of the 20th century that aimed for the creation of Pakistan from the Muslim-majority areas of British India. It was connected to the perceived need for self-determination for Muslims under British rule at the time. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a barrister and politician led this movement after the Lahore Resolution was passed by All-India Muslim League on 23 March 1940.

The Aligarh Movement, under the leadership of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, was instrumental in establishing a base for the Pakistan Movement, and later providing the newly formed country with its ruling elite. Soon thereafter, the All-India Muslim League was formed, which perhaps marked the beginning of the Pakistan Movement.

Many of the top leadership of the movement were educated in Great Britain, with many of them educated at the Aligarh Muslim University. Many graduates of the University of Dhaka soon also joined.

The Pakistan Movement was a part of the Indian independence movement, but eventually it also sought to establish a new nation-state that protected the political interests of Muslims of British India. Urdu poets such as Iqbal and Faiz used literature, poetry and speech as a powerful tool for political awareness. Iqbal is called the spiritual father of this movement. The role of Ulama in strengthening this movement divided into two groups. One (Madani Group) was convinced by Composite nationalism. But the other (Thanwi Group) played a significant role in this Movement. Acknowledging the services of these ulema, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was honoured to raise the flag of Pakistan in Karachi and Zafar Ahmad Usmani, in Dhaka. A group of Ulama, led by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, formed the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam and gave their support to the movement for an independent Pakistan.

Despite political obstacles and social difficulties, the movement was successful in culminating Pakistan on 14 August 1947, which also resulted in partition of India and the creation of two separate states. Land boundaries and population demographics of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) and India are among the primary achievements of the Pakistan Movement.

Background
During the early 19th century, Lord Macaulay's radical and influential educational reforms led to numerous changes to the introduction and teaching of Western languages (e.g. English and Latin), history, and philosophy. Religious studies and the Arabic, Turkish, and Persian languages were completely barred from the state universities. In a short span of time, the English language had become not only the medium of instruction but also the official language in 1835 in place of Persian, disadvantaging those who had built their careers around the latter language. Traditional Hindu and Islamic studies were no longer supported by the British Crown, and nearly all of the madrasahs lost their waqf (lit. financial endowment).

Renaissance vision

Very few Muslim families had their children sent to English universities. On the other hand, the effects of the Bengali Renaissance made the Hindu population more educated and enabled them to gain lucrative positions at the Indian Civil Service; many ascended to the influential posts in the British government. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal delivered his famous speech in the Allahabad annual session which is commonly regarded as sowing the seeds for the creation of a separate state, later known as Pakistan.

Class conflict was coloured in a religious shade, as the Muslims were generally agriculturists and soldiers, while Hindus were increasingly seen as successful financiers and businessmen. Therefore, according to the historian Spear, "an industrialised India meant a Hindu India" to the Muslims. Syed Ahmed Khan converted the existing cultural and religious entity among Indian Muslims into a separatist political force, throwing a Western cloak of nationalism over the Islamic concept of culture. The distinct sense of value, culture and tradition among Indian Muslims originated from the nature of Islamization of the Indian populace during the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent.

Rise of organised movement
The success of the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference as a part of the Aligarh Movement, the All-India Muslim League, was established with the support provided by Syed Ahmad Khan in 1906. It was founded in Dhaka in a response to the reintegration of Bengal after a mass Hindu protest took place in the subcontinent. Earlier in 1905, viceroy Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal, which was favoured by the Muslims, since it gave them a Muslim majority in the eastern half.

In 1909 Lord Minto promulgated the Council Act and met with a Muslim delegation led by Aga Khan III,   a deal to which Minto agreed. The delegation consisted of 35 members, who each represented their respective region proportionately, mentioned hereunder.

 * 1) Sir Aga Khan III (Head of the delegation); (Bombay).
 * 2) Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk (Aligarh).
 * 3) Nawab Waqar-ul-Mulk (Muradabad).
 * 4) Maulvi Hafiz Hakim Ajmal Khan (Delhi).
 * 5) Maulvi Syed Karamat Husain (Allahabad).
 * 6) Maulvi Sharifuddin (Patna).
 * 7) Nawab Syed Sardar Ali Khan (Bombay).
 * 8) Syed Abdul Rauf (Allahabad).
 * 9) Maulvi Habiburrehman Khan (Aligarh).
 * 10) Sahibzada Aftab Ahmed Khan (Aligarh).
 * 11) Abdul Salam Khan (Rampur).
 * 12) Raees Muhammed Ahtasham Ali (Lucknow)
 * 13) Khan Bahadur Muhammad Muzammilullah Khan. (Aligarh).
 * 14) Haji Muhammed Ismail Khan (Aligarh).
 * 15) Shehzada Bakhtiar Shah (Calcutta).
 * 16) Malik Umar Hayat Khan Tiwana (Shahpur).
 * 17) Khan Bahadur Muhammed Shah Deen (Lahore).
 * 18) Khan Bahadur Syed Nawab Ali Chaudhary (Mymansingh).
 * 19) Nawab Bahadur Mirza Shuja'at Ali Baig (Murshidabad).
 * 20) Nawab Nasir Hussain Khan Bahadur (Patna).
 * 21) Khan Bahadur Syed Ameer Hassan Khan (Calcutta).
 * 22) Syed Muhammed Imam (Patna).
 * 23) Nawab Sarfaraz Hussain Khan Bahadur (Patna).
 * 24) Maulvi Rafeeuddin Ahmed (Bombay).
 * 25) Khan Bahadur Ahmed Muhaeeuddin (Madras).
 * 26) Ibraheem Bhai Adamjee Pirbhai (Bombay).
 * 27) Maulvi Abdul Raheem (Calcutta).
 * 28) Syed Allahdad Shah (Khairpur).
 * 29) Maulana H. M. Malik (Nagpur).
 * 30) Khan Bahadur Col. Abdul Majeed Khan (Patiala).
 * 31) Khan Bahadur Khawaja Yousuf Shah (Amritsar).
 * 32) Khan Bahadur Mian Muhammad Shafi. (Lahore).
 * 33) Khan Bahadur Shaikh Ghulam Sadiq. (Amritsar).
 * 34) Syed Nabiullah. (Allahabad).
 * 35) Khalifa Syed Muhammed Khan Bahadur. (Patna).

Until 1937 the Muslim League had remained an organisation of elite Indian Muslims. The Muslim League leadership then began mass mobilisation and the League then became a popular party with the Muslim masses in the 1940s, especially after the Lahore Resolution. Under Jinnah's leadership its membership grew to over two million and became more religious and even separatist in its outlook. The Muslim League's earliest base was the United Provinces. From 1937 onwards, the Muslim League and Jinnah attracted large crowds throughout India in its processions and strikes.

Lahore Resolution
The Lahore Resolution marked the beginning of the Pakistan movement. At the 27th annual Muslim League session in 1940 at Lahore's Iqbal Park where about 100,000 people gathered to hear Jinnah speak:

"Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, and literature... It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state."

At Lahore the Muslim League formally committed itself to create an independent Muslim state, including Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, the North West Frontier Province and Bengal, that would be "wholly autonomous and sovereign". The resolution guaranteed protection for non-Muslims. The Lahore Resolution, moved by the sitting Chief Minister of Bengal A. K. Fazlul Huq, was adopted on 23 March 1940, and its principles formed the foundation for Pakistan's first constitution.

In opposition to the Lahore Resolution, the All India Azad Muslim Conference gathered in Delhi in April 1940 to voice its support for a united India. Its members included several Islamic organisations in India, as well as 1400 nationalist Muslim delegates.

C. R. formula and Cabinet Mission
Talks were held between Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi in 1944. Jinnah negotiated as the representative of the Muslims. Gandhi rejected and insisted that the Indian National Congress alone represented all of India, including Muslims. Gandhi proposed the C.R Formula, which sought to first achieve independence from the British and then settle the issue of Pakistan through a plebiscite in Muslim majority districts in which the non-Muslims would also vote. Jinnah rejected both postponing decision on partition of British India and the formula in favor of the immediate creation of Pakistan.

In 1945 and 1946 general and provincial elections were held in India respectively. The Muslim League of Jinnah secured most of the Muslim vote in both elections. Jinnah interpreted the results as the entire Muslim nation's demand for partition and a separate state of Pakistan. Congress was forced to recognise the Muslim League as the sole representative of the Muslims.

The same year the British sent a delegation to India to determine its constitutional status and to address the Hindu-Muslim differences. The delegation proposed a plan that three groups in India be formed. One would consist of the Muslim majority Northwest zone, another would consist of the Hindu majority center and the third the Eastern zone of India. The proposal further contemplated the independence of Muslim majority provinces after ten years of Indian Independence. An interim government was to be set up until independence.

The Congress Party rejected the separation of the provinces but agreed to the formation of an interim government. The plan stated that whichever party will agree to the whole of the plan will be allowed to form the interim government which would be established after the General elections in 1946.

Jinnah decided to agree to the plan. The British still invited the Congress to form a government with the Muslim League and the Viceroy of India assigned the Office of Prime minister to Nehru of the Indian National Congress.

World War II
On 3 September 1939, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared the commencement of war with Germany. Shortly thereafter, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow followed suit and announced that India too was at war with Germany.

In 1939, the Congress leaders resigned from all British India government positions to which they had elected. The Muslim League celebrated the end of the Congress-led British Indian government, with Jinnah famously declaring it "a day of deliverance and thanksgiving". In a secret memorandum to the British Prime Minister, the Muslim League agreed to support the United Kingdom's war efforts—provided that the British recognise it as the only organisation that spoke for Indian Muslims.

Following the Congress's effective protest against the United Kingdom unilaterally involving India in the war without consulting with them, the Muslim League went on to support the British war efforts, which allowed them to actively go against the Congress with the argument of "Islam in Danger".

The Indian Congress and Muslim League responded differently over the World War II issue. The Indian Congress refused to support the British unless the whole Indian subcontinent was granted independence. The Muslim League, on the other hand, supported Britain both politically and via human contributions. The Muslim League leaders' British education, training, and philosophical ideas helped bring the British government and the Muslim League closer to each other. Jinnah himself supported the British in World War II when the Congress failed to collaborate. The British government made a pledge to the Muslims in 1940 that it would not transfer power to an Independent India unless its constitution was first approved by the Indian Muslims, a promise it did not subsequently keep.

The end of the war
In 1942, Gandhi called for the Quit India Movement against the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Muslim League advised Prime Minister Winston Churchill that Great Britain should "divide and then Quit". Negotiations between Gandhi and Viceroy Wavell failed, as did talks between Jinnah and Gandhi in 1944. When World War II ended, the Muslim League's push for the Pakistan Movement and Gandhi's efforts for Indian independence intensified the pressure on Prime Minister Churchill. Given the rise of American and Russian dominance in world politics and the general unrest in India, Wavell called for general elections to be held in 1945.

In the 1940s, Jinnah emerged as a leader of the Indian Muslims and was popularly known as Quaid-e-Azam (‘Great Leader’). The general elections held in 1945 for the Constituent Assembly of British Indian Empire, the Muslim League secured and won 434 out of 496 seats reserved for Muslims (and about 87.5% of Muslim votes) on a policy of creating an independent state of Pakistan, and with an implied threat of secession if this was not granted. The Congress which was led by Gandhi and Nehru remained adamantly opposed to dividing India. The partition seems to have been inevitable after all, one of the examples being Lord Mountbatten's statement on Jinnah: "There was no argument that could move him from his consuming determination to realize the impossible dream of Pakistan."

American historian Stephen P. Cohen writes in The Idea of Pakistan with regards to the influence of South Asian Muslim nationalism on the Pakistan movement:

"[The ethnolinguistic-nationalist narrative] begins with a glorious precolonial state-empire when the Muslims of South Asia were politically united and culturally, civilizationally, and strategically dominant. In that era, ethnolinguistic differences were subsumed under a common vision of an Islamic-inspired social and political order. However, the divisions among Muslims that did exist were exploited by the British, who practiced 'divide-and-rule' politics, displacing the Mughals and circumscribing other Islamic rulers. Moreover, the Hindus were the allies of the British, who used them to strike a balance with the Muslims; many Hindus, a fundamentally insecure people, hated Muslims and would have oppressed them in a one-man, one-vote democratic India. The Pakistan freedom movement united these disparate pieces of the national puzzle, and Pakistan was the expression of the national will of India's liberated Muslims."

1946 elections
The 1946 elections resulted in the Muslim League winning the majority of Muslim votes and reserved Muslim seats in the Central and provincial assemblies, performing exceptionally well in Muslim minority provinces such as UP and Bihar, relative to the Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and NWFP. The Muslim league captured 429 of the total 492 seats reserved for Muslims. Thus, the 1946 election was effectively a plebiscite where the Indian Muslims were to vote on the creation of Pakistan; a plebiscite which the Muslim League won.

This victory was assisted by the support given to the Muslim League by the rural agriculturalists of Bengal as well as the support of the landowners of Sindh and Punjab. The Congress, which initially denied the Muslim League's claim of being the sole representative of Indian Muslims, was now forced to recognise that the Muslim League represented Indian Muslims. The British had no alternative except to take Jinnah's views into account as he had emerged as the sole spokesperson for India's Muslims. However, the British did not desire India to be partitioned and in one last effort to avoid it they arranged the Cabinet Mission plan. In 1946, the Cabinet Mission Plan recommended a decentralised but united India, this was accepted by the Muslim League but rejected by the Congress, thus, leading the way for the Partition of India.

Punjab

In the British Indian province of Punjab, Muslims placed more emphasis on the Punjabi identity they shared with Hindus and Sikhs, rather than on their religion. The Unionist Party, which prevailed in the 1923 Indian general election, 1934 Indian general election and the 1937 Indian provincial elections, had the mass support of the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of the Punjab; its leaders included Muslim Punjabis, such as Fazl-i-Hussain and Hindu Punjabis, such as Chhotu Ram. The Punjab had a slight Muslim majority, and local politics had been dominated by the secular Unionist Party and its longtime leader Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan. The Unionists had built a formidable power base in the Punjabi countryside through policies of patronage allowing them to retain the loyalty of landlords and pirs who exerted significant local influence.

For the Muslim League to claim to represent the Muslim vote, they would need to win over the majority of the seats held by the Unionists. Following the death of Sir Sikander in 1942, and bidding to overcome their dismal showing in the elections of 1937, the Muslim League intensified campaigning throughout rural and urban Punjab. A major thrust of the Muslim's League's campaign was the promotion of communalism and spreading fear of a supposed "Hindu threat" in a future united India. Muslim League activists were advised to join in communal prayers when visiting villages, and gain permission to hold meetings after the Friday prayers. The Quran became a symbol of the Muslim League at rallies, and pledges to vote were made on it. Students, a key component of the Muslim League's activists, were trained to appeal to the electorate on communal lines, and at the peak of student activity during the Christmas holidays of 1945, 250 students from Aligarh were invited to campaign in the province along with 1550 members of the Punjab Muslim Student's Federation. A key achievement of these efforts came in enticing Muslim Jats and Gujjars from their intercommunal tribal loyalties. In response, the Unionists attempted to counter the growing religious appeal of the Muslim League by introducing religious symbolism into their own campaign, but with no student activists to rely upon and dwindling support amongst the landlords, their attempts met with little success.

To further their religious appeal, the Muslim League also launched efforts to entice Pirs towards their cause. Pirs dominated the religious landscape, and were individuals who claimed to inherit religious authority from Sufi Saints who had proselytised in the region since the eleventh century. By the twentieth century, most Punjabi Muslims offered allegiance to a Pir as their religious guide, thus providing them considerable political influence. The Unionists had successfully cultivated the support of Pirs to achieve success in the 1937 elections, and the Muslim League now attempted to replicate their method of doing so. To do so, the Muslim League created the Masheikh Committee, used Urs ceremonies and shrines for meetings and rallies and encouraged fatwas urging support for the Muslim League.

Reasons for the pirs switching allegiance varied. For the Gilani Pirs of Multan the overriding factor was local longstanding factional rivalries, whilst for many others a shrine's size and relationship with the government dictated its allegiance.

Despite the Muslim League's aim to foster a united Muslim loyalty, it also recognised the need to better exploit the biradari network and appeal to primordial tribal loyalties. In 1946 it held a special Gujjar conference intending to appeal to all Muslim Gujjars, and reversed its expulsion of Jahanara Shahnawaz with the hope of appealing to Arain constituencies. Appealing to biradari ties enabled the Muslim League to accelerate support amongst landlords, and in turn use the landlords's client-patron economic relationship with their tenants to guarantee votes for the forthcoming election.

A separate strategy of the Muslim League was to exploit the economic slump suffered in the Punjab as a result of the Second World War. The Punjab had supplied 27 per cent of the Indian Army recruits during the war, constituting 800,000 men, and representing a significant part of the electorate. By 1946, less than 20 per cent of those servicemen returning home had found employment. This in part was exacerbated by the speedy end to the war in Asia, which caught the Unionists by surprise, and meant their plans to deploy servicemen to work in canal colonies were not yet ready. The Muslim League took advantage of this weakness and followed Congress's example of providing work to servicemen within its organisation. The Muslim League's ability to offer an alternative to the Unionist government, namely the promise of Pakistan as an answer to the economic dislocation suffered by Punjabi villagers, was identified as a key issue for the election.

On the eve of the elections, the political landscape in the Punjab was finely poised, and the Muslim League offered a credible alternative to the Unionist Party. The transformation itself had been rapid, as most landlords and pirs had not switched allegiance until after 1944. The breakdown of talks between the Punjab Premier, Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana, and Jinnah in late 1944 had meant many Muslims were now forced to choose between the two parties at the forthcoming election. A further blow for the Unionists came with death of its leading statesman Sir Chhotu Ram in early 1945.

The Western Punjab was home to a minority population of Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus up to 1947 apart from the Muslim majority. In 1947, the Punjab Assembly cast its vote in favour of Pakistan with supermajority rule, which made many minority Hindus and Sikhs migrate to India while Muslim refugees from India settled in the Western Punjab and across Pakistan.

Sindh
In the Sind province of British India, the Sind United Party promoted communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims, winning 22 out of 33 seats in the 1937 Indian provincial elections.

Both the Muslim landed elite, waderas, and the Hindu commercial elements, banias, collaborated in exploiting the predominantly Muslim peasantry of the British Indian province of Sind. In Sind’s first provincial election after its separation from Bombay in 1936, economic interests were an essential factor of politics, informed by religious and cultural issues. Due to British policies, much land in Sind was transferred from Muslim to Hindu hands over the decades. In Sind, "the dispute over the Sukkur Manzilgah had been fabricated by provincial Leaguers to unsettle Allah Bakhsh Soomro's ministry which was dependent on support from the Congress and the Hindu Independent Party." The Sind Muslim League exploited the issue and agitated for what they said was an abandoned mosque to be given to the Muslim League. Consequentially, a thousand members of the Muslim League were imprisoned. Eventually, due to panic the government restored the mosque to Muslims.

The separation of Sind from the Bombay Presidency triggered Sindhi Muslim nationalists to support the Pakistan Movement. Even while the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province were ruled by parties hostile to the Muslim League, Sindh remained loyal to Jinnah. Although the prominent Sindhi Muslim nationalist G.M. Syed (who admired both Hindu and Muslim rulers of Sindh) left the All India Muslim League in the mid-1940s, the overwhelming majority of Sindhi Muslims supported the creation of Pakistan, seeing in it their deliverance. Sindhi support for the Pakistan Movement arose from the desire of the Sindhi Muslim business class to drive out their Hindu competitors.

The Muslim League’s rise to becoming the party with the strongest support in Sind was in large part linked to its winning over of the religious pir families. Although the Muslim League had previously fared poorly in the 1937 elections in Sind, when local Sindhi Muslim parties won more seats, the Muslim League’s cultivation of support from the pirs and saiyids of Sind in 1946 helped it gain a foothold in the province.

North-West Frontier Province
The Muslim League had little support in North-West Frontier Province. Here the Congress and Pashtun nationalist leader Abdul Ghaffar Khan had considerable support for the cause of a united India.

During the Independence period there was a Congress-led ministry in the province, which was led by secular Pashtun leaders, including Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who preferred joining India instead of Pakistan. The secular Pashtun leadership was also of the view that if joining India was not an option then they should espouse the cause of an independent ethnic Pashtun state rather than Pakistan. The secular stance of Abdul Ghaffar Khan had driven a wedge between the Jamiyatul Ulama Sarhad (JUS) and the otherwise pro-Congress (and pro-Indian unity) Jamiat Ulema Hind, as well as Abdul Ghaffar Khan's Khudai Khidmatgars, who also espoused Hindu-Muslim unity. Unlike the centre JUH, the directives of the JUS in the province began to take on communal tones. The JUS ulama saw the Hindus in the province as a 'threat' to Muslims. Accusations of molesting Muslim women were leveled at Hindu shopkeepers in Nowshera, a town where anti-Hindu sermons were delivered by mullas. Tensions also rose in 1936 over the abduction of a Hindu girl in Bannu. Such controversies stirred up anti-Hindu sentiments amongst the province's Muslim population. By 1947 the majority of the JUS ulama in the province began supporting the Muslim League's idea of Pakistan.

Immediately prior to Pakistani independence from Britain in 1947, the British held a referendum in the NWFP to allow voters to choose between joining Pakistan or India. The referendum was held on 2 July 1947 while polling began on 6 July 1947 and the referendum results were made public on 20 July 1947. According to the official results, there were 572,798 registered voters out of which 289,244 (99.02%) votes were cast in favor of Pakistan while only 2874 (0.98%) were cast in favor of India. According to an estimate the total turnout for the referendum was only 15% less than the total turnout in the 1946 elections. At the same time a large number of Khudai Khidmatgar supporters boycotted the referendum and intimidation against Hindu and Sikh voters by supporters of the Pakistan Movement was also reported.

Baluchistan
During British rule in India, Baluchistan was under the rule of a Chief Commissioner and did not have the same status as other provinces of British India. The Muslim League in the period 1927-1947 strived under Jinnah to introduce reforms in Baluchistan to bring it on par with other provinces of British India. Apart from the pro-partition Muslim League that was led by Qazi Muhammad Isa, "three pro-Congress parties were still active in Balochistan's politics", such as the Anjuman-i-Watan Baluchistan, which favoured a united India.

In British-ruled Colonial India, Baluchistan contained a Chief Commissioner's province and princely states (including Makran, Las Bela and Kharan) that became a part of Pakistan. The instrument of referendum was applied in Chaghi to Zhob (in northern Balochistan), to determine the will of the people which resulted in a victory for the Muslim League. The province's Shahi Jirga and the non-official members of the Quetta Municipality, agreed to join Pakistan unanimously on 29 June 1947; however, the Shahi Jirga was stripped of its members from the Kalat State prior to the vote. According to Rafi Sheikh, the then president of the Baluchistan Muslim League, Qazi Muhammad Isa, informed Jinnah that "Shahi Jirga in no way represents the popular wishes of the masses" and that members of the Kalat State were "excluded from voting; only representatives from the British part of the province voted and the British part included the leased areas of Quetta, Nasirabad Tehsil, Nushki and Bolan Agency." Following the referendum, the Khan of Kalat, on 22 June 1947, received a letter from members of the Shahi Jirga, as well as sardars from the leased areas of Baluchistan, stating that they, "as a part of the Baloch nation, were a part of the Kalat state too" and that if the question of Baluchistan's accession to Pakistan arise, "they should be deemed part of the Kalat state rather than (British) Balochistan". This has brought into question whether a vote took place in the princely Kalat state, the consensus of which remains disputed.

The pro-India Congress, which drew support from Hindus and some Muslims, sensing that geographic and demographic compulsions would not allow the province’s inclusion into the newly Independent India, began to encourage separatist elements in Balochistan, and other Muslim majority provinces such as NWFP.

Kalat finally acceded to Pakistan on 27 March 1948 after the help of All India Radio and a period of negotiations and bureaucracy. The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Ahmad Yar Khan, led his brother, Prince Abdul Karim, to revolt against his brother's decision in July 1948. Princes Agha Abdul Karim Baloch and Muhammad Rahim refused to lay down arms, leading the Dosht-e Jhalawan in unconventional attacks on the army until 1950. Though the Princes fought a lone battle without support from the rest of Baluchistan.

Bengal

Dhaka was the birthplace of the All India Muslim League in 1906. The Pakistan Movement was highly popular in the Muslim population of Bengal. Many of the Muslim League's notable statesmen and activists hailed from East Bengal, including Khabeeruddin Ahmed, Sir Abdul Halim Ghuznavi, Anwar-ul Azim, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Jogendra Nath Mandal, Khawaja Nazimuddin, and Nurul Amin, many among whom later became Prime ministers of Pakistan. Following the partition of Bengal, violence erupted in the region, which was mainly contained to Kolkata and Noakhali.

It is documented by Pakistani historians that Suhrawardy wanted Bengal to be an independent state that would neither join Pakistan or India but would remain unpartitioned. Despite the heavy criticism from the Muslim League, Jinnah realised the validity of Suhrawardy's argument and gave his tacit support to the idea of an Independent Bengal. Nevertheless, the Indian National Congress decided for partition of Bengal in 1947, which was additionally ratified in the subsequent years.

Rohingya Muslims
During the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s, Rohingya Muslims in western Burma had an ambition to annex and merge their region into East-Pakistan. Before the independence of Burma in January 1948, Muslim leaders from Arakan addressed themselves to Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked his assistance in annexing of the Mayu region to Pakistan which was about to be formed. Two months later, the North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (modern: Sittwe, capital of Arakan State), it, too demanding annexation to Pakistan. However, it is noted that the proposal never materialised after it was reportedly turned down by Jinnah.

Role of Ulama
The Ulama support for the Pakistan Movement came in the form of the New Medina construct, which was formulated by the Barelvis and a section of the Deobandi clergy. In its election campaign in 1946 the Muslim League drew upon the support of Islamic scholars and Sufis with the rallying cry of 'Islam in danger'. The majority of Barelvis supported the creation of Pakistan and Barelvi ulama issued fatwas in support of the Muslim League. In contrast, most Deobandi ulama (led by Hussain Ahmed Madani) opposed the creation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. Husain Ahmad Madani and the Deobandis advocated composite nationalism, according to which Muslims and Hindus were one nation (cf. Composite Nationalism and Islam). Madani differentiated between qaum -which meant a multi-religious nation - and millat - which was exclusively the social unity of Muslims.

However, a few highly influential Deobandi clerics did support the creation of Pakistan. Such Deobandi ulama included Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, and Zafar Ahmad Usmani. Thanwi was one of the chief proponent of this Movement. He also sent groups of Muslim scholars to give religious advice and reminders to Jinnah, he dismissed the criticism that most Muslim League members were not practising Muslims. Thanwi was of the view that the Muslim League should be supported and also be advised at the same time to become religiously observant. Thanwi's disciples Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and Zafar Ahmad Usmani were key players in religious support for the creation of Pakistan.

Acknowledging the services of these ulema, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was honoured to raise the flag of Pakistan in Karachi and Zafar Ahamd Usmani in Dhaka. Once, the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was asked whether there was any Islamic cleric who authenticated the division of India on religious bases. Jinnah replied that there was Arshraf Ali Thanwi, and his support to the cause of Muslim League was enough. The Barelvis had no representation in the constitutent assemblies of Pakistan, whereas the Deobandis had their representatives even in the first Constitutent Assembly.

Muslim minority provinces of British India
The idea of Pakistan received overwhelming support from Muslim minority provinces of British India, specially the Muslim cultural heartland of U.P. The Muslim League was known to gain its first foothold in the United Provinces, from where it derived a substantial portion of its leadership.

Conclusion
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's (1817–1898) philosophical ideas played a direct role in the Pakistan Movement. His Two-Nation Theory became more and more obvious during the Congress rule (1937-1939) in India. In 1946 it was seen that Muslim majorities in the North-west and North-east India had agreed to the idea of Pakistan, as a response to Congress's policies, which were also the result of leaders such as Jinnah leaving the party in favour of the Muslim League, Congress had won in seven of the eleven provinces in 1937 but the Muslim League failed to achieve majority in any province.

But the main motivating and integrating factor was that the Muslims' intellectual class wanted representation; the masses needed a platform on which to unite. It was the dissemination of western thought by John Locke, Milton and Thomas Paine, at the Aligarh Muslim University that initiated the emergence of Pakistan Movement. According to Pakistan Studies curriculum, Muhammad bin Qasim is often referred to as 'the first Pakistani'. Muhammad Ali Jinnah also acclaimed the Pakistan movement to have started when the first Muslim put foot in the Gateway of Islam.

After the independence in 1947, violence and upheavals continued to be faced by Pakistan, as Liaquat Ali Khan became the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1947. The issue involving the equal status of Urdu and Bengali languages created divergence in the country's political ideology. The military take over in 1958 was followed by rapid industrialisation in the 1960s. Economic grievances, unbalanced financial payments, provincialism and ethnic nationalism led to a bloody armed struggle in East Pakistan in the early 1970s, which eventually resulted with East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh in 1971.

In the successive periods of the tragedy of East-Pakistan, the country continued to rebuild and reconstruct itself constitutionally and embarked on its path to be transformed into republicanism in its full measure. The XIII amendment (1997) and XVIII amendment (2010) transformed the country into becoming a parliamentary republic as well as also becoming a nuclear power in the subcontinent.

Non-Muslims contribution and efforts
Jinnah's vision was supported by few of the Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Jews and Christians who lived in Muslim-dominated regions of undivided India. The most notable and influential Hindu figure in the Pakistan Movement was Jogendra Nath Mandal from Bengal. Jagannath Azad was from the Urdu-speaking belt. Mandal represented the Hindu contingent calling for an independent Pakistan, and was one of the founding fathers of Pakistan. After independence, Mandal was given ministries of Law, Justice, and Work-Force by Jinnah in Liaquat Ali Khan's government. Ironically, despite all his good contributions, Mandal was badly ignored in the emerging political scenario. He returned to India and submitted his resignation to Liaquat Ali Khan, the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan. He mentioned incidents related to social injustice and a biased attitude towards non-Muslim minorities in his resignation letter.

Although the All India Conference of Indian Christians opposed the partition of India and creation of Pakistan, a minority of Christians dissented from this position and played a pivotal role in the creation of Pakistan. The notable Christians included Sir Victor Turner and Alvin Robert Cornelius. Turner was responsible for the economic, financial planning of the country after independence. Turner was one of the founding fathers of Pakistan, and guided Jinnah and Ali Khan on economic affairs, taxation and handling of the administrative units. Alvin Robert Cornelius was elevated as Chief Justice of Lahore High Court bench by Jinnah and served as Law Secretary in Liaquat Ali Khan's government.

As an example or inspiration
The Pakistan Movement became an inspiration in different countries of the world. Protection of one's beliefs, equal rights, and liberty were incorporated in the state's constitution. Arguments presented by Ali Mazrui pointed out that the South Sudan's movement led to the partition of the Sudan into Sudan proper, which is primarily Muslim, and South Sudan, which is primarily Christian and animistic.

In Europe, Alija Izetbegović, the first President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, began to embrace the "Pakistan model" in the 1960s, alienating Serbs who would use this ideology to attack Bosniaks later on, while in his Islamic Declaration he "designated Pakistan as a model country to be emulated by Muslim revolutionaries worldwide."

Memory and legacy

The Pakistan Movement has a central place in Pakistan's memory. The founding story of the Pakistan Movement is not only covered in school and university textbooks but also in innumerable monuments. Almost all key events are covered in Pakistan's textbooks, literature, and novels as well. Thus, the Fourteenth of August is one of major and most celebrated national days in Pakistan. To many authors and historians, Jinnah's legacy is Pakistan.

The Minar-e-Pakistan is a monument which has attracted ten thousand visitors. The Minar-e-Pakistan still continues to project the memory to the people to remember the birth of Pakistan. Jinnah's estates in Karachi and Ziarat has attracted thousands visitors.

Historian of Pakistan, Vali Nasr, argues that the Islamic universalism had become a main source of the Pakistan Movement that shaped patriotism, meaning, and nation's birth. To many Pakistanis, Jinnah's role is viewed as a modern Moses-like leader; whilst many other founding fathers of the nation-state also occupy extremely respected places in the hearts of the people of Pakistan.

Timeline

 * 1849 Annexation of the Punjab
 * 1850 Urdu becomes the official language in all of the west Pakistan provinces, excluding Sindh
 * 1857 War of Independence
 * 1878 Formation of Thamratut-Tarbiyat by Mahmud Hasan Deobandi
 * 1885 Formation of the Indian National Congress
 * 1901 Partition of Punjab
 * 1905 Partition of Bengal
 * 1906 Simla Deputation
 * 1906 Founding of the All-India Muslim League
 * 1909 Formation of Jamiatul Ansar
 * 1909 Minto–Morley Reforms
 * 1911 Annulment of the Partition of Bengal
 * 1913 Formation of Nizaratul Ma'arif al-Qur'ānia
 * 1913–20 Silk Letter Movement
 * 1914–18 World War I
 * 1916 Lucknow Pact
 * 1919 Formation of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind
 * 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre
 * 1919 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms
 * 1919 Rowlatt Act
 * 1919–22 Khilafat Movement
 * 1922–29 Hindu–Muslim riots
 * 1927 Delhi Muslim proposals
 * 1928 Nehru Report
 * 1928 Simon Commission
 * 1929 Fourteen Points of Jinnah
 * 1929 Formation of Majilis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam
 * 1930 Separation of a strong Punjabi group from congress
 * 1930 Allama Iqbal Address
 * 1931 Kashmir Resistance movement
 * 1930–32 Round Table Conferences
 * 1932 Communal Award (1932)
 * 1933 Pakistan National Movement
 * 1933 Pakistan Declaration / Now or Never Pamphlet
 * 1935 Government of India Act
 * 1937 Elections
 * 1937–39 Congress Rule in 7 out of 11 Provinces
 * 1937 Strong anti congress governments in Punjab and Bengal
 * 1938 Madani–Iqbal debate
 * 1938 A. K. Fazlul Huq of Bengal joined Muslim League
 * 1938 Jinah Sikandar pact
 * 1938 Pirpur Report
 * 1939-45 World War II
 * 1939 Resignation of congress ministries and non-congress power players got golden chance
 * 1940 Pakistan Resolution
 * 1940 19 March Khaksar Massacre in Lahore
 * 1942 India Movement and non congress players further got space
 * 1942 Cripps Mission
 * 1944 Gandhi-Jinnah Talks
 * 1945 Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
 * 1945 Simla Conference
 * 1946 The Cabinet Mission the last British effort to united India
 * 1946 Direct Action Day in the aftermath of cabinet mission plan
 * 1946 Interim Government installed in office
 * 1946 Quit Kashmir campaign as the formation of the interim government of Azad Kashmir
 * 1947 June 3 Partition Plan
 * 1947 Creation of Pakistan

Notable quotations
"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."
 * Allama Iqbal :

"At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in Pakistan – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation."
 * Choudhry Rahmat Ali :

"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different ethics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."
 * Muhammad Ali Jinnah :

Founding Fathers and Mothers

 * Choudhry Rahmat Ali
 * Muhammad Ali Jinnah
 * Muhammad Iqbal
 * Ashraf Ali Thanwi
 * Shabbir Ahmad Usmani
 * Zafar Ahmad Usmani
 * Aga Khan III
 * Liaquat Ali Khan
 * Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar
 * Muhammad Zafarullah Khan
 * Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy
 * Jogendra Nath Mandal
 * A. K. Fazlul Huq
 * Ghulam Bhik Nairang
 * Khwaja Nazimuddin
 * Jalal-ud-din Jalal Baba
 * Chaudhry Naseer Ahmad Malhi
 * Muhammad Arif Khan Rajbana Sial
 * Zafar Ali Khan
 * Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan
 * Fatima Jinnah
 * Abdullah Haroon

title: Pakistan Movement


text: Category:1590s deaths

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:1590s deaths


text: Category:1600s deaths

title: Category:1600s deaths


text: Category:1610s deaths

title: Category:1610s deaths


text: Category:1620s deaths

title: Category:1620s deaths


text: Category:1630s deaths

title: Category:1630s deaths


text: Category:1640s deaths

title: Category:1640s deaths


text: Category:1650s deaths

title: Category:1650s deaths


text: Category:1660s deaths

title: Category:1660s deaths


text:
User talk:Ergative

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

With Some Chagrin
Thank you for your correction on the Vienna Teng page--I'm admittedly a complete newbie and assumed that publicly available text wouldn't fall under the copyright limitation.

Alas, this is the second time within my first few weeks of using Wikipedia that my actions have caused me embarrassment....I think I'll stick to proofreading partisan Taiwan-related articles from now on.

24.221.106.128 23:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ergative


text: Category:1670s deaths

title: Category:1670s deaths


text: Category:1690s deaths

title: Category:1690s deaths


text: Category:1710s deaths

title: Category:1710s deaths


text: Category:1720s deaths

title: Category:1720s deaths


text:
Talk:Crispus Attucks

First killed?
This selection from the article sounds dubious:50 cent shot Crispus Attucks

 * Recent evidence points to the fact that Crispus Attucks was not literally the first man to be killed, but that he was struck by a bullet deflected from another person.

I think we need to have that recent evidence adduced in the article. Ortolan88 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * it was added by Nichalp . I put a note on his talk page.  but does it really matter how he was killed (whether by a delflected bullet or not; wasn't it inaccurate musket fire) as much as that he died first? Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but Attucks is famous for just one thing and we ought to get it right. First killed? or First to die? or One of the dead? We need the evidence one way or the other. Did the person off whom the bullet was deflected die? Did he die before Attucks? Was there an autopsy or something to prove this point? Without this alleged recent evidence, I think the paragraph should be deleted. Ortolan88 00:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence showing which of the three men who died that day was shot first or had died first. All we know is that three of the five who were shot that day died that day and the other two died later. Attucks could have died first or he could have died second or he could have died third. The only reason he was famous at all was due to the writings of an abolitionist who was seeking out unsung black heroes to hold up as examples. It is my understanding that he attacked an armed sentry who defended himself and that Attucks actually got what was coming to him. He should be nothing but a foot note in history not have a starring role in it. In other words, his deeds do not justify a Wikipedia article. His sole reason for being named is a part of a list of the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsolved History
Last Monday I watched this program Unsolved History -- on Discovery Channel. It detailed the Boston Massacre and mentioned that the autopsy revealed that the bullet passed entered his body and deflected in another direction while in his body. While a normal bullet passes a body in a linear fashion (a straight line), the only way that a bullet would deflect, was if it passed wholly through another person on its way so as to slow down the velocity. They said that the most likely candidate (at this moment I can't recall his9;åḽṗ | ✉ ]] 20:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * The articles not about science, it's more likely about American history. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Image caption
The caption wrongly identified both the date and artist. The old caption was taken directly from a grade school project, but I have used the information made available by the National Archives, in conjunction with other sites:

http://www.archives.gov/research/american-revolution/pictures/

http://nfo.dodmedia.osd.mil/CGI-BIN/om_isapi.dll?clientID=214552&infobase=wandc.nfo&softpage=Document

Ken Albers 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Stub
Not a tub anymore. --Banana04131 18:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

actually black ?
The assumption is based on a notice concerning a runaway slave named Crispus, listed about 20 years before the Boston Massacre. There is nothing in particular to link the two Crispuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

This article is folk history -- not history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

 * There is some evidence, Paul Revere's woodcut for one. Attucks is a Natick name, which supports the geography (the Natick settlement neighbored Framingham). There is other circumstantial evidence, including the "folk history" which you apparently completely dismiss as viable. One thing I don't understand about your conspiracy theory is, what would anyone's motive be for revising Attucks into a black-Indian, were he not? Please elucidate, and present alternative evidence. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

Abolisionists were the first to describe Crispus as a black or part black person...their motivation would have been to show that a black man was the first to die for this country and that black folks were just as worthy of freedom as anyone else in america

Someone can research this further but I remember reading one time that the Boston massacre wasnt so much brought on by men protesting but by men throwing rocks or snowballs at British troops. One of the troops either fired as a warning or accidentally and the rest followed.

 * These issues are all addressed in the current revision -- House of Scandal 04:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Revere's woodcut depicts Attucks as white. This, along with Attucks's being buried in a white cemetery, suggest he was white. HedgeFundBob (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Again, these issues are all addressed in the current revision -- House of Scandal (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Not really, although I do think the article is relatively balanced. Can you establish a precedent for mulattoes and whites being buried together in this place and time?  The logic in this article runs to "blacks and whites could NOT be buried together, but mulattoes and whites COULD."  Such evidence would be powerful.  Also, it would be interesting to see some sources for the discussion of the various prints. HedgeFundBob (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See revised text. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, this passage is often associated with Crispus Attucks of the Boston Massacre.

 * Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, people claim that the pyramids were built by space aliens. I'm rewording this sentence.

 * --Wechselstrom (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * @Cute 1 4 u (talk), seriously let's not be racist, because I don't want words of black or any color, maybe African American.

 * @House of Scandal (talk), snowballs were not available at the time of the Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre took place in March.Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Major Revision/expansion
I just completed a major revision/expansion of the article. I made an earnest effort to enable readers to clearly understand that relatively little is known for sure about Attucks, while simultaneously treating the folk history and sentiment surrounding Attucks with the importance and gravitas it deserves by merit of the significance his person holds as one of the few well-known and much-discussed people of color from this era of United States history.

I made a small reduction in the amount of general info about the Boston Massacre as that can be found in the Boston Massacre article itself. I did, however, replace it with a greater amount of material that deals specifically with Attucks in relation to the massacre.

This is probably my largest and most carefully-worded Wikipedia article so far. I hope it meets the approval of many, or even most, readers.

-- House of Scandal 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

INTRO
The intro paragraph of the article states:

 * Crispus Attucks (circa 1723 - March 5, 1770), was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre. He has been frequently named as the first martyr for the cause of American Independence and was the only person killed in the event whose name is commonly remembered.

"was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre" and "was the only person killed in the event whose name is commonly remembered" are drastically incongruent. Obviously, one of them is bull. I just don't know which one...

~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I do not see a conflict in those statements...he was one of five killed, and is the only one whose name is commonly remembered or known...Whats the incongruence? Engr105th 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Served in the Army ??
The first line of the article states Attucks served in the Army for 20 years...I can find no evidence for this - a slave would not have been eligible, and anyway the "army" was British, so militia is the only option for a runaway slave, but that's also unlikely. Anybody have a source for his military service? Engr105th 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears someone removed the line about his "20 yrs in the Army"....Thanks ! Engr105th 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a bit of vandalism that stayed in the article way longer than it should have. --House of Scandal 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crispus Attucks.jpg
I found proof that Image:Crispus Attucks.jpg is public domain. See the image page for details. Thus, I put it back in the article. Superm401 - Talk 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This picture, where is it from? Who produced it and when? I'm guessing it is mid-19th century? Drutt (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Coin
There was a commemorative coin released by the US Mint in 1998 with Attucks' bust on the front. Here is a link to it, but I'm unsure of exactly where to place this in the article and how much information to give; if anyone would like to add it, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahcambron (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I have incorporated it. -- House of Scandal (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Birth Year
The article gives Crispus Attucks' birth year as c. 1723. From reading the article, I'm guessing the year was backdated based on the runaway slave advertisement. If that's the case, it would be more appropriate to say possibly rather than circa. Circa (c.) implies that we know his birth year within plus or minus 5 years. In reality, though, he could have been born in 1753. We simply don't know. I would prefer doing away with the year entirely, unless there is a better source for it. Any thoughts?

--Wechselstrom (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Crispus Attucks had any offspring?TorridTitan (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Made famous by Death
I have long felt that there ought to be a category called "People made famous by their deaths"; there was an article in either The People's Almanac or The Book of Lists and Attucks was among them, which is why I bring it up here. There are many other such individuals to populate this category for someone with the skill and inclination! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChainsaw77 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Entire paragraphs without sources
I've just stumbled over this and it's really atrocious for a wikipedia entry: "Little is known for certain about Crispus Attucks beyond his death in the conflict => end of paragraph" Not one single source in the whole leading part. Plenty of unsubstantiated quotes though - if anyone can find a historically verifiable source for this introduction, for the love of man, please legitimize it. Can someone put in the freaking beginning how we even know that this guy existed? The first source does not get noted until the next to last sentence of paragraph 3. Apparently we have more original sources to prove that DAvid Bushnell was the original inventor of the submarine than we do to even entertain the idea that Crispus Attucks was once a living human being.97.87.13.82 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, if you are doubting one of the most famous person in American history, you should comprehend that American researchers understand little of Crispus Attucks’ life since he was part of Boston Massacre and was with the other colonists that were killed by the Regulars, and do not doubt and question Wikipedia sources unless you intend to vandalize Wikipedia’s articles. Just to answer your question though, how do we know Crispus Attucks was once a living human being? Well, how do we know if the triceratops’s color was gray, it could’ve have been purple right? Yes, I’m not saying it’s purple but our technology isn’t accurate in the past. Crispus Attucks was caught in the spark to the American Revolutionary war, and he had siblings during the time of the war, but not even our human ancestors (the weird and inaccurate ape humans) didn’t live in the time of dinosaurs, so there is your answer.

 * And just a memo, when you edit in the future on Wikipedia, don’t use reckless words since you used the word “freaking”.

 * And what does David Bushnell have to do with Crispus Attucks unless… YOU’RE COMPARING HIM WITH CRISPUS ATTUCKS!  Allied Rangoon‧talk  23:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article
I'm sorry, but it seems that a large portion of this article deals with the issue of Crispus' racial identity. This is the type of thing one would expect from revisionists who seek to diminish the role of African Americans in U.S. history. Crispus Attucks race should be a footnote compared to the man's accomplishments, not a major focus of his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.59 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Response:Ideally, Crispus Attucks race should have no significance since the concept of race is not scientific and is simply a social construction. But as the Thomas theorem says, it doesn't matter if it is true, if people believe something is real it has real consequences. It became important to the abolitionists that Crispus Attucks be thought of as African. Even the writer, who claims that it is revisionists who are trying to diminish African-American accomplishments, has anemotional/intellecyual investment in this controversy. But what I came here to say is that I once read a late 19th Century article that claimed Crispus Attucks was a Natick Indian, and a sailor. It was written to try to eliminate Attucks as part of the African American heritage. By the way, "ottucke" is Wampanoag for "deer". Louis Fallert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.31.150 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Prince Hall?
The statement regarding Prince Hall ("He was a good man and a warrior.") seems to be personal opinion and has little, if anything, to do with the subject of Crispus Attucks. Indeed it seems to come utterly out of left field. I feel it doesn't belong here.Beetfarm Louie (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bas Relief?
In the brief section about the memorial sculpture, "bas relief" is glossed as the "raised portion". Bas relief is actually the "lowered portion". I haven't seen the sculpture and have no idea whether it is bas relief, as it's termed, or the opposite, alto relief, as described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.240.97 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Could you kindly place a hyperlink and a source? Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing something?
Um, why does the article body go directly from Attucks' influences and baptism at the end of the Early life section to John Adams arguing that "the soldiers fired in self-defense" in the Reactions and trials section??? Reactions to what? The Massacre? There's no mention of it in between these two sections! The very event for which Attucks is most notable is not explained or detailed in the article body?? What the hell? Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither Crispus Attucks nor any Boston Massacre victim was first to die in Revolution
Please see the Wikipedia article about 11 year old Christopher Seider who was murdered by a British Official in Boston two weeks earlier in a similar protest as the one that is called the Boston Massacre. The so-called Boston Massacre was one in a series of protests that took place in response to the death of young Christopher Seider. Even his headstone states this fact. The trial records prove this fact. That British official was convicted of murder and later pardoned by the British government. Christopher Seider is buried in the same location as is Crispus Attucks and the other four who died as a result of the Boston Massacre. Will someone with better skills than I please at least rewrite this article to reflect that it is absolutely disproved that Crispus Attucks was the first dead of the American Revolution? Speaking of headstones, all five Boston Massacre victims AND Christopher Attucks share the same headstone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing unsourced claims about heritage
I've made some substantial edits to the intro and body. It was full of weasel words and phrases, editorial speculation, whole repetition of content in the body in the introduction, and unsourced claims. Questions around Attucks's ethnicity and heritage, given their volume, great variety of possible answers, and lack of consensus - have been moved to their own section.

Attuck's being called a mulatto does not necessarily imply African or European heritage, as it was commonplace in the colonial era to refer to Native Americans as mulatto based on skin tone. Moreover, there may be more reliable-source-cited instances when he was referred to as an Indian, than there are that call him a mulatto. As other editors have pointed out, the prior intro seemed strained and overloaded with racial speculation, and I've tried to make it more fact-based and essential, and move the ethnic speculation - which deserves to be included given his historical role - to its own section. In spite of the single picture that some may associate with Africans - which is admittedly a 'Speculative posthumous portrait of what Attucks may have looked like' - there is significant debate around Attuck's actual heritage, including a multitude of primary and secondary pieces of evidence. It is not in controversy that Attucks was a slave before being freed or escaping, but Native Americans from the 17th to late 18th centuries were also chattel slaves in New England and surely intermixed with other chattel slaves in some frequency. There may well have been significant African intermixture in his background, but the article should stick to the facts, and not try to bend them to fit legend. The facts are that he and his relatives were variously referred to as Indian, negro, and mulatto, which as the Fisher source notes and Forbes notes profusely, were also terms used during that period for some Native Americans with no black African or white European admixture. The popular cultural understanding of Attucks - which has been taken from an admittedly fictionalized, youth-adapted biography by Millender, and a children's book by Simon and Schuster based on Millender's story - should have no bearing on the article's content. Any feedback welcome. Psmith85 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC) --- Psmith85, please use edit summaries as it is difficult to parse the intent of each of your edits. I think you should build toward consensus here, on the talk page, before making further edits. Maybe you two work toward starting a Request for Comment so that other editors can get involved. At the moment, you have broken one of Wikipedia rules for excessive reverting, so that's a problem. El_C 01:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Racial speculation" my foot. We got reliable sources claiming he's at least part African (or black). I don't care for your personal analysis of verbiage for race in this time period; you're not going to whitewash this guy without a decent set of arguments. Yes, I just reverted you. If you remove that paragraph again I will template you for removing verified content and POV editing, since I question your motives (perhaps incorrectly, but whitewashing has that effect). I don't know a person here, white or black, who doesn't regard Attucks as black, so you better not remove that from the lead again. As for Millender--surely you noted the academic books listed in footnote 5. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Psmith85, this is not the way you want to go. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is speculation. Most of the secondary sources and primary content they discuss call him a Native American who has the appearance of a 'negro' and likely has African heritage, though it is unknown from where. You're misinterpreting it as whitewashing when it is the opposite. As Forbes has noted in thousands of cases, many Indians, especially in the eastern parts of the Americas, were thought of as black and perhaps would be called black today. They also may have had some African mixture, since in New England until the mid-to-late 1700s, and in the South until the mid-1800s, they were chattel slaves and lived with other chattel slaves for centuries. Slave does not equal African, in spite of simplistic pop-cultural understandings. This is not a conflict or contest over his ethnicity, it's just an airing of factual historical secondary sources. There's no consensus and may never be, there are no reliable images of Attucks, and people can decide for themselves what to make of him. It's an extremely complex issue that cannot be put to rest in a WP article. Since you seemed to considered it whitewashing, the intro has been edited to acknowledge his likely dual African and Native American descent. Psmith85 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh really--he was blackwashed? Given blackface? Yes, it's a complex issue, and scrapping information serves no purpose. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no whitewashing. All that was done was take a neutral position, since there's no consensus. Since when does neutral = white? You appear to have a bias here. There is substantial controversy so discussion about his origins has been moved out of the intro. Since there are a number of reliable sources who understand him to be African-American, it has been included in the intro. It is also undeniable that he had considerable Indian heritage, and countless reliable secondary sources claim this to be the case. The intro now states he had African heritage. Additionally, the part that questions whether he was a slave has been removed, since there is really no controversy that he was a slave, only whether he was a runaway or freed, though there are no reliable sources that indicate he was ever freed, and several that refute this. All indications are that he was an escaped slave. The sources you claim are removed can be found in the second section. Psmith85 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been IP banned and user banned; happened within about 15 minutes, no chance to make my case. Since when did I revert three times? Actually, it was Drmies who reverted my edits first. Coffee (who did the IP ban) and Drmies refuse to acknowledge controversy in certain fields (e.g. Goree, where most historians agree nothing happened) or Olaudah Equiano (who the leading biographer and historian claims was born in the US, which is backed up by multiple primary sources) and want a children's book version of history. History and ethnicity are complex. Non-African people with dark skin and kinky hair who would be described as black can be found on all continents except Europe (see Aeta, Semang, Papuan, Batek, iTaukei, Kanak, Jomon, Xia, Funan, Champa, Gond etc etc). There is vast evidence of people who would be today called black existing in the pre-Columbian Americas. There were also non-black Indians, and black Africans. What I am doing is finding the reliable secondary discussion of primary evidence, and putting it out there. People can make their own decisions. Do I think Attucks would be defined as black today, based on his physical appearance? Yes. Do I think he was necessarily African in descent? I'm not sure. No one is whitewashing anything.199.122.112.244 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't evade your block. Ask for an unblock on your talk page, instead. El_C 02:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 * So, the now-blocked editor had a strange fascination: throughout their edits (logged in and logged out) they seem to be preoccupied with removing "black" or "African" (in various permutations) while retaining or inserting "slave". I don't quite understand it, but it is frequent. Anyhoo,, we should really try and get this article in better shape; I know that many readers of color have taken offense at this article and it behooves us to make it better. This is not my area of expertise (as you know--I've asked you for advice often enough), but I'll do my best. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced, inaccurate content in header
There is no direct evidence of any kind that any such Crispus Attucks was even present. The man killed was a sailor of color named Michael Johnson who was known by that name for over twenty years. The concept that this man was in fact an escaped slave known as Crispas (sic) was purely speculation. Perhaps claiming the body to be Attucks caused authorities to stop looking for the real Attucks. The name appeared in the Revere engraving but no record of who told him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:431A:5200:C921:CDA8:D109:2BBD (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I beg to differ. If you read the actual court transcript he is identified by witnesses by name. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"[Attucks was] widely regarded as the first person killed in the Boston massacre and thus the first American killed in the American Revolution."

Widely regarded? By whom? The first American killed in the American Revolution? This seems to be a fierce point of contention; if we take this as the political upheaval as a whole and not the war, then arguably those who died in the War of the Regulation were the first to die in the American Revolution. There are numerous other contenders, such as the alleged death at the Battle of Golden Hill, or the murder of Christopher Seider in Boston by a customs official. A quote which is related to this is, if you're a loyalist you can say "Sit back, relax, and stay loyal."

This smacks of original research.(TheDarkFrontier (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC))

Crispus Attucks wasa real person.Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.136.28 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019
This should say "thus the first American killed in the name of American Independence." Not "thus the first American killed in the American Revolutionary War" The War had not begun, and did not begin for another 5 years. The massacre happened in 1770, Lexington and Concord in 1775. Drahgoone (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 * . Up until recently, it had "American Revolution" rather than "American Revolutionary War", so I restored it to the former, as a term pertaining to a broader time period.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020
Change,

"Historians disagree on whether he was a free man or an escaped slave, but most agree that he was of Wampanoag and African descent."

To,

"Historians disagree on whether he was a free man or an escaped slave, but most agree that he was of Natick Indian and African descent."

References for this correction,

Reference 1: https://www.biography.com/military-figure/crispus-attucks Reference 2: https://framinghamhistory.org/biographies/crispus-attucks-1723-1770/ Reference 3: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Crispus-Attucks Marcokaltofen (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Sources vary. PBS states Nantucket or Natick. Nantucket would be part of the Wampanoag Confederacy.
 * https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p24.html
 * The Crispus Attucks Museum records him as Wampanoag through his mother Nancy.
 * http://www.crispusattucksmuseum.org/crispus-attucks-family/
 * The Zinn Educational Project records him as Wampanoag however it is not sourced.
 * https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/crispus-attucks-killed/
 * He is a descendant of John Attucks however, who was killed during King Phillips War and many historians consider him to have been Narragansett. So it's complicated. Perhaps we could just state that he was of Native American and African descent? Indigenous girl (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The Manual of style for Biographies says: The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Attucks's ethnicity is certainly ...relevant to the subject's notability in the historical context so the question becomes, are the common descriptions in reliable sources "Wampanoag," as the previous cite claimed, or "Natick", as  requests?

 * In favor of the former, we have citations to the African American Trail Project at Tufts University and the Crispus Attucks Museum (thanks to ). These are both reliable sources.  In favor of the latter, we have citations to Biography.com and Framingham History, neither of which are generally as reliable as the previous sources, and Britannica and PBS, which are.

 * Mitch Kachun, professor of African American history at Western Michigan University in his recent biography First Martyr of Liberty: Crispus Attucks in American Memory states Attucks's ancestors were "probably of the Natick tribe", sourcing this back to Frederick Kidder's The Boston Massacre of 1870 and earlier sources. So "Natick" seems to have the preponderance of reliable sources supporting it.

 * The discrepancy probably stems from the fact that "Natick" wasn't a tribal ethnicity in pre-colonial New England. The settlement of Natick, which then also included places now in towns such as Needham and (importantly to Attucks) Framingham, was a Praying Indian village organized by Puritans.  These Praying Indians were "converts" from the local indigenous peoples, and drew not only from the Massachusett of the area around what is now Boston but also the Nipmuck from around what is now Worcester and the Wampanoag from what is now Southeastern Massachusetts.  There is some apparent evidence that Attucks's mother's family may have come from around Buzzard's Bay, but any oral tradition about pre-colonial genealogies is rather iffy.

 * The best way to describe him in the lead that complies with these policies and sources, therefore, is to say ...but most agree that he was of Natick (or possibly Wampanoag ) and African descent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020
The posting for the website "Africa Within" under External links "Crispus Attucks", AfricaWithin should be removed as spam or a dead link and replaced with

"Crispus Attucks", The Humanity Archive with the external link pointing to the article below:

https://www.thehumanityarchive.com/history/crispus-attucks

JermaineDaniel (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 * . Dead link removed, but new one not added. There seems to be more than enough already.  I'm not sure what's gained by adding another; this one seems a tad promotional. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
This ...published in 1770 did not refer to him as "black" nor as a "Negro" should be ...published in 1770 referred to him neither as "black" nor as a "Negro" 100.6.81.19 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020
In the 3rd para, headed as "Early Life and Ethnic Origins," at the 4th word in the 3rd line from the bottom of the paragraph, please change "sreaming" to "screaming." It is a misspelling because "sreaming" is not a word. Harold3Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Harold3Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The possible typo is included in a quotation. Someone with the source at hand needs to first check if this is a transcription error that needs to be corrected, or if the spelling error is in the source. If the misspelling is in the source, the [sic] template (formatted as:  [sic] ) should instead be added after the misspelled word. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Source for verification not available at the moment ~ Amkgp  💬  11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. race
Currently, the article uses the word 'ethnicity' where I would expect 'race.' Race, though discredited by many in the scientific community, has to do with appearance, whereas ethnicity has to do with either race (i.e., as  sort or synonym or euphemism for 'race') or cultural identification. By using the word 'ethnicity,' the article is less clear and/or implies things for which there is no given evidence. 213.109.220.252 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry, "African-American-ness", False Dichotomies.
While Attucks' true ancestry will likely remain an enigma, the language used to discuss it could be chosen more carefully. The article's current wording implies a historic and/or current contradiction between Attucks being described as "African American" and his potential background as a "Mulatto", by saying that "Though he is commonly described as African-American in popular culture, two major sources of eyewitness testimony about the Massacre, both published in 1770, did not refer to Attucks as "black" nor as a "Negro," but rather as a mulatto and an Indian."* While the latter classification, Attucks as "Indian", would warrant a distinction between his popularly supposed "African-American-ness" and his potential factual ancestry, the former does not; appeals to the fact that contemporary accounts described him as neither "Black" nor "Negro" do not change this, as both terms were used differently at that time than later in history (as was the term "Mulatto", a term whose contextually unique application is already gone over in the text). More appropriate wording may be as follows: "Though he is popularly referred to as African American, Attucks' parentage may be wholly American-Indian. Contemporary sources do not describe Attucks as 'Black', or as 'Negro', but as 'Mulatto', and as 'Indian', meaning he was likely either Bi-racial or completely Indian in parentage. This, however, is complicated by the fact that, at this time, the terms 'Mulatto' and 'Indian' were often used interchangeably, the former word often being not an allusion to literal parentage or ancestry, but to skin color and its associations." Improved citation on discussion of interchangeable usage of 'Mulatto' and 'Indian' is also warranted. As of now, it simply links to a note that no longer exists on the article it links to.

 * One a side note, one could note the selective use of quotations around the terms "black" and "negro", but discussing this in more detail would derail the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2703:3c00:cd9f:2d83:7153:9f26 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate link in header
The mention of "New Providence" in a period source is hot-linked to an article for a township in New Jersey by that name. However, the reference to New Providence applies to the major populated island in the Bahamas (Attucks' connection to the Bahamas is noted later in the article), not to anywhere in New Jersey. The link should be fixed.

 * Done, thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Portrait?
Interesting choice of portrait being used in infobox. Does it really suit the article's theme? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024
Change “first” American killed in American Revolution to “second”; 12YO Christopher Seider was tragically killed first on February 22, inciting unrest a la the mob that led to the killing of Attucks/the Massacre which happened happened on March 5. 2600:1009:B065:15B0:1C4C:B0D5:F085:68E0 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 15:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024 (2)
The article linked to Christopher Seider states his ages as 12, while the Attucks article states Seider’s age as 11. That needs to be ironed out. 2600:1009:B065:15B0:1C4C:B0D5:F085:68E0 (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good suggestion but not a proper suggestion for edit requests. I recommend simply leaving a note on the talk page rather than making a request. Thank you!

title: Talk:Crispus Attucks


text: Category:1730s deaths

title: Category:1730s deaths


text: Category:1740s deaths

title: Category:1740s deaths


text: Category:1750s deaths

title: Category:1750s deaths


text: Category:1760s deaths

title: Category:1760s deaths


text: Category:1770s deaths

title: Category:1770s deaths


text: Category:1780s deaths

title: Category:1780s deaths


text:
Umeda Sky Building

The Umeda Sky Building (梅田スカイビル) is a two-tower mixed-use skyscraper located in Osaka, Japan. Located in the outskirts of Umeda business district in Kita-ku, Osaka, the Umeda Sky Building consists of two 40-story towers that connect at their two uppermost stories, which are interconnected via glass bridges with escalators and elevators which crosses the tower's open atrium space in the ground floor area. which currently the fifteenth-tallest building in the prefecture, and one of the city's most recognizable landmarks.

The towers reached a total height of 170 m while the overall height of the tower including the towers' spires is at 190 m. The towers were designed by Hiroshi Hara, and was constructed by Takenaka Corporation and was completed in 1993.

History, Design Concept & Construction
The building was originally conceived in 1988 as the "City of Air" project, a planned mixed-use skyscraper which was envisioned to create four interconnected towers in northern Osaka, located within the Umeda central business district and is at close proximity to the Yodo River. The third tower of the complex was initially planned to be constructed within the current site of the Vegetable Garden, while the fourth tower was planned located along the eastern side of the third tower. Eventually, the Japan economic bubble of the 1980s caused widespread damage to the Japanese economy and brought the total number of towers down to two towers.

During the architectural planning of the complex, Hiroshi Hara created the overall concept of the towers are based on two key concepts: the first concept was to create a modern landmark in the city featuring modern architecture, and drew inspiration from the Grande Arche in Paris, France, which features a hypercube-like design. The second concept within the complex is to emphasize a vision of a "floating city", which can be reflected from the city's urban landscape and is contrasted with the opaque ceramic atrium at the ground floor. The concept also included open-air like amenities and viewing decks of the Umeda district and the entire Osaka Skyline in three dimensions.

The towers' construction process started with the construction of the twin towers using reinforced concrete, while the construction of the sky deck began afterwards. As the structural works of the towers were completed, the sky deck was raised to the ground using the lift-up construction method, which used a set of hydraulic elevators to raise the section upwards, and is the first time to be introduced within a construction project. The installation of the glass-layered escalators and elevators also followed the same system. The tower was fully completed and began opening its doors to the public on March 25, 1993.

Location
The two-tower skyscrapers sits within the Shin-Umeda City, a 4.34 ha mixed-use area which includes The Westin Osaka, and the Shin Umeda City General Information Center. It is also located near key transport hubs such as the Ōsaka Station and the Umeda Station, both of which serves as one of the most busiest railway stations in both Japan and the world.

Features
The building primarily highlights a rooftop observatory, named the Kuchu Teien Observatory, which is also known as The Floating Garden Observatory. The two-floor observatory serves as the towers' main attraction and also features Café Sky 40 and the Fence of Vows. The tower also has an underground market that attempts to recreate the atmosphere of Osaka in the early 20th century. The base of the towers also presents two sets of urban gardens with walking trails and water features, namely the Island Garden, and the Vegetable Garden.

Ownership
The building was mainly owned by Toshiba Corporation through Toshiba Building Co., Ltd. In July 2008, Toshiba sold a majority stake (65%) in Toshiba Building to Nomura Real Estate co. but maintains a 35% ownership.

Tenants
Sekisui House, which serves as the complex's owner and developer, serves as the main tenant of the tower, and serves as the company's headquarters. Mazda has an office in the Umeda Sky Building Tower East. The German consulate-general is located on the thirty-fifth floor of the Umeda Sky Building Tower East. AstraZeneca have their Japanese and Asia-Pacific headquarters in the East Tower. PlatinumGames is also located in the building.

title: Umeda Sky Building


text:
User talk:Philaleth

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Welcome!
Γεια σου φίλε. This is the English wikipedia, so I'm going to speak English from now on. I'd like to welcome you here and suggest that you may add yourself to the list of Greek wikipedians. Etz Haim 13:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the suggestion, I went ahead and did it. I only just now figured out how to respond to your message - I hope you'll see my response... και σ'ευχαριστω για την βοηθεια Philaleth 23:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Φίλε μου, that "Macedonia has always been Greek but later there were barbaric tribes that came and laid various claims to it" statement is VMORO's forged provocazzia. VMORO took a rather indifferent statement from the main body of the article, malformed it and stretched it to the extreme to make it appear as a grave insult to him and the Slavs. Then he went on protesting about it. Don't bite his bait and offer him a pretext to continue his arsonous rhetory against Greece. Etz Haim 22:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of other subjects here on Wikipedia about Greece and the Greeks that don't have proper coverage, in the sense that a very small fraction of the Greek culture and history is presented here. Displaying our rich heritage is a very meaningful way to answer any polemic or prejudice. It's also much more creative and rewarding as an experience than these consuming arguments that won't resolve any soon. Etz Haim 23:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Εχεις δικιο. I don't intend to lose much time over this. I have very little time in my life that's not already spoken for... I have noticed that most of the history regarding Greece in here has been weitten by non-Greeks. Whereas that per se is not a problem, it seems that they are not vigilant enough about the bias of what they present. It is an inevitable fact of writing history that (unless one is a master) a perspective ...kreeps in. The only way to actually write objective history is to simultaneously present multiple points of view (because they all introduce particular facts with particular emphasis) and this is not possible here. What is happening here is the "consensus". Which is hardly ever the truth unless you have all parties with any knowledge of the circumstances in question and all of them given appropriate (not equal) weight as their contribution merits. For example: There's a protest in DC against the war in Iraq. The protesters claim 500,000 attendance and the government claim 150,000. The police will claim more or less according to what their salary levels are and when the next negotiations for contracts are coming and who the mayor is... Each of these claims has to be given different weights and all must be weighed to arrive at the fact - that there were probably 200,000 active protesters and 100,000 others who came to see what it looks like.
 * And that's now, with reporters and helicopters and statisticians and all sorts of monitoring and self-regulating...
 * To leave the recounting of history to one side, any one side, without that side having at least the fear of criticism from the other, leads to ...stories, not history. Add to that the fact that Tito corralled a lot of people and put them where they didn't want to be and then abandoned them and then some of them found themselves floundering, trying to be... something... For the most part those people wouldn't give a shit. It's the politicians that can derive power that infuse them with pseudo-nationalism and fund a propaganda machine that is meant to create a "history" for them. Who knows why. Who knows where they got their funding. Who cares. I can't accurately and with proper weight represent the Greek side of the facts here, but I can at least put VMORO (whose handle sounds a bit too much like the VMRO) and his likes on notice that they will not be allowed to run roughshod over history. Δυστυχως δεν εχω την ωρα να ασχοληθω με το αν το Wikipedia θα ειναι αξιοπιστη πηγη πληροφορησεως η οχι... αλλα τουλαχιστον μπορω να προσπαθησω να προσελκυσω προσοχη σε τυχον ανακριβειες για την Ελλαδα... Κανονικα ειμαι πραος και φιλικος με ολους, και δεν εχω τιποτα εναντιων των Σλαβων: ενας απ'τους καλυτερους φιλους μου ειναι Κροατης και δουλευω εδω και χρονια με Ρωσσους στη Νεα Υορκη και την Ρωσσια. Αλλα σε αυτο το θεμα προσπαθω να κανω τον σκληροπυρηνικο και τον αγριο.... Μην σε απασχολει, συνεχισε την πορεια σου και αν χρειαστει φερε αντιθεση σε μενα και στην τακτικη μου. Ετσι θα δεχονται παντα τις αποψεις σου σαν συμβιβασμους μεταξυ των Ελληνων σκληροπυρηνικων και των FYROMιανων. Philaleth 03:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Etz - something else: My mother was from Konstantinoupoli. So is my father's second wife. I am much more interested in setting up an article here about the Holocaust in Asia Minor. I think that the slaughter of all the Greeks Jews and Armenians in 1922, while the whole world watched and turned a blind eye so they can get Turkey's oil, must not be forgotten. Philaleth 03:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Γειά σου, Φιλαλήθη,θα ήθελα να δείς τις αλλαγέςπου έχω κανει στα άρθρα Macedonia, Macedonians και το discussion στο άρθρο Macedonians και να μου πείς τη γνώμη σου.Επίσης να σε παρακαλέσω, επειδή θα λείψω για κάποιες ημέρες να παρακολουθείς την συζήτηση και να μην επιτρέψεις να ξανααλλάξουν το περιεχόμενο του άρθρου Kapnisma 13:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYROM
Hi. There shall shortly be another debate on the naming of the FYROM/ROM article. I shall also advertise this on Wikipedia announcements. The debate will focus on whether an article should be named based upon international consensus, or based upon a countries internal name (or propaganda). Should the latter be chosen, the question that should be asked is: what happens if more than one nation wants to refer to itself my the same name? I would personally suggest that the only workable solution is the former, as the latter would be a recipie for POV wars. What do you think? --Rebroad 22:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also would question ChrisO's motives for his edits, and admin actions. --Rebroad 22:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYROM
Hi. There shall shortly be another debate on the naming of the FYROM/ROM article. I shall also advertise this on Wikipedia announcements. The debate will focus on whether an article should be named based upon international consensus, or based upon a countries internal name (or propaganda). Should the latter be chosen, the question that should be asked is: what happens if more than one nation wants to refer to itself my the same name? I would personally suggest that the only workable solution is the former, as the latter would be a recipie for POV wars. What do you think? --Rebroad 22:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also would question ChrisO's motives for his edits, and admin actions. --Rebroad 22:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Literature Collaboration of the Week
Patrida, I'm rallying up support for Alexandros Papadiamantis in Literature Collaboration of the Week. So, go vote! :D

Project2501a 16:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need Help
The article vanavsos is up for deletion. Can you please help in this regard. Second, I am having difficulty with Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and am having trouble on Talk:Republic because they won't allow an external link. It was deleted off of Wikipedia, and I believe it needs to come back on. A serious mistake in deleting this article. Thanks for your time.WHEELER 18:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian)
I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.

Wikipedians in Greece
Hi, I understand that you are either Greek Wikipedian or a Wikipedian living in/with an interest in Greece.

The category page Wikipedians/Greece has been replaced with Category:Wikipedians in Greece but your name still appears on the old list. You might considering moving it. You might also consider adding adding Template:Greekwiki to your user page.

A Greek Wikipedians' notice board has been in existence for some time but is terribly underutilised. It would certainly benefit from your involvement.--Damac 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Philaleth