Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Belligerents Section

External support combatants are not mentioned in the belligerents section.For eg - USSR supported India and USA supported Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.219.253 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2012

Please provide the unofficial supporters of the two belligerents in the belligerents section in the info box

GIGA SID 97 (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And they would be? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted revision 493954865 by TopGun

I think you just made an editing mistake. You changed the references to the region between 1947 and 1955 to East Pakistan and the 1967 quote to East Bengal. Happens in busy editing. Fmqtr3754 (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits were factually incorrect, so i have reverted you. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the text again. It is referring to the reasons of separation of East Pakistan. Also note that when it compares it with the West Pakistan.... both were created at the same time. There was no West Pakistan at the time of East Bengal. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In the context of this article, yes the section serves to explain the prelude to the revolutionary war in 71. But during the event in question, the language movement, this region was called East Bengal, as you know, one of the five provinces of the Dominion of Pakistan. Of course, during the dominion, there was no East Pakistan either, so what should those four other provinces be called? If we want to be just strictly factually correct, then maybe something like the "western provinces of the Dominion of Pakistan." As the article notes though, popularly, it was called West Pakistan during the dominion. In reality, I'm all the more in favor of factual accuracy over just trying to keep things simple and short, so I favor a description like that over the factually inaccurate "West Pakistan," with maybe a note in parentheses "(from 1956, West Pakistan)."

But its clear that when the eastern region is mention in the context of an event during the dominion, it should be mentioned as East Bengal. There are two references to the region in the context of the language movement, which should be East Bengal. The quote in the same section is from 1967 however, and it wouldn't have been called otherwise in the quote, so that can't be changed.

I'll also add a note after the first reference to East Bengal, "(from 1956, East Pakistan)."

About the clause "However, the deaths led to bitter feelings among...," East Bengalis should be mentioned there because the feelings were created during the movement when the region was East Bengal.

In the same sentence, after the clause "and they were a major factor in the push for independence," I think it will be better to add "in 1971" as there was no push for independence, not that I am aware of at least, before 1971.

About the clause "even though Punjabi was spoken by the majority groups of," I think the Pubjabi population was a single group, then it will be inaccurate to say "majority groups" since Punjabi was spoken by one not multiple groups. So it may be better to just say "the majority of the population of..."

I changed "1952 killings" to "1952 deaths" for neutrality, just like the Boston Massacre isn't noted in scholarly works as the "1770 massacre."

--Fmqtr3754 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Before GA Review!

I am interested to start GA review of this article, but I have noticed the editor who has nominated the article is not one of the primary contributors of the article. In some similar GA review discussions, where the article was not nominated by a primary contributor, after starting review I found no one, neither the nominator nor the editors.
So, before I start reviewing, I want to ask editors can they provide some time to participate in GA review discussion? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You may as well fail it now, I have been fixing this one up a little at a time but there are a lot left to do. There are CN tags all over and some entire section has no references at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think, you can withdraw nomination ASAP if you think the nomination has been abused and it is not GA ready, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_16#Abuse_of_GA_nomination.21_My_detailed_feedback.21, in Patty and Selma a regular editor just deleted the nomination because it was far from ready --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I will, the nominator has not made a single edit to the article, I doubt they even read it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, how do I get it withdrawn? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the nomination per the instructions on the GA page. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

With so many maintenance tags, the article was not GA ready. I agree with your decision. You can inform Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about it (create a post, and just mention it)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There were 14 dead refs in the article, I have tagged! --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Table issues

Amount spent on East as percentage - the tablContributions/111.91.75.216|111.91.75.21e has issues. Perhaps one column would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:''''''''Bold text''ᾥᾜᾜᾔ'''6 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC) gt3qa5555

Legacy of the war

There should be a section on the legacy of the war. It should include the Simla Agreement, the repatriation of Pakistani PoWs and stranded Bangladeshis, normalization of relations between the three countries, the 1970s ban on Jamaat which was later lifted and continues to polarize Bangladeshi politics today, and most importantly, the issue of the Pakistani apology to Bangladesh.

There could also be a section on how the three countries have cooperated together since 1971, such as in SAARC and the joint India-Bangladesh-Pakistan summit held in the 1997.--ArmanJ (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And ofcourse, the war crimes trials- the ones in Bangladesh, as well as the ones Pakistan pledged to hold on repatriated war criminals.--ArmanJ (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Belligerent

The RfC results of other articles cannot be imposed here since it's a different and separate article with its own separate context. Moreover, the war itself is known as Bangladesh Liberation War, and as per other wikipedia articles on liberation wars, like American_War_of_Independence, the belligerent is stated as they had identified themselves, which means the belligerent should be Bangladesh here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits by user Samudrakula

Quote: "Belligerents and supporter are not same thing! USA army has never participated in any battle of bangladesh war!". This edit seems to be likely of a new WIkipedia editor. He does not even know the difference between a "belligerent" and "supporter". The "supporters" of a "belligerent" are also given the same place as the "belligerent", in the infobox. He needs to get thorugh the rules and regulations here. The references have been provided, which make it clear, that the United States supported its ally Pakistan in 1971, both in Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pak War of 1971. The user has no references for support of his baseless POV claims. Faizan 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Faizan; have you ever heard about "Co-belligerents" word ? If yes, then use it! I have no time for cheap edit-war!---Samudrakula (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not dependent on "my hearing". If you have references in support, then put them here. Faizan 16:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just look at other war-infobox on Wikipedia! May be you can learn more about wikipedia edits! Samudrakula (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ameen. Thanks for the Dua. Now get to the point, don't beat about the bush. Faizan 16:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Samudrakula, User:ChaudhryAzan. Don't make unilateral changes without consensus. You people have no courage to get it discussed before at talk. Faizan 08:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

discussion with whom? who try to make all bangladesh related article more controversial! stop! stop immediately to threatening on my talk page! "supporter" and "Unofficial supporter" term are only used by yourself to make this article more cheaper! "supporters" were in million! Listed them all if you have lots of courage! The reaction of usa , soviet union and china was not enough to mention on infobox or to give them same place as the "belligerent"!----Samudrakula (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please behave yourself. Search for the difference between co-belligerent, and a supporter. And don't make changes without consensus. WP:OWN. Co-belligerent can be the one who takes part in the war. YOu have no references to support your claims. Faizan 10:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

for the last time! if that three global powers were Belligerent or Co-belligerent in war then i have no problem to mention them on infobox! If they not then don't put them on same place as the "belligerent", in the infobox! it's not necessary to mention them in INFOBOX at all!---Samudrakula (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Again! You don't own the article. We move here with references and backup from neutral sources. You hjave no sources which term it as Co-belligerence. Whereas the sources that I have provided only support the US as "Supporter". So you and your allies are again making edits without consensus, which will be reverted soon. After consensus, you are welcome to reinstate them. Thanks. Faizan 06:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Belligerents

I am removing User:Faizan's edits. The US does not qualify as a belligerent. Aside from the fact that it was not even engaged in the war, officially, there was a US arms embargo on Pakistan in 1971[1]. Moreover, there was widespread opposition from Congress and the American public, as well as dissent within the US government, against Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's tilt towards the Pakistani junta, as East Pakistan suffered genocide.

In any case this was primarily a war between Bangladesh, Pakistan and India.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I second ChaudryAzan's edit, as no source says US was engaged in combat at any level during the 1971 war. --SMS ^Talk 12:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also agree with ChaudhryAzan and Smsarmad! The USA does not qualify as a belligerent! as no direct involvement in war! Samudrakula (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

ChaudhryAzan is making edits without consensus. I am also not saying that the "US engaged in a combat", but the "US supportedPakistan" only. Faizan 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No it´s you Faizan! making edits without consensus. There is no place for supporter country in ″Belligerents″ Box. look at another War article in wikipedia. USA is clearly with source described on ″Foreign reaction″ section. Edit this section if any further edition needed.------Samudrakula (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a combat infobox, and adding belligerents can be only be on the basis of significant military engagement. The United States was not only uninvolved, militarily, in this war, it also had an official arms embargo on Pakistan. So it's completely ridiculous to list it as a belligerent.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am putting the references info supporting the United States as a "supporter" of a Belligerent. Don't remove referenced info. Faizan 14:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And now protected for two weeks, for the same reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is the United States relevant in the supporters of Pakistan?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These references [2], [3], and [4] support the United States opposed the dismemberment of Pakistan, it sent its navy for the support of Pakistan, although it remained uninvolved. Pakistan got diplomatic support from each of the United States and China. So can we use the "United States" as a "Supporter", or a "Diplomatic Supporter" or an "Unofficial Supporter" in the infobox? I want this revison to be restored. Is it relevant? Or should it be included as a Co-belligerent? Any thoughts? There have been edit-warring on the article regarding the dispute, I request the editors to calm down and participate in the frendly discussion. Faizan 16:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: Although USA sent their naval fleet in support of Pakistan, to list them as co-belligerents would be an exaggeration. Shovon (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'd say there has to be an actual waging of war for someone to be a co-belligerent. Clearly, the US did not do that. Mere diplomatic support or vaguely threatening gestures don't count. --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• United States as an unofficial supporter: the U.S was supporting Pakistan, they have done so before, the removed content was referenced as well. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• United States as an unofficial supporter: As per Prabash. The info is well supported by the references. Faizan 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remember this did take place during the cold war, the U.S supported any nation that was fighting against a nation supported by the communist USSR. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh also received support from the Commonwealth and many Western European countries. Pakistan infact withdrew from the Commonwealth after Britain and Australia became some of the first countries to recognize Bangladesh.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This has to do with the belligerents during the war not what happened after, keep the discussion on the right topic. Prabash.Akmeemana 14:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

[5], this was during the war. And Zulfikar Ali Bhutto often criticized the Commonwealth for its role in favor of Bangladesh.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You may add that to the aftermath section, it has nothing to do with US support of Pakistan in the war. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are countless academic sources available on the internet regarding the US's role during the war. The Nixon administration's interests were restrained by its diplomatic reapprochement with the PRC, which was facilitated by the Pakistani junta, and it sent the USS Enterprise as a show of force to India because it wanted to save West Pakistan from a sweeping Indian invasion. Listing the US as an unofficial belligerent in the Bangladesh war would be a gross distortion and exaggeration. As per Richard Nixon's own memoirs, many in the US government, especially the State Department, felt the independence of East Pakistan was inevitable and desirable.(pg 651, The Memoirs of Richard Nixon).--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• And it's particularly strange for Wikipedia to having such a misleading edit, considering in recent times, when Bangladesh honoured over 600 foreigners as heroes for their support in 1971, Americans ranked only second behind Indians, with 88 Americans receiving high state honors, including the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsberg, Joan Baez, Archer K Blood and others.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• A lot many more people and legislators were opposed to the Vietnam war. And Vietnam and the US enjoy cordial relations these day. So should the US 'role' in Vietnam be forgotten? Most sources say that the Nixon administration was supporting West Pakistan for a variety of reasons. No sensationalism is required for that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that America itself was the prime belligerent in Vietnam. I'm Bangladeshi and I have no interest in exonerating Nixon and Kissinger, and I would love see an entire section dedicated to their role during the war. But diplomatic support for West Pakistan does not make the United States an infobox co-belligerent. For example, in the First Afghan Civil War, the US has to be listed as an unofficial supporter on the side of the Mujahadeen, because it actively aided Pakistan and the Afghans rebels with arms and finance, but that's not the case here. In fact, officially, there was an arms embargo in place on both Pakistan and India in 1971 [6]. Again, this was primarily a war between Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, and the infobox should remain as such to reflect that.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed in recognizing my sarcasm. I apologize, as i was only trying to make the point that domestic discontent in the US with their President's policies does not affect where the US stood on the issue. We should stick to reliable sources - and they say that the US sided with Pakistan by providing material and political aid. When Jordan provides aid, it may not be that relevant, but when one of the two super-powers of the planet gives support, then it is not undue. The infobox must summarize what is already mentioned in the article. That is what infoboxes do. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• How would it be an exaggeration when it is the truth, it was even referenced by a reliable source newspaper reports are reliable sources, so its still a strong keep for me. Prabash.Akmeemana 14:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV before claiming exaggerations when it is the truth that some users care not to accept, I have sources and you dont. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unsuitable for infobox due to non-involvement at war:It is clear that in this case Belligerents and Co-belligerents term are not applicable for the USA. Sending USS Enterprise was just a showdown of president Nixon to threatening India for further attack on west Pakistan. Even ″supporter of Pakistan″ was a disputed term for the USA, as the United States Congress and usa-media were heavily in favor of India and against Pakistan for brutal genocide in Bangladesh. So with source or without source, listing USA here in infobox will be inappropriate and exaggeration.Samudrakula (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This article may shed some more light on the issue - that the USA considers their actions during the war a mistake. But then those are words of a diplomat. 1) It is the US President who decides where their country stands on an issue - not their media/civil society etc (for example see the varied reactions during the Vietnam war - can we say that the US did not support the Vietnam war? No, they waged it! It was an unpopular war, but it was supported by successive US administrations. In the case of Bangladesh War, we have sources stating that US provided political and material support to West Pakistan. The infobox must summarise that. Answering the question posed in this RfC - Is the United States relevant in the supporters of Pakistan? Belligerent - No. Supporter - Yes. 2) Another query: What about the status of USSR? They sent their navy to face the US navy. They gave well-documented political support to India & Bangladesh. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The facts are that there was an official American arms embargo on Pakistan in 1971, as well significant opposition within the US government against the Pakistani military campaign. This was not a typical Cold War episode directly involving the US, the USSR and China like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Cuba etc. The superpower politics that you talk of, concerned global diplomatic wrangling at the UN and naval gestures, not active military engagement or participation.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The integrity of that official embargo on Pakistan is doubtful, and independent sources have concluded that the US provided both covert and overt support to West Pakistan. The covert aid is no longer covert now, in fact it is well-documented. To quote the reference from the article, "in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and Iran..." And as I have said before, as the US support is detailed in the article body, then it should be summarized in the infobox too. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The actual issue is with the Template:Infobox military conflict which doesn't have a field for Supporter of any of the two sides of the conflict. It only lists Belligerents. So if you list supporters as done by Faizan, they appear in Belliegerents section of the infobox. So if we need to list supporters we first need to alter this template. Besides the issue of supporters is well covered in the Foreign reaction section. --SMS ^Talk 12:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But the infobox must summarise the article, like described in Help:Infobox. When there is a large section on foreign involvement, shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox too? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But that foreign involvement was not active or significant military engagement. So it would be a massive exaggeration to list them as co-belligerents in the combat war.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It may look like a massive exaggeration to you but unfortunately it actually happened and is quite true indeed, there are many many sources to prove this claim. Prabash.Akmeemana 14:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prabash, refute with substance. The US did not engage in any form of military participation in this war.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to break the news but my sources go against that claim, if you find sources that show proof of your claim, then I will be impressed. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, diplomatic support does not a co-belligerent make. And per Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy p375. in 1965 "Rather than support its ally Pakistan, the United States placed an arms embargo on both sides." and in 1971 "once again it suspended military aid" which did not resume until 1975. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The very page cited by you above says, "In 1971, the United Stated "tilted" towards Pakistan in the India-Pakistan conflict that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. Vortex of Conflict: U.S. Policy Toward Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, Stanford University Press, 2011 also says that the US "tilted" towards Pakistan. Then there is The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971, which describes how much was the angle of the US tilt. OK, these do not make the US a co-belligerent, but definitely an unofficial supporter. What do you think? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what it say, hence my comment that diplomatic support does not make one a co-belligerent. Look at the infobox for the Falklands war, I see no mention of diplomatic support for either the UK of Argentina in it, because it does not count, we cannot call the US a co-belligerent in a war it never took part in, that is just making shit up. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Falklands war article is no standard to refer to. I give you two modern warfare features articles: Mozambican War of Independence and Nagorno-Karabakh War. Both have infobox entries for supporters, including those which gave only political or military aid. So there is no hard-and-fast rule of what can and can't be included. The infobox's function is to summarise the article, which it is not doing here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought the Falklands war would be a decent standard to refer to as it was very close to be a FA. As for Mozambican War of Independence, I will have to check the refs but the infobox does not say what kind of support was given? But looking at Tanzania as an example the revolution began there with the founding of FRELIMO and they supplied arms, training and bases. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the source for Zambia, they gave direct military support as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologise - I only saw the current consecutive c-class rating of that article, and was not impressed. I was making the following 2 points: 1) Military support by a small country is not undue, and political support by a super-power is not undue. 2) There are no strict rules - one can summarize the article in the infobox in any acceptable way. Political/possible military intervention by China and the US were major constraints faced by the Indians, and along with already-mentioned reasons, was quite notable. But I guess that is not the general view here. So i'l drop it. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anir, hope youre well. We have worked together before and I respect your WP editing instincts immensely. However, I am just thinking that adding the United States in infobox would be the thin end of the wedge. Apart from the aspect of Cold war posturing and inevitable superpower rivalry of the period which blurs things, which it could be attacked on, it would provide a precedent for all sorts of edit wars to break out all over WP on claimed "co-beligerants" "allies", "supporters", whatever in many conflict infoboxes. Chaos. An unwise addition I would argue. However "The Tilt" would be good in see also, so interested readers can persue their own studies. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Irondome! I am good, thanks. I was just saying that since the info is already described in sufficient detail in the article, why can't it be summarized in the infobox. I quoted the 2 featured articles to show how they have used infobox to summarise content. Regarding your comment: I think it would be be good to know where the 2 super-powers stood on various issues of their time. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• A brief point on Shalom as a source. 10 million dollars worth of aid in 1971 was peanuts. Shalom does not go into detail as to what was delivered, but he mentions "Non lethal equipment" and (shock) small arms ammo. Doesnt sound like any fullblooded military resupply. Just a typical coldwar gesture. By the same logic one might as well put the UK in the belligerents box in the 6 day war article on the side of Israel, because 105mm tank ammunition was shipped before and during the war. See Oren and Bowen. Its not a clear-cut as that. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unsuitable for infobox due to non-involvement at war: I'm a "randomly selected" editor from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service alerted to your RfC. IMHO US "support" for Pakistan -- such as it was -- was so inconsequential it does not seem worthy of cluttering up the info box. Better to limit mention to the article text. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Again, belligerents

The nonsense has started again. Faizan, as is the case in so many independence war articles, (American Revolutionary War, Greek War of Independence, Indonesian National Revolution, Irish War of Independence), the belligerent in a successful war of independence is the country that is established. And mind you this particular war was waged by the masses, not just a government-in-exile. So the belligerent will most definitely be Bangladesh.--Bazaan (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, that's why the RfC was started. Have given you the proof, This was agreed upon at the RfC, and it should be respected. Faizan 07:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That RfC was regarding the use of the term East Pakistan, not Bangladesh. The two articles have two different contexts. The discussion in Indo-Pak war concerns secondary allied forces, in which case, the provisional government may be appropriate (although many users in that RfC have stated they prefer Bangladesh as the belligerent). In the case of this article, this was an independence war waged by mass popular participation, and reducing the main belligerent to a mere government-in-exile, is unacceptable.--Bazaan (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotta go with Bazaan on this one, Bangladesh is necessary here as the main belligerent. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also go with "Bangladesh" as the belligerent, as explained in an earlier thread.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Who should be the combatant against Pakistan?

Should it be "East Pakistan", or "Provisional Government of Bangladesh", or something else? The RfC was originally held at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, resulting in "Provisional Government of Bangladesh" becoming as the combatant against Pakistan. The same RfC being started here, as the RfC at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 is not being welcomed here. Any thoughts? Faizan 08:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Bangladesh as the belligerent - as explained here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Provisional Government of Bangladesh as combatant - Bangladesh, as a political entity, did not exist prior to the war's conclusion. Until the end of the war the combatants were East Pakistan, West Pakistan and India. Until the Instrument of Surrender was signed, Bangladesh was not a sovereign state at the time. Faizan 08:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Another pointless RfC by User:Faizan. Definitely Bangladesh, as explained here.--Bazaan (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh - as explained on the page Sovereign state, a sovereign state can by reasonable definitions be said to exist from the moment that it is declared. The end of the war in itself made no change to the status of any nation, it simply involved surrender of the armed forces of Pakistan. The ability of nations to function as such is defined by treaties, not by acts of surrender. Military forces are a part of a nation, not the whole. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh - per other articles of the same type. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh - per others. United States Man (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh - per others. Samudrakula (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh - Their declaration of independence in 1971 stated that the nation was 'Bangladesh'. They won their battle, therefore they have earned the right to be called Bangladesh from their declaration of independence forward. The United States insists that they have been the United States since July 4th, 1776, even though the British government disputed that for many years. Markewilliams (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• This analogy seems pretty clear. It's worth noting also that a reader clicking through to Bangladesh would probably not be disappointed or confused. Maybe Provisional Government of Bangladesh could be linked or referenced, perhaps as a bullet point underneath. groupuscule (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, good suggestion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bangladesh per Markewilliams' excellent reasoning.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh Markewilliams's reasoning says it well. 21:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh The above reasoning is very clear Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bangladesh. The internatinal consensus is Bangladesh was independent since 26 march 1971. Bangladesh can probably be termed a belligerent only if it was an unlawful combatant. Which is not a case. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines POV deletions

Darkness Shines, you know as well as I do that The British Medical Journal and The Guardian are WP:RS. Please stop your unjustifiable edit warring.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when were op-eds RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS tells us that "Op-eds are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author", as they are in this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Except you are using an op-ed to source the opinions of a fringe author named Bose. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus that she is fringe, which is why you changed your argument to "op-eds".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not changed my argument at all, and she is fringe. Personally I believe the consensus at FTN says so. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't think Sarmila Bose is reliable one. Because her book was based on Pak army officers interview. Moreover she was advocating for the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan [7]. More to know about her, see these- [8][9][10]--FreemesM ^(talk) 03:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sarmila Bose's work seems to be highly controversial (looks very like fringe). Following NPOV guideline we should put in her opinions only with the critical commentary on her work (i.e. "Sarmila Bose wrote in her disputed book that was launched in Pakistan that..." or something similar). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian KIA figures

The infobox lists two stats for the Indian Army casualty rate. I know very little about this topic, so can somebody who knows a little more please help fix this little error? Thanks! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some useful info

may be added to the article from here: The Blood Telegram - Foreign Policy magazine Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

@ChocolatyBoy: You have now three times in a row changed the cited 90k POWs to 45k POWS, explain why. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

45K is coreect and it has been verified by Sharmeela Boos. She writes in her book Dead Rekoning Memories Bangladesh War that the actual firgure is 45K not 90K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocolatyBoy (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:INDENT Bose is wrong, as can be shown by the many thousand of sources which state that over 90k POWs were taken in the east. Please do not reinsert your edits, they are totally incorrect. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading about this somewhere that POWs of only the Pakistan Army numbered ~45,000, and the remaining ~45,000 were paramilitary forces of Pakistan. Maybe ChocolatyBoy is trying to make that distinction. I read about this a long time back, and I am afraid I do not remember the source of the numbers i quote. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC

• Should this Urdu nomenclature be added to the lead?
  Urdu: سقوطِ مشرقی پاکستان Suqūṭ-i Mas̱ẖriqī Pākistān

• Comment - Wikipedia:Lede#Alternative_names says: The lede should contain "significant alternative names for the topic ... [which] ... may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages". Is this alternative language version 'significant'? If so, why?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Yahya Khan

General Yahya Khan fits the Wikipedia definition of a dictator, as "a ruler who does not rule through democratic means". He was the head of a martial law government which dismissed an elected national assembly and presided over military operations against the majority of his country's population. So what exactly is the problem in labeling him a dictator? --31.205.56.85 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Look further down the page. The definition of dictator that is used in Game theory excludes military dictators because they require the army to achieve what they want. On a more practical level, though, there will always be wikipedians willing to fight to remove that description stating that it violates WP:NPOV, needs a citation, or whatever, so putting it in leads to making wikipedia an unpleasant place to work. So yes, it is very reasonable to call him a dictator, but the discussion of that should be in just one place in wikipedia, where it can be better defended against people who have been taught something different in school. It belongs on the page about him, not here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How about "military ruler"? -- SMS ^Talk 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well he is widely attested as the second dictator of Pakistan. He is also a dictator who presided over a major genocide of the 20th century. There can't be a case for neutrality in matters of such moral bankruptcy. The caption would have made a significant point about one of the most callous and shameful moments of US foreign policy, when the Nixon White House stood blindly by the side of this murderous tyrant, for whatever ostentatious geopolitical interests.--31.205.56.85 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

International support for Bangladesh

Why isn't there any section or article on the widespread global support and contribution for the liberation of Bangladesh? Bangladesh has honored over a thousand figures for their support, including Indira Gandhi, Ravi Shankar, Ted Kennedy, Marshal Tito, Allen Ginsberg, Edward Heath, Andre Malraux, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, George Harrison, Bob Dylan and Joan Baez among others.--31.205.56.85 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unclear statistics for Bangladeshi casualties

The information box does not give clear information on the number of Bangladeshi casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.119.175 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:Sureshjj

The user has been pushing blatant POV by calling the war as Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and making some deliberate factual errors without any source. When I reverted his edits he went onto revert mine, calling it "unsourced".--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted his another edit [11]--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Sureshjj, please donor engage in edit war. Try to understand the difference between Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistan war. For your kind information-

Bangladesh Liberation War was started in 26th March 1971 and ended in 16th December 1971.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was started in 3rd December 1971 and ended in 16th December 1971. Check these-- [12] [13]--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Its the same war. Your sources only prove that Indo Pakistan war started on 3rd December. You provided no source to support Bangladesh liberation war. Show me one internationally reputed source or history book that mentions Bangladesh liberation war as a separate war that started prior to Indo Pakistan war in 1971. Until then stop the nationalistic colouring of a Wikipedia article and the edit wars. Don't revert uncontroversial edits with your controversial ones unless your point is settled here in the talk page. Sureshjj (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a source given, "Encyclopedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh"--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. That would do. Go ahead and change that part about the Indo Pakistan war. But don't revert all edits wholesale without discussion and documentary support. Sureshjj (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Which part? All of your edits were blatant POV where you even claimed the declaration of independence was proclaimed by Indian politicians, there was nothing constructive. Moreover, you didn't provide any single source to support your claims.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this the Modi effect in action? Rewriting history is a favorite past time of Hindutva wallahs. Every single major reputed source in India and around the world calls it the Bangladesh Liberation War.--Uck22 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini picture

A picture of Mukti Bahini guerrilla fighters is highly needed.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Montage

The montage in the top infobox includes un-free images. It can't stay. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Every image in the montage is properly licensed. If you think a better one is necessary, make one yourself. You don't seem to be doing any worthwhile work around here.--F2416 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Page Protected

The page was protected by NeilN. Now, no edit-warring should take place, if this one is not resolved here, will open a dispute resolution or an RfC. Faizan (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Al Sham and Razaker's role in 1971 genocide

Al Shams role in 1971 can be seen in these references. Read the texts marked in yellow and scroll down.

1,

2 ,

Razaker's role.

Razakars in Pakistan Army.--Cosmic  Emperor  05:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/04spec.htm From Rediff

http://www.firstpost.com/world/1971-is-dividing-bangladesh-again-and-theres-nothing-india-can-do-771217.html from Firstpost

http://www.thedailystar.net/top-news/jamaat-the-core-76296 from The Daily Star (Bangladesh)

Google books.

Following text shift from my talk page to here for a wholesome discussion

@Mar4d:, @Faizan: This article mentions the same thing. Sources are Bengali news. Al-Shams (East Pakistan) --Cosmic  Emperor  05:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Only a paragraph containing Crime Tribunal proceedings is referenced, rest of it is not verifiable. Faizan (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) You have to say, sources are reliable or not. Academic books are reliable or not. I am not going to investigate and verify myself. They appeared in google book search.WP:NOTTRUTH. Cosmic  Emperor  05:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) I am talking about the article, not about the above references you gave. Faizan (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Razakars etc were supported by Pakistan Army, but Mukti Bahini was not supported by the Indian Army? If you want to add the former to the article, how can you not allow the latter to be added to the article too? Hypocrisy? All I did in my edit here which is being roughed out as wrong by Volunteer Marek to add 10 sources to support my edit. It is indeed sheer POV-Pushing and Systemic bias if one edit supporting your POV is allowed and the other is not, where goes the WP:NPOV now? You freely apply WP:NOTTRUTH in case of edits by you and your friends, but not in our case. Why cherry picking rules?—PakSol ^talk 09:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I may have commented on talkpage of Mukti Bahini but how many edits did i make at the Mukti bahini article:Zero edits.Cosmic  Emperor  09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

But it is you who is behaving like a Champion of Verifiability and WP:NPOV while accepting one source and rejecting the other by quoting all the weird reasons. Quit the cherry-picking and stop feeding other editors your POV even though they are already participating here, if you alone fail to prove anything. Ganging up will not do any result. —PakSol ^talk 12:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:CosmicEmperor Why you don't keep discussions at one place? Faizan (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PakSol has changed his name to TripWire.Cosmic  Emperor  05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian involvement

In addition to the debate above, there is a need to talk about 'Indian involvement' with a view to show both sides of the picture. The Indian involvement Section of the page opens up with the following lines:

Wary of the growing involvement of India, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on Indian Air Force bases on 3 December 1971........ .......The strike was seen by India as an open act of unprovoked aggression. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War.

The above lines shows as if one fine morning Pakistan became wary of Indian involvement and decided to go for war. However, there are numerous sources and it is a known fact that Indian political, military and material involvement began well before 3 December 1971. There is a need to add this to provide this context to the article. Or else everthing in the article is presenting India as an angle and the other side as evil. There is no denying the fact that atrocities did take place and that India was faced with the refugee problem etc etc. But at the same time, what India (and Pakistan) did which ultimately led to war needs to be added here, albeit not in detail. Now guys, please dont repeat the rhetoric of 'it is well known'. Sir, if it is, then add it to the article! Apropos, I am adding he 'Why' tag to the first sentence to open up a discussion. —TripWire ^talk 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No comments on this means that edits in this respects can be carried out.—TripWire ^talk 04:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources and specific text which you would like to add based on these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do that when I'll edit the article —TripWire ^talk 05:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the contentiousness surrounding this article, and the fact that you've been the source of much of it, it would really be better if you proposed the text here on talk first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, If you follow the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, especially reliable sources for history, in creating new content, nobody will object. It is your inappropriate reliance on newspaper reports on questionable political statements that has been the cause of the problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Why do you have to make it about me? The article being on a controversial topic rightly require a discussion, but that does not mean that everytime a sourced info especially from books has to be added, a formal permission is required for that. Without going into further details, as I am still collecting the info, I would just say that I plan to add, with dates the military actions taken by Indian Army inside or along the Indo-East Pakistan border well before 3 December. This info will primarily relay on books by Indian authors.—TripWire ^talk 09:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

{{U|82.11.33.86}‎ We know that you dont understand English, but I will also ask if you know what 'archiving' is? The MS Encarta source has been used in other articles at Wiki after it was archived, 'source no exist' does not fit here! Self-revert or you are going in to ANI. Use a little commonsense are click on the archive. You otherwise have been very fondly using archives to accuse me, so you exactly know what it is.—TripWire ^talk 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I check webcite, is here [14] You cannot add that infos as is copyrighted. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha. That's why citations are there for! Every secondary source is copyrighted! FYKI, this info is exactly used in another article right here in Wiki. —TripWire ^talk 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The info you are stupidly reverting has been here already!! First you said that the source did not exist and when yo were facepalmed on that you now say that info is copyrighted? Are uou stupid?! —TripWire ^talk 12:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Last warning, stop insulting. Is same, word for word. So is copyright violation. Left link on you talk. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP is in fact, correct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I will suely reword and paraphrase it. —TripWire ^talk 13:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN I have rephrased the words, I hope it clears it up —TripWire ^talk 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The copyright violation needs to be fixed in the other article, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, as well (and really, someone should do a thorough check of that one because in my experience, where there is one copyvio, there's a ton of them).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right. It is likely that the other article too has CRV in addition to one that you have highlighted. —TripWire ^talk 09:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Narendra Modi is not authorative source of History

Narendra Modi is famous for slip-ups and wrong statements.

• http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/narendra-modi-s-mistakes-give-foes-chance-to-teach-him-history/article1-1145612.aspx

• http://indiatoday.intoday.in/gallery/narendra-modis-11-mistakes/1/11746.html

• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modi-must-guard-against-more-slip-ups-feels-party/articleshow/25606731.cms

• http://www.mensxp.com/special-features/lok-sabha-elections-2014/22381-top-10-embarrassing-goofups-by-narendra-modi.html

• http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modis-nepal-slip-in-bhutan-fires-up-twitter-578510

Lets end this discussion.--Cosmic  Emperor  14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares how good or bad Modi is in making speeches, he's not a wikipedia editors whose edits can be reverted if deemed unsuitable. Being a PM of the largest democracy, his words matter and are taken seriously despite his poor grip on English language or pathetic verbal expression. He's a PM and whenever he says something at a public forum infront of international media, it is taken as a content of Strategic communication whether you like it or not. Therefore, his recent words, having a bearing on 1971 war should be included here. —TripWire ^talk 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares that you think helping Bangladesh in 1971 was unjustified. Global public opinion favored the Bangladesh cause.123 Modi obviously meant to point to the widespread public support in India itself. A genocide was taking place and a military intervention brought it to an end. Pakistan lost, now get over it and move on. There's no point in raising baseless grievances.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah! Then have the courage to mention it, as said by Modi here. What's all the fuss about then? Saying over and over again that it already is mentioned and 'known' wont suffice. —TripWire ^talk 10:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's been my point the whole time. You're acting like a sore loser from 1971. Pakistan would be better off replicating post-war Japan/Germany. The fuss is when you are trying to push an irrelevant speech by Modi and a twisted reaction to that speech from Pakistan. Indo-Pak outbursts over the Bangladesh War are really pointless to this article in 2015.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Quoting an unknown dude sitting in Germany who says 20,000 people have been abducted in Balochistan is not pointless, but a speech by Indian PM is pointless?! Bias! —TripWire ^talk 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be lost, try the Balochistan conflict page for those issues.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's been my point he whole time. It takes courage to be remain WP:NPOV—TripWire ^talk 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no courage in being neutral when it comes to matters of genocide.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What's up with the recent IP Edits?

2 x IPs are constantly fixed on POV pushing by adding/deleting content to present one version of the story. They are likely socks as when one of them was reported to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism another registered user jumped in to defend the IP. Reversions by three other editors including myself yielded no results. Removing sourced content and POV pushing is totally unacceptable. Phrases like 'West Pakistan Army' have never used nor have existed. Adding these only means that the editor is a POV pusher and / or a sock. PakSol ^talk 23:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Google hits for "West Pakistan Army" [15]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Facebook, dailystar, bangladeshgenocide.org etc are mighty reliable. Did you even bothered to see the search results when you Googled?:

• Facebook is not a source.
• And guess what, the link from Dawn newspaper actually shows the words 'west Pakistan Army' in the comments section only...lolz, and not the text of the article being linked.
• Dailystar has it in the title despite that it has loaned the Article from Express Tribune which itself DOES NOT use the words 'West Pakistan Army' ANYWHERE in the original source: Original article's title is Bangladesh independence 1971: Surrender at Chittagong http://tribune.com.pk/story/307304/surrender-at-chittagong/.
• bangladeshgenocide.org is like a blog, it's authors are nothing but bloggers. Also, it is clear to everyone that info from a 'biased' and onesided source cannot be used hai as it is not WP:NOPV. But then, the funny thing is, the the website does not use 'west pakistan army' and still you are counting it as a source :).
• So, no, the phrase 'West Pakistan Army' does not exist, and it is just your way of pushing your highly biased POV, and hence wont be allowed. This more than anything else proves that the IPs are a socks and are deliberately resorting to vandalism and disruptive editing and you supporting them mean nothing but that you are probably an accomplice. Your 'research' actually shows that 'West Pakistan Army' cannot be included here more so for the reason that they have never been used they way you guys have been trying to put it. PakSol ^talk 07:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not pushing anything, just disputing your claim that phrases like "West Pakistan army" never existed. Sure, Google doesn't know what a reliable source is. But we do. Among the hits, there are also articles from the Encyclopedia of Genocide, the BBC and scholarly articles like this one [16]. You just close your eyes to them. "Typical" is what I feel like saying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the link you quoted now does not show in your search results, the result shows another page from the same website. Second, the link shows the story from the Bengali POV - for the Bangalis, West Pakistan was a separate entity as was East Pakistan for the West Pakistanis. For them (East Pakistanis) to use 'West Pakistan Army' may be acceptable, but putting it here from a neutral POV negates WP:NOPV guidelines. For a neutral observer, the "Army" fighting in Bangladesh was Pakistan Army, not West Pakistan Army. Commonsense? So, if you are still adamant, then it is nothing but POV-pushing and you may continue to disagree, but you cant include it at Wikipedia. PakSol ^talk 08:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend, Google showed "97,400 results" for "West Pakistan army." You looked at 10. Or, may be not even 10. NPOV means using reliable sources and setting aside your OR. For you, I take it that your OR is supreme and sources don't matter. Upside down world! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And that shall make the edit authentic? No, it wont. There's no argument here. One sided POV will not be allowed. No one gives a tosh about how Bangalis or Indians like to address the Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army is and was Pakistan Army even when Pakistan had two wings separated in the East and West and is still known as such. It's that simple. Show want to show that Pakistanis from the Western wing were 'outsider' and thus going by your definition, every Armyman who was fighting inside Bangladesh was a Westerner, but the fact is that even Eastern Pakistanis were part of the so called 'West Pakistan Army' and this 'western' army as you like to Push was not alien, but was headquartered in East Pakistan since the last 24 years. Just because Indians and (now) some Bengalis like to address them as such (which though is alright from their POV and perpecive, but it is not very common nor have been published in neutral sources - only those which pushes the Indian POV), it does not make it a fact nor it is a neutral POV that should be included in Wikipedia, because doing so would amount to POV pushing from the Indian POV.

Lastly, Google hits approx 25,900 results when "Modi is a Terrorist" is searched, so going by your understanding of how thing at Wikipedia works, one should also call and write Mr Modi as such here? PakSol ^talk 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if there is a reliable source among them, I would write it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are not applying the same standards here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mukti_Bahini#RfC:_Should_the_revelations.2Fadmission_by_Prime_Minister_Modi_be_included_in_the_article.3F

DNA India, Hindustan Times, Times of India are not neutral? I get it, they are neutral when they are supporting your own POVs, right? Just quoting three sources out of them 25,900:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/modi-says-upa-sinking-cong-calls-him-terrorist/article1-868817.aspx

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-narendra-modi-is-a-political-terrorist-congress-1700637

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modi-a-political-terrorist-trying-to-divert-attention-Congress/articleshow/14002162.cms

Even though Modi is a Terrorist is published for so many times, but I still wouldnt include it here at Wikipedia for the obvious reasons that you seem miss so often.

Anyways, this discussion is going no where. Improve your understanding of citing sources PakSol ^talk 10:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have explained to you, Modi is not a reliable source for history. You have not shown any understanding of that. Neither have you ever shown any ability to read a scholarly source and summarize it. So you are just woffling without making any point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly :) PakSol ^talk 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected two days. All editors need to stop edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate Misinterpretation of Sources

The reason behind the edit war which was initiated by the IPs was that it was adding 'sources' which did not support the text they were added to. I added a citation needed tag and resultantly the IP came up with certain sources which infact were not accurate. Ref # 13 and 14 added by the IP became the cause of the problem. I have gone through each source and can tell you that they do not support the text they are attached to. I would request editors to see it for yourself.

The sentence which was edited by me was: "The junta formed radical religious (bold part was removed) militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace"(citation needed was added here).

As a response, the IP add sources 13 and 14. I am placing the snapshots of these sources below, I would request you to go through them and decided if they support the unsourced text above:

File:Ref13.JPG Does this proof they were 'radical religious'?

File:Ref14.JPG Does this prove they assisted Pak Army during raids on civilians? It only mentioned Al-Badar, what about the Razakars & Al-Shams?

—PakSol ^talk 08:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times reported that these militias were directed by a special group of Pakistan army officers.1 The other two sources by Peter Tomsen and Alex Schmid also testify to the same fact. Claiming that these militias weren't religious radicals, when they justified their violence on the basis of religion, is something that falls flat on its face.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Removals

Re this revert [17], with the edit summary "well-sourced? You think an official Bangladeshi military site is reliable?".

First, please don't mark non-minor edits as minor. If you're doing so purposefully this can be seen as disruptive and dishonest. If you're not doing it purposefully, please turn off the "minor" option in your preferences (upper left).

More importantly, can you explain how the source is "an official Bangladeshi military site"? Rather the source seems to be this book, which looks like reliable, scholarly source. On top of that, the text, about the 1971 Dhaka University massacre is not exactly controversial. In fact, the name of the massacre should be spelled out rather than linked as an "easter egg".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Re you first said in your edit reverting TripWire, "this looks like well sourced text", I disagree with that. The info is not simply referenced with the reliable sources. I am talking about BAF's official site, that you reinstated in the text during your revert. Do you think it is a reliable source? How you would prove that "Bangladeshi air forces achieved air supremacy in the eastern theater.", a claim not even made by this site, which you cited as a source for it. How that appears to be "well sourced text" to you? Faizan (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to take out the part about BAF that's one thing. But you, and TripWire/PakSol are also removing text sourced to academic sources. Can you please at the very least restore that part of the text, since obviously it is well sourced?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

'Bangladesh', East-Pakistan at that time, had an airforce???? Well-sourced? If it had been, it would not have required a sock/sockmaster to add it—TripWire ^talk 17:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

One more time, if you want to remove the stuff about the airforce that's fine (for now). But please stop using this as an excuse to remove OTHER, well sourced text, about the 1971 Dhaka University massacre. It would really show that you're acting in good faith if you put that text back in yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: "please stop using this as an excuse to remove OTHER, well sourced text, about the 1971 Dhaka University massacre.". Is this the text you are talking about? "The capital Dacca was the scene of many atrocities, particularly in its university area and police barracks. The junta formed radical religious militias."? And is this the source that you are citing? So now you should do us a favour, please tell us that which page of the academic source supports the above text? Page Number? The whole book does not even include the words of "Dhaka University". Please explain how this academic source "well-sources" the text with which it is cited? Faizan (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you insist on acting in bad faith. Was Dacca the scene of many atrocities? Yes. Did the most well known ones take place on the University campus? Yes. Did the junta form various radical religious militias which *assisted* in carrying out these atrocities? Yes. Is any of this controversial? No. Is there a source, right in the next sentence which support this text? Yes. So why the hell are you removing it?

Oh, I see, because ANOTHER source doesn't mention the phrase "Dacca university", even though it talks about the atrocities in general. So you think that makes it okay to change "many atrocities" and "raids on local population" - phrases supported by sources - to some bullshit "military operations"? No. Quit. Playing Games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Where does it even talk about the atrocities? We are playing games? Or someone else? If there is no mention of the university, you cannot put it there. WP:SYNTHESIS. Faizan (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So you have made another revert while asking others to show good faith? Explain he "academic sources" before putting them again now, or you will be on 3RR. Faizan (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I added two new sources because you objected to one. The info is not controversial. And yet you keep on insisting on changing "atrocities" to "military operations" despite well established academic consensus and against what sources say. You are clearly engaged in WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV pushing. Like I said, you can remove the stuff about the airforce if you want. But please put back the relevant material about the Dhaka University massacre. We have a whole article on it for fig's sake, so it's not like its existence is in question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, allow me to point out - again - that the text you are removing "The junta formed radical religious militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace" already has a source. Wait! No, it actually already has TWO sources. So why are you removing this text? Because a completely different part of article uses a source from the Bangladeshi air force, which you think is not reliable. How. Does. That. Make. Sense? Quit playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And it gets worse...

Re: [18]

This is essentially a baseless revert which does not advance the discussion in any meaningful way. It just... reverts, reverts, reverts! Why am I getting the sense that you guys (TripWire/PakistaniSoldier and Faizan) are tag-teaming in order to try and get me to break 3RR?

You have not done anything to justify your removal of text based on reliable sources. More, you have done nothing to justify why reliably-based text should be replaced by some POV-WEASELING.

To be explicit and cut off more bullshit excuses for edit warring:

• This has NOTHING to do with "sockpuppets". You are using the excuse that some account which MAYBE was a sockpuppet of someone or other (I have no idea) made some OTHER edits on this article at SOME point in time, in order to remove reliably sourced text for POV reasons which has nothing to do with that maybe-sockpuppet-account. Please stop lying and bullshitting. I've restored this particular text because it is well sourced. Do NOT revert it again under false pretenses.

• The initial objection was that a source in the middle of a particular sentence did not use the words "Dacca University", therefore several sentences of text - which WERE well sourced - could be removed. Nonsense. There WERE ALREADY two sources given at the end of the sentence which supported this text. So EVEN IF you throw out that one source, the text is STILL well supported. Please stop removing it or changing it to some ridiculous WEASEL POV version.

• In addition to the reliable sources which were ALREADY in the the article, I've added two more. I could easily add TWENTY more. This is non-controversial text unless you're a WP:BATTLEGROUND POV warrior. This is well established. So... now you tag teaming guys are removing text which has a plethora of reliable sources to back it up because...

• ...apparently because "NO CONSENSUS!" As in "if we tag team and engage in edit wars that is the same as consensus". Bullshit. It's not. This text was in the article long before you got here. It is supported by reliable sources. Just because you don't like it and you are physically capable of pressing the "Revert" button three - but not four - times, per day, does not mean that you have "consensus". It's reliably sourced, it's neutral leave it alone.

• At the very least please at least pretend to engage in good faithed discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)