Talk:Prisoners of war in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

Title

This article is on it's fifth title:

1. Indo-Pakistani War (1971) prisoners of war (by MatthewVanitas)
2. Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 Prisoners of War Investigation (by PeerBaba, no explanation)
3. 1971 Prisoners of War Investigation (by Gaurh, "Bangladesh Liberation War also included")
4. Pakistani prisoners of war in India (by Worldbruce, "The flaw in the 2 previous moves is that article and sources do not discuss an investigation. POW article titles are usually of the form in <conflict> or in <country> (where held, not captured).)"
5. Prisoners of war during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (by Mar4d "More apt title")

There hasn't been consensus yet, and I expect not everyone will be satisfied with the latest name. Rather than unilaterally moving again, please first discuss here or go through Wikipedia:Requested moves in accordance with WP:TITLECHANGES. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but the previous title was way too ambiguous (see WP:TITLE). The article is on the 1971 war, so that should be clear enough. Mar4d (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The 4th title suffers from a lack of precision in the sense that the current article is specifically about Pakistani POWs in India between 1971 and 1974, but presumably there have been Pakistani POWs in India as a result of other conflicts, such as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and Kargil War. On the other hand, the 1971-74 POWs are the only notable group. Someone familiar with the India-Pakistan subject area would expect the 4th title to be about them. It could be argued that it is the primary topic, much as German prisoners of war in the United Kingdom and German prisoners of war in northwest Europe are about WWII, even though there have been German POWs in those areas in connection with other conflicts.

The 5th title has its own precision problems. The current article is specifically about Pakistani POWs, not about POWs from all sides. It's also too specific, since, as Gaurh's move shows, there's a point of view that the POWs were not just from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, but also from the Bangladesh Liberation War. Choosing one conflict name over the other is apt to result in a challenge to the neutrality of the title and its implications. The 5th title also suffers from lack of consistency with other POW articles, which are typically of the form "<country> prisoners of war in <conflict>" or "<country1> prisoners of war in <country2>", although there are some exceptions. Finally, the 5th title is also longer than necessary, using "during" where "in" would work. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

...."".Over 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to the joint command of the Indian forces & Bangladesh Liberation Forces on 16 December 1971 at the Ramna Race Course garden in Dhaka, thereby ending the Bangladesh Liberation War"". ...... ""The Indian Army does not explicitly use the term to describe the war in their (India's) Eastern Front at any point. Instead, India only refers to the war on the Western Front as the Indo-Pakistani War.""" Pathetic!

Anyway, my suggestion:

• 1971 Pakistani prisoners of war or
• Pakistani prisoners of war in 1971

enjoy!-----Gaurh (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Current title isn't neutral, as Worldbruce said, "there's a point of view that the POWs were not just from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, but also from the Bangladesh Liberation War". We should renamed this article. Prisoners of war during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 would be too long, i suggest something like "1971 Pakistani prisoners of war" (same as Gaurh). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)