Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 10

Statusquo
The statusquo infobox result is "Pakistani Defeat" as edited by an uninvolved admin, which was also the version at the closure of the RfC on 30 September. We should maintain this statusquo unless there is a consensus to change it. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * STATUSQUO refers to the last stable version the article had before dispute or disruptions began and not your personal interpretations as per your comfort. RfC closed as no consensus which means that you should follow WP:STATUSQUO instead of adding misleading words rejected by most participants for being unsourced original research and for which there was no consensus. Also ping to clarify that "no consensus" means status quo i.e. long standing version before RfC. The version you are pushing for at first place was disputed for sourcing at first place. I suggest you revert yourself immediately. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case the last stable version was "Indo-Bangladeshi victory", but definitely not "Indian victory" which was just stonewalled through edit-warring. I would prefer "Pakistani defeat" since it was edited by an uninvolved admin Buckshot06, after considering the discussion by neutral editors from WP:MILITARY. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY is preferred over your personal view. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A year ago it was Bangladeshi-allied victory. As this seems to be the version before all the kerfuffle I shall revert to that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that was the most long-standing version, before the changes in the infobox began. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources? You are cherry picking the versions. For most times it was "India Bangladesh victory" without sources as already discussed above and Bangladesh didn't existed then. The article was stable until this misrepresentation of sources started, and it said "Indian victory". As those versions weren't backed by sources, they were short lived. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am not, I went back exactly a year. When was it "India Bangladesh victory"? As to sources, if there is no consensus for change, we do not change it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute began when Aman.kumar.goel started making changes and were later joined by others. There was no misrepresentation, all the sources were provided in the discussion above. The war started when Bangladesh came into existence on 26 March 1971, not sure how you got the idea that "Bangladesh didn't exist then". Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The version was stable for 6 months after that. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you need to better realize the fact that it was "Indian victory" for more than 6 months before this dispute started on August. "India Bangladesh victory" was unsourced then too just like bogus "Bangladeshi-allied victory" is. I hope you are not rejecting "Indian victory" backed by the highly academic reliable sources like Oxford, Springer, etc., are you? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 6 Months? []. june means 4 months tops. That assumes it was stable for all that time. Was it?12:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it was not [].Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A vandalistic IP edit does not count. According to your definition, there can be no stable version for infobox parameter then since it gets disrupted all the time. WP:DISPUTE is more than just drive-by WP:DE. February - August are 6 months thus WP:STATUSQUO. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Zarifobayed360 is not a vandalsitic IP account.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You missed that I said WP:DISPUTE is more than just drive-by WP:DE. It was a disruptive edit not supported by the source but misrepresented what the sources said. You need to show where Zarifobayed360 started a WP:DISPUTE. RfC started on 12 August and the version during that time said "Indian victory". WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should avoid making disputed edits. In particular, even if you believe that your preferred version is the "status quo" or "stable version"". Since no consensus was established to change it, it should remain as it was before. Unless you can point out to any earlier dispute opposing "Indian victory" which is backed by Oxford, Springer, and other high quality academic sources unlike the rest of WP:ORs, there is no reason to contradict the STATUSQUO. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Drive by? I suggest you stop attacking other editors.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Where I am attacking editor? Anybody can tell this edit was WP:DE - far from being a "dispute". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? It seems to me it returned the page to a version of oct 2019, a version that has been that way for 6 months (at least). That is not disruptive, and you need to wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aman.kumar.goel, you have been told multiple times by multiple editors that there were enough reliable sources for Bangladeshi victory and you are still arguing WP:OR or source misrepresentation. It's a different thing if you want to reject every source that doesn't match your POV. You are now clearly showing WP:IDHT signs. Please stop being disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no source comparable to Oxford, Springer, Pentagon Press and other highly reliable sources which could say "Bangladeshi victory". They all say "Indian victory". See WP:IRS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Since the version before the RfC said "Indian victory" it needs to continue doing so because there is "no consensus" to change it right now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issue has been already discussed. The long-standing version was "Bangladeshi-allied victory" so that should be in place per WP:STATUSQUO as explained by . Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop selectively canvassing. You haven't provided any explanation for: 1) Oxford, Springer, etc. are not reliable sources, 2) "Bangladeshi allied victory" meets WP:VERIFY, 3) WP:STATUSQUO doesn't apply on an edit standing for half-a-year. Since you don't have explanation for any of this you need to stop throwing baseless conclusions. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not canvasing, the next comment false accusation or personal comment about a user gets reported.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop talking about editors, all of you. If you have a complaint raise it an wp:ani or on their talk pages. You may take this as a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't believe we are having this all over again after a two-month long, "violent" discussion. The current problem seems to have started with this super-bold edit. When that contentious RfC was closed as no consensus, you should keep it that way and refrain from making a controversial change without a discussion. --Zayeem  (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It restored WP:STATUSQUO as already noted above. It is reliably sourced content, and not the WP:OR which you attempted to restore even after it failed to attract most editors. Orientls (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We are edit warring people.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we are in dispute about statusquo, I've restored the RfC version, and let an admin change it when there is a consensus. --Zayeem  (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you discuss the lack of sourcing and violation of WP:OR?
 * As for the version, it needs to state what it was before the RfC than state a cherrypicked proposal for which there was no consensus in the RfC. Orientls (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that Pakistan faced defeat in the war is sufficiently sourced in different parts of the article. Since the RfC was closed as no consensus, we should keep the version when it was closed, i.e. this revision. If I wanted to cherrypick, I could have easily restored the version with "Bangladeshi victory". --Zayeem  (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't sourced, see WP:OR. Can you provide sources for it? No reliable sources say "Bangladeshi victory" while "Indian victory" is "backed by the highly academic reliable sources like Oxford, Springer, etc." Why you would add "Bangladeshi victory" when it has been rejected by academics? It would never make sense on this article. Orientls (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See the "Surrender and Aftermath" section for sources on Pakistan's defeat in the war. --Zayeem  (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Who added "Bangladeshi victory"? What are you talking about? And why are you vandalisng the article? Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Those sources don't mention "Paksitan's defeat". Overall, your argument really holds no value against what is comfortably backed with reliable scholarly sources. Yoonadue (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now this is a bit confusing. Which sources "do not" mention Pakistani defeat? Are you saying that "Pakistani defeat" is orginal research? Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are already added and there was no reason to ask for a source to confirm Pakistan's defeat. Anyway, see this. --Zayeem  (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything not backed by a reliable source even after it has been reasonably objected can be concluded as WP:OR. Also, as an avid reader of military articles, this might be the only article where a belligerent's defeat is being mentioned as "result", than the reliably sourced mention of the victor. Why this article requires a different treatment like that? Srijanx22 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The source provided by Kmzayeem above is apparently talking about the military surrender by Pakistan. I think it deserves a mention. What if our "result" parameter says:
 * Creation of Bangladesh
 * Indian victory
 * Pakistani surrender

Thoughts? Srijanx22 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not bad. It probably would be even better if we could have:
 * Liberation of Bangladesh (it was created either when it declared independence, which is its day of birth accepted by the UN, or when Bhutan and India recognized it)
 * Indo-Bangladesh Joint Command victory (it inherently includes an Indian victory, while in the 1971 Indo-Pak war article it should be a straight Indian victory though the surrender was made to the Joint Command)
 * Pakistani surrender
 * I believe this will be comprehensive and totally supported by RS, with minimum dispute potential. Say what? Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All good, it sums up all what's,
 * Creation of Bangladesh or Establishment of Bangladesh
 * Indian victory
 * Pakistani surrender
 * I don't think any secondary reliable sources any joint command victory and that's why "Indo-Bangladeshi victory" was disputed at first place. you have been told multiple times by multiple editors that there were enough reliable sources... There were only primary sources with diplomatic notes and not secondary third party sources which are supposed to be taken into consideration to reflect academic views. This has been told repeatedly by me as well as uninvolved editors & admins. Why would I object otherwise? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources like Muldhara 71 published by University Press Limited is a secondary, third party reliable source, so are the other sources for "Bangladeshi victory" and no admins or uninvolved editors disputed that. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Providing secondary sources for a joint command victory is not difficult:
 * "The war ended on December 16, 1971, when Pakistan's Eastern command surrendered in Dhaka to India–Bangladesh joint command with over 93,000 Pakistani (Prisoners of War) POW (Khanna 2007; Burke 1973)." - J.L. Kaul and ‎Anupam Jha, Shifting Horizons of Public International Law: A South Asian Perspective, page 241, Springer, 2018, ISBN 9788132237242
 * "On December 1 6, the Pakistan army surrendered to the Joint Command of the Indian and Bangladesh forces" - Salman M. A. Salman and Kishor Uprety, Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia's International Rivers: A Legal Perspective, page 125, World Bank Publications, 2002, ISBN 9780821353523
 * "The liberation war of Bangladesh was transformed into a full - scale war between the joint forces of Bangladesh and India on the one side and the Pakistani Army on the other on 3 December 1971 . Pakistan surrendered to the joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on 16 December 1971" - Muinul Islam and ‎Nitai Chandra Nag, Economic Integration in South Asia: Issues and Pathways, Pearson Education India, 2010, ISBN 9788131729458
 * "The liberation war reached its culmination in a full-scale conventional war between Pakistan and the joint forces of India and Bangladesh." - Samuel Totten and ‎William Spencer Parsons, Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, page 249, Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9780415871914
 * "This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lieutenant-General AAK Niazi of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of Indian and Bangladeshi forces in East Pakistan." - Tom Ruys, Olivier Corten, Alexandra Hofer, The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach, page 170, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 9780198784357
 * "Pakistan's Lt-General A.A.K. Niazi (Commander of Eastern Command) and his deputy, Vice-Admiral M.S. Khan signed the Instrument of Surrender to a joint command of Indian and the Mukti Bahini forces in Dhaka." - Bill K. Koul, The Exiled Pandits of Kashmir, page 254, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, ISBN 9789811565373
 * "Pakistani forces surrender to India-Bangladesh joint command. - Bangladesh Documents (Volume 2), pages 550, 688, 693, Ministry of External Affairs, India, 1971
 * "After a short but brutal civil war, the West Pakistani military surrendered to a joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on December 16 , 1971 , and Bangladesh achieved freedom." - Karl R. DeRouen, ‎Paul Bellamy, International Security and the United States, page 85, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, ISBN 9780275992545
 * "Aurora offered security and prisoner-of-war status to all those and others who wished to be repatriated and who surrendered to the Joint Command." - Verinder Grover, Political System in Pakistan: Pakistan-India relations (Volume 7), Deep & Deep, 1995, ISBN 9788171007400
 * "The Indian Army formed a joint command with Muktibahini and both jointly fought against the West Pakistani army in East Bengal." - N. Jayapalan, Foreign Policy of India, page 313, Atlantic Publishers, 2001, ISBN 9788171568987
 * "A Joint Command of the Indian Armed Forces and the Mukti Bahini of Bangladesh was set up on December 10, 1971 . Swift was the joint action of the Indian Armed Forces and the Mukti Bahini from December 4 to December 16 , 1971." - S. K. Chakrabarti, The Evolution of Politics in Bangladesh: 1947-1978, page 214, Associated, 1978
 * "Pakistani prisoners of war surrendered to a joint command of India and Mukti Bahini, and, therefore, Mr. Mujibur Rahman holds a veto over their release even if India wants to release them." - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Interviews to the Press, December 20, 1971-August 13, 1973 page 10, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Directorate of Research, Reference & Publications, Government of Pakistan, 1973
 * "It is contended that Pakistan forces in the Eastern sector surrendered to the Joint Command of India and Bangladesh forces." - Mehrunnisa Ali, ''Readings in Pakistan Foreign Policy, 1971-1978, page 79, Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 9780195793932
 * "The war had ended with the surrender of about 90,000 Pakistani soldiers in the eastern sector at Dacca on 17 December 1971 to the Joint Command of the Indian army and Bangladesh's Mukti Bahni." - Avtar Bhasin, India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds, page 224, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, ISBN 9789386826213
 * "A total of 91,596 prisoners surrendered to the joint command of India and Bangladesh." - Maj Gen Sukhwant Singh, India's Wars Since Independence The Liberation Of Bangladesh (Volume 1), page 198, Lancer Publishers, 1980, ISBN 9781935501602
 * "On 16th December the Pakistani forces in the eastern sector surrendered to the joint command of the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini in Dhaka." - P. K. Bandyopadhyay, The Bangladesh Dichotomy and Politicisation of Culture, page 19, B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2004, ISBN 9788176464253
 * With the problem of sources solved there should not be much difficulty to opt for a joint command victory. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with your proposal is that "Bangladesh" is an inaccurate term and some of your sources do use "Mukti Bahini" instead. Other sources also say "Niazi surrendered to the Joint Command of the Indian army and the Mukti Bahini", "West Pakistani army surrendered to the Indian army and the Mukti Bahini". I can just keep going on but we need to use the term that is absolutely more accurate. There is no disagreement between sources that Bangladesh was created after this war. Azuredivay (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This was in response to who objected to a joint command victory because he did not think any secondary sources supported it. As for your point of more accuracy, we definitely can take a look at something better. Can you provide some links and quotes that is "absolutely more accurate"?  Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Aman.kumar.goel was referring to "Indo-Bangladesh Joint Command victory". I haven't seen sources directly saying that and "Mukti Bahini" is the more accurate term, not "Bangladesh". "Dhaka fell to combined Indian and Mukti Bahini forces on December 16, and Bangladesh gained its independence." Don't you think that "Mukti Bahini" is indeed more accurate than "Bangladesh"? Azuredivay (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be, from some perspectives, as the Bangladesh forces were indeed referred to as the Mukti Bahini back then. From another perspective, the Joint Command was called "India-Bangladesh Joint Command". What would be more accurate when referring to the Joint Command? Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FFS. This nationalistic nonsense is STILL going? I want to make it very clear to all that are participating here that standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for uninvolved admins to use regarding this article pursuant to WP:ARBIPA, and I for one will use them if this ongoing tendentious behaviour doesn't stop. None of these walls of text about one line in the infobox is improving the encyclopaedia one jot. Just implement "Pakistani defeat, see Aftermath" and get on with improving the actual article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

How about: Azuredivay (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Successful liberation of Bangladesh
 * Decisive Indian victory
 * Pyrrhic Bangladeshi victory
 * Pakistani surrender
 * Establishment of Bangladesh as a separate nation
 * Yes. It started again when reverted to the previous version ("Indian victory"). Despite  urging to restore the status quo ,  ,   and   kept reverting to "Indian victory".  tried twice to restore "Pakistani defeat, see aftermath" twice ( and , but were reverted both times by Srijanx22 and Orientls, who also resorted to vandalisng the article.
 * By the way, I took a look at the many ways of dealing with results of successful independence wars on the Wikipedia. Some of the ways I found:
 * Haitian Revolution: Haitian victory (though the French Navy was defeated by the British Navy, and not ex-slaves)
 * Greek War of Independence: No listing of victors (though Greek revolutionaries helped by Britain, France and Russia defeated the Ottoman Empire)
 * Romanian War of Independence: Romanian / Bulgarian / Russian Victory (all of them fought to defeat the Ottoman Empire in that war)
 * Peninsular War: Coalition victory (the coalition included Spain, Portugal and the UK)
 * Belgian Revolution: Franco-Belgian victory (though the battles were mostly fought by Belgians)
 * There obviously are more than one solution one can revert to. There is nothing wrong with "Pakistani defeat, see aftermath".
 * P.S. I guess my rather large list of sources and quotes is part of the "walls of text" you mention. At the time of posting I didn't realise that look so. Apologising. Will not happen again. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of commenting on users, can you comment on the proposal Azuredivay provided above? Srijanx22 (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would request you to check the comment made by above . He has a very good point, which makes this entire discussion redundant. We absolutely should reinstate "Pakistani defeat, see aftermath", and move on. This whole cycle of reverts and futile discussions is rather tendentious as it is.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree the proposed results by Azuredivay as it makes it clear that India had a decisive victory over Pakistan, while Mukti Bahini didn't exactly outpowered Pakistani military, it still won the war. We need to highlight that Bangladesh was created as a result of this war. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Azuredivay's proposal is FAR too much for an infobox. Just adopt something simple as suggested and move on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I would be fine with "Decisive Indian victory and pyrrhic Bangladeshi victory". For the rest of the points we can use "{{Collapsible list|" Srijanx22 (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While words like "decisive" and "Pyrrhic" may be nice, they are considered as WP:PUFFERY at the Wikipedia and strongly discouraged. It is also impossible to see the reason behind repeating "Successful liberation of Bangladesh" and "Establishment of Bangladesh as a separate nation" to cover the same parameter. Azuredivay's proposal makes no sense. "Pakistani defeat, see aftermath" is much better (so is "India-Bangladesh Joint Command victory", but we can rest that case). Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you are wrong about this. Those terms are not violation of WP:PUFFERY because they describe the happenings more appropriately. They are frequently used across Wikipedia. At this stage, we can just do "India-Bangladesh victory". Srijanx22 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "India-Bangladesh victory"? Sounds good. No subjective judgement or puffery. No complex and/or nonsensical list. Comprehensive with proper weightage (India comes before Bangladesh, which is also the official version in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere). Not far from the joint command. I say no objection. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me for now. I note the original dispute started over "India - Bangladesh victory" vs "Bangladesh-allied victory" in 2018. Obviously the former is better. Orientls (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection to "India-Bangladesh victory". As to the post above by Orientls, the dispute actually started when the long-stable "Bangladesh-allied victory" was changed, as explained by Slatersteven earlier. If there's no consensus, we should revert it back to Buckshot06's version of "Pakistani defeat" as Peacemaker67 suggested. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Indian-Bangladeshi victory" Looks good to me too. --Zayeem  {{sup| (talk) }} 17:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "India-Bangladesh victory" if only to get this ridiculous nonsense to stop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the name of NPOV and balance I would accept anything other then just "Indian victory". So have no objection to "India-Bangladesh victory", though its not my preferred option.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus?
Looks like we have a consensus for "India-Bangladesh victory". Can someone add that to the infobox? Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At least wait for any dissenting voices from above to have their say before counting !votes. This is an unseemly rush to push through an outcome. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It could also be an unseemly rush to end a dispute that has been going on for years, especially pitched in the last three months. But still we could probably benefit from some patience. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with this solution either. --Yoonadue (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for now to achieve a stable version. Vested problems which I highlighted earlier although continue to remain. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are always going to be problems, as nationalists from both sides will want to claim victory.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I really wished to do the honors of editing out the dipute that lasted for years, but  has beaten both him and I to the job. Thanks Xeed, nonetheless.
 * I think we need a formal closure of this discussion, with "consensus" written on top of a purple box by an uninvolved admin. That makes it easy to flaunt in case a new editor fails to see the consensus we achieved here. Maybe WP:Closure request? Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.But yes we need a formal closure.☺️ Srijanx22 (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Xeed.rice was supposed to change "only" the result of the infobox but I'm not sure why he changed the image caption from "Surrender of Pakistan to Indian and Bangladesh forces," to "Lt. Gen. Amir Niazi signs the Pakistani Instrument of Surrender to Indian forces in the presence of Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh". I've fixed it. I expected an admin to do the honors but since we are done with it, we can have a closure now. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You may want to add one or two citations to that. And, please, don't cite Muldhara 71. There are plenty other books with better claim to reliability. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the surrender image caption is already cited by an Indian source. And Muldhara 71 is already cited in the article in multiple places. It was published by University Press Limited, I'm not sure if there should be any doubt on its reliability. I think also agrees that the book is reliable enough to cite. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While a very good publisher, UPL is not a university publisher. Muldhara 71 is definitely "reliable enough", but there are much more reliable books available. When something is contested it is better cite "more reliable" sources, not "enough reliable" sources. In fact I was shocked to see how much depends on that single book of mediocre quality in some of the arguments above. Remember that Moidul Hasan, the author, was Tajuddin's secretary, and has a clear bias. It may be good for regular information, but certainly not for contested information. ( Should I also brag about how I used be a member of UPL, how I was at the launch ceremony of that book, and so on? ) Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess enough time has passed since the aforementioned consensus was achieved. As no opposition has been raised, this discussion may be closed formally.Srijanx22 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked at WP:RFCLOSE for a closure. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "India–Bangladesh victory" (or "Indian–Bangladeshi victory") seems fine, since that amounts to basically the same thing as the real STATUSQUO. However, "India–Bangladeshi victory" is a grammatical error, mixing noun and adjective usage. And "Indo-Bangladeshi victory" should not be used because "Indo-Bangladeshi" appears to be a made-up word. It's certainly not common in sources, and readers are apt to mistake it for an ethnonym or other cultural name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we can agree, I would go for "Indian–Bangladeshi victory". Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a joint victory of India and Bangladesh, but a victory of independent-sovereign Bangladesh. Since March 26, Bangladeshis have resisted and fought. But India started an all-out war at the very last stage of the war of liberation, on December 3. It cannot be a victory for India just because India has helped Bangladesh. However India won the Indo-Pak War of 1971 war which started on November 3.≈ MS Sakib  «TalK»  04:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was India-Bangladesh joint victory. Pakistani forces did surrender to the India-Bangladesh joint forces. However, "creation of Bangladesh as a sovereign country" should be kept as a result of the war. AdiBhai (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming the article as Bangladesh War of Independence
I am proposing to rename the article as  Bangladesh War of Independence to make the title more neutral as a neutral point of view and to make it more consistent with other wikipedia articles of the similar type. 103.230.105.50 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: This does not make any sense. You can not try to turn over the consensus like this way while a proposal for renaming is ongoing on bnwiki. You should have waited until that conversation ends. AdiBhai (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Every language based wikipedia is independent of their own decision not relying on other language wikipedia, as far as I know. 103.230.106.41 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * bnwiki?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and here is the discussion → (bn:আলাপ:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ), you can read it by using machine translator such as google translate (here). 103.230.106.41 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A proposal for renaming the article from "স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ" (War of Independence) to "মুক্তিযুদ্ধ" (Liberation War) is in progress on Bengali Wikipedia. And Mr. IP User (main account blocked for various reason) is trying his all means to spoil the conversation. Now, he started this conversation making all the process more difficult. This is totally meaningless! AdiBhai (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then that is utterly irrelevant here. I can well see merit to this, as it was war of Independence as much as anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't actually. For instance, see Ministry of Liberation War Affairs (Bangladesh) and then decide what is more irrelevant. This IP is way much petulant!! AdiBhai (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why we have a conversation here about this proposal.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I request a hault to this conversation here until the discussion on Bengali Wikipedia ends. Thank you. AdiBhai (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What the Bengali wiki does has no impact or effect here in any way. We can (and should) do what we like, irrespective of what the Bengali wiki does. For that reason alone I think an RFC may be in order now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I have nothing to say but oppose strongly again then. I have already mentioned the example of Ministry of Liberation War Affairs (Bangladesh) for Official use in Bangladesh before. Moreover, Constitution of Bangladesh includes the war as "Struggle for liberation" in English and "Muktijuddho" ("মুক্তিযুদ্ধ" Liberation War: Mukti=Liberation, Juddho=War as per Bangla Academy English-Bengali Dictionary) in Bengali.. Now, Mr. IP, can you please explain how the current title is "not Neutral" from NPOV as I have no idea how it has been claimed? And please, don't utter "make it more consistent with other wikipedia articles of the similar type" again! AdiBhai (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

IP, please read wp:other. We go with what RS say, do you have any RS that call it the war of INDEPENDENCE?Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * see here and here 103.230.106.41 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:rs, a google search is not an RS. But it does establish its a term that is at least out there.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and I think I can give a lot more. 103.230.106.41 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this means there is a clear dispute and thus an RFC is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop adding sources, you have enough to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Its now time to make this formal, see WP:REQMOVE.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am blocked, hence I can't, I request you to do it on behalf of me. 103.230.106.41 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you are deviating from the initial claim. Make clear how the title is not neutral. Both of the terms are used officially, no doubt. But how can you claim a single one more appropriate that is "not popular"? Here is the search tendency worldwide for the past 12 months. Also we have our national encyclopedia, Banglapedia, having an article - The War of Liberation. The official documents are called Liberation War of Bangladesh: Documents. "Liberation War" has also a historic use, for instance, see Liberation War Museum. So please, be straight and don't waste our time. AdiBhai (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Liberation seems to be nationally emotional but independence not, hence independence is neutral. Moreover, the official public documents of the war has been published by the name as Documents of the war of independence of Bangladesh (বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধের দলিলপত্র). This is also why the name independence worth much. And the word liberation sounds more political than neutral. And wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a patron of the states or government or nationality or public authority, it always reflects a worldwide neutral point of view, not a partial one, wheather popular, or not.103.230.104.6 (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not the rule what Wikipedia implies. You are misinterpreting. Wikipedia does reflect public choice, hence it has a rule of having a title with NATURALNESS. Again, your claim that the word "Liberation" seems not neutral from so-called "national point of neutrality" is baseless and fictitious. Then how is "Independence" "Neutral" from international NPOV? It is called the Civil War in Pakistan. Can you source any "etymological reference" that says "Liberation" seems not neutral for "national emotions"? AdiBhai (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * PS. The documents are "Liberation War of Bangladesh: Documents". Please do not misguide. AdiBhai (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does reflect public choice, hence it has a rule of having a title with NATURALNESS. Well, Wikipedia in anyway does not reflect "public choice", not sure where you got it. WP:NPOV isn't about choices of editors but discourse of scholars. A high quality article has to be based upon attributes from academia. As long as the attribute has been used by scholars to refer the particular topic, it makes WP:NATURALNESS and WP:NPOV irrelevant. As for your concern, this title doesn't even hurt these norms in anyway. So unless you are able to prove that your proposes title is in more prevalent use than current one among academia, it should not be applied. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Qualified oppose: Fails WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME in both primary sources over current title. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose As this request was apparently made by a block evading sock we should end it now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pinging all the administrators of Bengali wikipedia for giving comment. 103.67.158.128 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * STOP pinging. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2021
I request to add these in declaration of independence section: But according to A K Khandker, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Bangladesh Armed Forces during the Liberation War, Sheikh Mujib did not record any voice message for the declaration, and according to Tajuddin Ahmed, Sheikh Mujib denied it giving the excuse as for fear of being taken as traitor by Pakistan, and then Pakistan would able to take him under tribunal for that. Sharmin Ahmed Ripi, daughter of Tajuddin Ahmed, also made the same claim in her book "Tajuddin Ahmed: Neta O Pita" (Tajuddin Ahmed: Leader and Father). Khandker also added that, not Zia, but a technician of East Bengal radio station first announced the declaration in radio. Then M. A. Hannan, a politician of Awami League, secondly expressed the announcement. Thirdly, Major Ziaur Rahman, the commander of the East Bengal Regiment in Chittagong, went to the Radio station in Kalurghat, Chittagong on March 27 and declared independence of Bangladesh on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.<ref name=AK> 116.58.201.239 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

✅, but the quote is too long. It must be cut. Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 06:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have undone it. Any passage that starts with a "But" is being contentious, argumentative and unencyclopaedic. Better sources are needed., can you look into this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * With a heavy heart, it is to inform you that Aditya Kabir has passed away this December. May God grant him a place in heaven.


 * To say about the text that was added could be copy edited. I know very little about the encyclopedic form and manuals followed in enwiki. The same information was added in Bengali Wikipedia that we have reviewed. However, I apologise for my hurrying up. I think Mr. IP can provide us with better sources as he works on this topic in bnwiki. In case, the prose is properly sourced and copyedited, it can be added again in the article. Thank you for your concern. Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 13:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Also, please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thank you for your input and hope you and yours have the Happiest of New Years!  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 14:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , pinging all the administrators of Bengali wikipedia for giving comment. 103.67.158.128 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I found another four books mentioning that written by Badruddin Umar, Muhammad Nurul Qadir, Ahmad Salim and Qutubuddin Aziz.   103.67.158.128 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @ip, STOP pinging. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021
Should it be added in title lind that, (it is) also called fall of Dhaka/Dacca. 116.58.201.242 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 116.58.201.242 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * here they are,                  116.58.201.186 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page not moved, due to suspected WP:SOCKs. Anyone non-socks are free to re-list it, if they wish. (non-admin closure)  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War → Bangladesh War of Independence – The title is of neutral, non-emotional and universal point of view and there are lot of reliable established independent sources about that:                              43.245.123.147 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See also a previous discussion at . BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: See above. This is an evading IP of blocked User:Lazy-restless. Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 18:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2021
103.217.111.210 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC) I promise that I’ll here by never vandalise another page on Wikipedia.
 * What edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)