Talk:Bangladesh genocide/Archive 2

Revert of move to "1971 East Pakistan genocide"
The page "1971 East Pakistan genocide" has been moved back to "1971 Bangladesh genocide" because the title "1971 Bangladesh genocide" was agreed in a recent RM were evidence was presented that the article should be moved from a descriptive name to "1971 Bangladesh genocide" because that was the common name. If it is to be moved again then another RM is necessary and it will need to be shown that "1971 East Pakistan genocide" is not just the "correct" name but also the common name for these atrocities. -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Further discussion to take place in the next section. — Шαмıq   ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Please don't use unreliable and POV sources like this one. -- Zayeem (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move June 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh genocide → 1971 East Pakistan genocide – The genocide of Biharis and Bengalis took place in the territory of East Pakistan, not in the territory of modern Bangladesh. It was the government of East Pakistan, under which people were killed, then why this article is referring to Bangladesh? The Sabra and Shatila massacre is named after their respective territories, Herero and Namaqua Genocide unlike this article is not named after the modern territory. Armenian Genocide is named after the province of Ottoman Empire, then why this article is not? Burundian Genocide is named after Brundi, then why this Dual Standard here? In 1971, the genocide which took place was before 16th of December .i.e Before the existence of Bangladesh. Obviously Bangladesh was not involved, as they achieved independence on 16/12. Then why this ridiculous misguidance? The title of the article ought to be relating to the conflicted territory of East Pakistan. I would urge to get a mature consensus for the rename. That's It. No squabbles. Fai zan  09:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The place was then East Pakistan, not Bangladesh. The title should reflect this. — Шαмıq ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 09:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is a descriptive name then genocide ought not to be used as it is a specific crime under international law and should not be used because some editors think it looks like a genocide. If this is not a descriptive name, then bring reliable sources to the debate, to show what is the common name used to describe the events. -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed and sorry for my previous edit here. Fai  zan  10:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bangladesh officially came into existence on March 26 when it declared independence. So according to Bangladeshi perspectives, East Pakistan ceased to exist from March 26 even though the region was still under Pakistani control. We should respect the sensitivities here, its like saying the United States existed only from 1781 and not 1776.
 * Moreover, as was pointed out in the earlier discussions, Bangladesh genocide/Bangladesh war crimes, are the most commonly used terms.--ArmanJ (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bangladeshi perspectives will not decide international matters. Bangladesh came into being on 16/06 in view of the world. The genocide took place in East Pakistan. Fai  zan  11:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh was already recognized officially by two countries before 16 December, India and Bhutan. Dont teach us about international law. Using East Pakistan is a Pakistani POV, and if Bangladesh is not acceptable, up to other editors to come up with a different term.--ArmanJ (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It was better when the content of the overview section was actually the introduction. It was much more balanced and elaborate.--ArmanJ (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose- per WP:COMMONNAME. I also can't understand why Faizan is keep bringing the same issue again and again. We have already discussed about the Bangladesh/East Pakistan debate and he has already agreed that Bangladesh came into being much before 16 December 1971, hence Bangladesh is the best title to use. The discussion can be seen here. About the Genocide issue, I would refer to the previous move discussions of this page. -- Zayeem (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Woah? Who has agreed? Ridiculous. Fai  zan  14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose Per COMMONNAME, See the previous RM for sources but this one should suffice, there is quite simply an academic consensus on this name "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994." Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with PBS on this. Without recourse to sources, this move request is meaningless. Personally, I don't think reliable sources ever use East Pakistan in conjunction with the events of 1971 and the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh so moving it to East Pakistan on some technical point is against policy. Since the move request doesn't address the genocide question, I suggest speedy closing this move request.--regentspark (comment) 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as the actions took place before Bangladesh became a sovereign recognised nation. The area was known as East Pakistan during that period and this is what the article title should reflect, in my view.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. We need not look further than the title of some of the principle works relating to the subject: The principle academic pieces on the subject being: Genocide in Bangladesh (1972), Crimes against Humanity in Bangladesh (1973), Genocide in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh (1984), Genocide in Bangladesh (Jahan, 1997), Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh: a case of genocide (2002). No major field of sources employ East Pakistan in the title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While WP:COMMONNAME should be good enough reason to keep the current title, I can't resist the temptation to mention that the genocide did not take place Before the existence of Bangladesh (as per the the nomination). Bangladesh was declared independent on 26th April 1971, not 16th December 1971, and even in the United Nations the independence day of Bangladesh is celebrated as 26th April. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for most of the reasons previously stated, and I would add that we cannot conclude that in "the view of the world" Bangladesh only came into existence when various countries extended diplomatic relations to it, since in some countries there was a good deal of sympathy for Bangladesh's liberation struggle before then. PatGallacher (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per common name, as noted by analysis, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question
Why does the material deleted here fall under WP:UNDUE?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it is single sourced biased comment on the Bangladesh government's estimation. WP:UNDUE says "...Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)..."-- FreemesM  (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Serajur Rahman doesn't seem to fall into that category. He is a respected journalist, and his personal experience with Mujib offers a unique insight into this controversy. Where are the sources that dispute his claim?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is just a single source. I can present every single historical fact with that kind of undue claim. Moreover that is just a opinion type news, not a research to oppose Mujib's estimation. Already there are several figures exist in that section and in balanced condition. No need to put that opinion piece to make it biased.-- FreemesM  (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Estimates killed
The section on the death toll is heavily slanted towards fringe revisionists, with more weight to Pakistan establishment-linked reports. Please cite more independent figures which have been published since 1971.--Bazaan (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why
I am not seeing any problem with this edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See next section. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Chandan
In this edit, (the third attempt to introduce the material, reverted by Frze and XLinkBot ) User:Archandan64 cites the work of one A R Chandan  (Azadur Rahman Chandan) which is hosted on scribd and has a made-uup ISBN number. The text was inserted in "nowiki" tags in an attempt to avoid automatic detection.

The edit at Al-Badr (East Pakistan), had I believe (but I haven't checked it was the same one) been reverted by User:Darkness Shines, before it was re-instated.

Archandan64 describes A R Chandan (presumably himself) variously as "Journoulist", "researcher and journalist" and "Historian". at least one other self-cited book also has a made-up ISBN number, and would appear self published at first blush.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC).


 * My bad then, sorry, and thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Requested move 08 August 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh Genocide → Bengali Genocide – Ethnic Bengalis targeted. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)  – Article editor (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Before this request can proceed Article editor,  you need to give your reasons based on the WP:AT policy why you think the page should be moved to Bengali Genocide. -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Article editor's grounds for the move are presumably "Ethnic Bengalis targeted" hereinabove, as an uncontested move. I contested the move and put the move suggestion in the to-be-discussed list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. but I think that Article editor needs to explain within the context of the article title policy why Article editor thinks that the page should be moved. Without a reason based on policy presented by Article editor, I think a speedy close is in order. -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even when searching for Bengali, the related sources are titled using "1971" "Bangladesh" and "genocide".  The current title is fine.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Looking at the category "Genocides", we have no consistent policy for naming these events. The reference to Bangladesh may be more meaningful as these events did not extend into the neighbouring Indian state of West Bengal. PatGallacher (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Section
--- I removed the reference of "muslim militias" etc... as it was not shown why this was relevant (i.e. not a religious conflict) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.229.32.100 (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Content
user:The Avengers and subsequently user:Human3015 have removed sourced content on the figures of those killed and raped.


 * According to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission the casualties about to 26,000 and a few hundred raped.
 * According to Sarmila Bose the figures are between 50,000 to 100,000 killed.
 * According to a British Medical Journal in 2008 the figures are 269,000 killed.

The figures may be seen here.

Therefore, the figures should be listed at between 26,000 to 3,000,000. Xtremedood (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source is talking about 100 termination of pregnancies, not about 100 rapes. -- Human 3015   TALK   20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, you are giving source of "Bangla2000" for that Hamoodur Rahman report. I don't know if Bangla2000 is reliable or not, but own Pakistan's sources saying that Zulfikar Bhutto changed report of that commission. Read this also which says original report was destroyed by Pakistan. Whatever reports you are showing is not reliable or trustworthy. -- Human 3015   TALK    20:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also this rediff article is calling that report as "ridiculous" and "report of Pakistan government". It is not reliable source to mention here. That rediff news also concludes deaths of 300,000 t0 300000.-- Human 3015   TALK   20:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How a report of Pakistan government on their own atrocities is relevant here? Writing lower limit of death count as 26,000 is just nothing but the pushing Pakistani view. It is not independent report to mention in infobox. You can write in body regarding this. You can write in body that "as per Pakistani report 26,000 people were dead". But you should also mention that it was changed by Zulfikar Butto (as allegation) or as NPOV. I found many other sources regarding that report. Just want your one more comment. (And I will not reply for whole day tomorrow, you can see "busy" template on my talk page, I will reply tomorrow night). Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK    20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, what you are saying is not what the source states. According to this source, it states "The publication of the report that was supposed to be destroyed ". It was not however. You are misunderstanding the context of the word "ridiculous" in this article. Clearly, the actual context is clear when you read it. The figure was not ridiculous. The word was just used to signify the disparity. The report is accurate as it was recognized. Also other sources such as Sarmila Bose should not be neglected. Xtremedood (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is report of Pakistan government so it is not independent. You can mention it elsewhere in body. And do not mention that "according to some sources it is 26,000" but rather it should be "according to Pakistani sources it is 26,000". No one is against adding it, but at it at proper place with proper wording. You provide independent source for 26,000 other than Pakistan's report. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The report has been used by various sources. According to the source you referenced, the Hamoodur Rahman Commission is also highly critical of seniors of the Pakistani army, it states ""there is a consensus on the imperative need of bringing to book senior army commanders who have brought disgrace and defeat to Pakistan by their subversion of the Constitution, usurpation of political power by criminal conspiracy, their professional incompetence, culpable negligence and willful negligence in the performance of their duties and physical and moral cowardice in abandoning the fight when they had the capabilities to resist the enemy.’ " I think it is reliable. To add, Indian writer Sarmila Bose has also said that the figures of the Bangladesh Genocide have been exaggerated for political purposes. Xtremedood (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As above Pakistani sources saying 35 pages have been changed by Pakistan, not all. This report is not away from influence of Pakistani officials. Here accusations of genocide are on Pakistan government itself, so any report by Pakistan government is not independent source to mention those figures. I am still saying you can add those in somewhere in body by giving attribution to Pakistan, but don't change lower limit of death count by this source. Your another misinterpretation shows that you took 100 termination of pregnancies as 100 rapes, still it is not independent source to even mention about rapes. But still by giving attribution to Pakistan we can write it. But we should also mention criticism of that report.-- Human 3015   TALK   21:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is original research. You can't just say something is not accurate based on your own liking. Since Sarmila Bose has specified between 50,000 to 100,000 it therefore should be acceptable to at least include that figure for the time being. Also, where did you get that 35 pages were changed? Xtremedood (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * user:Human3015, do you have a source that indicates that 35 pages were removed? I did not find any. Xtremedood (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It means that you are not reading any sources that I am providing above. Anyway, read this and close this issue. -- Human 3015   TALK   09:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so simple. Also, the article you posted refers to accusations by the disgraced General Niazi, who in my opinion is not a good source. It also contradicts itself by initially saying 35 pages and at the end stating 34 pages. General Niazi's accusations are unwarranted as he could be simply making these accusations for political purposes. He is definitely not a good source. Also, no where does that article question the integrity of the death count. Sarmila Bose's figures should also not be neglected (which ranges from 50,000 to 100,000).
 * Here is what I propose therefore, to as of now include the figures from 50,000 to 3,000,000 and take up the Hamoodar Rahman Commission to the RSN to see if it is reliable. Xtremedood (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict (4 March 2016)
This edit:


 * Misrepresents sources and the entire situation. In the lede it tries to pretend that the genocide that occurred during the liberation war was against Biharis. In fact when sources talk about genocide they are specifically referring to the killings perpetrated by the Pakistani army and the allied militias. Rearranging the lede in this way to give this false impression is obviously POV, to put it nicely.


 * The sentence and paragraph which begins with "According to political scientist Peter Tomsen..." is specifically referring to Jamaat-e-Islami, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams. The clause "these militias" obviously refers to these groups. Sticking "Mukti Bahini and Indian army" into the middle of it is not only incorrect grammatically, it is also an obvious attempt to POV the text. Mukti Bahini and Indian army are covered elsewhere in the article.


 * It repeats the Samil Bose text more than once (at least three times if not more).


 * The book by Aziz is not a reliable source.


 * Even putting that aside, that book is given waaayyyyyyy too much attention and UNDUE weight in an article that is actually about something else.

Bottom line is that these are clumsy, and very POV edits. Even a portion of this would require talk page consensus. Trying to cram it into the article by force is very disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You cannot just repeat the words "POV" "POV" "POV" and "consensus" "consensus" consensus" to justify your reverts. My edits and the other editor's edits actually make the article NPOV. The article is completely one sided. You moved a sentence up in the lede which talks about "scholarly consensus" about genocide. If you carefully look at the source, you will see that it doesn't single out one party. It just says "There is a scholarly consensus that events of 1971 were a genocide" but here you misrepresenting the source by moving the sentence about violence against Biharis down from that sentence. This way the source seem to single out a party.


 * The source which talks about atrocities by Pakistan allied militias. It clearly mentions both Mukti Bahini and Indian Army in the same sentence. By excluding them, you are making the article POV but their inclusion makes it NPOV.


 * Edits by another editor to which I mostly agree


 * Wherever Sarmila Bose is categorized as controversial, the sourced text which gives the other perspective should go in giving the article an NPOV look.


 * No comment about Aziz book. Changing my position on this book as there are editors saying on another talk page that even primary sources are allowed if they are not interpreted by an editor and presented as they are. So I think there should be no problem including this in the format of, "According to this book written by this author..." so that it's properly attributed to that source.


 * Putting aside that book, there is huge amount of other text which is sourced to reliable sources such as D'Costa and BBC which makes the article NPOV but being removed by you


 * Finally, I suggest adding NPOV tag to the article until these issues are resolved because the article in its current stage is highly POV and it needs to be neutralized and carry the perspective of both sides.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not commenting on the dispute, but on the process/debate. WP:NPOV means representing the views appearing in reliable sources in proportion to the frequency with which they appear. (WP:WEIGHT) Giving undue important to one source is WP:UNDUE. The opposite of NPOV is not "one-sided". The opposite of NPOV is UNDUE. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am seeing that SheriffIsInTown is still POV edit warring, despite the confirmed rejection of POV edits on this talk page and others. Capitals00 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to provide reasons for rejections, without a valid argument, rejection does not mean anything. You need to reject on policy based reasons, i did give a long reply above addressing all the objections. You cannot just use the term POV so liberally as a pretext to your reverts.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I should copy paste what has been already told by User:Volunteer Marek. You believe that Aziz is reliable source, its published by Publications Division of the United Press of Pakistan Ltd., which is unreliable. In place of endlessly reverting the edits you need to get consensus for them or just forget if you are not getting any. Capitals00 (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you clearly see, i excluded Aziz from my last edit although i think primary sources can be cited if they are attributed properly as per WP:PRESERVE, also i replied to Volunteer Marek in detail and answered each one of his arguments.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"The perpetrators also included Mukti Bahini and Indian Army who targeted noncombatants and committed rapes as well as other crimes", where it is supported by the provided source? Capitals00 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On page 3 of that book.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems doubtful because it is not specifically alleging mukti bahini and Indian army, do you have any other source that is clear about it? Capitals00 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"You cannot just repeat the words "POV" "POV" "POV" and "consensus" "consensus" consensus" to justify your reverts." - I didn't. I explained in detail what was wrong with those edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And i explained in detail that why the changes are right, do you have counter-argument? And for the record, you did repeat those words in summary lines and you have been doing so for a long time. This is like if you cannot do anything else just accuse the other of POV-pushing.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Violence against Biharis
Bangladesh Genocide is about the genocide committed by the Pakistan army against Bengali people, religious minorities etc. It is not about the violence between Bengalis and other Bengalis and Biharis. There should an article about Violence against Biharis, maybe a new article called Violence against Biharis in Bangladesh Liberation War or could be merged to Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. But having all this content in this article is WP:UNDUE.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think having all this content in this article will WP:BALANCE it. Just like all Bangladesh related articles have content from all of its related articles.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I suggest you create the other page as recommended and one of us can briefly summarize it here. You might also read WP:BALANCE before citing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The related articles is already present. That's not the issue. The issue is of showing both sides of the story (in this article) so the readers are not fed one-sided info, and then leave it to them to decide. The issue is giving due weight to both view points. Having another article do not do that primarily. Because one of the reasons for having a separate article is the 'length' and notability of the topic. Yes, "violence against Beharis in Bangladesh" is notable enough and thus it has a related article: Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, but that does not mean that 1971 Bangladesh genocide should have no content on genocide of Biharis. If that had been the case then there was no need of having a section on Violence against minorities. Why does all other articles on Bangladesh also have sections dedicated to fringe topics? How can you cherry-pick a race/religion and include its genocide in this article but exclude the one you dont like? So yes, may be it is you how need to read WP:BALANCE again.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum or debate. It purpose is not to give arguments in favor or against any topic. WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE does not mean giving equal space to all viewpoints. For example, the article on the Earth does not gives equal space to Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. The Bangladesh genocide is specifically the genocide committed by Pakistan army per reliable sources. It is not our job to redefine the Bangladesh Genocide. Is the violence against Biharis called genocide by reliable sources and is it called "1971 Bangladesh Genocide". From WP:BALANCE "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". Is the article on Holocaust going to give equal prominence to Holocaust denial? The edits are not only undue they also come dangerously close to genocide denial and genocide justification. Content on disputes about total killed can be included, the government of Pakistan's denial can be included because that would in the interest of Balance but not such large content on Violence against Biharis. Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance per WP:GEVAL. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that the Bangladesh genocide did not take place would mean genocide denial and genocide justification, but saying that genocide of another race also took place in the same theatre would not - a huge difference. I wonder how did you miss it, it wasn't so subtle. So you need to choose your words carefully before pointing out fingers. It is rather alarming of you to say that WP:BALANCE would rather mean to give 'equal prominence' to Holocaust denial. You are just comparing oranges with apples. The only problem here is about the inclusion of genocide of Biharis alongwith genocide of Bangladeshis in the article. Or do you think (all) Biharis were non-Bangalis? After all this article is about 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Biharis killed by Mukti Bahini were Bangladeshi too as were the Hindu Banglais whose killing already has a place in this article. I think, it should be you who should be careful as it is you who is at the verge of denying that a genocide/systematic persecution of Bihairs and non-Bangalis did take place along side the Bangalis. — Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not saying your edit was the problem nor have I accused you of anything. Porajmos is an article on the genocide of gypsies while the Holocaust is on the Genocide of Jews that occurred during the same period. The mass murder of Bihari population was not/is not called Bangladesh genocide. They are two separate incidents. It is rather alarming of you to say that WP:BALANCE would rather mean to give 'equal prominence' to Holocaust denial. Never said that, in fact I said the exact opposite. Not against inclusion,I did not remove all content on Violence against Biharis. The content should not be this large on this article because it is offtopic and WP:UNDUE. Create a separate article on Bihari Genocide. I am willing to help with that. P.S. Bihari by definition is not Bengali, two separate ethnicities.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yahya Khan's quote
Yahya Khan's quote: 'Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat of our hands' has no reliable source and sorry the Independent Newspaper is not enough to attribute this quote to Yahya Khan. Its unlikely he could have made a public statement like this. I have found that this quote first came from Robert Payne, who is not WP:RS.Towns Hill (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Added two other citations to the quote.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911:If you put your bias aside and start doing some actual research, on Google books for example, you will find that the quote is dubious. It first came from Robert Payne and he is no WP:RS.Towns Hill (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
User has complained to me that you may be using news sources inappropriately. Please note that, as per WP:NEWSORG, newspaper op-eds can be used with only inline attribution. The policy also requires us to determine the reliability of the authors. For historical information, scholarly sources are the only acceptable ones according to WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This guy (TripWire) is doing Disrupting Editing. First he removed entire sourced materials cited by and some other users including me just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT (see) and then again, he removed sourced material (see) labelling relevant info as UNDUE. And, I don't think taking an image from any article and then inserting it in  relevant section of another article is vio. of any wiki policy.   MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   10:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)  This editor is a sock-puppet
 * MBlaze, there are currently numerous disputes on various pages related to Bangladesh War. That means any edit before it is made must get consensus, which you and your gang is not doing. Shouting RS, RS, source, source will not get you through when that info becomes disputed. So instead of pushing the WP:POV, talk it out and stop the Disrupting Editing.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can disagree with the content as long as you want but that won't stop others from inserting sourced material in the article. Also, Vinegarymass911 only added counter-POV additions (by TBZ) in the lede and in below sections. So If you are saying Every Edit must get consensus then FYI, none of the TBZ recent addition of bose books have been discussed here, let alone consensus. You need to provide a valid reason for opposing rather then blatantly reverting other user's contributions. That is considered WP:DE. Beside, I see you didn't reverted Faizan's additions while reverting other users. Why? You should stick to WP:NPOV. Also, See WP:DRNC.  MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   11:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)  This editor is a sock-puppet

How about this you point out the problem with a specific content or source and I will attempt to fix to it. Newspaper are reliable when, Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. Since Tripwire is so worried about sourcing, I assume he noticed that TBZ had sourced his content to storyofbangladesh.com, an anti Bangladesh blog. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury is a hard man to find as repeated google and amazon search show no presence outside of this work, which has not received mainstream coverage. He appears to be fringe. Sharmila Bose has been quoted by TBZ so many times that you would assume she is the greatest historian in this particular subject, she is not. There are three paragraphs in 3 different sections starting with according to Sarmila Bose and two Sarmila Bose said in two other sections. That is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. WP:HISTRS is an opinion essay, it is not policy or guideline. Regardless, I repeat, raise the exact content or source that is an issue and I will try to solve the problem.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , the ball is in your court. Can you point out some instances that you find problematic? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Before proceeding further, and just to set the record straight, allow me to quote Kutilya3 on adding content on historical article from Newspapers: "You are welcome to quote what Naim says, but not what the newspaper says. Newspapers are not reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 3:55 am, 1 April 2016," I wonder how come he is now supporting info from "newspapers" when it pushes the Indian POV? Moreover, I will be giving 'some instances' soon.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Dr Chowdhury is not such a hard man to find: https://www.history.org.uk/resources/general_news_1565.html http://www.sheikhnews.com/2014/01/03/muminchoudhury-2/ Towns Hill (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * His biography in what appears to be a press release, that matches word for word the one in his book. It even has the same typo. He writes he graduated from the universities of Dhaka.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Take a closer read. It says: 'was educated at the universities of Dhaka, Exeter (England) and London.'No typo.Towns Hill (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh
Source Please? MBlaze Lightning  -  talk!   07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You really need to provide a source for 500,000 figures, otherwise it will be removed.  MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   07:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)  This editor is a sock-puppet

Jabbar & Chowdhury
Sourced content added by me and Towns Hill is being removed by Volunteer Marek, Kauntilya3 and Capitals00 under some vague and irrational reasons.


 * Kautilya's objection: Not a WP:HISTRS source and WP:UNDUE due to being a long quote
 * Response to Kautilya: WP:HISTRS (which is an essay and not a policy) does not prohibit press sources rather it encourages scholarly sources, it does not say, "completely do away with press sources", yes we can give priority to scholarly sources but Javed Jabbar is a notable writer from Pakistan and his opinion is completely related to the genocide and should be given weight, we cannot just take one-sided opinions. Javed Jabbar is a writer and scholar from Pakistan and hold quite neutral point of view. He has made movies and written stuff which more often that not goes against mainstream Pakistani point of view. I am not sure how it's WP:UNDUE as it is completely in context of the genocide. Are we supposed to entertain only those sources which support the genocide? Why can't we add sources which negate it to make the article more balanced and NPOV.


 * Capitals00's summary "fringe allegation" did not honestly make any sense to me, he might want to explain what he meant by that because i do not see any allegation is either Jabbar or Chowdhury's assessments of the events.
 * Voluteer Marek seems to recognize that it is a reliable source but still reverts so i might want him to explain his revert further that under what pretext he is doing that.
 * Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi scholar and his point of view is against the mainstream point of view of most Bangladeshis and we should give that some weight here as well. It's very important to add that content.

Let's discuss!  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit that I have only looked at Javed Jabbar's page, which does not provide any scholarly credentials to the author. If he has any, other than just writing books and producing films, please feel free to bring them forward. And, please don't confuse "notability" with "reliability." Many politicians are notable, but they are not reliable sources. Assuming Jabbar is reliable, you as the editor still need to do the work to sift through his writings to figure out what parts agree with scholarly consensus and what parts don't, and present them separately. A simple very long quote is not going to do the trick. (Is the quote coming from the book or some press release?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this is your opinion, please don't write your own policies. Which policy says that I have to do all this? I am looking at WP:RS, it doesn't say any of this. Javed Jabbar is a notable writer and the source Daily Times (Pakistan) is a reliable source. You cannot just undo WP:RS, a policy with a WP:HISTRS, an essay. Policy governs not an essay. The policy does not say that a source must be a scholarly source. The quote is coming from an article which was published in Daily Times. Also, the quote is attributed to him, the text clearly says "According to Pakistani writer Javed Jabbar" so that reader have no confusion and can put things into proper perspective. If the quote is an issue then I can write the text in my own words. That's not an issue. My initial thought was that I should add exact words of the author so there is no confusion.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 04:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." Therefore, you need to determine how far this source represents scholarly consensus and how far it goes against it. You also need to make clear in your commentary the extent of notability of this view. Has anybody else supported the author in this view, or is he all alone? It seems to me that this author is bordering on WP:FRINGE when he says that the Bangladesh Genocide never happened.
 * WP:HISTRS is an attempt to flesh out what constitutes a scholarly source for history, since many people without any training or credentials claim to write history. If you disagree with what this page says, then we need to go to WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV discussion
Here are the problems undone with my edit:
 * 1) The target of the genocide should be filled it. Also, the targets of the genocide were not "Bengali nationalists" but rather "Bengalis" as a whole. That's what made it a genocide.
 * 2) The subject of this article is the genocide. Not the persecution of the Biharis. We have a separate article for that. Of course Biharis should be mentioned in context, but please don't try to hijack this article and turn it into a WP:COATRACK along the lines of "the only reason this genocide happened is because Biharis were being persecuted".
 * 3) Sarmila Bose is a reliable source BUT her views are not representative of the mainstream scholarly consensus. She can be used but with caution and care must be taken so as not to  violate WP:UNDUE. And in cases where she is being used the text needs to be attributed to her.
 * 4) Replacing "Pakistani Army and razakars" with "Anti-Bangladesh forces" is WP:WEASEL. It looks like an attempt to hide the identity of those responsible for the genocide.
 * 5) The anecdote about Sheikh Mujibur is a WP:PRIMARY source (a letter to the editor) and cannot be used unless a secondary source about it can be found.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the problems introduced by your edit:
 * The target is your WP:OR, just source it and the source should say something along the lines of "The target of 1971 Bangladesh genocide was Bengalis". I have no problem with it, I am just asking you to source it, please. Look I am saying "please" as well.
 * Agreed, the subject of the article is "genocide" and I have yet to see a source which describes the ethnicity of the victims of genocide, as a matter of fact, I have a source which says the target of the genocide was Biharis. Just naming the article genocide does not automatically mean that the target were Bengalis. You are making the word look like synonymous to "Bengalis".
 * I see the text was attributed to Sarmila Bose. May I ask why did you still remove it?
 * Noone should replace the identity of the perpetrators which is contrary to the sources, please double check the sources and see what they say about perpetrators.
 * You reverted too much but addressed only few points. May I ask that you take the time to single out the content to which you have problem with and only revert that so that a discussion can take place in an amicable fashion.
 * As a guideline, when an unsourced piece of content is removed, it should not be restored without a source and in similar manner, sourced content should not be removed without a very good reason and I don't see you providing very good reasons here.
 * At too many occasions, I have noticed that you do not take time to review sources and revert the edits and then fill up the talk page with your own absurd claims and WP:OR. This needs to stop. Editing Wikipedia is not for lazy. If you cannot take time to participate in a meaningful discussion and review the sources for validity of content then you should not revert.
 *  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 03:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is so trivial that it really doesn't need to be sourced
 * See above. And no, you don't have a source which says that "the target of the genocide was Biharis". You're talking about something else, purposefully trying to confuse the issue. This is also the POV problem with some of the edits to this article.
 * I restored attribution to Bose.
 * I enumerated the specific problems with the text I removed.
 * Not sure what you're referring to.
 * Your opinion is noted but without specific evidence to back it up, properly discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And on a more general level, are you seriously trying to question the fact that the targets of the genocide - perpetrated by Pakistani Armed Forces - were Bengalis? I mean, that's sort of fundamental.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Volunteer Marek: Thats not what the ICJ said in 1972. They said a case for genocide can be made against Bengali Hindus and killings of Bengalis at the end of the conflict. But the overall killings of Bengalis can't be classified as a genocide.

Regardless, may I ask why exactly you are afraid of including Serajur Rehman's article? Serajur Rehman was an extremely important personality from that time period. WP: Primary sources can be included as long as no interpretation of ours is added. This is Wiki policy. So I will restore that section.Towns Hill (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing trivial and fundamental when it comes to sourcing. Please add the source for the content which was removed as unsourced if you want to restore it. Also, the source you added in your talk reply does not say who was the target and who was the perpetrator. Apart from that I am not saying anything. Sourced content will stay and unsourced will be removed. Period!
 * On Sarmila Bose, why do you have a need to add "According to Sarmila Bose" three times in the same paragraph, shouldn't it be enough once in the beginning of the paragraph?
 * On the reasoning of the launch of Operation Searchlight, the content is sourced but I am okay for changing it or removing it if you can provide a scholarly source which says contrary to what that scholarly source says which you are removing!
 * Why are you removing the following which is supported by multiple sources: "and Bihari women were raped and tortured during the war and its aftermath by Bengali males, primarily from Mukti Bahini.   "
 * By the way, this is the source which says that Biharis were a target of genocide, that is why violence against Biharis needs mentioning here.
 *  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 08:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 08:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, are you seriously questioning that this is an article about a genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces against Bengalis?
 * 2) It's necessary for clarity and anyway, best I can tell, the attribution was being removed from the beginning of the paragraph as well.
 * 3) It's a question of due weight. It's not an article about persecution of Biharis. There's another article for that.
 * 4) Ditto (though that can go in the article main body)

And Rummel does NOT say that there was a genocide of Biharis (he says "democide"), and even if he did, that would be a *different* phenomenon than the topic of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are driving the conversation off-topic. Consider me a completely dumb editor who do not know anything about the topic who arrived at this page and saw unsourced content and removed it. What you got to do here is to add the source when you add the content back. It's so easy to resolve the matter instead of just bickering and whining at talk and asking stupid questions to put words in other's mouth. No, i am not questioning anything. I am asking you to support the content with the sources or leave it removed. Hopefully some other editor who is willing to resolve the dispute would add the source.


 * On reasoning of Operation Searchlight, yes, it's very much due when you start the paragraph saying that "genocide started with Operation Searchlight" then it's completely okay to add the reason why that operation was started when it is supported by a source. Nothing undue in that. Also i just saw that you removed text related to Sirajur Rahman again and you claimed it was a primary source. I don't think The Guardian is a primary source here.


 * See the Democide page for its definition, it clearly says that its a type of genocide and this article is about 1971 Bangladesh genocide which should cover all aspects of that genocide. Article on persecution of Biharis is the main article but 1971 Bangladesh genocide should also cover those atrocities.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "You are driving the conversation off-topic." - no I am not. I am directly answering your numbered queries. Which content is suppose to be supported with sources? That this was a genocide against Bengalis? That's the TOPIC of this article!
 * The problem with the sentence about Operation Searchlight is that it is too much detail for the lede, and this detail just happens to be the Pakistani Army's POV.
 * Articles in the Guardian are secondary sources. Letters to the editor of the Guardian are a primary source.
 * Democide *could* include genocide but not necessarily. The definition states "including genocide, politicide and mass murder". And like I said, regardless, that's not what *this* article is about.
 * Yes, this article should mention the violence against Biharis but with due weight. This article should NOT be hijacked to turn it into a WP:COATRACK about the persecution of Biharis. It should not try to WP:WEASEL the occurrence of this genocide by trying to provide implicit justification for it by giving undue weight to that persecution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek plz do not edit the article to suit your POV when discussion is ongoing. I have reverted your change as it was a POV change which is not supported by the very title of this article. I take no sides in this discussion, and am just an observer. But please follow WP:BRD and edit through consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please stop being ridiculous. The subject of this article is about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani army, directed mostly at ethnic Bengalis. Any source that talks about the "1971 Bangladesh genocide" THAT is what it is talking about. Your attempts to hijack this article and make it about "genocide in Bangladesh, of Biharis" is what is POV.
 * And looking at your edit history somehow I seriously doubt that you "take no sides in this discussion" or that you are "just an observer".
 * And this BRD. I'm actually restoring a previous more neutral version before the article was hijacked by POV pushing accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And this BRD. I'm actually restoring a previous more neutral version before the article was hijacked by POV pushing accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this article is not solely dedicated to actions of Pakistan military. This is about the events which happened in year 1971 in East Pakistan. It should discuss all genocidal events, no matter who committed them. This is not a decision for you to make. You do not own Wikipedia or this article. You cannot achieve NPOV if you do not discuss all points of view. Read NPOV again, it discusses coverage of minority point of view which you are barring. No body is hijacking the article but you. You are determined to turn this article into one sided coverage and that won't happen. You are not restoring an NPOV version but instead restoring to a POV version. NPOV version is which discusses all points of view which is the one you are reverting.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, this article is NOT "about the events which happened in year 1971 in East Pakistan". That's Bangladesh Liberation War. This article is about the genocide, perpetrated by the Pakistani Army and its allies against Bengalis, that happened during that war.
 * Keeping the article on topic *is* NPOV. Hijacking the article to make it a WP:COATRACK about something else is POV.
 * And nobody's "barring coverage of minority views". These are included. It's just that they shouldn't be given WP:UNDUE weight in an attempt to make this a POV COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Genocide in Bangladesh
The civil war and upheaval at this time certainly resulted in many deaths, but I do not believe that it meets even the most broad definition of genocide. The title should be changed to something less emotive and inaccurate.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The title/usage is determined by reliable sources. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: He may have a point there. I would urge other editors to look into this. Because the ICJ, in 1972, did express reservations about applying the term genocide to all the atrocities in the conflict, applying that term to only sections of the violence (i.e against Hindus and indiscriminate killing towards the end of the conflict).

And the involvement of Bengali collaborators with the Pakistani Army further complicates matters. I am not aware of any accepted genocide where members of one race assisted the genocide of their own race. So its a problematic word. A more better term would be 'atrocities'.

The lead of the article claims that there is academic consensus that it was a genocide. Not only are most of the sources unavailable for me, but its in direct contradiction to the fact that highly reputable American academics Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose denied that a genocide occurred (as mentioned in the article). So either the source about academic consensus is false or it has missed out/ignored dissenting views. If there are dissenting academic views then that means there is no consensus. It would be better to say that there are scholars who term the atrocities a genocide and there are also scholars who don't believe it was a genocide.Towns Hill (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Article is filled with Weasel words in the introduction. Cites one set of figures, than a claim of "independent scholars." Clearly there is more than one independent scholar. Better to make the broader claim of say, estimates vary widely from 50,000 to 3 million. Puck42 (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)