Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 5

Edit
@My Lord: Can you please explain why you removed this sourced edit? It expands on the tense bilateral relations which followed shortly after the war, so your claim definitely does not hold true especially with the text preceding it.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You used POV wording that Indian liberators "soon became unpopular" in Bangladesh because of some trivial events, and whole para depending on a book about Sri Lanka. That's not enough and content is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. My Lord (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unpopular" is the exact term that the source used. If you have an alternative term, you can suggest it but it should not deviate from the actual source. You haven't explained why you removed content that was sourced, so I'm going to wait and give you another opportunity. Please note Wikipedia doesn't allow censoring reliably-sourced content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In this case, you deliberately removed text from a section discussing the Indo-Bangla bilateral relationship in context of the war.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's clear WP:IDHT from you. I had explained it in edit summary as well as here, but you have no concerns about using a weak source for your POV pushing. And when you are telling that others are "censoring" removing content cause they "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help. My Lord (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think K. M. de Silva is a weak source, please be my guest and take it to WP:RSN as required and we'll discuss the merits of your case. The burden is on you to put it forth. But right as of now, you really need to follow WP:BRD and stop blanking sourced content. Just screaming POV without basis isn't going to help. Thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what is a WP:BRD, it is that if you added something and it has been reverted for being objectionable then you have to wait till you get consensus. The statements you are presenting are WP:UNDUE. You seem to be missing the link between events that if Indians became unpopular, why they have a high rating today? We can't present content in Wikipedia voice that would raise doubts, and this source is clearly not clarifying. My Lord (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am definitely following BRD here on the talk, however you haven't complied. Your first edit was a blanket removal with no discussion whatsoever. This is especially contentious when the removal concerns sourced content. And I am not sure what you mean above. The content is about the disagreements and at times cold bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh shortly after the war ended, which has been covered in great depth.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that's why you restored your edit without gaining any consensus. That's not BRD. Next paragraph talks about the good reception of India among Bangladeshis, citing pewforum if you have seen. We will have to fulfill the gap, that what made Bangladeshis like Indian so much if they disliked them in 1974.. Though the source (Silva) cites no convincing sources for his information or any good evidence. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Silva is corroborating what Gill and numerous other sources explore on this relationship. I am not sure why you bring up the PEW survey, since I did not remove it. If you want to bring sources on the table discussing how the relationship evolved, you can do so. Though we simply can't leave out the fact that India lost much goodwill, and most of it had to do with political failures. This is exactly what the source explains. Please let me know what you would like to propose and perhaps we can work around it. Thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Options are that we should be fine with removal, or we need multiple reliable sources that would emphasise the downfall, or we need sources to describe how India's reception evolved in Bangladesh if it was so bad in 1974. My Lord (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@My Lord you havent yet explained what is the exact problem that you have with Mar4d's edit? You made a blanket revert without adequately explaining it and are now shooting in the dark. Please be specific.— Trip Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 08:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. &mdash;  MBL  talk 09:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MBL, excellent contribution to the discussion at hand, dare I say.— Trip Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 09:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Mar4d has provided a good source, the author is an eminent historian and its due because its covered in multiple reliable sources. Another source, of a book published by Routledge in 2012: .   M A A Z     T A L K   19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And for one, the PEW source (which also mentions the cold bilateral relations) is a primary source whereas the above Routledge source is a secondary source by an academic, so it takes precedence per WP:RS. Silva meets WP:HISTRS, being an eminent historian. My Lord's claim therefore about the "change in attitude" stands invalid as it is, as the above similarly mentions Bangladesh having been wary of India as a regional hegemon.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hand-waving publisher and author doesn't means you have fulfilled WP:DUE. Content is WP:UNDUE and Silva neither cites any sources (like mentioned above) neither Bangladesh has any negative reception of Indians like you want to claim. See WP:RGW. Rzvas (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are reliable sources saying the exact opposite is the case.   MBlaze Lightning  talk 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you folks playing a game of hide and seek here? No one replies to Mar4d and Ma'azs legitimate comments for a week and then when the content gets restored for irresponsiveness then the whole junta shows up to play the revert game!


 * And to you MBL, As for your "quite the contrary" content is concerned, the source you provided does not exactly say what you are trying to purport in your comment.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 19:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it says explicitly that the relations between India and Bangladesh "underwent a qualitative change from pre-1971 relations. In stark contrast however, relations with Pakistan remained tense and mutually antagonistic." Perhaps a WP:CIR situation.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 12:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * MBlaze Lightning‘s above quote actually does not support his argument at all. All it says is that India was exercising hegemonic influence over Bangladesh and it does not say anything contradictory to Silva about the Bangladeshi population's opinion. Another scholarly source validates it and adds that Bangladeshi people think India has hegemonic influence in the region and forces its agenda on its neighbours and that’s why it flows into the negative views about India which bubbled to the surface in 1974.  samee  converse  08:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's source misrepresentation because it also tells that India and Bangladesh relations underwent a "qualitative change" post-1971, in direct contradiction to the claims of Silva that Indians "soon became unpopular" and so on. If contradiction exists then we shouldn't be adding the information unless its too common but that's really not a case in this situation. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Why we are dedicating nearly a paragraph to Silva. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, how he is that relevant or has expertise in 1971 Indo-Pakistan war? Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * When digging a little deeper, it becomes clear that the relations between India and Bangladesh were good post-1971 until 1975, contrary to the claims made by Silva.
 * There are other reasons for rejecting Silva source as well, namely because it doesn't meet the criterion set forth in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and hence it's not a reliable source for the information in question. Silva is basically making outrageous claims without backing them up.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 12:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Silva—a historian, thus WP:HISTRS—does not need to show anyone back ups for his statements. And the incident and trend he referred to is documented also in primary sources such as Dixit who was Indian diplomat in Bangladesh at that time. Read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS again, it has nothing to do with your objection. The paragraph is about Bangladeshi perceptions about India. Also the sources you have brought up provide no support for your propositions.  samee  converse  13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to tell why. Why you can't prove that he is an expert on Bangladesh or this war? Why we can't find multiple sources for the information? Why sources say that India-Bangladesh relationships were very cordial at least until 1975, which is contradictory to Silva. Read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Capitals00 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You folks are clearly coatracking the edit in question. The edit is not about government to government relations, it’s about people to people relations. Relations at the government level ought to be good as Mujeeb being at the helm of affairs got all of his support from India and that’s where he started his campaign being in exile so nobody is contradicting here that government level relations might have been cordial. Please read the edit again, it’s all about India’s popularity among common Bangladeshis but the source provided by MBL is about government to government relations and at that it is ambiguous as well, as it says that relations between India and Bangladesh saw qualitative change from their pre-1971 relations. First of all there was no Bangladesh pre-1971, it was East Pakistan and part of Pakistan, secondly qualitative change could mean other way around as well since if we assume that the source is talking about India ‘s relations with Mujeeb's exiled government then the relations were very cordial pre-1971 and qualitative change here could mean that they took a downturn. McLeod does not know what he is talking about, he must have been drunk in his study room when he wrote this because he seems to be all over the place.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I find unconvincing the arguments against using de Silva as a source, and the arguments against expanding by a few sentences the paragraph in the "Aftermath" section about the post-war cooling of Bangladeshis' feelings towards India. No one has objected to what was already there:

"Colonel John Gill of National Defense University remarks that, while India achieved a military victory, it was not able to reap the political fruits it might have hoped for in Bangladesh. After a brief 'honeymoon' phase between India and Bangladesh, their relationship began to sour. India's relations with Bangladesh have remained frequently problematic and tense."


 * General histories of Bangladesh commonly remark on the post-war cooling:

"[In a section on the problems of post-war reconstruction] In the international arena, the Soviets made themselves too conspicuous and the Indians stayed on too long in the eyes of many Bangladeshis (reviving the 1946 fear of Indian—-that is, Hindu—domination). (Baxter (2002) Government and Politics in South Asia p. 269)"

"The Bangladesh army ... felt increasingly unhappy. Their resentment originated in the final days of the war of 1971. According to them, the Indian army had robbed the Bangladeshi fighters of the glory of liberating Bangladesh, walking in when the freedom fighters had already finished the job, and had taken away to India all sophisticated weaponry and vehicles captured from the Pakistanis ... they also felt bitter about Mujib's closeness to India, which, they thought, undermined to sovereignty of Bangladesh. By 1973 many in the army were both anti-Indian and anti-Mujib. (van Schendel (2009) A History of Bangladesh p. 182)"

"Mujib had been unable to translate his considerable attributes and skills into a convincing, institutionalised form of political leadership, there were high levels of corruption and cronyism within the administration and widespread concerns that he was allowing India to interfere in Bangladesh's domestic affairs existed. (Lewis (2011) Bangladesh Politics, Economy and Civil Society p. 81)"


 * Is there a rephrasing of Mar4d's expansion, or a mix of sources for it, that opponents would find acceptable? The fragment "the political aspects of India's intervention were a dismal failure", attributed to de Silva, is a bit over the top - it goes beyond the academic consensus. Would removal of that fragment, or its replacement by a more measured assessment, help resolve this dispute? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am open to alternative proposals, as long as it sticks to the sources and isn't whitewashing the solid details. That being said, the text clearly needs to explain why the military intervention did not entirely translate into political goodwill.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Other sentences describe the aftermath correctly, that's why I made no objection to what was already there. Silva is not an expert and his exceptional claims are not supported by other sources, in fact contradicted by others. Writing a few POV sentences by relying on him is clearly over the top. Cutting some part of Silva's claims and adding the sources provided by Mblaze Lightning would be fine for now. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Silva’s claims are supported by all the references posted by Worldbruce, the source presented by MBL is already rejected by me and I listed the reasons for that in one of my earlier comments.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 19:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert of edits by Turbocop
Apparently some of the editors here think that well sourced edits by banned socks should be restored e.g. see Khalistan movement history diff diff diff diff. The edits here are also reliably sourced and hence I have reverted the same. we can't selectively revert and restore content based on our personal liking. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Refrain from making WP:POINT-y argument. The revert on Khalistan movement has to do nothing with this unrelated subject which were discussed on talk page. If the edits here are so "reliably sourced" then consider producing the quotes from the snippets from these books that have no preview unavailable for me (and probably others). If you can't then self-revert yourself right now. Orientls (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "we can't selectively revert and restore content based on our personal liking" — that is not a correct understanding of the policy. WP:BANREVERT says that any editor can revert the edits made under WP:EVASION, and any editor can reinstate them and take responsibility for those edits. Either or both of these can be selective. It depends on our judgement.
 * In my view, most of the edits made by were in the positive direction, and there should be little need to revert them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * TUrbocop certainly had a dodgy history in this subject, see Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War.
 * DBigXray's contributions show he is certainly editing around even after evidently reading the message here. Now I would be within my rights to revert right now because my 1st revert was revert of a sock, exempted from reverting. I am still assuming WP:AGF to see if DBigXray really understands what really constitutes "reliably sourced". Though  Orientls (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys I have no special love for Turbocop. I think we have to move sensibly here. Kautilya3 makes a valid point. We should decide what to do with his offline sources and act accordingly. If it is dodgy then it is dodgy, just becuase it supports someone POV does not mean dodgy edits should be restored. Meanwhile I am adding tags in the article, until this is sorted.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no issue of love or non-love. It is merely a question of whether we agree with the edits. No policy-based reason needs to be offered to do a BANREVERT. If it is reinstated, the discussion then happens normally between the current editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray: We can't leave it like that. This is a contentious topic. I have reverted you since this all started with your misrepresentation of the policy and now this failure to get the point. If you or anyone is really interested, they can reinsert it with quotation and use a more neutral language than "Pakistani Army resisted fiercely". Orientls (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Orientls there is no consensus to remove his edits. Please self revert. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is consensus to add it? You said "edits here are also reliably sourced", then show us how it supported by the sources. This is the 3rd time you are being asked the same question. Orientls (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Schendel p.170 has this paragraph:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am not sure if this requires inclusion after replacing the summary of Manekshaw's quotes. Maybe some other paragraph along with "and suffered many casualties"? Orientls (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Manekshaw's direct quote is still there in the article. There was absolutely no need to write the same thing in both indirect and direct quote. That removal was entirely appropriate. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants a quote from an offline source in order to evaluate whether or not it supports the content, insert Request quotation after the reference as did. I have access to many of the cited sources and will answer such requests when I notice them. If you need large numbers of excerpts, or need them urgently, consider asking at WP:RX. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: It seems that these edits are repeating same things already included in the article by using different words. I viewed that the book has provided context rather than a single sentence. Why you are pointing a half sentence without providing any context? These things have been already written through the quote of Manekshaw.
 * Same is the issue with your other restoration. On Aftermath section, these edits seem undue as the section already included that "Colonel John Gill of National Defense University, US, remarks that, while India achieved a military victory, it was not able to reap the political fruits it might have hoped for in Bangladesh. After a brief 'honeymoon' phase between India and Bangladesh, their relationship began to sour. India's relations with Bangladesh have remained frequently problematic and tense."
 * Why we are repeating it with different sources? We still yet to find quotations for other two sources. In sentences like "Many were concerned that Mujib was permitting Indian intereference", it is unclear who these "many" are. We can't be sure if it is WP:DUE or not depending on who those "many" were. Where is the link or ISBN for "Government and politics in South Asia" 5th edition? We really need to confirm these claims before bringing them to main page. But again, this has been already covered in the article, so why there should be repetition of the information?
 * Aside this, can anyone check if " A 2014 Pew Research Center opinion poll in Bangladesh found that India was perceived as the greatest threat to Bangladesh", is really supported by the source? I don't find mention of a "greatest threat" in the provided source. Orientls (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is any duplication, you are welcome to delete it and say so in the edit summary.
 * Schendel's book covered the whole war in one paragraph. There is no more "context" to the statement and the other "half sentence" is talking about Indian casualties. This is much more authentic than Manekshaw's rumblings, whose credibility is pretty low. War heroes don't make great sources. I just deleted another war hero's nonsensical statement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019
-- 58.182.172.95 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See also
 * Mitro Bahini order of battle
 * Pakistan Army order of battle, December 1971
 * Evolution of Pakistan Eastern Command plan
 * Military plans of the Bangladesh Liberation War
 * Timeline of the Bangladesh Liberation War
 * Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts


 * 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.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  12:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please edit the casualties correctly
It says that Pakistani Army suffered only 2,200+ deaths which is wrong as it's what they suffered in the eastern front. Indian casualties on eastern front were just over 1,200 deaths. Actually, Pakistani army suffered 8,000 military deaths and 12,000 wounded and 90,000+ captured on eastern and western fronts combined. Please re-edit the casualties on the main summary. Hard654 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Libaration War of Bangladesh 1971
In 1971 which war was held in subcontinent that not Indo-Pakistani War at all. It was the glorious libaration war of Bangladeshi Freedom-Fighter against Pakistani invading forces. Indian force join with Bangladeshi Freedom Fighter at end of the war. So it is a completely false and distorted history that the war of 9 was between Pakistan and India. Learn the right truth and go with the truth. Md. Mahabubur Rahman Razib (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020
I want to edit a date. Sardaraliabbas572 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2020 (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. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable and inauthentic sources
"The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance.[120]:107 The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was blown out of the subcontinent's skies within the first week of the war.[120]:107 Those PAF aircraft that survived took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer a fight.[123]"

This quote was copy pasted from a Russian blog with dubious authenticity. This needs to be changed to a proper citation or deleted. It is well established that Indian Air force did not have air superiority in West Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be worth seeing what is said about the PAF and air operations in:
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions of WP:HISTRS sources are there for the section? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

According to declassified CIA records, page 13, It states that "Pakistan's military capabilities remained largely in tact after the conflict." This is a much more reliable and authoritative source then a random Russian blog. Also, I could not find any other authoritative source for PAF "hiding" in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although Pakistan's military capabilities remained largely intact following the conflict, the countries leaders recognize that their armed forces are no match for India's, only this full sentence has a logical meaning. Also this sentence isn't portraying the immediate situation after the war. With nearly one-third of its army in captivity, clearly established India's military and political dominance of the subcontinent, this was the condition immediate after the war. The declassified documents of CIA is not declassified in true sense, All PIA aircraft are out of service and parked in Tehran or Jidda. the upper sentence of this is still classified, may be to shelter PAF's shelter in Iran, many sentence of related Pakstan's situation during war were still classified in CIA's report. ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is denying that the air force in East Pakistan surrendered, but the quote from the Russian blog saying that entire air force, especially in west Pakistan, surrendered. This is not true and unless we have different meaning for "largely intact following the conflict" this clearly shows that PAF was not "blown out of the sky and hiding in Iran" India never established air superiority in West Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its air force, and a third of its army.[114] " in the article itself it says a quarter of the air force. Can mods please delete the ridiculous claims by that Russian blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Analyzing the role of media in the 1971 war
Media is the strongest pillar of every state due to its strong influence on the masses. It tends to shape, reshape and mold the public opinion and perception towards any ongoing matter. Major General Asif Ghafoor ex- DG ISPR said in a press conference that if Pakistani media had been independent, the country might not have separated. At the time of the 1971 war, policies and plans were given by the Indian government to create chaos for Pakistan. International media also put its part by reporting propaganda news against West Pakistan and Pakistan was cut into two halves and gave birth to an isolated state of Bangladesh. The reason behind the separation of Pakistan was the involvement of a third party. Indian Media and Mukti Bahini fought the war along with the Bengali people and supported their every step towards the inception of war.

At the time of war or conflict, the role of media becomes essential. But during the conflict of 1971 Pakistani media was under the control of the state. No news regarding the killings of non- Bengalis by Mukti Bahini were not broadcasted. Print media and Pakistan Television were completely blackout by the Government in West Pakistan excluding the permitted content. Many journalists were arrested by Pakistani armed forces during operation searchlight and that stopped the process of first-hand reporting. In a press conference Major General Asif Ghafoor ex- DG ISPR admitted that Pakistani media has changed and is guiding the army. Pakistani authorities in East Pakistan were unaware of the sensitivity of preventing the first-hand reporting which give chance to Indian media to manipulate the facts.

Media has always been the part of propaganda. Superpowers like the United States and China used media as a tool of propaganda. In 1971 Indian media have also used media for their interest. Indian and the media reported every situation according to their interest which pushed the anger of Bengali people. Indian Government and RAW used all the tactics to create propaganda against Pakistan. They established the Radio station “Free Bengal Betal Kendra” just to manipulate the fact and situation at that time. Their objective was to destabilize Pakistan regardless of the proof.

International media have to play a vital role during the coverage of any conflict or war. International media played an immoral and unethical role during the war of 1971. Un-Authentication of news and biased reporting was done by international media at that time. One of the serious allegations on International media is the total number of Bengali killed during the war of 1971. International media without the verification reported the number of 3 million killings of Bengalis whereas in a report named, “The missing millions” William Drummond highlighted that “My finding built-in various tours to Bangladesh and broad discussion with many individuals at the village level as well as in the government, is that the three million death figure is an exaggeration so gross to be absurd”. International media violated the ethics of journalism when they printed the pictures of Jessore massacre victims, by quoting it the deadly act of Pakistan armed forces. New York Times and Washington Post dishonored all the principles of professionalism. There are several stories that international media didn’t verify it and blamed Pakistan authorities for the unrest situation in East Pakistan.

It is important to understand the role and existence of media at the time of war. As media have the power to stabilize and calm the situation among people. Unlike, media played a negative part at the time of the 1971 war either international media or National media and the fumes of war destroyed Pakistan. Indian government with the support of Mukti Bahini used all the tactics of information disorder and propaganda to manipulate the situation and facts which lead to the separation of East Pakistan. The media of West Pakistan used discursive strategies to present a soft and winning image of West Pakistan against Bengalis and Mukti Bahini who were directly connected with the Indian government and officials. Hence, the war of 1971 proved that media could be a distractive weapon and a positive tool if there is no involvement of government. Freedom of media and absolute freedom of media is still a conflicting subject all around the world. For the sake of authentic, credible, and factual news, media should work as an unbiased tool and portrays the exact and precise information having statistical figures, accurate details to the audience.

Muhammad Asim Siddiqi is a broadcast journalist based in Islamabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAsimSiddiqi (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Armed forces flag.png

Pakistan casualties
I have reverted this change. Firstly it makes no sense, the edit summary says Old sources contained no mention. User generated content. What "user generated content"? The references cited were. Neither of those are user generated. They were replaced by this reference, with the number of Pakistanis killed being changed from 25,000 to 2698. This figure is achieved by adding the Bengali front total of 1293 to the Western front total of 1405. However, and it's a big however, even if you want to argue that website is reliable (and its reliability should be regarded as questionable at best) using that total ignores the fact that it says the Bengali front figure cannot be further from the truth as it is a fact that the entire 100,000 Pakistani army on the Bengali front, consisting primarily of the 9th, the 14th, and the 36th infantry divisions, was completed destroyed and the Western front figure are also lower than the actual losses of the Pakistani army. FDW777 (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Leonard, Thomas M. (2006). Encyclopedia of the developing world, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6.
 * The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare, edited by Chris Bishop (Amber publishing 1997, republished 2004 pages 384–387 ISBN 1-904687-26-1

User: FDW777 after going through the source, it does include the figures. But indians self admitted of around 7500 pakistani casualities and around 7000 of theirs according to the source 9000 still seems an over exaggerated figure and the indian casualties are also kept very low when the indian army self admitted Truthwins018 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=8urEDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA605&dq=pakistani+casualties+in+1971+war&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJ_Z2n46XuAhWrAGMBHVOBClkQ6AEwBHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q&f=true
 * There can always be a case made for including more figures, to give a range for example. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would go ahead with giving a range for the pakistani casualties. It would be appreciated if you can cite some references so that i can create a range for indian and pakistani casualties. Pakistani casualties now are overly exaggerated, even more than the indian claimsTruthwins018 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Battles at the Western front
I noticed there's little to no information on these battles (and the Western front in general compared to the East):

Battle of Hussainiwala

Battle of Fazilka

These could have separate articles dedicated to them, and the approximate areas captured could be added to the infobox.

SpicyBiryani  (talk)  11:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

infobox caption
The caption to the infobox is crowded, and not easy to read aggravated by use of small font. The Manual of Style for captions says under Succintness "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", it also says " text of captions should not be specially formatted...except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text" which counts against small font. I suggest the caption contains just what it is (signing of the surrender), name the signer and two individuals bookending him, and at most a general description of the onlookers (eg "in presence of senior Indian officers"). The caption where the image is used on Pakistani Instrument of Surrender is much more effective, though not necessarily the final say on the matter: "Lt Gen A A K Niazi signing the Instrument of Surrender under the gaze of Lt Gen J S Aurora (left), General Commander of the Indian and Bangladeshi Forces". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced claims
, You cannot add unsourced figures to the infobox. If you have a source for 93,000 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed.

SpicyBiryani  (talk)  05:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox does not require sources. It is sourced in the article. You can easily find more sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 93,000 POWs is sourced. The 90,368 figure is the one that is unsourced. The source cited is:


 * Many other reliable academic sources support the 93,000 total, although Bose disputes the ratio of military to civilian prisoners, and several authors assume all the POWs were soldiers, which is sloppy.
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, to name a few:
 * Not to mention, the source already present in the article itself:
 * Not to mention, the source already present in the article itself:
 * Not to mention, the source already present in the article itself:
 * Not to mention, the source already present in the article itself:
 * Not to mention, the source already present in the article itself:


 * None of these state either 90,368 or 93,000 but "over 90,000," which is a closer approximation to 90,368 than 93,000, but I don't want to indulge in WP:SYNTHESIS too much. And as you've pointed out, most sources supporting the 93,000 figure have questionable accuracy since they assume all POWs were civillians. The article already has a table of the number of POWs, so either that figure or a range like "90,000+ captured," could be used.  SpicyBiryani   (talk)  11:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also found a source for 90,368 exactly:
 * Adve, N., & Saxena, S. (2007). Maoist Attack in Jharkand. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(44), p.122. Retrieved February 24, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40276728
 * SpicyBiryani  (talk)  11:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The correct citation for that source is: Adve and Saxena wrote one of the other letters in the section.
 * It is not a reliable source for several reasons. It's a letter to the editor, rather than a peer reviewed article, and although the writer is named, it isn't clear that they have any relevant expertise. Jha writes "The Hameedur Rahman Committee report instituted by Pakistan puts the break-up of Pakistani POWS as follows ..." The correct name is Commission, not Committee, but in any case the only version of that report ever leaked does not contain those numbers. What does contain those numbers, and the same "Committee" mistake, is the Wikipedia article at the time the letter to the editor was written, strongly suggesting that Jha got their information from Wikipedia and that their letter is circular. At that time, Wikipedia attributed the numbers to the report, but without actually citing a source.
 * If you want to get to the bottom of it, keep digging. Otherwise, after fourteen and a half years without citing a reliable source, maybe it's time to remove it. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I pasted JSTOR's citation directly in a hurry. I found this Indian source which also supports these numbers. It claims to have used publications from "Illustrated Weekly of India Asian Recorder, TIME Magazine," and "Newsweek Magazine." I also found:
 * Additionally, Google scholar brings up two sources that look like they confirm the figure as well, but I think my adblock and noscript is stopping them from loading so I can't confirm the details.
 * The reason I prefer to have a number like 90,368 is because it is more precise and specific than an estimate of 90,000-93,000. There's also the specific amounts of servicemen and civilians which add up to this number. At the very least, these sources could warrant leaving the table in the article. However, if the vast majority of sources estimate the total number to be 90,000 (I do have around 10 more sources which put it at that amount, if you'd like) and some at 93,000, then I think the infobox should say 90,000-93,000 captured or 90,000+ captured.  SpicyBiryani   (talk)  17:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I prefer to have a number like 90,368 is because it is more precise and specific than an estimate of 90,000-93,000. There's also the specific amounts of servicemen and civilians which add up to this number. At the very least, these sources could warrant leaving the table in the article. However, if the vast majority of sources estimate the total number to be 90,000 (I do have around 10 more sources which put it at that amount, if you'd like) and some at 93,000, then I think the infobox should say 90,000-93,000 captured or 90,000+ captured.  SpicyBiryani   (talk)  17:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Be wary of the logical fallacy of precision bias, in which a more precise number is erroneously believed more likely to be true. Better to heed John Allen Paulos's maxim, "Implausibly precise statistics are often bogus."


 * Of the sources mentioned in your latest post:
 * The first is not a genuine newspaper, it's a mock up of an imaginary newspaper, created 30 years after the fact by a military fansite. It isn't remotely a reliable source. I see no claim that they used Illustrated Weekly of India, Asian Recorder, Time, or Newsweek in compiling their story. If they did, you could try to find the figures in those primary sources and then see if reputable historians have cited them in secondary sources.
 * Pandey and Singh? Who are they? Who is Horizon Books, or their parent company Ignited Minds Edutech? Why is their book not held by any WorldCat libraries? Those are all questions to ask when evaluating the source's reliability. The first paragraph of their first chapter is an unattributed copy condensed from the first and third paragraphs of Wikipedia's Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, as it stood in February 2017. If you want to, you can pay to read their chapter on the Bangladesh Liberation War, but I think you'll find that it too is WP:CIRCULAR, and that their book is not a reliable source at all.
 * Of the Google Scholar results, I'm not sure which two of the five you meant, but:
 * The Nigerian master's thesis lies about where the paragraph containing the POW numbers came from. It's an unattributed copy of two paragraphs from the Wikipedia article as of July 2013. At that time, Wikipedia cited Nayar's 1998 Indian Express article for the first half (not the POW numbers), but Nayar didn't even support most of the first half. The thesis is WP:CIRCULAR and not reliable.
 * Majid's article in the Romanian Journal of European Affairs says "despite the immense pressure they were under to secure the release of nearly 93,000 prisoners of war".
 * To summarize the discussion so far, we have seven books by notable historians, published by academic presses, all of which support the 93,000 figure. We have no reliable sources that support the precise number 90,368.
 * The sources you've put forward do not at all justify leaving the table of precise numbers in the article. Indeed, as the quality of sources you're floating goes down and down, I'm more and more inclined to remove the table of precise numbers as being bogus.
 * The sources which say "over 90,000" do not contradict the 93,000 figure, so I see no reason for Wikipedia to change to "90,000-93,000 captured" or "90,000+ captured", but you're welcome to try to persuade other readers of this page that Wikipedia should round to the nearest ten thousand instead of the nearest thousand. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Claims of Bengali terrorism supported by "An International History of Terrorism"
In the "India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War" section there are multiple claims of Bengali terrorism against supporters of the Pakistan government, all of which are supported by citation from the book "An International History of Terrorism: Western and Non-Western Experiences", a compilation of articles edited by Jussi M. Hanhimäki and Bernhard Blumenau (the article which is cited is by the Bangladeshi scholar Rashed Uz Zaman). The problem with these citations is that they don't appear either on the indicated page (164) or anywhere within the article quoted. In fact, the article is entirely about Bengali terrorists in the colonial period in Bengal, with the 1971 war mentioned only in passing. Therefore, these claims are not supported by citation and must either be removed or appropriate citation added to support them. Kostja (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The text and source were added in this edit. Based on previous experience with that editor's work, I've removed the text without trying very hard to find a source that supports it, or to find someplace in this article into which what Rashed Uz Zaman actually wrote could be shoehorned. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021
The war happened between Bangladesh and Pakistan. There was never a war in 1971 between India and Pakistan. I can send links if you want proof of that. Many of us(family members) fought in the war. It was a liberation war of east Pakistan Present Bangladesh. Please edit it. 213.31.232.197 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please read the article properly, this was a 13 day war which formed part of the nine month long Bangladesh Liberation War. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
There's a spelling mistake in the infobox, which says "Chhamb" instead of "Chamb." The link is also broken, so could someone make it link to Battle of Chamb and correct the spelling mistake? Cipher21 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Broken link corrected. However, according to one of the sources, and Battle of Chamb, it seems the territory was indeed called "Chhamb". So I've left the name unaffected. — Sirdog (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Rape victims during Bangladesh liberation war
False claims: Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.


 * It [rape] was also a means of purifying the "tainted" blood of Bengali Muslims.


 * … 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …

The False sentence should be removed from lead para. ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 12:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not just harmonize the same with the sources and substitute Muslim for Hindu? Does that sound good to you Pravega? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * much more improvement needed at Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, It seems some editors are trying to portray that most victims were Hindus and so they are trying to justify the barbarism of Pak army in a particular group's mindset. ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You are misinterpreting the sources which was discussed here. The main reason why these atrocities are considered a genocide and not just a war crime is because the perpetrators were specifically targeting Hindus. Pakistan's collaborators or the Razakar forces included mainly Bengali Muslims so if you claim that Muslims were also targeted you are simply denying the genocidal claims which is endorsed by an academic consensus. Please do not change this. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

History
Who said that the war was of 13 days? 1971 war was the war of Bangladesh Liberation War. At that time, India helped Bangladesh. It was a war of 9 months where Indian army joined last few days not a month. Ridiculous history writing is not a good thing for the world. So, don't ridicule our history. 27.147.190.152 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Simple update of article reverted
I didn't want to start a talk page section but was forced to. I had recently edited the article in the place which cited the 1971 genocide article. The 1971 genocide article shows casualty range from 200,000 to 3,000,000 deaths. I updated the article from 300,000 to 200,000 according to the page it is citing. It was reverted by terming it as "fiddling" which is baseless as I am citing a cencensus approved figure from the genocide article this page is citing. Kindly take a look. Truthwins018 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This article does not cite the Networker audio clip, as you falsely claim, but scholarly sources that provide reliable estimates of the death toll, you conveniently shut your eyes to. Moreover, the Newyorker does not provide a tangible estimate. It says "While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway, the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). " Misrepresenting sources and fiddling with long-established scholarly backed estimates will not get you anywhere. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe your comments are due to lack of concideration on the edit and just your attempt to start an edit war which would get you no where. I have clearly mentioned that the article opening page mentions 300,000-3,000,000 and this figure is cited from another wikipedia page titled 1971 Bangladesh genocide. The Page quotes the 200,000 figure and its reliability has been discussed before. The newyorker source has been deemned credible by consensus and add on to the estimated range of death values from a wide range. The quotation of 200,000 with the CIA referrence can be discussed. Your lack of awareness on the established scholarly estimate has led you to the fiddling claim, which is clearly not being done. The estimate is very wide and offcourse doesn't give any clear value of the real figures. In this say, even lesser figures than 200,000 can be added. Truthwins018 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but scholars are. The CIA estimates are not exhaustive, and do not turn to writing incoherent and disoriented comments to obfuscate the discussion. Kerberous (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Incoherant and disoriented are in accordance with your understanding, but not meant by myself. I have only mentioned that the CIA figures are a neutral estimate to the death range and are quoted here 1971 Bangladesh genocide. If you refer to its talk page, the CIA figures have already been discussed. So either stop referring to the page 1971 Bangladesh genocide on the article or update the article according to the page it is citing. It becomes unconsistant when the page says "300,000" but the article it leads to says "200,000". Also exhaustive is your opinion and it doesn't count here on wikipedia. Come up with better reasons to not include a figure already accepted by "scholarly" concensus. Truthwins018 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My only reason to start this section is so to clear the different figures. One page mentions "300,000" but it leads to a page which shows "200,000". This leads to confusion as both the pages show different numbers. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021
Lines stating rape of Bangladeshi women is false. The references of the given books does not prove the mentioned statement. Thus, the statement needs to be removed. Blue Cakes FTW (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It looks to be well sourced, and there is an entire article on it, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

45,000 real figure. 93,000 exaggerated
The openning paragraph of the article mentions " Approximately 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoner by the Indian Army, which included 79,676 to 81,000 uniformed personnel of the Pakistan Armed Forces, including some Bengali soldiers who had remained loyal to Pakistan" and is sourced by the book of Sarmila Bose and and a 1974 source. The source of sarmila bose at no place actually mentions these figures except for at a place terming them as exaggerated
 * Bose, Sarmila. 2011. Dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. New York: Columbia University Press. p.173: "One of the most notable ‘numbers’ of 1971 in circulation is the assertion that ‘93,000 Pakistani soldiers’ were taken prisoner by India at the end of the war. This statement has been repeated, virtually unchallenged, in practically every form of publication. It is a number about which one expects a certain precision—after all the number of POWs in India had to be an exact figure, not an approximation. Yet it turns out that 93,000 soldiers were not, in fact, taken prisoner...How did 34,000 army personnel plus 11,000 civilian police and other armed personnel, a total of 45,000 men, more than double into 93,000 soldiers’ who were reported taken prisoner by India in December?"

Gen AAK Niazi also in his book confirms that he was commanding 45,000 men where he says "I had only 45,000 regular and paramilitary forces". This comes from Gen AAK Niazi himself who was the commander of eastern command during the 1971 war. This is also mentioned in other sourced:
 * Faruqui, A., 2001. Failure in Command: Lessons from Pakistan's Indian Wars, 1947—1999. Defense Analysis, 17(1), pp.31-40. "the Pakistani army surrendered in thirteen days with more than 45,000 soldiers still fighting"
 * Khan, T.H., 2018. What Kinds of Variables Allow War to Create a New State? The Case of Bangladesh’s Secessionist War. Journal of Indian Studies, 4(1), pp.65-84. "The Eastern command had roughly 45,000 soldiers"
 * Hossain, Kamal, 2013. Bangladesh: Quest for Freedom and Justice, pp.129. "The army's strength in East Pakistan was well under 20,000. To cope with the expected popular reaction to the action planned by the regime, the troop strength was raised to about 45,000, the number which surrendered on 16 December 1971." 
 * Jabbar, Javed, 2020. Dawn News article by former federal minister and senator " There were only about 34,000 combat soldiers out of about 45,000 troops deployed."

A historical document under FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969–1976, VOLUME XI, SOUTH ASIA CRISIS, 1971 from a meeting chaired by Henry A. Kissinger and including people from Defense, CIA, JCS and NCS also state "There are 20,000 loyal West Pakistani troops in East Pakistan"  which was cited in the book of sharmila bose as the strength before Pakistan calling in more strength growing up to 45,000 of which 34,000 were soldiers.Truthwins018 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Defender of Pakistan History (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes 93,000 figure is wrong, It should be 97,000+.(The resulting surrender was the largest in number of prisoners of war(97,000+) since world war 2.)

You mentioned DAWN: The Fall of Dhaka, as this moment in history is also known, resulted in the surrender of almost 93,000 Pakistani army men stationed there to the Indian armed forces.

Below I mentioned Independent(WP:IS) and scholarly sources.

Ninety thousand Pakistani prisoners of war were left stranded in Bangladesh for months. (Google Scholar Citation Index: 146)

...since it brought about the dismemberment of Pakistan even India held 92,000 prisoners of war... (Google Scholar Citation Index: 471)

More than 76,000 soldiers and 16,000 civilians were held in Indian camps until India and Bangladesh agreed to their release last September.

The Pakistani army surrendered at Dhaka and its army of more than 90,000 became Indian prisoners of war.

The list is endless... ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The NewYork Times source is very old WP:AGE MATTERS and it contradicts your other source of Dawn which says 93000 army men. Plus Dawn doesn't appear to show any original source for its figures and seems WP:CIRC. On the other hand their seems to be a confusion between " Prisoners of War" and "soldiers" in this context. I have given acceptable citations from many sources for a 45,000 soldiers strength figure which is missing from the article. It is to quote a stronge citation as it originally comes from Gen AAK Niazi. As it is usual with the Indo-Pak articles, the only way forward seems to be inclusion of all the figures as an estimate. This would fulfil the standards of wikipedia as an Enclyclopedia and not go again WP:NPOV. Truthwins018 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC) I would love to have the opinion of other experienced wikipedians as this section is going no where. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is meant to show every well sourced information in the article. Kindly take a look Truthwins018 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your sources contradict each other at many places.

Supportive nations removal
Why editors removed supportive nations from belligerents section? 122.174.33.58 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ You had a point. Russia was supporting India and United States of America as well as Air Forces of Britain supporting Pakistan.-- Contributers 2020 Talk to me here 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please help me (lol). Please other editor do this edit at earliest. -- Contributers 2020 Talk to me here 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * bel·lig·er·ent, noun, "A state or other armed participant in warfare". Infoboxes are terrible places to describe things that are complex. The combatants parameter of Infobox military conflict is best for listing the countries whose forces took part in the conflict. Lesser degrees of supportiveness such as any from Russia, the US, the UK, etc., are better explained in the text of the article, and should cite high quality sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm, Russia was a armed participant in the war with have sent submarines to it. USA and Britain, as well, sent submarines and air fighters to help Pakistan win the war. I don't really see how it is complex. It is just like the Provision government of Bangladesh (at that time) was supporting India. -- Contributers 2020 Talk to me here 17:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Russian, American, British, and Middle Eastern participation was limited to intelligence, materials, and force projection and posturing. None of them entered combat. The provincial government of Bangladesh, represented by the Mukti Bahini, did enter combat. I think what is currently written should suffice.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is, all that matters is what the Reliable Sources provide, and 2) belligerents are those that do the actual fighting - suppliers of weapons and/or intelligence materials are NOT 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk)

Territorial changes
Both sides captured territory across the international border, which was subsequently returned in the Simla Agreement. This has been omitted for some reason, but I'm going to add it to the article. I also propose moving the specific areas captured to the casualties section of the infobox. Cipher21  (talk)  07:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Existing infobox touched on that aspect with brevity, Gyan publishing house does not measure up to the standards expounded in WP:RS. Kerberous (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the existing infobox suggests only India captured territory which is POV pushing. If you object to a source, you don't undo every revision since it was added, unless you're suggesting other RS like NYT are unreliable. Cipher21   (talk)  09:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, that news report does not state that Pakistan captured Indian territory across the international border. You are risking sanctions by deliberately misrepresenting sources. Kerberous (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The report states, India is scheduled to give up 5,000 square miles of Pakistani territory in exchange for Pakistan's return of 70 square miles of Indian territory. The only territory returned in the Simla agreement was across the international border. Cipher21   (talk)  17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, the source will have to conclude just the way you are doing if you really want to modify the existing text. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This falls within the domain of WP:COMMONSENSE. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting the areas captured under "casualties" is common sense? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it’s common sense what NYT is referring to. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not your inferences are correct is immaterial. We require explicit and unequivocal statement to that effect as a matter of policy. Furnish the same or simply drop the stick. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more sources which explicitly state the territory was returned at Simla, including NYT. Cipher21  (talk)  12:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can now be certain that the information present in the New York Times news article is reliable for the purpose of WP:V. At the same time, however, its placement in the infobox would be injudicious and unjustified given the apparent lack of scholarly consideration of the trivia (vide WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD). I do think it merits a line in the body. Kerberous (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not some minority opinion, though. It's just a fact. A glance at the presently cited sources shows that one is a book about Benazir Bhutto which refers to the 1971 war in an offhand manner. Similarly, Kashmir in conflict focuses on Kashmir and seems to be conveying how badly Pakistan was defeated. It has a number of factual errors such as claiming India captured all 5,000 square miles in Sindh, 94,000 PoWs were taken (where did the extra 1,000 come from?) and so on. Perhaps has access to Crossed swords : Pakistan, its army, and the wars within. I could not verify its content online.
 * Against those 3 sources, I have presented 3 sources as well (4 if you include the Office of the Historian, US govt.)


 * I am tagging and  for their thoughts on this.  Cipher21   (talk)  15:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what is being debated. There is no problem with adding reliably sourced content to the article. Only infobox changes need a discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By infobox changes, are you referring to moving the territorial changes to the casualties or adding Pakistani gains to the existing format? Cipher21   (talk)  18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. This discussion is all over the place and I am not sure what is being debated. One thing I can make out that the Indian territory returned by Pakistan is not mentioned in the infobox. I think it should be mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See this diff. The specific numbers were moved to the "casualties" section (similar to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965) and the overall changes were left in the "territorial changes" section. Cipher21   (talk)  12:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be more constructive if Kautilya3 explained the rationale underpinning their comment, considering that some of the opponents above have aired some well-founded and legitimate concerns concerning the OP's edits. While it is doubtless that the Indian territorial gain is a key facet of the subject matter as attested to by the magnitude of scholarly attention that it has received, the same cannot be said of the trivia at issue. A lead of which infobox is an important dimension, by its nature. recapitulates some of the most important content of an article (MOS:LEAD), while WP:UNDUE's applicability is not confined to "some minority opinion" as the OP erroneously reasons or regurgitates, but is broad enough to encompass within its purview all minor "aspects" of a subject. To juxtapose the same under the same infobox parameter is to engender discrepancy and unjustified indeed, besides patently constituting non-observance of WP:NPOV, a key content policy. In consequence, I would caution against proceeding with the edit until the concerns are addressed to everyone's contentment. Lastly, I would be curious to know how the two Gbooks references that the OP has cascaded to us to weigh in favor of their position are even reliable to begin with. The text by SS Agarwalla reads like a college textbook and provides no particulars about the author, his credentials and scholarship, and in any case deals with the Shimla agreement in passing (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS); the text by the Saudi journalist James Wynbrandt is also likewise sketchy, superficial, and facile when it comes to its treatment of the same. These are not the sources that were demanded. WP:NEWSORG foregrounds scholarly sources as sources to use for such topics; the trivia should find a place only in an appropriate section in the body. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. The infobox is meant for factual information, not any statements of note. The territory won and returned by both sides deserves mention. If you are contesting the factuality of the Pakistani-won territory, that is a different matter. (By the way, the first source cited, Shuja Nawaz does mention the territorial holding of both the sides, but the numbers are different, because he is including J&K. Chitkara is a poor source. The fact that Schofield doesn't mention it doesn't mean much, since it is a book on the Kashmir conflict.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My comment stands. Infobox is not the place to put all sorts of trivia and obscure details; MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is clear in this regard. If scholars do not dwell on it, it does not stand to reason that Wikipedia should treat it as a key fact by mixing it with something far more significant in the infobox. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the.. prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. One way in which the problem may begin to penetrate, would be to draw an analogy with the Indian exchange of territory, which the scholars not only explore, but entertain its import– e.g. : India was able to bargain territorial gains made in Punjab and Sind for a readjustment of the old UN ceasefire line towards a new LOC in Kashmir which improved India's forward positions. Kerberous (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Territory captured by either side is not trivia and obscure details. Going as far as to omit one side's losses and not the other's makes no sense. territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement. From Template: Infobox military conflict - key word any. The territory field has a lengthy description of what the Indian forces captured an how they returned it out of the goodness of their hearts and whatnot, but that sort of wording doesn't belong in an infobox. If you're willing to keep that much text then you might as well include both sides' losses. Territory captured across the international border was returned by both sides suits this field better. It is short, summarizes the changes, and does not omit basic information. The specifics can go under "casualties".

And from the current pool of sources, I do not see an overwhelming consensus among scholars that either sides' losses were irrelevant. Thus, WP:UNDUE is not a valid reason for omitting this information, even if it applied to this situation. Cipher21  (talk)  19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert. In both regions these gains lay in farflung, desolate, uninhabited and difficult areas of negligible economic, strategic and political value which could hurt the rulers of Pakistan only in their prestige.


 * On the other hand, Sartaj Singh lost the area of Chhamb, where the aftermath of the refugee problem still haunts the Jammu and Kashmir administration. The loss of the Kasowala bulge, the Hussainiwala enclave and the Fazilka agricultural belt in Punjab could not be equated with marginal gains in the Sehjra bulge and the Mamdot enclave in economic, military or political terms. The Indian occupation of the major portion of the Shakargarh bulge was somewhat embarrassing to the Bhutto government in view of the restive refugee population, but this in no way impaired the Pakistani economy or upset its military tactical balance. In short, this war failed to achieve a decision, although the Indian public was misled by articulate propaganda and impressive statistics. It is therefore imperative that the public should be educated to judge the country’s military achievement on merit. Cipher21   (talk)  07:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is weird that the infox contains a body of excessive length with trivial details like the mention of wordings "gesture of good will". It is clearly stated that the info-box should be fact based H:IB and not include any opinion. The info-box goes to the extent of ignoring the gains of one side WP:NPOV and pin pointing on the figures of "15,010 km2 (5,795 sq mi)" as captured land from the western sector whereas the figures are disputed at many places. The indian territory gain is highly disputed with multiple figures. It ranges from as low as 3,600 square kilometres and through many figures  upto 15,010. I have no problem with including 15,010 but it should be included in a range and also the Pakistani territory captured without the "gesture" wordings. Truthwins018 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Pakistani gains are a hard fact which cannot be omitted no matter what one’s personal opinion may be (WP:OR), some sources have even gone as far to state that Indian gains consisted largely of useless land while Pakistani ones were in economically important areas. It’s fairly obvious that omitting Indian territorial losses is POV pushing. SpicyBiryani  (talk)  12:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022
<The allegations of rape by Pakistan Army are based on propaganda by the Indian media. IENGINEERING (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ The reference you provided doesn't contain rape, raping or any similar term. FDW777 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022
Have "Israel" be included in the "supported by" for the Indian section of the wikibox, like so (for what it's worth, I don't know how to put in references so please do so):

As a result of this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/israel-helped-india-in-1971-war-reveals-book/story-amCGMddJKr7fplQkyPG1UM.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krelll24 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you very much! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm informing you I'm going to have to remove that. I read the website, Believe me in the Cold war and generally any conflict will have Israel has mostly had an involvemment, they are second only to the superpowers (US & USSR) when it comes to conflicts they've participated in. This really isnt anything notable at all, there are so much more allies that could be added for every war article if this were to be accepted, in Wikipedia much like a legal court the same logic is applied. I've used this website enough to know that isnt enough to be listed as "Supported by" especially on such a large scale conflict like this, Israel provided nothing compared to the Soviets, yet its still listed. Israel only intervened for diplomatic relations, it was not an Eastern Country and had no interest for the fate of India in this war.


 * Ask any of these other experienced Wikipedians after reading that website, it is not enough. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @PreserveOurHistory: Per the cited source, Israel diverted tanks and several other equipments meant to be delivered to Iran, to India for the war needs. It isn't merely diplomatic intervention. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * well its notable that it only happened when they saw an opportunity during a massive war, India was fighting a country that was leaned towards the western bloc and was militarily threatened by Americans. We have to learn more about Israel and India, from that website it isnt all good enough. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is odd for you to request an edit and then revert it yourself! I don't know which "website" you mean, but it was a newspaper article revealing information from an authoritative war history book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How about an image compilation at the start?
Just like the Article "Bangladesh Liberation war" has, we should do the same here as well.

I invite you all to look for any desired imagery from Indian-Pakistani websites, for Pakistan any Image from 1972 and prior is in the Public Domain. Do your best, we will eventually put it together at the top of the page. Here is a list of existing images on wikipedia that can possibly be used (ready for change)

File:Basantar2.jpg

File:Pakistani Soldiers in a captured Indian army jeep.jpg

File:Battleofhilli.jpg

File:INS Vikrant (R11) launches an Alize aircraft during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.jpg

PreserveOurHistory (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. If anyone has other images they want to add to the collage, do note that all Pakistani images of this war are in public domain since it's been more than 50 years since their creation. Solblaze (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the changes have been undone (Special:Diff/1149178158). &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023
Indian chronicle 2020 has well-established how India is pursuing its agenda of hegemonic designs through propaganda and proxy wars. India is fueling terrorism in the region through its subversive activities. However, the Indian quest for hegemony is not new as the history of its sinister designs and the urge for domination goes back to the 1970s. Back then, Indians were burning to avenge the defeat of 1965. They had prepared a plan, which was a mix of conventional attacks, terrorism, and propaganda in their neighbouring East Pakistan, which was 2207 kilometres away from West Pakistan. Only three-division Pakistani troops were deployed there and reinforcement and maintenance of logistics from west Pakistan was an impossible task.

In 2016, Dr Junaid Ahmed, a renowned scholar authored a research piece on the 1971 debacle. The book, titled, “Creation of Bangladesh; Myths Exploded,” has been acclaimed as a flawless research account. Most of the details mentioned in the article are excerpts of Dr Junaid’s book.

The writer, in his research about the misperception that East Pakistan was ignored/exploited by the Centre, has found that it was not true. He states that Economic disparity between East and West Pak was a historical legacy. Nature, in the shape of annual cyclones and floods, also had not been friendly in the case of East Pakistan. Also, the food supply in East Pakistan couldn’t recover from the famine of 1943. Efforts for industrialisation, development of infrastructure/airline, ports, oil fields/refinery, and hydroelectric projects, etc show that significant attention was paid to East Pakistan’s progress post-independence.

Another misperception explored by the writer is the Indian claim that their intervention was on humanitarian grounds. Research brings out startling facts about Indian deceit. It was not a humanitarian intervention; it was a vicious, planned attack on Pakistan’s territorial integrity. These plans were made with the consent of Awami League leadership in an infamous meeting known as the Agartala Conspiracy.

Indian artillery was used extensively in support of rebel operations in East Pakistan.

During 1971, even before the direct military intervention, Mukti Bahini was being provided military, logistic, and economic support by India. Pakistani forces were continuously ambushed by Indian forces and Mukti Bahinis internally while the Tibetan guerrilla force raised by RAW was constantly attacking border outposts. Indian artillery was used extensively in support of rebel operations in East Pakistan. Moreover, Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on many occasions, were also used to back up Mukti Bahini. According to Archer Blood, an American career diplomat – who served as last US Consul General to Dhaka – “Indian soil was made available for training camps, hospitals and supply depots for the Mukti Bahiniand they had a haven to which they could retire for rest, food, medical supplies, and weapons.” Nevertheless, Pakistan Army fought valiantly in tough conditions, Logistical problems faced by West Pakistan in the 1971 war need due consideration. East and West Pakistan were separated by over 1200 miles of territory of hostile India. Pakistani troops gave a

heroic fight despite the enemy’s superiority in both numbers and firepower. There are numerous accounts of some astounding chivalry that testify to the courage of Pakistani troops. The defence of Hilliand valour displayed by Major Muhammad Akram, actions of Fateh Saboona Maj Shabbir Sharif Shaheed, Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz, and Sawar Muhammad Hussain Shaheed are a few examples. “Captain Arjumand Yar Khandwas a young officer from an infantry unit. He was assigned the task of setting up a strong delaying position ahead of this defensive position. The officer, along with a handful of men, held his ground against repeated Indian armor and infantry assaults, hours of air bombing and strafing for nearly three days during which some of his men were martyred and some seriously wounded. On the last day, Arjumand was the only one left in the delaying position.

Even Indian Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw praised the Pakistani Army while saying, “The Pakistan Army in East Pakistan fought very gallantly but they had no chance… They were a thousand miles away from their base; I had eight or nine months to make my preparations. I had the superiority of almost 50 to 1. They just had no chance but they fought very gallantly.”

Another exposure in the book is about Agartala Conspiracy. It is a misperception that the case was a fabrication. The writer establishes that Indian intellectuals, military officers, and intelligence officers have made revelations about the Indian roots of the infamous case. The plot was delayed due to the Indo-China war of 1962 and later due to the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. By 1967, the Pakistani government became cognizant of this conspiracy resulting in the filing of the Agartala Conspiracy Case against 35 people including Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman. Sashanka Banerjee, an Indian diplomat, wrote that Mujibhad handed him an envelope addressed to Nehru on 25th Dec 1962, requesting him for India’s support in Bangladesh’s liberation struggle. Sheikh Hasina Wajidherself admitted that Agartala was a true event; saying: “He went to Agartala in 1962. This is a fact. He went to make preparations.”

The next theme researched in the book is most important. It is a misperception and allegation of the Genocide of three Million Bengalis. The figure of the genocide of three million Bengalis is an illogical one given out by the Indians without any empirical data to prove it. Several investigative accounts have rejected these fictitious claims of Awami League. The Guardian exposed the gaps between the claimed figures and the actual figures in a report of June 1972, named “The Missing Millions.” Renowned author Sarmila Bose in her book, Dead Reckoning – a long-overdue dispassionate study of 1971 war, after carrying out case-by-case arithmetic – concludes that between 50,000 and 100,000 people died in 1971 – vastly away from the figure of 3 million that is sacrosanct in Bangladesh.

Sarmila also logically nullifies the bogus claims of sexual abuse by the Pakistan Army. She exclaimed: “How can it be possible that 34000 Pakistan Army soldiers facing Indian Army and Mukti Bahini could rape two lac, Bengali women”.

Mukti Bahinis were the main perpetrators of violence. Even before Operation Searchlight, thousands of horrifying cases of loot, arson, rapes, and massacres were reported. There are petrifying accounts of whole colonies burnt to ashes with inmates locked inside and burnt alive. The entire violence was targeted at non-Bengalis (particularly Biharis). As per the 1951 census, there were 671,000 Biharis in East Pakistan and up to 20 % of the entire Bihari population was massacred by the MuktiBahini.

According to Yasmin Saikia’s ‘Women, War and the Making of Bangladesh’, thousands of Bihari women were raped and tortured by the Mukti Bahini. More than 20,000 Biharis were massacred by Bengalis in Khulna jute mills – including men, women, and children. Some were burnt alive; others were guillotined.

According to Lawrence Lifschultz, South Asia correspondent for Far Eastern Economic Review, MuktiBahini leader, Abdul Kader Siddiqui, “personally bayoneted” non-Bengalis to death and the entire incident was filmed by foreign film crews whom Siddiqui had invited to witness the spectacle. The writer also argues that the number of soldiers who surrendered is exaggerated. The actual number was 34,000. 223.123.15.110 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2023 (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.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  09:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Bangladesh genocide - Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023
Add in infobox

Causes = Bangladesh genocide

Aftermath = Formation of Bangladesh

103.241.226.169 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Neither of those are valid parameters for Infobox military conflict.– Recoil16 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Surprise pre-emptive attacks by the Pakistan Air Force
The text incorrectly states that: "The attacks carried out by Pakistan were inspired by Israel's air-attacks during Yom Kippur war which saw Israel gaining aerial superiority over Arab states". However, Iraeli pre-emptive airstrikes to Egipt's airforce occured at the begining of the Six Days War. Later in the article the correct information is given: "These pre-emptive strikes, known as Operation Chengiz Khan, were inspired by the success of Israeli Operation Focus in the Arab–Israeli Six-Day War." FAA Sampaio (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023
Please change The attacks carried out by Pakistan were inspired by Israel's air-attacks during Yom Kippur war to The attacks carried out by Pakistan were inspired by Israel's air-attacks during the Six-Day War FAA Sampaio (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously the current text is wrong, because the Pakistani attacks (1971) could not have been inspired by anything in the Yom Kippur War (1973). It's plausible that they might have been inspired by the Six-Day War (1967), but what does the source that is currently cited actually say? It may not say anything about what inspired the attacks. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove reference to Orphanage bombing?
In the casualty list, 'hundreds of orphans in Dacca' are mentioned. I did some digging as I wanted to know more about such an atrocity, but instead I found this NYT article claiming it was a false alarm, there were no casualties at the orphanage. Does anyone have any other reliable sources from after december 11th 1971 saying it did happen? Otherwise I suggest we remove this. The source: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/11/archives/reports-deny-deaths-in-orphanage-bombing.html 87.213.73.230 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another contemporaneous source expresses it as "were said to have died".
 * Out of ten English-language books I have specifically about the war, and several more about the history of Bangladesh in general, only one mentions the incident. For the paragraph in which this appears, Bass cites a bundle of six US government sources dated between 4 and 10 December 1971. The Nixon quote is presumably from "White House tapes, Oval Office 635-8, 10 December 1971, 10:51–11:12 a.m."
 * At least one other relevant book shows up in a Google search. . I'm not familiar with the authors or publisher, and am reluctant to draw any conclusions without seeing more than Google snippets.
 * Remove from infobox. Historical scholarship gives the incident little weight. Wikipedia should not give it undue weight. The New York Times casts doubt on whether there were casualties, and there is much finger pointing about who was responsible, so we certainly shouldn't state in WP:WIKIVOICE "Hundreds of children killed by Indian attack". The incident was widely reported at the time, and even if it had no effect on the course of the war, both sides tried to use it for propaganda purposes. So it's worth a couple sentences in the body that explain the uncertainties around the incident, if only to pragmatically avoid an endless stream of editors adding it back when they think they've discovered something shocking that has been omitted. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the NYT report was published in 1971; if a more recent RS mentions the bombing then we should give it more weight. Solblaze (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate paragraph under Foreign Involvement and Reaction section
The first paragraph under Foreign Involvement and Reaction section is duplicated once (two identical paragraphs) 173.230.18.195 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023
"Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft,[13] not including any F-6s" Change F-6 as it is not the correct designation to J-6 Ghostpepper111111 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: When checking the source, I found that most of the material, including the statement on the F-6, was entirely not mentioned in the source text. Therefore, I have removed most of the paragraph, including the part in question here (in case you're still curious, I believe the F-6 designation is used for some export versions of the Shenyang J-6, although that's largely irrelevant now). Liu1126 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Solbalze
@Solblaze, I have reverted your edit because you didn't provide a reason in the edit summary. If you want to make changes to the article, we can reach a consensus here. This article is a contentious topic, so please follow the guidelines. DSP2092 talk 16:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The current lead makes it seem like PAF dropped hundreds of bombs on India out of the blue, but India had begun occupying chunks of East Pakistani territory and supporting Bengali rebels in the months before. That is an important detail that shouldn't be left out.
 * To be honset though, I should've done this in smaller chunks. Solblaze (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @DSP2092: Additionally, India invaded East Pakistan with an entire brigade's worth of force in November 1971, and Pakistan declared a state of emergency in response a day later on 23 November 1971; India would declare a state of emergency 10 days later  when Pakistan launched retaliatory airstrikes on 3 December. Solblaze (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The academic consensus is that the casus belli for the war and the consequent Indian military involvement was the preemptive aerial strikes on Indian air bases conducted by Pakistan under its Operation Chengiz Khan. If you have sources that contest this position of scholars, you are welcome to present them for our evaluation here. But unilaterally whitewashing longstanding content cited to high quality sources and sneaking in your synthesis of information is not acceptable. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of longstanding content
The recent removal of longstanding, cited content from the article's lead by User:Solblaze (e.g., diff, diff) based on groundless and frivolous reasons like is disruptive enough for me to observe it here. Scholars need neither be personally notable to you nor need whet your appetite for which of the belligerents should be hailed as a liberator and which of it be crucified as oppressor. That's precisely their preserve, and indeed, a scholar observing such propositions would necessitate that we present the same perspective to our readers in the manner becoming of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia defers to the scholars for adumbrating perspectives on a war if anything. Kindly desist from engaging in disruptive removals of such content for reasons that betray a WP:IDONTLIKEIT outlook. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In this edit restoring the infobox of a year ago, you restored citations to "theworldreporter.com". It is a self-published group blog, not a reliable source, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92. Therefore, I have again removed the source. You are welcome to insert a reliable source in its place.
 * Note, however, the RfC consensus earlier this year to deprecate the inclusion of "supported by" sections in military conflict infoboxes. The close acknowledged that in rare cases such sections are suitable, but said such cases would require affirmative consensus at the article. No RfC on this precise matter has been held here, but the weight of policy-based arguments in previous related discussions has leaned towards excluding such nuanced information from the infobox.[1][2][3] (Full disclosure:I commented in the last linked discussion). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Mukti bahini casualties not mentioned
Please mention the casualties of mukti bahini 2409:4061:4E13:7DFE:0:0:B28A:4D0D (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)