Talk:Mukti Bahini/Archive 1

Muktijoddha
each member of the mukti bahini are called 'Muktijoddha'. I think there should be a separate article about this. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Books

 * Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation by J. F. Jacob amazon link
 * Muldhara-71, by Maidul Hasan (plz provide details)

Web Resources

 * Mumtaz Iqbal
 * Irfan Hussein

Fair use rationale for Image:Muktiyddher.jpg
Image:Muktiyddher.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini
What is the real meaning of Mukti Bahini? Does this means "Upholders of Freedom".Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it means literally "Liberation Army" or "Freedom Force". --Ragib (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini under Indian command
Wasn't the Mukti Bahini formally put under the Indian command near the end of the war to ensure that they adhere to the Geneva convention. Also when was it formally dissolved?--Shahab (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Civilian casulaties
Mukti Bahini were also involved in massacres of civilians, particularly Biharis and other Urdu speaking people during the war. I have one source (Time magazine) but can someone help find some more and include this in the article. It is undeniable what the Pakistani army did, but in all fairness Mukti Bahini was involved in its own share of atrocities. Inf fg (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you cite some reliable sources to support that? Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to look through the archives of Time magazine to find my original source, but I finally found Sarmila Bose's study on the violence of 1971. http://www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net/uploaded_files/studies_and_reports/AnatomyOfViolence.pdf  Sarmila Bose is a director of journalism at Oxford University, she has her own wiki page (for notability purposes), and researched the 1971 war and issued a paper based on her findings.  Her paper notes the violence perpetrated on civlians by the Mukti Bahini. Inf fg (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bose wrote a study, but it has been widely refuted, in academic sources, e.g. by Nayanika Mookherjee . So, the validity of Bose's work is questionable. --Ragib (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The link for the article you are referencing is not working, but I will look it up. Yes, Bose's study was refuted by many Bengalis and Bangladeshis, but can you also provide any source for her work being "widely refuted" as you stated anywhere but in India and Bangladesh.  My understanding was that her research was used by Reuters and the US government, so it must have been reliable.  Also, the one academic that I have read of refuting her work says that her methods of obtaining information on the actions of the Pakistani army were incorrect but I don't see any mention/refutation of her research stating that the Mukti Bahini were involved in civilian murders. These are two separate issues. But the former is the major issue: Is Sharmila Bose's work acceptable/ was it "widely refuted" by objective notable historians.  I have not seen this to be the case.  I think this is an important aspect of the war(if true) and should be looked at further.  I will look it up myself but please provide any source for this issue.  Inf fg (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole world media is witness to the fact Mukti Bahini also massacared many unarmed civilians of Bihari origins, Urdy speakers nad those of West Pakistani backgrounds. This was particularly true after the fall of Dacca. 'colonel' Siddiquie himself was seen bayonetting civilians on camera, others under his command were filmed stubbing lit cigarettes into the eyes of young children. BBC News warned viewers of the graphic content of the news items. Later the censors reprimanded the channel for their broadcasts. I was a school kid and remember the war well. I also remember Bengali kids telling me that they and Indians are brothers as they speak Bengali but West Pakistanis did not therefore their collaboration was justified on cultural grounds. Some of these same people later admitted being worng except the hardline nationalists who still maintain their original hatred for all Pakistanis ignoring the fact that some of the other Pakistanis also suffered under the army. Urdu is an Indian language and was imposed on the native populations of Pakistan whereas Pashto, Farsi, Balochi, Sindhi are the local languages. I also remember a conversation with a Bangladeshi secularist who said the East Pakistan period was for them a colonialist phase in history. When I said that their fate without Pakistan would've been the same as the Kashmiris who are denied their freedom by India if they had not been part of the partition plan. Maybe this would have been a good result and we would not have had to spend greater budget on security for a non-productive land 1000 miles away and before you say Jute remember it hasn't brought you the riches Bangla Bhundu promised. We are still subject to Indian machinations in trying to dismember us but we are much better off without East Pakistan socially, economically as well psychologically.We are loess Indian and more Afghanistani, Turkic and Iranian in terms of ethnicity, culture and language. Bangladeshis make money out of Pakistani Tanduree/Balti cuisine in UK and their women wear Pashtun dress shalwar kamees in preference to sari. Intersting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montizooma (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your essay... but unfortunately, your comment just shows the attitude that led to the massacre of millions of people. Anyway, please use this discussion page for discussion on the article. Also, while any killing is regrettable, I hope you aren't comparing the massacre of 1 to 3 million Bengalis (With bullets bought with the Jute money from East Pakistan itself!!) with the deaths of a few alleged Bihari criminals at the hand of Kader Siddiqui on December 18, 1971. The denial of the 1971 massacre by the Pakistanis is indeed very sad. I also hope you will not find justification for your Army as well :). --Ragib (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a smiley at the end of your comment does not excuse the sarcasm with which you opened it. There were acts of revenge on both sides during and after the war. I still remember the awful television news report in which the bayoneting of prisoners was shown. It is irrelevant whether this or that side committed the most massacres and it is right to include references to these events in the article. None of us are saints and few of our heroes are completely blameless. Those of us who can at least acknowledge that and show some humility are better people for it. reference to the killings and photographs of it can be found here http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/category/war/page/8/

Test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.13.74.72 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation investigation status!
I can see, a CCI is currently going on. This is a very important and sensitive article. Can you tell me the status of the CCI or the article? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in the copyright problems queue awaiting administrator attention. Unfortunately, we have quite a backlog there. Articles from October are just now being reviewed, and while listings may be taken out of sequence, this one was not listed until November 3rd. Given that concerns are clearly accurate, the article is likely to be stubbed if no rewrite is proposed before the listing is reached. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DD shows at least words match with the other article (I have not counted proper names and dates! Those can't be avoided). This is an important article. What do you suggest? I can rewrite it (there are 4 JSTOR documents and some good Google Books documents), I can't say this article will not be affected by copyvio again. So, a clear editnotice might be helpful. Is rewrite needed? What do you suggest? Tito Dutta (talk) --14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to produce a version of the article which omits or replaces the infringing material. If you'd like to do so, just follow the relevant instructions on the copyvio template, and then drop a note at the corresponding entry on Copyright problems.  The issue will probably be processed quicker if the administrator or copyright clerk handling the case sees that a rewrite has already been provided. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you drop a note at my talk page when it's done, I'll happily expedite handling the matter. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit history
What happened to the article edit history? Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bihari Killings
Please don't remove referenced text of the killings of Biharis during the Bangladesh Liberation War, that information is referenced. Again, Please don't remove the referenced figures. Faizan (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * War Crimes are not Allegations, they are REALITY, as based on facts and figures. I have provided many references, even from neutral sources, and now the facts and figures should not be removed. Faizan (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Faizan Al-Badri, You have put only Pakistani view and info on this article. It does not support WP:NPOV. As many of Mukti Bahini members are alive now, it is also WP:BLP vio. You are emphasizing on Bihari issue, but never put a word about Pak army's mass killing. Most of your reference are non-accessible or circularly quoting R.J. Rummel. Please provide me the text, which actually those reference says, as I can verify them. Untill then, I am reverting your edits. Thank you.-- FreemesM  (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The references cite not only Pakistani but also claims from Bengali sources! They put figures of International sources too, I provided references from Google Books, they are also Pakistani figures? Please! They represent neutrality, I gave references to even neutral organisation like "MAR International" too! Then how I have represented only Pakistani view?, Still if you have any reservations, cite them here, I am here to answer them! Faizan (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The references are clearly verified. Until the discussion ends please don't revert any of the edits! And please discuss the references here which you seem are not accessible! Faizan (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Torture camps
Really? This is the first I have heard of this, and I have read on the HRV extensively which were carried out during the war. One of the sources used fails per WP:PRIMARY the other by Gerlach is about pro Pakistani militias, not the Mukti Bahini. Wrong page number given? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Darkness Shines! Better discuss it up! Provide references for your point, and even if it's true then why you have reverted my others edits about facts and figures and article's clean up! Better read the History of the Article! Faizan (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted you as your edits were junk. Discuss contentious edits after being reverted, you are now on 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Faizan, None of your sources are accessible except this one. But this one doesn't tell anything about your torture camp and the section also contain killed figure from 40000 to 1 million!! Moreover the whole book talks about Pakistan army brutality! Until you provide any text info from those non-accessible source, it will best to not include them. Do not engage in edit war, follow Due weight policy-- FreemesM  (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are not accesible to you, then does it mean that they are not accessible to the whole world? And if you cannot access them, then the anyone cannot access them? What is this? Isn't it brutality? Which references you are talking about? Where are you gone? Discuss them here and see my msgs aboveFaizan (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Another source checked, the MAR database. Which for 1971 does not mention the MB at all. This is serious source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It clearly mentions 1971! Faizan (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it does, I wrote that. It does not mention the MB. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Another source checked, pakistankakhudahafiz.com is not WP:RS and the article is an opinion piece, this cannot be used for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided an other reference too, which says the same thing of 1 million. Faizan (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South Asia is the only one not checked as yet, but it is about the fact that the Bihari are refugees without a state, and their displacement. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The term applies to the Bangladeshi Biharis, where in the world other than Bangladesh the Biharis are without a state? Faizan (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it will be better if we move our focus on whole article, rather than just bargaining about increasing/decreasing the figure of killed Bihari.-- FreemesM  (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did edits on the whole article, I did general fixes and clean up too, but you reverted all of them, you ought to had watched the whole edit diff. Faizan (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what the paper is referring to, what I do not know is why would a paper on the Bihari's being stateless have anything to do with the MB? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a report from a neutral organization, what else you need as reference? Faizan (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to know what their being stateless has to do with the MB. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats just the name of reference, and the title is by a neutral source, from Google Books also, it signifies the condition of the minorities(Biharis) in Bangladesh. Even if the title is not correct, then would you remove all the references? Faizan (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding me, what does the MB have to do with the Bihari being stateless? How does this belong in this article? What does the source actually say about the MB? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is this MB? No more references to discuss? Faizan (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MB = Mukti Bahini Darkness Shines (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mukti Bahini considered Biharis to be pro-Pakistan, and thus avenged! See 1971 Bangladesh genocide for references on it(as my references would not be accessible) Faizan (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only one I cannot check is Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South Asia so what exactly does this source say about the MB? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found many new references from neutral sources, and I will explain them shortly here, these references will refer to Mukti Bahini specifically regarding Bihari genocide. Faizan (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you will not tell me what the source you added says about the MB? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he don't have the reference yet and now searching for it. But keep in mined WP:OR.-- FreemesM  (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "keep in mined"? And don't try to teach me! Faizan (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are threatening me! I'm not teaching you anything, but keep in mind no one is self sufficient here. Don't misunderstand me, I'm trying to resolve this issue. please be reasonable and edit with good faith. Thank you.-- FreemesM  (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not threatening you, instead you beating about the bush! Wait for my new references! Faizan (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The both of you can stop right now. Further talk such as I have seen will lead toWP:ARBIPA warning for the both of you. now Faizan, you have already refused to comment on one source, I can only hope your new sources do in fat support anything? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Section renamed to "War Crimes allegations"
Faizan, do you have access to Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress, Volume 117, Part 20 If so please quote in full what it say re the MB. As I asked you in the previous section please quote in full from Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: the Bihari Refugees of South Asia, Part 1 in what it says Re the MB. There is no reference provided for Gerlach2010, where is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if the references cannot be accessed, then why the title of the discussion is saying "Section rename"? I am adding more references for support of the text. Secondly do not pose authority, others also have a "Rollback" button. (Regarding your comment: "lest I have to revert you." Fai  zan  12:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: this edit. The Congressional Record would be a primary source - so even IF the relevant info is in there, it shouldn't be used. As I understand it this source doesn't talk about "War Crimes Allegations" by the Mukti Bahini, but rather is just used to source the sentence "The conflict left many Bangladeshis and Pakistanis dead." Which is true, but that doesn't justify changing the section title from "Involvement in War" in to "War Crimes Allegations"

Furthermore, putting aside the problems with the text ADDED, I don't see why this would justify REMOVING other sourced info. Volunteer Marek 12:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Faizan, you are violating WP:PRIMARY, which was explained to you before, you need to quote in full from the sources as requested. And if you want a section on alleged war crimes so badly just copy from here Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? If sources are accessible, then they would be put in the article. I am getting sources for Mukti Bahini killings of Biharis and will put them, and then no one should revert them. As you expanded the info about Bengali killings, expansion about Bihari killings should also be allowed, and it shall be done. Fai  zan  13:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's sensible to ask you to provide the relevant passages from the sources you plan on using here per WP:V. But two things. One you should probably hold off with the edit warring until you actually provide these sources and the relevant passages, and two, once you do that, don't replace existing sourced text with new text but add to it. Volunteer Marek 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed Marek! No worries, the references which I would provide would be well related. Fai  zan  13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

recent additions
by User:PakSol are highly POV and rely on non-reliable sources. Text like "India has been conspiring to divide Pakistan and the fact that the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is clearly meant to push an agenda. "Every Indian"? Seriously? Every single one? Come on! A quick look at the source makes it pretty obvious that it's not reliable.

Please don't reinsert this stuff in again, and if you really want it to be in get consensus and seek third opinion.

Same applies to the article on Bangladesh Liberation War. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(and note that the article already states "It received extensive support from Indian allied forces during the war" so there's absolutely no reason to add in some nonsense about "conspiring" etc) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reversions by User:Volunteer Marek are highly objectionable as he just wont accept the facts mentioned in atleast 10 x news website. Just to clarify further, I have added 4 sources to the edit I have made. Following are another 4 sources which says the same thing:


 * http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/international/2015/June/international_June247.xml&section=international
 * http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/pakistan-slams-modi-s-statement-in-dhaka-115060900533_1.html
 * http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/08-Jun-2015/indian-forces-fought-along-mukti-bahini
 * http://www.theweekendleader.com/Headlines/4568/pakistan-slams-modi%27s-statement-in-dhaka.html


 * "Modi admitting that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan, he said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country." is a quote from what the Indian Prime Minister has said. Just because it is against your belief it does not necessarily mean that it is untrue. Please behave maturely. PakSol (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the fact that Bangladesh received support from India is no secret and it's already in the article. As to Modi's statement, first, "every Indian citizen" is obvious rhetorical flourish. You're trying to interpret it literally. Second, desiring "establishment of Bangladesh" and desiring and conspiring break up of Pakistan are two different things.
 * The first source you've got is clearly unreliable. The other sources may be but they don't support your POV wording.
 * Feel free to seek outside opinion but for now you just can't include this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek How can you or I challenge the words of a Prime Minister? Are you seriously trying to educate me that at Wikipedia direct quotes from world leaders have no value?! And you are no one to decide whether the source was 'reliable' or not. An internationally recognizeable web/newsite is all but reliable. Not one but atleast a dozen. Feel free to remove any source which you consider 'unrealiable' (I will challange that too), but stop reverting the entire edit. But then why argue of over it when you can listen to Mr Modi uttering the exact words here(:http://www.zemtv.com/2015/06/08/narendra-modi-accepted-of-spreading-terrorism-in-bangladesh-but-our-foreign-ministry-is-silent-on-this/ if you dont understand Hindi, try getting help from your Indian friends) which I have repeatedly tried to add and you have repeatedly reverted just because you probably have no understanding of the issue at hand. Seriously, you have NO RIGHT to challenge direct quotes. I suggest, you seek outside opinion on this and for now I will include facts which you mistakenly term as 'stuff'.
 * Note: go through the video of Mr Modi saying the info I havve trying to add. I have placed the link to it above. PakSol (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. In fact, we do discourage direct quotes, and most definitely out of context misleading quotes whose intent is to push a POV. And does Modi say "we conspired to break up Pakistan"? No? Then you're doing not just original research but false and very POV original research.
 * The burden is on you to convince others to include the text. Not me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Respected editors User:TopGun and User:Mar4d can you please make User:Volunteer Marek understand that direct quotes from a sitting Prime Minister cannot be challenged or termed as unreliable or for that matter fall into the purview of 'pushing POV' at Wikipedia? Thanks PakSol (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Volunteer Marek can you be specific? You started with accusing me of pushing POV by saying the "every Indian" did not desire the creation of Bangladesh and now you are doing the same thing by saying that "Modi did not say that Indians conspired to break Pakistan'? This shifting only indicates the weakness in your opinion. You say that primary sources are not required at Wikipedia, but at the same time you yourself go against the following policy of Wikipedia:


 * * primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia


 * A dozen websites, all of them internationally recognized and three of them being Pakistan's most read and largest newsites all became unreliable just because you thought so? Surprisingly, dailtimes.pk is quite reliable when you quote 93K POWs from the same website in the same article and others related to the topic like Bangladesh Liberation War, but it miraculously become unreliable when they same website becomes a secondary source to a quote by the Indian PM? Sir, please, you need to stop this.
 * I am changing the edit to reflect Mr Modi's quote as mentioned by numerous secondary reliable sources/websites.
 * Sir, your User:TopGun and User:Mar4d input required PakSol (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, on this topic, they're unreliable. You are POV pushing. Plain and simple. Text like "India has been conspiring to divide Pakistan and the fact that the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is text-book example of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. You can try to wiki-lawyer it. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see what it is you're trying to do.
 * All that your sources show is that Modi said Bangladesh had support from India during the Liberation War. We knew this. It's already in the article. You - and yes, some of your sources - are trying to twist that. This isn't "shifting" it's just trying to explain to you - in good faith - what it is you're doing wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No sir, you are wrong in the sense that no where in the article it is mentioned that "every Indian" desired the creation of Bangladesh, and this fact will be reflected in the article by citing secondary sources which quote Mr Modi. Plain and Simple. How hard you try to turn this into POV pushing, it wont work. Moreover, no where in the article it says that Indian Forces fought alongwith Mukti Bahini in clear terms as admitted and revealed by Mr Modi in his speech. And this too will also be reflected in the article. Plain and Simple. If you just try to see a bit more clearly, it will be revealed to you that it is you who are trying push your POV by not allowing a new update to be included into the article. PakSol (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing "every Indian desired the break up of Pakistan" as if it was literally true is simply idiotic, as it cannot be possibly factually true. Once again, you are POV-pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please ask that from the Indian Prime Minister. Also, I would suggest you to write to the websites quoting and (correctly) interpreting what the PM said - this include Indian websites) your concern and may be they too would think as you do. Till that happens, a statement given by the current Prime Minister of the largest democracy cannot and will not be taken lightly. How strongly you may like to push you POV, it wont change the fact what the PM (not a witness to a car accident) has said and meant. May be in your part of the world, editors of wikipedia hold more sway than the Prime Ministers; unfortunately, this does not happen here. PakSol (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This conversation is going nowhere so I will remind you once again that if you want to include something in the article, the burden of WP:CONSENSUS is on you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is required for items which are not credible and are sourced from unreliable links. Facts are facts, provided you are able to see them. A Prime Minister of a country reveal facts, the news is quoted by almost every newpapers, and you instead of showing respect to Wikipedia by including the update to the related articles, instead contend it? Just to remind you that OR or quoting Primary Source relates to common people. When officials, leaders or head of govts say something, it is to be taken as a fact. Going by your understanding, one should also not say anything when Mr Modi (albeit erroneously) addressed the Bangali PM as 'despite being a woman' - something which was highlighted by every newspaper including those I used as reference in my edits.


 * Neverthless, I will surely ask for consensus on this, but just to remind you, your bulling attitude tells me nothing but that indeed you in an attempt to push your POV are complicating the issue deliberately and contending the edits merely on the basis of your personal opinion/POV. You accuse others of one thing and the next moment you back out from the same, after you have undid the edit. This shows nothing but your insecurity and weakness as a moderator. PakSol (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the revelations/admission by Prime Minister Modi be included in the article?
Should the revelations/admissions by Prime Minister Modi during his recent visit to Bangladesh where he, as the current Prime Minister, revealed and admitted the role of regular Indian forces to fight along with Mukti Bahini and that the Indian people desired the division of Pakistan (this was not done or accepted by any Indian Official in the past) be included in the article? PakSol (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr Modi said the following (point here is not that these 'facts' - which otherwise are challenged by many - are already known, but the focus is on the fact that these things have been said and accepted by the highest ranking official of the country at an international forum for the very first time - something which has a whole new connotation in the intentional arena, and thus needs inclusion to Wikipedia):


 * He said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.
 * He recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
 * Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.
 * Admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.


 * Video Link to Mr Modi's Speech: http://www.zemtv.com/2015/06/08/narendra-modi-accepted-of-spreading-terrorism-in-bangladesh-but-our-foreign-ministry-is-silent-on-this/


 * Secondary Sources quoting Mr Modi's above speech/revealations:


 * http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/Pakistan-Slams-Modis-Statement-in-Dhaka/2015/06/09/article2857898.ece
 * http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/08-Jun-2015/indian-forces-fought-along-mukti-bahini
 * http://www.geo.tv/article-187448-India-has-still-not-accepted-Pakistans-existence-Khursheed-Shah-
 * http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/international/2015/June/international_June247.xml&section=international
 * http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-187448-India-has-still-not-accepted-Pakistans-existence:-Khursheed-Shah-
 * http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/pakistan-slams-modi-s-statement-in-dhaka-115060900533_1.html


 * These 'new' facts also need to be added to Bangladesh Liberation War PakSol (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

An RfC should be framed and posed in a neutral manner. This is anything but that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please help me with that? How to make words of a leader neutral? Thanks PakSol (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Quit the attempts at sarcasm, it's not working. What needs to be neutral is how you word and file the RfC, per instructions here WP:RfC, not "words of a leader" (whatever that means). Instead you've used the RfC as an venue for continued axe-grinding and SOAPBOXING. As you're doing now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Support as the editor proposing this change.PakSol (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The 1971 Bangladesh War is history. Reliable sources for history are historians, as specified in WP:HISTRS. Modi isn't a historian. It doesn't matter what he says. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Modi. Neither is it a mouthpiece for Pakistani politicians. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 so what you propose is that anything written else than a "historian" has no value whatsoever on Wikipedia? New facts, revelations and info given by people who were once quite on the subject should be totally ignored? Remember, in this case it is not some ordinary individual saying it, but the incumbent Prime Minister of a country who was not only alive at the time of formation of Mukti Bahini but has admitted to support it in person too. What you proposed means that statements by govts, head of govts have no value when it comes to updating history?! PakSol (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * History is updated by hisotrians, not by Wikipedia. We simply summarise what historians have found and documented. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, how about we take a middle ground approach here? While it is a fact that Indian assistance was key to Bangladeshi independence, it has also been a rarity for Indian leaders to discuss the support to pro-independence milita this openly and in this much detail. As the Prime Minister of the country, Modi's statement is indeed significant, at least by gauging the reaction it has received across the borders. The statement is notable and needs a mention, but it can be worded more neutrally to maintain WP:NPOV and eliminate any personal bias as Volunteer Marek above contends.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you word it? And since you're a long time contributor, you're probably aware that WP:POV is non-negotiable and cannot override a local consensus on a particular article. In other words, there's no way in hell that we're putting in "India has been conspiring to divide Pakistan and the fact that the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" into the article. And that's putting aside the fact that this RfC was filed improperly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm saying we need to word it neutrally. And the neutral way would be to quote the statement by Modi, and mention that it has been "perceived" as such in Pakistan, instead of writing it in an editorialising manner. Both viewpoints can be given weight that way.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which statement by Modi? And please keep in mind that a quote pulled out of context or given WP:UNDUE weight can be just as much - if not more, because it's purposefully misleading - a violation of POV as plain text. If you care to make a specific proposal, please make it below and/or file a properly formatted and worded RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, Now that Modi has officially confessed to destabilizing and interfering in Pakistan's internal affairs, and as the statement got immense coverage, both South-Asian and International, this ought to be included. I think that the Indo-Pak editors should show a higher level of maturity now, we should not break the rules for nationalist agendas. The exact words of the Indian PM should be included along with the Pakistani and International reaction. Starting an RfC was a good step in order to a void edit-warring, the fate of all Indo-Pak articles. I don't know why according to Indians, this statement of their PM is so unimportant and valueless. Faizan (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not "break the rules for nationalist agendas". That means NOT putting in some ridiculous text based on an out of context quote which is being repeated in nationalist Pakistani press.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. Is Khaleej Times, NDTV, IBN and The Indian Express Pakistani press? And what is out of context? That's why I said The exact words of the Indian PM should be included.' Faizan (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. Why should they? Especially when they're being taken out of context or being portrayed as some kind of a factual claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And the particular sources you mention - Khaleej Times, NDTV, IBN and The Indian Express Pakistani - all these actually support is the contention that Pakistani politicians are making a big deal out of this statement, NOT that the statement is in any way true. Nice try though. Now both of you, quit trying to misrepresent sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting, and creating a melo-drama. The Modi claim really makes a good deal, and Pakistani poiliticians are giving it due importance. Modi's testament should be included with attribution. Faizan (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Volunteer Marek You are deliberately complicating the issue. There are 4 x things which are required to be discussed as following:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Modi's Statements !! Argument
 * He said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. || There remains no doubt in this case, this is almost verbatim as per Mr Modi's statement, so this should not result into any argument regarding 'whether' and 'how' this fact should be included.
 * He recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee.|| As above, no doubt remains here and there is nothing to be misinterpreted here, should be included as such after necessary paraphrasing.
 * Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.|| As above, clear cut facts, straight from the horse's mouth, should be included (rephrased).
 * Admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.|| This may be contested. But here comes the point of quoting secondary sources as you yourself have repeatedly indicated. If ALL the secondary (reliable) sources have interpreted Mr Modi's as such, then there's no argument. There's no other reason for 'every India' to desire Pakistan's division if they were indeed not planning a conspiracy? You educated me that out of context info should be avoided. By adding this fact, we are only trying to provide context to the info. Simple. Just to quote an example from the article itself, an editor has written 'Pakistan being wary of Indian involvement launched an air attack on Indian bases'. But hey, why was Pakistan wary at the first place? Where's the context? Was Pakistan wary without any reason? No! The reason is out now as clear as day light, that: Indian Forces were indeed fighting ALONGWITH Mukti Bahini since day one and thus Pakistan was rightly wary and thus launched a "preemptive" strike which is absolutely legal, and therefore this fact has to be included as per WP:NPOV
 * }  Pak Sol   talk07:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.|| As above, clear cut facts, straight from the horse's mouth, should be included (rephrased).
 * Admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.|| This may be contested. But here comes the point of quoting secondary sources as you yourself have repeatedly indicated. If ALL the secondary (reliable) sources have interpreted Mr Modi's as such, then there's no argument. There's no other reason for 'every India' to desire Pakistan's division if they were indeed not planning a conspiracy? You educated me that out of context info should be avoided. By adding this fact, we are only trying to provide context to the info. Simple. Just to quote an example from the article itself, an editor has written 'Pakistan being wary of Indian involvement launched an air attack on Indian bases'. But hey, why was Pakistan wary at the first place? Where's the context? Was Pakistan wary without any reason? No! The reason is out now as clear as day light, that: Indian Forces were indeed fighting ALONGWITH Mukti Bahini since day one and thus Pakistan was rightly wary and thus launched a "preemptive" strike which is absolutely legal, and therefore this fact has to be included as per WP:NPOV
 * }  Pak Sol   talk07:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * }  Pak Sol   talk07:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I'm actually not complicating anything. The text you tried to cram into the article is transparently POV. It's obnoxious. It's almost like a parody of what POV text looks like, it's so obvious. This is about as simple as it can get.
 * You are the one who's twisting this all into loops in order to push this ridiculous idea that "every Indian citizen wanted to break up Pakistan" was some kind of a fact or that there was a conspiracy to such an effect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2015
 * @ Volunteer Marek "every Indian citizen wanted to break up Pakistan" was exactly said by Mr Modi. How can you challenge that? How quoting Moid's direct statement can be termed as 'twisting the facts'? It is indeed unbelievable how do you have the cheeks to blatantly challenge and accuse others of 'twisting' over the exact 8 x words said by the senior most office holder of the largest democracy?!  Pak Sol   talk 04:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that User:PakSol modified their statement AFTER I had already responded to it. That's really bad etiquette to say the least. Anyway. Here's the little table:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Modi's Statements !! Argument (by PakSol) !! Response (by VM)
 * He said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. || There remains no doubt in this case, this is almost verbatim as per Mr Modi's statement, so this should not result into any argument regarding 'whether' and 'how' this fact should be included. || Nonsense. Yes that's what he said. But so what? Because a politician says something does not make it magically a fact. A statement that "establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen" is obviously a rhetorical statement, not a statement of fact. This is simple to understand and has already been explained to you. You CANNOT put that in the article as if it was literally true because that would be both POV and, well, stupid. The fact that Indian forces supported Bangladesh is nothing new, and is already in the article.
 * He recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee.|| As above, no doubt remains here and there is nothing to be misinterpreted here, should be included as such after necessary paraphrasing. || It might be of note that Modi participated in the liberation war. This can be briefly mentioned somewhere in the article but there's no reason for it to be in the lead.
 * Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.|| As above, clear cut facts, straight from the horse's mouth, should be included (rephrased). || See above.
 * Admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.|| This may be contested. But here comes the point of quoting secondary sources as you yourself have repeatedly indicated. If ALL the secondary (reliable) sources have interpreted Mr Modi's as such, then there's no argument. There's no other reason for 'every India' to desire Pakistan's division if they were indeed not planning a conspiracy? You educated me that out of context info should be avoided. By adding this fact, we are only trying to provide context to the info. Simple. Just to quote an example from the article itself, an editor has written 'Pakistan being wary of Indian involvement launched an air attack on Indian bases'. But hey, why was Pakistan wary at the first place? Where's the context? Was Pakistan wary without any reason? No! The reason is out now as clear as day light, that: Indian Forces were indeed fighting ALONGWITH Mukti Bahini since day one and thus Pakistan was rightly wary and thus launched a "preemptive" strike which is absolutely legal, and therefore this fact has to be included as per WP:NPOV || the sources you quote either a) are not reliable - it's Pakistani media trying to spin his words and misrepresent them or b) it's media which notes that the Pakistani media/politicians are freaking out about this. In the first instance, you can't use that. In the second instance, you are dishonestly misrepresenting sources. Stop it.
 * }
 * Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.|| As above, clear cut facts, straight from the horse's mouth, should be included (rephrased). || See above.
 * Admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.|| This may be contested. But here comes the point of quoting secondary sources as you yourself have repeatedly indicated. If ALL the secondary (reliable) sources have interpreted Mr Modi's as such, then there's no argument. There's no other reason for 'every India' to desire Pakistan's division if they were indeed not planning a conspiracy? You educated me that out of context info should be avoided. By adding this fact, we are only trying to provide context to the info. Simple. Just to quote an example from the article itself, an editor has written 'Pakistan being wary of Indian involvement launched an air attack on Indian bases'. But hey, why was Pakistan wary at the first place? Where's the context? Was Pakistan wary without any reason? No! The reason is out now as clear as day light, that: Indian Forces were indeed fighting ALONGWITH Mukti Bahini since day one and thus Pakistan was rightly wary and thus launched a "preemptive" strike which is absolutely legal, and therefore this fact has to be included as per WP:NPOV || the sources you quote either a) are not reliable - it's Pakistani media trying to spin his words and misrepresent them or b) it's media which notes that the Pakistani media/politicians are freaking out about this. In the first instance, you can't use that. In the second instance, you are dishonestly misrepresenting sources. Stop it.
 * }
 * }


 * @ Volunteer Marek First, I urge my fellow editors to take note of this accusation. Volunteer Marek have been constantly accusing me of things which I have not done since the start of this discussion and even before that. No statement has been changed as I have edited the article by adding the same 4 x points as discussed in the table above and I and other editors are still discussing the same points. This constant personal attacks are considered detrimental to the this discussion and must stop.


 * Second, the argument is pretty simple, stop manipulating it. Formal statements given by a sitting PM has more value than anything else. How can you simple rebuff them? You argue that these are already known facts and thus should not be included. I ask, can you quote me a reliable source which says that Govt of India has heretofore accepted its own, and its military's proper involvement and actions it undertook to divided Pakistan formally? How many ex Indian PMs have admitted to participate physically and have revealed that they were active and instrumental in Bangladesh's creation? Counter arguments:


 * He said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.
 * This is a huge statement. It's like the Saudi King saying that every Saudi desired bringing down the Twin Towers! If that had been the case, guys like you would have been the first ones to make it part of Wikipedia. Here, you are unnecessarily trying to play 'neutral'. which infact you are not.


 * He recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan.
 * Had it been some Mr Hamesh admitting his participation, I would have cared less. But it is not, instead it is the current PM given this statement not during an In-house discussion but to the international media while he was visiting a foreign country. This gives us an insight into Mr Modi's mind and his way of governing. This fact has a direct bearing on how he is going to have future relations with a country against whom he has campaign in his youth. Seriously, the fact that Gen Musharraf participated in Siachen conflict as a Brig had been highlighted everywhere in Wikipedia as you guys like to draw conclusions that it was because of this past that Kargil took place. But it is really funny and surprising that you dont want to apply the same conditions when an Office which is VERY senior than that of an Army Chief does the same!
 * Had it been some Mr Hamesh admitting his participation, I would have cared less. But it is not, instead it is the current PM given this statement not during an In-house discussion but to the international media while he was visiting a foreign country. This gives us an insight into Mr Modi's mind and his way of governing. This fact has a direct bearing on how he is going to have future relations with a country against whom he has campaign in his youth. Seriously, the fact that Gen Musharraf participated in Siachen conflict as a Brig had been highlighted everywhere in Wikipedia as you guys like to draw conclusions that it was because of this past that Kargil took place. But it is really funny and surprising that you dont want to apply the same conditions when an Office which is VERY senior than that of an Army Chief does the same!


 * Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.
 * As above. We should not be surprised if it is because of this Mr Modi's past that a future war between India and Pakistan takes place. Seriously, I dont want this IMPORTANT piece of history sand information to be left out of Wikipedia.
 * As above. We should not be surprised if it is because of this Mr Modi's past that a future war between India and Pakistan takes place. Seriously, I dont want this IMPORTANT piece of history sand information to be left out of Wikipedia.


 * Admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.
 * '''This is the only item on our agenda that is debatable.
 * The first three points are not conjunctions nor are opinions and neither are misrepresented. hence, there is no point in arguing over them. They must be included and cannot be denied the right to be left out of Wikipedia. Yes, the form in which they are to be written can be discussed. Whether they should be included as a verbatim statement by Mr Modi or paraphrased to provide a context.'''
 * It is only the last point that needs discussion. Even though we here at Wikipedia always like to use secondary sources, but surprisingly Volunteer Marek now consider these sources as 'unreliable' just because it doe not fit his POV. So, I would urge and request my fellow editors to prevent this user from pushing his own POV by not letting new facts and revelations added to Wikipedia?!  Pak Sol   talk 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Formal statements given by a sitting PM has more value than anything else. - no, actually it doesn't. At best it's just a primary source for ... the sitting PM's opinions. It's certainly not a reliable source for any statements of fact. Historians' and scholars' opinions, as noted above by User:Kautilya3, are far more valuable for the purposes of an encyclopedia.
 * You are asking me to read primary source but I think it is you who requires to read it once again. Who gives a tosh to what Mr Modi has said when there are plenty of reliable Secondary sources to say it?!
 * It's like the Saudi King saying that every Saudi desired bringing down the Twin Towers! - no, actually it's nothing like that. You're just making shit up.
 * If that had been the case, guys like you would have been the first ones to make it part of Wikipedia - I resent that you think who or what "guys like me" are or would do. You're making a stupid assumption which only betrays your own prejudices.
 * It is only you who is showing stupidity by first trying to explain others rules at Wikipedia and then yourself negating them. On one hand you say that OR is not permitted and secondary sources are preferred, but then when secondary sources are referred, you try licking your own spit by again referring to the rhetoric that it is a an OR?!
 * This gives us an insight into Mr Modi's mind and his way of governing. - no, actually it does nothing of the kind. Anyway, please read WP:OR. And after you've read that, read it again. And after you've read it again, read WP:PRIMARY. Then read WP:OR again. Then ask someone to explain it to you just in case.
 * Secondary sources, REPEAT Secondary Sources. Now you may like bullshit us with the secondary sources being unreliable, but it wont work because it is only you who think as such. You are very fond of repeating your words, here let me help you out: WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. So, secondary sources, including that from India are saying the same thing. Now, the only option left with you is to repeat your rhetoric one more time, so please go ahead.
 * We should not be surprised if it is because of this Mr Modi's past that a future war between India and Pakistan takes place. - Huh? Ummm, first, WP:NOTAFORUM, second, this statement is just nutzoid.
 * And so on. Oh, also, putting things in bold does not make them magically true. And when you put half your comment in bold it sort of defeats the point (which is to emphasize).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Every secondary source has interpreted it as such. Just because some dude at Wikipedia does not agree with it, it would not make it 'nutzoid' whatever that means. Moreover, the purpose of putting things in bold was to differentiate them from the original, specially for people like you who have poor understanding.  Pak Sol   talk 06:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Every secondary source has interpreted it as such. Just because some dude at Wikipedia does not agree with it, it would not make it 'nutzoid' whatever that means. Moreover, the purpose of putting things in bold was to differentiate them from the original, specially for people like you who have poor understanding.  Pak Sol   talk 06:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support If we consider wikipedia as mouthpiece of Modi then this edit should be included. Modi said this publicly just to give message to Pakistan that India can destabilize Pakistan very easily and same could happen with Balochistan if Pakistan continues alleged anti-India terror activities. So this edit will promote views of Modi. But I oppose it if Wikipedia is not mouthpiece of Modi. Moreover It should be written in neutral way if added, it should not include original research and POV like "its conspiracy of India to destabilize Pakistan". But one can write that "India played major role in independence of Bangladesh". (But all this is if we consider Wikipedia as mouthpiece of Indian government or Modi). -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add more regarding how this edit is"pro-India" and promotes policy of Indian government. India wants closere relationship with Banbladesh to prevent Bangladesh from going into group of China (as its chinese policy to capture all neighbours of India). Modi said it publicly in Bangladesh to show Bangladeshis that "You exists because of India". People of Bangladesh will be thankful to India after reading this edit, and Bangladeshis will come more close to India. So this pro-India edit will fulfil 2 agendas of Indian government, first to warn or to give message to Pakistan that what India is able to do, second is to build more close relationship with Bangladesh. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for your information, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it most definitely isn't a "mouthpiece". Everything goes in neutrally and if it is sourced. You've been here long enough to know this fundamental rule, so that doesn't really give you an excuse for WP:BATTLEGROUND, otherwise it only shows you are incapable of being an editor on this site due to your inherent POV. The reason why we are having this discussion is how to best add in this piece of information neutrally, while giving due coverage to the reaction received by it as well.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for your information, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it most definitely isn't a "mouthpiece". - yes. Now, can you explain that to User:PakSol? You've been giving them all kinds of advice so how about also giving him some which may actually lead to article improvement, rather than just keeping them personally out of trouble?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @ User:Human3015 May be the following statement by Pakistan's COAS today will push some sense into you:
 * Forum took serious notice of the recent Indian hostile rhetoric coupled with covert and overt actions to destabilize Pakistan. It was termed as highly regrettable that Indian politicians not only indulge in actions that are in violation of the United Nations’ Charter but also take pride in claiming their interference in the internal affairs of other states. Forum reiterated its resolve to defeat their designs and defend the territorial integrity of Pakistan at any cost with a befitting response to any misadventure against our country.  Pak Sol   talk 15:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , sir, Why you are opposing me? See my vote I'm also supporting this edit, we are on same side here. Whatever I said in my previous comment is not my views but I just tried to say real story behind Modi's statement as a political analyst. My analysis can be wrong. I'm writing on talk page so I can write my analysis here as a part of discussion. And yes by now I know most of Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not battle ground. Even in my previous comment I used word "alleged" while referring "anti-India terror activities" in Pakistan. You people can write it anyway as you want as long as its well sourced. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!!  • 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also said in my first comment that if Wikipedia is not "mouthpiece" of Indian government then I oppose this edit. But I see on various pages people are adding day to day statements given by Indian government. One should know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But now a days Wikipedia has became newspaper. No need to add Modi's statement to show support of India for Bangladesh liberation. Its a well established fact that India supported Bangladesh liberation and we can get numerous other reliable sources for this. Modi's statement is not God's words to taken it as granted. In same Bangladesh tour once Modi said "Pakistan spreads terrorism" so should we add it to any relevant article quoting Modi? Here you people supporting Modi's remarks on Bangladesh stating that he is current PM of India and he accepted India's role, but you same people will "Strongly Oppose" his remark on Pakistan regarding terrorism though that statement is also given by current elected PM of India. Anyway leave it. Having said all this, still my vote for this RfC is "Support". We should add Modi's statement. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Modi is one person, not all of India, his opinion should not be used for facts he is not historian 82.11.33.86 (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - Folks, this discussion is blowing up. The purpose of an RfC is to get the opinions of a wider selection of editors so that better light on the issues is obtained. So, I suggest that you stop arguing and start thinking about how to get a wider selection of editors in here to express their opinions. Right now, this whole comments section is totally off-putting to any new comer that comes in to look at the issue. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This RfC is an absolute storm in a tea-cup. Indian forces' support for Mukti Bahini is well established and was already mentioned in the article lede (read the last sentence of the article lede in this May 19 version). So all that the recent edit-warring has achieved is added a redundant sentence (see second paragraph in the current lede)!
 * Also as Kautilya mentioned above, why are we using generic newspaper sources for such claims when better WP:HISTRS sources exist? For example see chapter 12 on Mukta bahini in Gary Bass  recent and well-reviewed book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide from where I quote:


 * etc. And Indira Gandhi, who was the PM at the time, acknowledged the help ("Gandhi candidly said that "if you want to go way back, we helped the Mukti Bahini." ibid) decades before Modi did. What's there to dispute or edit-war over?! Abecedare (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The dispute about it being put in there several times, about pretending that it's some new revelation and about highly POV language about every single Indian desiring the "break up of Pakistan" and "conspiring" to that effect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is, whether these facts are part of the article or not? Especially when the Govt of Pakistan is planning to raise this issue at the UN? Saying that 'India helped MB' and saying 'Modi or Indra Gandhi admitted to have helped MB' are two very different things.    Pak Sol   talk 11:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The help that MB got from India is already in the article. You're just putting it in there again for no reason and pretending that it's some big revelation, along with ridiculous POV text about how "break up of Pakistan was the desire of every Indian".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Misformatted RfC
The RfC above is misformatted for two reasons. First, as the instructions (WP:RfC) for an RfC make clear: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" (this is bolded in the original).

The above RfC filing is NEITHER brief nor is it neutrally worded. Please read this statement: "Should the revelations/admissions by Prime Minister Modi during his recent visit to Bangladesh where he, as the current Prime Minister, revealed and admitted the role of regular Indian forces to fight along with Mukti Bahini and that the Indian people desired the division of Pakistan (this was not done or accepted by any Indian Official in the past) be included in the article? " This is not neutral as it poisons the well and engages in editorializing. It assumes its premise. It's basically a textbook example of how NOT to file an RfC.

Second, the purpose of the RfC is confused. What exactly is the issue of contention? The RfC does not make it clear. The way I understand it is that it involves User:PakSol asking permission to re-add his highly biased and POV text into the article about a "conspiracy" against Pakistan and a ridiculous assertion, using Wikipedia voice, that "every Indian" desired the break up of Pakistan. Neither of these is supported by reliable sources.

But because the RfC was so confusingly worded it seems some commentators above think the RfC is about whether we should include *anything* about Modi's speech. Like, say, the fact that he supported the Mukti Bahini, or the fact that India provided assistance to Bangladesh (which already IS in the article).

The RfC above should be closed as misfiled and a new, precisely and neutrally worded RfC should be started.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the second that you are accusing me of 'misformatting' the RfC. There is nothing 'confused' or 'muddied' in its statement. It ask a simple question: Should or should not that statement(s), which put forth new revelations, by the incumbent Indian Prime Minister be included in Wikipedia? What Volunteer Marek does not understand is that editors at Wikipedia are not naive nor are they ignorant to form their own opinions. After the question stated in the RfC I have given my own opinion which infact does not form part of the RfC. If VM thinks that editors are supposed to take the question statement in the RfC at its face-value, then it's his own misunderstanding and thinking. In short, the statements asks a plain question, which needs and answer.  Pak Sol   talk 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The instructions for filing an RfC state: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Your RfC statement is neither brief nor is it neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just one of your another ways to divert the attention of other editors towards a none-issue. The statement which indeed is a question is perfectly neutral as it raises a very SIMPLE query. How asking a simple question to include a PM's statement cannot be neutral? And seriously, I am sorry if your attention span was unable to process an extra line in the statement of RfC.  Pak Sol   talk 04:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obviously non-neutral. Saying things like "admissions by Prime Minister Modi" is a claim, not a neutral statement of fact. For example. Basically the way you filed the RfC just said "hey everybody, agree with me!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lolz. Hey, do us a favor by being kind and draft the (correct) RfC. You may like to replace the word 'admissions' with whatever word you think is more 'neutral'  Pak Sol   talk 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

These are clear POV pushing by Paksol: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukti_Bahini&type=revision&diff=666156931&oldid=666155689

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukti_Bahini&type=revision&diff=666208323&oldid=666207888
 * Can you leave me aside for a while concentrate on the facts at hand? The question is simple; should the golden words by Mr Modi be included in Wikipedia or not?  Pak Sol   talk 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Pakistani media can't be neutral as they will be attacked by Pakistan Army and ISI as Geo News journalists were shot after reporting the disappearance of Baluch people after being abducted by Pak Army.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/27/geo-tv-isi-spy-agency-pakistan-military

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/shooting-messenger-pakistan-150503055834700.html

Cosmic  Emperor  09:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look who is pushing his POV now :). We get it, only Indian Media can be reliable and fair which even today is posting fake pics of an assumed raid in Mayanmar, to which Indian MoD has issued a clarification: https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/status/608822037516177408   Pak Sol   talk 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot remove my comment. As i said before the guardian and alzajeera are not Indian news agencies. Cosmic   Emperor  11:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would I remove your comment, sir? Should have been due to a conflict during editing. Moreover, now that you have quoted AJ and Guardian, I must say that when these secondary sources interpret an accusation by a media group, you guys like to include it into Wikipedia, even make it a basis of your argument, despite the fact that the same media group has later apologised for the false accusations it has made: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/geo-tv-front-page-apology-pakistan-isi-spy-chief-zaheer-ul-islam Oh guess what, it is the Guardian again, and http://www.dawn.com/news/1108700. But when secondary sources interpret Modi's statement they become unreliable, Funny!  Pak Sol   talk 11:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources are not expected to be neutral. They are required to be reliable. You have been here long enough to know the difference. Mainstream newspapers are considered reliable for day to day news. They are not considered reliable for historical matters or specialist subjects. So, all that the newspapers can say here are that (i) Modi said X and (ii) Pakistani politicians said Y. But, as I pointed out right at the beginning, both of these are irrelevant to what goes into this article. This article should be and certainly is based on HISTRS sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion
I deleted as info is already in opening, last line. "It received extensive support from Indian allied forces during the war.[10][11]" 82.11.33.86 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is only a summary of material in the text, making your repeated removal of sourced content invalid. Thomas.W talk 14:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Same is in lede twice now? Is in lede already, "The Mukti Bahini was later supported by Indian forces which provided material support for the guerillas" second paragraph " It received extensive support from Indian allied forces during the war" fourth paragraph 82.11.33.86 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know what is a WP:LEAD? It's "LEAD". Read the policy, if you had read the policy, you would have spelt it rightly and not as "LEDE". Faizan (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why Thomas.W call it lede? And I was right, as was in their 2 times. The last Watch (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Lede" is the most commonly used term for the introductory paragraph among journalists and others, mainly in the US though, which is where I picked it up. Both "lede" and "lead" are correct, the reason I use "lede" is to avoid confusion, since "lead" has several different meanings. Thomas.W talk 12:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. My mistake. Faizan (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)