Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer

 * The following is documentation of disruptive edits by A.Musketeer which I originally replied him in a comment in talk section. You can find the original Conversation in the section "Regarding the Disputes". Here 'you' is referring A.Musketeer.


 * You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.
 * On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed"                   You've removed 5 Quoted sources (none  original  or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209) which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
 * On your 2nd edit edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed" : You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
 * On your 3rd edit edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" : You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims."                                                                                                                                                                                       with  " The  Pakistani  elite  believed that Hindus were behind  the  revolt  and that as soon as there was a solution to the " Hindu problem"  the  conflict  would  resolve. " And you edit description was NPOV balancing.  You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
 * On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega (description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
 * On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim " "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women. " but the source says " Hindus were targeted the most"  It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women . Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation , which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead  worked on them.  You've reverted my edit saying  "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician."  But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel"  so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
 * ==== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ====
 * It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists ." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."
 * You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.
 * The source statement was,
 * "Hindus were targeted the most"
 * Your claim back by source is,
 * "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."
 * I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.
 * You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,
 * "Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions."
 * In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,
 * "“… 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. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80"
 * In The Daily Star archive
 * "Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'."
 * Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.
 * Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43(1) in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314(About 7,370,000 results), Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.(About 2,060,000 results)
 * === Others ===
 * You're  misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.
 * You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."
 * Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)
 * 2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.
 * In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
 * Your misinterpreted source  is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.
 * Your misinterpreted source  is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Meat-puppetry notice
User:Wiki.arfazhxss has been recruiting editors on Reddit to edit this and other related articles as well as influence discussions and consensus building on the talk pages. Reddit link:. In case, the page is deleted, here is an arhcive:. LucrativeOffer (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: Restored this notice again after it was removed by a vandal IP. There has been a series of Reddit threads posted by u/nerdiste (A.K.A User:Wiki.arfazhxss) to swing the consensus in favor of changing "Bengali Hindu" to "Bengali" in the lead. Links:, ,. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Repetition of Paragraph
The first paragraph of the International Reactions header is repeated twice. Zargham Ali (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Done-- ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 16:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)