Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:46, 22 July 2012.

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

 * Nominator(s): Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe it is worthy of being a featured article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the layout needs attention. Aside from frequent use of quotations, which I haven't had time to consider, the list of sections just doesn't read like a logical sequence. If you study it, not only do they seem in the wrong order (the two "reaction"s separated) but the militia part seems unbalanced
 * The article is called "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and therefore "Pakistani Army actions" reads as if there was another side that may or may not have committed rape, but nowhere is this possibility considered or dismissed. The lead says "During the Bangladesh Liberation War, rape was committed by members of the Pakistani military and the militias that supported them.", therefore the "militias" section might be worth a proper section. In terms of coverage on this this article directly suggests that there are valid allegations of "Bengalis rape of Biharis" and that "The Hamdoodur Rahman Commission (2000) established by the Pakistani government, while referring to the attack and rape of pro-Pakistani elements by Bengalis, also cites various instances of rape.". This ought to be considered in the article.
 * I have coverage concerns for FAC. This is most obvious with the "militias" section. There must be more to say about it; either denials, contrary evidence, or further evidence of rape. Other sections seem quite short, some seem to jump from thing to thing (e.g. "aftermath) without enough information to craft a flow or narrative. (The "flow or narrative" isn't and end, it's just a symptom in this sense.) A lot seems to be put together from works not directly on the topic ("Gender Politics in the Western Balkans: Women, Society and Politics in Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Successor States.", "Wars of Afghanistan.") I would have expected there to be a few sorts of books and other sources: those on the war; those on war rape (see below) as a phenomenon; those possibly (I'm thinking papers) on atrocities in the war, or orchestrated by Pakistanis, something like that.
 * The lead is short.
 * The phrase "war rape" is used, but only linked as a see also. Indeed it might be a profitable lead; people who study war rape as a phenomenon might be good sources. Some reports into the events are only briefly referenced (#47 for example) but it might be profitable to further expand upon them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First thank you for responding, although it was far quicker that anticipated. I have been moving the see also links into the article over my last few edits, the issue you mention regarding the rebels is in the article as are the comments from the The Hamdoodur Rahman Commission, see Pakistani government reaction section. There are fewer sources than one would hope for on this, it was a neglected area in the field for quite some time. For instance, actions carried out by the militias are rarely expanded upon by the sources so it is proving difficult to expand that sub section. Am looking at your comments and shall see what i ca ndo, how long do I have before this gets closed? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead opens During the Bangladesh Liberation War, rape was committed by members of the Pakistani military and the militias that supported them. which doesn't open up the article to alleged rapes by other groups during the war. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it undue to mention the Mukti Bahini in the lede due to the shortage of sources on their actions, I have added them now + found a new source with which I can expand on them. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review from Crisco 1492
 * File:Muktiyddher.jpg - Doesn't have a FUR for the article, and I think it fails NFCC #8 for this article (should be removed)
 * File:Blood telegram.png - Looks fine, but archiving would be helpful (use www.webcitation.com)
 * File:Chief Justice of Pakistan (Chief Justice) Hamood-ur-Rehman with Prime minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto..jpg - Doesn't have a FUR for the article, and I think it fails NFCC #8 for this article (should be removed)
 * File:Dhakauniverityliberation (59).JPG - Looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not convinced that this article is neutral, and its prose needs work. My comments are:
 * The article doesn't appear to be particularly stable based on its recent history. Given this, as well as the general issues surrounding this area on Wikipedia, I think that a peer review to discuss the article's neutrality is necessary (I don't know anything about this topic, but given the various issues I'm not going to assume that this article is neutral without first seeing the results of a peer review; I appreciate that this is an unusual position to take in a FAC, but I think in cases such as this it's justified).
 * The quality of this article's prose is below FA standard - many sentences are rather breathless (for instance, the first sentence)
 * "The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the East was cut off from the West within an hour of the start of the war, because the military had assigned no units to the defense of the region" - our Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 states (with a supporting reference) that a small Pakistani military force was stationed in East Pakistan during the war. It would have been extremely difficult for Pakistan to have prevented its two halves from being cut off from each other, no matter what forces were stationed where, given the country's geography.
 * Most of the 'International reaction' section appears to be referring to the international reaction against all of the atrocities, and has no focus on the rapes.
 * "Estimates of those raped vary from two hundred thousand[43] to four hundred thousand.[44] However according to Dr. Geoffrey Davis who had been requested to go to the region by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood Federation the number was probably much higher." - if Davis' estimates are beyond the generally accepted range, why are his views given particular emphasis? The article should discuss how the differing estimates were calculated.
 * "Many of the women were ostracized by their families and communities,[46] and others committed suicide" - presumably some of the women who committed suicide did so after, and a result of, being ostracized
 * "Observers suggested" - who were these 'observers'?
 * "After the conflict the Pakistani government decided on a policy of silence regarding the rapes.[43] They also set up the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, which was highly critical of the army." - how was setting up a commission consistent with a 'policy of silence'? - it seems the opposite.
 * The article states that Mukti Bahini forces committed 'thousands' of rapes, yet there's almost no discussion of this in the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Davis is an important figure in the aftermath of the conflict, he was on the ground performing late term abortions and helping with the adoption programmes. the Hamoodur Rahman Commission was buried by the government and only came to public light when it was leaked in 2000. The report was also more on the army failures than the scale of human rights abuses, and it almost a forgotten thing in Pakistan today. Observers would be international observers. Regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 read the last section here The west assigned no extra units to the defense of the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment The lead of the article says that the abuses were stopped "only by the intervention of Indian armed forces". However, this is factually disputed. According to Thomas George Weiss, "at no time did India claim a right of humanitarian intervention but rather insisted that it had used military force in self-defense." So even while references were made to human rights, India's primary motive of entering the war was not to stop human rights violations, but for what it perceived as military defense. Further quotes:

Also note: When civil tensions erupted (prior to the war), India began supporting Mukti Bahini, providing them safe haven on its territory and giving them aid, as well as air cover through the Indian Air Force. Border incidents multiplied as India became more and more involved, each side accusing the other of violations. Pakistan bombed Indian air bases on 3rd December to disable the Indian Air Force. It was after this episode that India became involved. So human rights violations are not the reason for intervention.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is as usual a strawman. The article does not say India intervened because of the humanitarian crisis does it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added an inline tag to the disputed sentence. Clearly, Indian intervention was not driven by humanitarian reasons nor was it the primary reason to stop rape.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So who is saying that their primary aim to stop that? The article just says that the rapes by the Pakistani troops stopped when India stepped in. Read the article first. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take this to the article talk page, this is not the place for a content dispute. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time
 * An article of this size should have a lead of at least two paragraphs
 * MOS issues - "%" should be spelled out, should consistently use endashes for ranges, etc
 * Citation formatting is a bit uneven - for example, all-caps in FN61, and where author is an entity should use only "last" parameter
 * Second Nick's concerns regarding prose and neutrality
 * "Disputed" tag needs to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. This is nowhere close to FA, and shouldn't even be a "Good" article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Poorly focussed: overblown "background" section, reads like a fork of a complete Bangladesh Liberation War article
 * Mixing up its nominal topic (rape) with the general history of the war and with other forms of abuse of civilians. For instance, in the infobox, it was saying "deaths=1-3 million", implying that 1-3 million died as the result of rape. But the figure is, of course, really just that of all victims of violence against civilians together. (This was creating the absurd implication that the number of dead rape victims was many times higher than the number of those raped in the first place).
 * Poorly structured lede, suffering from the same confusion between the specific and the more general topic
 * "...and the Mukti Bahini" is introduced in the lede without any explanation what that is.
 * Poor use of non-free images, as noted by Crisco above (I've removed those now). The remaining free image File:Dhakauniverityliberation (59).JPG is unmotivated (again, related to the more general topic of the war, but not related to the nominal topic of this article in any discernible way)
 * Poor orthography (e.g. multiple instances of mixing up plural -s with genitive -'s)
 * You obviously need a background section on the conflict, it is not a fork at all it is context. STFG would disagree with your assessment that this is not GA quality I believe the images can be retained per NFCI #8. I will expand on the rebels in the lede now. Again the lede also requires some background within it per wp:lede. I have fixed your isseu with the infobox, let me know if it is now suitable. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The explicit topic of the article is not the war and not "civilian victims of the war", but rape and nothing else. The heading "rape" is prominently repeated at the top of the infobox, so that box too is clearly limited to that topic. Therefore, the only figures that make sense in the infobox are those that deal with rape. If you want figures relating to total civilian victims, write an article about "civilian victims". As I said, you are mixing up the topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous, on an article about atrocities carried out in a conflict you are of the opinion that the infobox should not mention how many were butchered in said conflict? Point me to the policy which supports this contention please, common sense would dictate the total number of dead by mentioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, only because I think FAC is the wrong place to work on the many disagreements that have come up. You've done some really solid work on this article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - I am reluctantly archiving this nomination. FAC is not the place for heated exchanges on content. Please resolve these issues on the article's talk page before renominating.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.