Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive2


 * 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 User:GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC).

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

 * Nominator(s): Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld
Some points:
 * Can you wikilink Nazi Holocaust?
 * "The intensity of the West Pakistani military action surprised international observers and Bengali nationalists, since the pro-democracy movement had been peaceful till then." I'd source this.
 * Link Chittagong.
 * Writing to The New York Times a group of women -add comma after Times.
 * Inconsistency in date formatting with two/four hundred thousand and 5,000 and 30,000 below, I'd rather you wrote it in digits.
 * Delink Nazi before Lebensborn and Nazi Germany wiki link it initially next to Holocaust further up as requested.
 * "After the conflict the victims went through a second ordeal: widespread sexual infections and feelings of intense shame and humiliation." Unnecessary use of a colon, simply "Many of the victims suffered from sexual infections and feelings of intense shame and humiliation, and a number were ostracised by their families and communities or committed suicide." will do.
 * "The list included members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, a political group founded in 1978." Seems unusual for you to mention just one party, and one which formed 7 years after the ordeal. I'd feel more comfortable if you mentioned some of the other alleged perpetrators (groups) for neutrality purposes.
 * Rising from the Ashes women's narratives of 1971 The first translation to English of the oral testimonies given by women who were not just abused, but women such as Taramon Bibi who fought in the war and was awarded the Bir Protik(Symbol of Valour)." Please rewrite this with appropriate punctuation and structure.
 * It would be good if you could find a photograph from 1971 of women in captivity or soldiers. I'd accept the upload of a fair use image from 1971 to illustrate something important in the article and I think you could claim it for encyclopedic purposes. Obviously a photo of an actual rape if it exists would be inappropriate, but something along the lines of women in captivity or some event from the period being depicted would really help the article I think.Something like this is worth a 1000 words.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had an image before but it was removed, license will I need if I upload one? This one is kinda brutal, but a good depiction of what they went through. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd ask User:Jmabel if you could claim use of a fair use image. I think either image would really improve this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I uploaded and added it already But thanks to the wonderful world of echo we shall still ask as expert.  if you have a moment could you advice please? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some would argue that fair use would require making some sort of commentary on the photo itself, but in this case I think minimal commentary indicating what it illustrates would suffice. Remember to use Template:Non-free use rationale on the image page. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 17:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I used that with the upload wizard, so if the image is discussed in the article it is a definite keeper? Cos I am sure I saw this image in a book, I will have to trawl through my e-books and hard copies. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment there is currently a technical problem. Wen you converted refs to use sfn style, the conversion was incorrectly done. First, you don't need to mention page numbers within the complete bibliography, since you are indicating page numbers in individual citations. Second, for cite book templates, ref=harv parameter needs to be added for proper working of the style. I have illustrated a few examples in the article. However, for cite web templates, and in some other instances where author name is not available, there are some other methods of parameter. Please see an article that uses the style to understand that. Yes it does need some work, but the end result is aesthetically more soothing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Shit man, I spent about three hours faffing about with that ( Will go fix it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I think I got them all. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The newspaper citation do not jump to the bibliography as no page numbers, do I did an experiment, and added for one p=BBC, (p-can be publisher?) and it works, is that OK? If so I can get the rest done. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have tried to go over the technical aspect of the citations, and corrected quite a lot. Most of them appear ok to me now. Exception: Hadden 1971 citation, which ideally should have connected to Hadden, Briton; Henry Robinson Luce (1971). "Time Volume 98". Time. However, that detailed citation seesm incorrect. Moreover, it is not available online, so not able to cross-check. Either give actual details of teh full citation (such as, page number, actual authors), or replace that. Also, the bibliographic entry Mannan, Abdul (December 2009). "People in people's war". Daily Star. has not been used as a reference. So, it can be removed.
 * Now, another big task. The bibliographic entries should be sorted alphabetically. For determining alphabetic order, consider first author's (last) name. If no author present, you can use the title of the work (title of the book, or title of news report) for alphabetic sorting.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I can do that tomorrow, I am off to bed it a little bit. And thank you BTW, you are teaching me a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Insomnia kicked in again so I did it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh, don't sort stuff when you're in a state of insomnia. That list was still a complete mess. I fixed it some now, but I don't guarantee it's completely correct yet. Also, please don't forget those chapter titles I mentioned below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Woman_raped_and_killed_in_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War.jpg: can we be more expansive with the "not replaceable" rationale? Any more details on original photographer or publication? What steps have been taken to attempt to identify the original photographer? Have to be really careful with the "unique historic image" rationale, as it's stricter than most of the fair-use tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tracked down who took the photo, it was Naib Uddin Ahmed. He died December 14 2009. I am now trying to find out who now has the copyright ownership. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A company called Drik picture library seem to hold the copyright, at least that is what I have figured out so far. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Drik is a commercial agency, this unfortunately puts it in the same class as images owned by other commercial agencies such as Reuters or AP: unuseable unless the image is itself the object (not just a vehicle) of encyclopedic coverage; otherwise subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSDb. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How does one go about getting permission? If I mail them to ask if they would be OK with a single usage for this article and they retain copyright, is there someone on Wiki they need to mail? Or a special form they need fill? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That won't work, unfortunately, because our policy is an all-or-nothing thing: either a fully free release under a free license such ass cc-by-sa, or the full weight of the NFC critera. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If a non free image is discussed extensively in the article, then could one be kept? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it would have to be sourced discussion of the image itself, i.e. as a notable photographic work (the history of how it was taken, its aesthetics, its impact on public opinion etc.), not just a discussion of the things the image shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have two sources which discuss in detail a specific photo taken, I will add the text tomorrow and then, if you think it enough I can upload the image, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you look at what I added in my last two edits and let me know if I need to expand on the text so we can use an image please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, couple of points. First, the text as it stands is heavily ungrammatical, including bits that are presumably literal quotes. I can't find the "classical a pose..." bit in either of the two cited sources, and there seems to be a closing quotation mark missing; can you check that again? Second, are the two passages really talking about the same image? The one source seems to be talking about an image titled "Brave Woman", the other about one called "Shamed Woman". Are they the same? I assume one of them is this, but I don't find it that easy to think of that one as a "classical pose" like that of a Madonna and Child.
 * The other thing is, why are we discussing this image here? Right now, the text still seems a bit as if tacked on to the article as an afterthought – more like the text being there in order to deliver a pretext for showing the image, than the image being there in order to illustrate the text. Apparently Ahmed published quite a number of images touching on the topic, so why would we want to make this particular one a subject of discussion at that point in the article? Not quite convinced yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Same image, two different names given. The text is tacked on. I wanted to know how much needs be added so we can use the image. I choose this image as it is discussed in two academic sources and is notable for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Fut.Perf.

 * I removed this passage in the "Aftermath" section, for two reasons: first, it is quite off-topic, talking about some author's personal feelings in dealing with the atrocities. Secondly, it quite unnecessarily diverts attention from the main topic through a rather misleading and confusing comparison with the Nazi "Lebensborn" programme. The author of the quote clearly had no idea what the Lebensborn actually was. I'm irritated to find that the main author of the article recently clandestinely reintroduced this passage, after agreeing during a discussion last year that it was misleading.
 * Update: disappointingly, User:Darkness Shines is now edit-warring to reinsert this passage. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=prev&oldid=568535173]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also in the "Aftermath" section, there is a statement saying "A doctor at the rehabilitation center in Dhaka reported 170,000 abortions of pregnancies caused by the rapes, and the births of 30,000 war babies". However, the very next paragraph says that "Estimates of the number of pregnancies range from 25,000[50] to the Bangladeshi government's figure of 70,000". These two statements are blatantly contradictory (the estimate cited in the previous sentence is almost three times higher than even the highest estimate cited in the next). These statements need to be put into proper context and related to each other, or be left out.
 * About the same citation: I can't check the source online, but did the Dhaka doctor really "report" these figures, or did he just estimate? "Reporting" entails that he had the means of accurately counting based on direct observation. This would be quite astonishing.
 * Structure and scope: the "Background" section is far too long. This would be a suitable "background" section for the Bangladesh War of Independence article, but not for this one. For this article, the war itself is only the background; its ultimate political causes (i.e. the background of the background) do not need to be rehashed here at such length.
 * Regarding background, then do you suggest to remove (or, maybe summarize in two sentences) the initial two paragraphs? And essentially start from December 1970? I had a feeling that background is probably long, but was not sure where to start really. I would suggest Darkness Shines to hear what Fut.Perfect has to say in this regard. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, the background is necessary to give readers a full understanding of what led up to this, and this has been discussed before and FPaS was wrong then just as he is wrong now, we cannot expect people to have to go read another article to try and figure out what happened when they are halfway through reading this one. The current background section was discussed before and consensus was that it was fine, and I have since then trimmed it myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference formalities: chapter titles in edited collections are frequently missing, e.g. in Mohsin 2005, Khondker 2006 etc. If you are going to cite an individually authored chapter in a collection, then the title of the chapter needs to be cited together with the name of the author.
 * More: Grammar and prose is poor overall (see copyedits I had to make here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=568533769&oldid=568530192], showing weaknesses in correct use of commas to set off grammatical appositions and distinguish non-defining from defining relative clauses). There are more such passages.
 * Overall structure of the prose: much of the presentation is repetitive and poorly structured, with statements being stacked onto each other seemingly more with a view towards maximising the rhetorical effect of the repeated accusatory statements than with a view to their precise logical relationships (see for instance the tweak I tried here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=568533945&oldid=568533769], or the example about the estimates of pregnancies mentioned above). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am getting rather tired of your vendetta against me. I have restored the quote you removed, as it is very relevant to the article, what your personal beliefs on what the author knew is irrelevant, he most likely meant it in manner of the common belief of Lebensborn. The background section is needed, for background, so the readers get an idea of what caused this. Your point on the number of pregnancies shows you know little of the subject matter, 25000 is the number of estimate war babies, which I shall now make clear. Given your personal dislike of me you should not even be commenting here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll offer my constructive criticism of articles wherever and whenever I choose, thank you very much. Your "fix" to the pregancies estimates doesn't solve the problem. You first claimed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=568536329&oldid=568535434] the 25,000–70,000 estimate was only the estimate of births (comparable to the doctor's figure of 50,000, which would be within a logical range), but then you changed it again claiming it was "other estimates" of the total of pregnancies [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=568537178&oldid=568536921]? In that case, you are still left with the problem of not having explained why you are first citing that outside estimate that is so exorbitantly higher. Has that estimate some special authority that would justify us giving it pride of place? Why then have the authors of the other estimates ignored it? – As for the "lebensborn" thing, I'm not going to discuss that with you further, having experienced your inaccessibility to logical argument too many times. It's absurd and has to go, and the article will not be featured while it's there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a comment from an editor up above who does not have an axe to grind saying the article is pretty damn good, and that quote was there when he looked it over. You do not get to decide that one quote stops an article from being FA. No other estimates are ignored, they are all there. I am citing all estimates per NPOV, which kinda says we have to. Why not go and pick on someone else and leave this for uninvolved editors to review. And if you will not discuss the quote you can remove the pointy tag you added, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The tag on the "Lebensborn" passage stays. In its present state, the article not only reports Davies' statement, which presupposes that the Lebensborn was a place of "atrocities" comparable to the Bangladesh rapes (a piece of known historical falsehood, that is); it also, by failing to correct or hedge this presupposition, carries the implication that it is indeed true. This is historically misleading – and quite unnecessarily so, because the whole comparison is extraneous to the topic anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, as most people when they hear Lebensborn think "breeding camp" as that is what the term has come to be associated with, as can be seen in Spiegal The BBC and a host of others. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because that misperception is common is not an excuse for spreading it further, as the article is now doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a misperception, it is what the term has come to mean. I think you may have to learn to live with that. BTW, 2013 A Social History of The Third Reich discusses Lebensborn as a breeding programme. So even academic sources seem to have gone along with the masses. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys may want to add a footnote describing what Lebensborn is, about the misperception, or, the usage of the word.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An elegant solution, thank you, FPaS, you OK with that? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not worth it. It would be a sensible solution if the quotation was otherwise of some encyclopedic value, but it isn't. Such a discussion would only unnecessarily divert the reader's attention away from the main point, which is that people were raped in Bangladesh. Nobody cares about what some Australian doctor felt while working with them, and nobody cares about what that doctor mistakenly thought the rapes in Bangladesh were comparable with. The only reason to have this bit (and in a literal block quote, no less) is to gain the extra emotional power of having that comparison with the nazis; why would we throw that comparison at the reader when we are forced in the next moment to retract it and explain to them that these two things weren't comparable after all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again your thoughts on what the doctor thoughts being mistaken have no place here, it is obvious he meant it in the common perception of the word. I am happy removing the block quote and paraphrasing it if that would suit you better? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because I still don't see why that part of the doctor's opinions and feelings is even relevant, even independently of the fact that they also happen to be factually wrong on that extraneous issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the Doc is not wrong is he, you are. The links I gave you prove that. And if you are not willing to compromise then the lot can stay and I will remove your pointy tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Classical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Further attempts at rational discussion with D.S. are evidently hopeless at this point. D.S., continue edit-warring about this and you'll go straight to WP:AE for the topic-ban that has been long overdue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do as you will, if you will not compromise then this conversation ain't going anywhere is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel this version, which does NOT have the quote by the doctor, reads good enough. For now, Darkness Shines, I think it is pretty ok to not have the quote, and move along. There are other things to take care of in this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

{out} I have already removed it, I will go with whatever consensus arrives from the RFC I initiated. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In the recent literature there has been a well-known "revisionist" account of the events put forward by Sarmila Bose, who apparently calls into question the extent and the planned/deliberate nature of the rapes by the Pakistani military. Covering this minority view was recently suggested on the talk page but met with angry rejection from User:Darkness Shines. Currently she is not mentioned in the article at all. Now, it may very well be the case that her views are a minority position (and undoubtedly a highly unpopular one in many quarters), and it may well be the case that most of the reactions to them have been critical, but still, she appears to be a bona fide academic researcher on the issue, and in light of the amount of reactions she has elicited even in the non-academic media her views are certainly notable. I don't see that simply ignoring her or treating her as pseudo-academic "fringe" is in line with NPOV requirements. Somebody will have to take up the challenge and add a fair and balanced discussion of her position, which maybe won't be easy (and somehow I have doubts if those editors who have been working on the article so far have what it takes to do this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutrality issues
 * Bose id a joke, her book does not mention the rape victims so is of no use to us, I looked at one of the sources given on the talk page, Bose estimates a few thousand rapes in it. She also says there were only 30,000 Pakistani troops in theatre, it was 90,000, she is not just fringe, she is both way wrong and fringe. Her "work" has no place in an article on Wikipedia. She has got to be the most minority view of minority views anywhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though a joke, she probably needs a mention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Never going to happen, anyone who gets the number of troops on the ground wrong gets zero weight, anyone who says the rapes were only a few thousand, come on. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In several passages citing the ref "Totten 2008", claims and opinions are explicitly attributed in the text to Samuel Totten, who is listed in the author field of the ref entry. However, Totten is merely a co-editor; the author of the article in question is Rounaq Jahan (thanks to Smsarmad for spotting this . He has partly cleaned it up, but there are other incidences of the same error further in the article). This is a problem that goes well beyond the one I noted above, about chapter titles not being named properly, because in this instance authorial opinions have been explicitly misattributed. All ref entries involving collected volumes need to be checked thoroughly to make sure editorial and authorial roles are correctly documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * False/misleading citations
 * Update: similar misattribution in the case of "Totten 2009", falsely cited like an authored monograph but in reality also an edited collection. Same for "Totten 2004". And "Schulz 2007". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hardly a major issue for gods sake, all one need do is change the refs so it says Tonnen is the Ed, I can give the actual author later. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, this is important. You need to be absolutely precise and correct about citation. It matters who actually wrote/spoke. So, please take care of this urgently.--Dwaipayan (talk)
 * I think I got the last of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With chapters in edited volumes, you cite the chapter names, not just the chapter numbers. You should also provide the page numbers (the one in the inline harvard ref is just the page reference to the specific passage you're citing; in the bibliography you give the first and last page of the whole chapter.) Also, please don't forget there's still the issue of numerous entries that have both editor and author names but lack chapter titles (I've fixed a few of them to show what I mean [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=568817583&oldid=568817313], but there are certainly more.) Another (harmless but cosmetic) issue: capitalization in titles is not consistent yet. Use either title casing or normal text casing throughout (or, for a fancy option, use title casing for book titles and normal text casing for chapters). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Faizan
The article is not upto the FA status, it has many neutrality flaws. Even the lead is not edligible for a Featured article. The article is Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, this means that it should describe the rape committed on all communities. But I regret, the current form of the article blames "Pakistani military" everywhere. Or more simply, the article is only for "Rapes of Bengalis during the Bangladesh Liberation War". The rapes and atrocities on Biharis, the Stranded Pakistanis need to be described too. The lead should also mention it, and the article needs serious fixing over neutrality issues. It seems a Nationalist encyclopedia's article here in Wikipedia to me. There is only one section of "Mukti Bahini actions" attribued to atrocities on Biharis, whereas the rest of the whole article is for the Bengalis. The lead can be brought on the lines of: "During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, hundreds of thousands of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them and the Bengali militants." Both of the major communities of Biharis and Bengalis were equally affected." I hope my rationale is understood. Severe need of improvement. Fai  zan  07:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Get real, this was discussed before, and there is noway in hell that both communities were "equally affected" That is so wrong it actually defies belief. The MB atrocities are mentioned in the lede per due weight. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Fancy comment by Faizan. Give me a break! Yes, of course for the sake of neutrality, rapes committed by Mukti Bahini need to be mentioned, and those are mentioned, both in the lead and the body of the article. Indeed I was surprised to see the mention in the lead, because the atrocities committed by Pak Army far outweighs those by Mukti Bahini. Anyway, if you really want to sound rational, Faizan, come up with some neutrally sourced statistics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to include the actions of Mukti Bahini in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, only the significant parts of the article must be summarized in the lead and the actions of Mukti Bahini doesn't really seem to be significant.--Zayeem  (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly yes, per the previous consensus, as it stands I believe due weight is given. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you simply cannot react this way to any criticism of the article. "Get real, this was discussed before, and there is noway in hell" far exceeds the expected manner of candidates here. It's one of the main doctrines of FAC that you respect all input, however irritating and you've been nothing but insulting in return. I'm just waiting for Ian or Graham to archive this as you've overstepped the mark with at least two editors now to continue with this. I strongly suggest you take a look at how you've reacted here and try to respect the input. Generally I thought it was very good and an informative account which was easy to follow and I feel it has FA potential. However, some of the concerns about the prose may be valid.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you gave them what they want, well done. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't give anybody what they want. If editors are concerned about neutrality I'd take that very seriously. Your behaviour here has really let you down.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As has yours, I mentioned above the issues between FPaS and myself, you said what about that exactly? So archive it and be done, so long as that guy is allowed to stalk and harass me then this article will never get to FA anyway, he will not have that cos he detests me, so ya, you have given them what they want. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a long history of disagreements with these editors? It is a very sensitive topic, and it doesn't surprise me it is disputed on here but if there are valid concerns with neutrality and prose then they need to be addressed respectfully.. And I haven't done anything Darkness, if Ian or Graham archive this is is because of your hostile attitude shown here which is completely unacceptable here, whatever your history with these editors is. If you can't understand this then perhaps FAC isn't for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted on your talk page, let this get archived as it is obvious so long as those who have an axe to grind will quite simply not let it pass, I am sorry to have wasted you time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If there are long-standing issues with the article they really need to be sorted before nominating for FAC. If you simply cannot come to some form of an agreement with the others over it then I don't think this ever has a chance of passing. The conditions need to be completely calm and amicable between editors over the article to pass FA. Sorry to see, as a I genuinely thought that this has potential.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Get the article fixed, especially for neutrality. It needs restructuring. Issues cited by me stand unaddressed. Or I can aid with edits on the article. Fai  zan  07:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your issues were addressed previously, the consensus is that the atrocities carried out by Pakistan and the militias far outweigh the revenge attacks, the weight was given accordingly. If you wish to suggest an addition please use the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then not going to proceed this way. Fai  zan  07:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As per your request a thread has also been started at talk. Fai  zan  07:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologize to all
Sorry for my loss of temper yesterday, four days without sleep sent me a tad loopy. I would like the review to continue if possible. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone
I see quite a few issues here, including some unresolved since first FAC.
 * "it is today widely seen...". If i recall correctly, this use of "today" may not be consistent with MOS.
 * "The methodical planning behind the genocide drew comparisons with the Nazi Holocaust" - plural "comparisons", but only one citation.
 * The paragraph that begins "Between the middle of May and September 1971,..." needs some work. It appears to me that most of this para is intended to present an argument, that there was a racist motive behind rape as a tactic of war. If so, the first sentence is irrelevant and should be deleted. Then, a new first sentence should state this argument in general, then allowing the following material to lay out the evidence and the points made by those who put this argument.
 * "Owing to the scale of the atrocities, Archer Blood, the US Consul General in Dhaka, sent what became known as the Blood telegram, in which the signatories denounced American "complicity in Genocide"". This requires some unpacking - first, a concul would normally send his/her own telegrams, so the idea that it had multiple signatories seems strange. Second, I don't understand the relevance / meaning, in this particular sentence, of "Owing to the scale of the atrocities". Is this meant to explain the actions of Blood, or the fact that there were all the signatories... i just don't follow the argument here.
 * Estimates of numbers of people raped should not be in "aftermath", they go to the core of the article's subject, and should be included there. The estimates should be discussed in a bit more detail, and notwithstanding the fact that Davis was 'on the ground', his particular views are given far more weight than any others.
 * I revised the article to reflect my point here. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Estimates of those raped vary from 200,000[62] to 400,000" - except that later, the article states that the 1974 commission supplementary report estimated "hundreds" - which should presumably therefore form the lower end of the range?
 * I further edited a proposed revision, to reduce the emphasis on the Pakistani government figure (as it is not an independent source and lies so far outside other estimates. I also reorganised the paras to cluster together all the quantitative data, which strengthens the case for the 200K to 400K range being correct.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "...by John Tulloch to be as "classical a pose as any Madonna and Child, however the image is that of a woman, it is not possible to determine age who had been raped repeatedly" Something wrong here - there is no close quotation mark and it does not appear to be a sentence.
 * The quote has now been closed, but the following phrase makes no sense: "...however the image is that of a woman, it is not possible to determine age who had been raped repeatedly."


 * "Abul Kalam Azad was the first person to be sentenced for crimes during the war." Slightly confusing, since we have already been told of the first person to be indicted and also sentenced (I realise there is a difference) but also, we have no context as to why we are being told about Azad, since we know nothing of what the crimes, or the sentence, were.
 * The man's name is wikilinked to an article on an unrelated person. And, while we now have text on what his crimes were, which is good, we don't have text on who he was. A commander? A regular soldier? A general? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Referencing issue - footnotes refer to Roy 2010a, but can't tell which is a or b from reference list?
 * If 2010a is the first of the two in the reference list, then my reading of it suggests it is not strong enough to substantiate the text "...but human rights advocates are of the opinion that the mass rapes and killings of women may not be addressed". The article quotes only two lawyers, one hopeful, one "skeptical": certainly not something that substantiates the text as written.
 * I fixed this myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some language which seems to me to sound too much like a news feature article or editorial and not enough like an encyclopedia article. Examples:
 * "indiscriminately killing Bengali civilians". If the source actually uses the word "indiscriminately", then put it in quotes;
 * "In what has been described as a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire ethnic group..." the use of "entire" here is redundant and carries a POV; described by whom?
 * "entire" has been removed, but we still have the passive "has been described", which still needs a subject (ie. who describes it this way?) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Pakistani General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi claimed that thousands of men and women had been killed or raped in Chittagong". Only use of the word "claim/ed" in the article - can you explain why this is the only place it is appropriate that it be used?
 * "The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide" - if "widely viewed", then need more than one citation, otherwise we cannot be sure this isn't just Simms' view.
 * "Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called the victims birangona ("heroine"), but this only underscored the fact..." The expression "this only underscored the fact" in this context appears to me unencyclopedic and designed to emphasise the view expressed.
 * Tweaked this further myself.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are my initial thoughts. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, I will get on all of that ASAP, but RE the genocide, this was resolved a while ago at a RM on the genocide article, here I presented this source "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994." So that ought to resopve that issue. Should I add that to the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are responding to with this comment. Assuming it is my comment in the last group - i am not trying to open up a debate about whether or not this was genocide, I am simply saying that, when a WP article says something is "widely viewed" as having a certain nature (in this case, genocide), we need multiple sources for the claim, thus assuring us that the view is indeed widely held, and not just the view held by the author of the one source cited. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was yes, I have copyedited it and added the academic consensus to the article. I have also gotten to a few of the other points you have raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thin I have gotten a fair few of the issues you have raised, however I am wondering where you think the estimates of those raped ought to actually go? I cannot see any other section they ought to be? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have now gotten the lot? Other than the estimates, where did you think they ought to go? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Going to have to think about this more - i think it may reflect a broader structural issue in the article, but not sure. Regardless, the text is much improved. If I don't come back to you by Monday, ping me again. [User:Hamiltonstone|hamiltonstone]] (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Further query re aftermath. It refers at one point to some figures "...before the state programme had even started". Re-reading the paragraph, i am not sure what the term "state programme" is referring to, as Davis's program appears to be international organisation, not Bangladeshi. Can you clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The state programme was carried out by international groups, I will reword it to clarify that. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. The change you made however doesn't really help, and "abortion programme" sounds nightmarish - like a form of genocide. I suggest you revert those words to "state program", and split the second sentence of the para in two, to read: "In the year following the war, there was a Bangladeshi government-mandated victim relief programme, supported by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood Federation. Dr. Geoffrey Davis, a physician who participated in the programme, estimated that the commonly cited figures were probably "very conservative" compared with the real numbers". Would that accurately reflect the sources in your view? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, your suggestion is accurate so I have done the edit, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this now? No comments for a while? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Further comments from Hamiltonstone Getting there. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done some restructuring to attempt to group all text that related to description of actual events under the "Pakistani Army actions" heading, including the key line about estimates of number of rapes.
 * I have a couple of issues with the first para under that heading, regarding Tikka Khan. My view is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and we don't have this at present. The Chalk source for the first sentence is OK, provided that the WP article is not relying on a primary source document included within Chalk. The second citation is highly problematic. Bisvasa 2005 appears not to be a scholarly secondary source, but publication of primary documents from the Mujibnagar Government for reference purposes. If I have understood that correctly, then it is not a sufficient source for the claim, because we need a high-quality secondary source reporting the claim.
 * Leaving aside the sourcing issues, both sentences need to specify who is claiming that Khan said these things. First sentence: "He reportedly said... " (ie. who reported?). Second sentence: "Khan is also reported to..." (ie. reported by whom?)
 * Sukumāra Biśvāsa is a professor, the documents in his book are press releases for the most part. Review here. I suppose we shall have to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the second claim will have to be removed. I probably did not explain myself very well. The issue is not Biśvāsa himself. The issue is that the book is a compilation of primary source documents from the post-independence government, which was (understandably) hostile to Pakistan. That government, or an official or department within it, might have claimed that Khan said something. But we cannot rely on them for that claim as they are neither neutral, nor a historian assessing the validity of the claim. We need a scholarly assessment by a neutral source that, having weighed up the evidence, accepts that Khan said this thing. We do not have that at present because, in the case of this book, Biśvāsa is assembling primary documents, not writing a scholarly analysis. Regarding the first claim, (Khan saying 'I will reduce this majority to a minority') can we get a second source supporting this (or alternatively, a source indicating that Khan does not dispute that he said it)? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed and added another ref for the first claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.