Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive3


 * 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:Ian Rose 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC).

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

 * Nominator(s): Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it passes the criteria Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Fowler&fowler: I'm confused. In its last FAC appearance, this article was archived (i.e. not promoted) at 10:05 on 22 September 2013.  The article history tells me that the last textual edit was made at 05:51  22 September 2013.  If the plan was to do nothing and resubmit (an article that needs a lot of work), why did you wait three weeks?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was told I had to wait two weeks before nominating it again, I was just asked on my talkpage if I was going to renominate it, so I did. Why do you say the article needs a lot of work? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is: if it was not promoted, and if no changes have been made since it was not promoted, what will a renomination achieve? I say this with no knowledge whatsoever of the intricacies of the FA process. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article needs nothing done, it passes all criteria for FA already, hence my question to F&f Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment by Fowler&fowler: I am imagining run-of-the-mill readers reading the first sentence, "During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, in an act of genocidal rape, hundreds of thousands of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them." Such readers likely don't remember what the 'Bangladesh Liberation War' was, but are thinking that someone or something was liberated.  So, they are surprised by the appearance of "genocidal rape." It doesn't help that they've never heard the expression before (and until mid-August 2013, neither had Wikipedia). Some readers stop right there trying to puzzle out if it was rape, genocide, or both? Others read on to find, as the sentence goes passive on them, that anonymous women were raped by the Pakistani military.  (The Pakistan near Afghanistan?  Why were they in Bangladesh? they are asking.)  Better informed readers are asking, "Do they mean a deliberate campaign of mass rape (and murder)?"  Something becomes an act of genocide when it is determined so later by juries and scholars, not while it is happening.  Further, if you are using the word "genocidal" and don't mention death anywhere, people are going to scratch their heads.  That is what happens when you choose an article title poorly and follow it with a confusing first sentence.  The reader then goes to the second sentence, "Scholars and authors have discussed that systematic rape was used by the perpetrators to terrorise the Bengalis and Hindus, who were looked upon as inferior."  Discussed that? "Discussed" is not a synonym for "suggested" or "concluded." Readers like me stop reading at that point.  That means the article is not ready to be an FA.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to (cautiously) disagree with Fowler here on some points, and agree on others. I think the first sentence could be restructured to address some of the lack of context for some readers. For example, rather than using the common name of the conflict, Bangladesh Liberation War, i would suggest a piped link somewhere in a phrase along the lines of "the 1971 civil war that resulted in the establishment of the state of Bangladesh". Given the article title, i suggest removing reference to "genocidal rape" where it first occurs, not because it is inaccurate, but because it does not aid the reader by being introduced at that point. I would also tweak the phrase "hundreds of thousands" that, while literally not incorrect, has a sensational tone to it. So the lede might better begin: "During the 1971 civil war that resulted in the establishment of the state of Bangladesh, between two and four hundred thousand of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them." Where I wish to disagree with Fowler is in the claim that "Something becomes an act of genocide when it is determined so later by juries and scholars, not while it is happening". No. Something is not an act of murder only when a jury later finds a murderer guilty. It is an act of murder when it occurs. Ditto genocide, so I would argue that the use of the term is not inaccurate. I would favour its omission from the lede's initial text not because it is wrong, but because it does not aid clarity for the lay reader in an article titled "Rape during the X War". hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (just adding) regarding my comment about when something becomes genocide: it is genocide at the time, though just to be clear, of course it is only referred to as such in a WP article when reliable sources say it is such.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Well, let me think aloud. I wouldn't have any issues with the sentences, "In a deliberate year-long campaign of mass rape and murder in Bangladesh in 1971, the Pakistani military committed an act of genocidal rape." or even with the reordered, "During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war, the Pakistani military raped hundreds of thousands of women in an act of genocidal rape." So, the issue is neither with the use of "genocidal rape" nor "act." However, I would hit a cognitive speed-bump in mid-sentence with, "During the year-long Bangladesh war, in an act of genocide, the Pakistani military raped thousands of women." When we place a prepositional phrase in front position (i.e. before the subject), we do it to emphasize or highlight something, but in the process we also subtly transform what is communicated. (In the first two sentences, "act of genocidal rape" is the object of the verb, or part of a prepositional phrase in end position.) What we subtly transform in this instance is the intention. Unlike an act of murder, an act of genocide happens over time, when many lives have been snuffed out, whether there is a top-down intention to kill an unarmed community (e.g. Hitler) or the disparate local killings cumulatively begin to target the same unarmed communities (Partition violence in India). In other words, perpetrators may not always aware that they are committing an act of genocide. By putting the expression in front position, we make such an act more cut and dried than it probably was. Anyway, no big deal. Thanks for replying. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the lead and background sections for better flow and cohesion. I have added a couple of pictures.  I took a quick look at the remaining sections.  They seem to be better written.  Outstanding issues that remain will likely soon be fixed.  I am happy to offer my support.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I should add that even though I am offering my support, in part because I'm flat out of time, and in part because I'm assuming others will hold the principal author's feet to the fire, I am troubled by one thing. There is really only one up-to-date reference for this article (based on field work in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India): .  Yet, I find that it has been cited barely half a dozen times, and a couple of those are cursory.  This is a little troubling.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have a copy of it, so I can only go with what I see on GBooks. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you able to go on Amazon and buy it on Kindle or Kindle for PC? It is selling at half price for $13.99.  What is worrying me is that the first few sentences of the book paint a more more complex picture: "In 1971 multiple wars broke out in East Pakistan (later known as Bangladesh): one was a civil war fought between East and West Pakistan; another was an international war fought between India and Pakistan; a third war erupted between the Bengalis and Urdu-speaking groups, the so-called Biharis;' and finally, a rampant gender war broke out against vulnerable women within East Pakistan. Men representing the armies of Pakistan and India, as well as the Mukti Bahini (a Bengali militia created with Indian support) and pro-Pakistani Bengali and Bihari civilians who volunteered in the paramilitary forces of Al-Badr and Al-Shams, raped, looted, killed, and terrorized noncombatants in East Pakistan." Apparently, the Indians weren't entirely blameless. ... I just got the book on Kindle and have taken a quick look.  While it is skimpy on the immediate history, it still points to many nuances that are absent in the article.  Although, I won't withdraw my support, I am more sympathetic now to some of Nick-D's points.  Are you able to go to a library to read the book?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't afford it, I am broke. And no to the library. I will hopefully be able to get it next week. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that week has come and gone. Were you able to get the book?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, had no work for three weeks now. Have ordered the Kissinger one from the library though. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
There are more than a few awkward, even ungrammatical, sentences. I know this went through a peer review, but it seems that focused mostly on structural and topic-focus issues and didn't address the article from the copyediting standpoint. There are structural issues, as well -- not so much in the structure of the article in the sense of the 2b criterion, but in the order that sentences are placed and material is introduced. I'll try to pick out some examples from a perusal, but this list should not be considered comprehensive:


 * From later in that section: "The Pakistani army also raped Bengali males, to erode their masculinity and categorise them as homosexual. The army would stop men at checkpoints to see if they were circumcised, and this is where the rapes usually happened." The checkpoint pretext sounds odd out of context ... why was this event a pretextual excuse?  And "erode their masculinity" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic in tone.
 * Stopping people at a checkpoint and attacking them is as old as the hills. Do you want me to expand on it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacking people you've stopped at a checkpoint was probably invented about 15 minutes after the invention of the checkpoint. That's not the issue. The problem is that this was apparently a circumcision-auditing checkpoint, and that's strange enough, at least to an outside reader, that it's got to have some context if its going to be here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Squeamish, i've been working on some comments, but i didn't follow the first part of your query here. Can you explain what is odd / out of context here? I would class myself as a lay reader for this one, and nothing struck me as unclear...hamiltonstone (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is simply my limited understanding of the conflict, but why would anyone believe that a checkpoint request "to see if they were circumcised", especially in a war zone, was legitimate? Is there some background I'm missing here that would make that, somehow, plausible? It's sufficiently unusual to catch the eye skimming the article text, but there's nothing to provide more background or context there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Worked on this to make it clearer, they were not circumcision-auditing checkpoints, just the normal type. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how this is clearer than before. Basically, what I'm asking is: was there a "legitimate" reason in the context of the conflict why a checkpoint would check to see if men were circumcised other than as a pretext to rape? I'm far from an expert on the religious implications of this war, for example, so I don't know if there's a plausible answer there (not that my knowledge would matter, only what the sources say, of course). If the sole purpose was to enable rape, then we probably don't need that phrase at all.  Similarly, I still have problems with the "erode their masculinity" wording; I don't believe that's an encyclopedic tone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will drop the erosion, or phrase it differently. Why they got checked is simple, no circumcision = Hindu/Christian = shot. I did see something along those lines, will have to look throgu hthe books again. 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Darkness Shines (talk)
 * I have faffed about with this a bit, hopefully OK now. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Aftermath section is a mess in many ways.
 * "Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called the victims birangona ("heroine"), but this served as a reminder that these women were now deemed socially unacceptable as they were "dishonored", and the term became associated with barangona ("prostitute")." At least worded this way, this doesn't make any sense. Why does referring to victims as heroines serve as a reminder of "dishonor"?  If it's the birangona -> barangona association, then this needs rearranged; if it's something else entirely, it needs explained.
 * I have added a footnote to explain why this was an issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The footnote certainly explains why the rape victims would be viewed as dishonored, but that's not really the problem I had with this section. Rather, you gloss over too quickly the failure of the birangona/"war heroine" rebranding effort.  The Mookherjee paper I linked below examines this as a central part of its focus. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have expanded on this a fair bit, how does it look to you? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of explanation that the article needed, broadly speaking, but the new prose needs a lot of work. Not to push a specific publication, but is there a reason you're avoiding including Mookherjee as a source for some of this material? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Am going to polish it up, just wanted to see if I was going in the right direction. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still some awkward prose here: "Unlike the Mukti Bahini who on their return home received a hero's welcome, the survivors of rape, who were held in rehabilitation centers, were seen as a symbol of "social pollution" and shame, with very few welcomed back by their families or returned to their old communities." and "Those women who did marry were usually mistreated, and the majority of men, once having received a dowry abandoned their wives." especially; also, missing a space before "strategy". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Worked on this also. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on Mookherjee, I am not avoiding her as a source, heck I have used her all over the article, but the paper you suggested is, well hard to get much from. It primarily is about just three rape victims and the treatment they received after the trial. I have an idea on what to use it for, but I am still thinking on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Deutsche Welle interview information seems like it could be bundled in elsewhere, perhaps with less individual detail? I'm concerned about whether these two particular women are receiving undue weight here. Also, Birangona appears here with a capital letter and no italics, unlike earlier, where it was italicized and in lowercase.
 * They were interviewed on the 40th anniversary of the war, the fact that they are still suffering from it was, I thought important to convey? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a valuable source, and one that I'd include, but I still think you dedicate too much weight to that interview. This isn't, by far, the only retrospective. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are aspects to this tragedy that I would have expected to see in this section but aren't mentioned at all. Has there been anything published in reliable sources about the ongoing social costs of these events?  Medical costs?  Education for the children?  Has the bias the victims experienced extended to their children?  That's the essence of my 1b objection: it seems the article stops short of giving the full story here.  That may be a shortcoming in the literature, but if possible, it needs addressed.
 * Most were adopted out, I have one source to add about this, but it is not a lot. 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other sources regarding long-term impacts, too. See, for example.  There's more in the journal literature, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In literature and media is in chronological order, but ironically here, I'd prefer there was some context introducing things by type of media or something. In the order presented are two films, then two books, but it's easy to overlook that the third subject is a book ("wrote", yes, but films are written, too).  The second book is more clearly identified for what it is, but "edited volume" is an odd turn of phrase.
 * I got these. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly better. There's an errant comma from where you removed the "edited volume" phrasing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Got this. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. The problem (and, actually, it's more than just a comma) is this sentence: "Rising from the Ashes women's narratives of 1971, was published in English in 2012, it includes oral testimonies of women affected by the Liberation War." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My grammar sucks, will have another pop at it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, also made the Pakistani reaction a subsection of the aftermath section and put it above the war crimes trials. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rising from the Ashes sentence still has issues. Removing "This work" would help at least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done this. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the long block of text here. But I know this has been to FAC several times, and I think it could use a great deal of work before I'd be willing to support it. Oppose 1a/1b at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking over the references provides additional concerns:
 * Several web sources (Das, Minegar at least) need access dates.
 * I do not know how to do that? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With the |accessdate template parameter. Some of the web sources already have these (the Adams reference from HRW, for example). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added this parameter, please tell me a bot will update them? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, a bot can't update access dates -- the access date is the date that you referred to the work.  For example, if you retrieved a web source today to use as a reference, it would have an access date of 21 October 2013.  If you don't have the access dates from when you actually referred to the web sources you used, that's fine; just review the web sources, ensure the information is still present, and set the day you did that review as the access date.  The goal is to provide an indication of when the information was known to be present at that location (since web sources can and do change). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in every instance. I'd suggest opening the Bibliography section in the editor ... anything that uses the cite web template, and anything that uses the cite news template to reference a web news source (as opposed to print news with page numbers and the like) needs an access date. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not certain if the date-lettering of the three Roy sources is correct for this reference style. Unlike the two Saikia sources, the Roy sources are not by the same author, and I believe the short-form references to those sources should differentiate by author name rather than by assigned letter, but I'd like someone else to confirm that I'm in the right here, as this isn't the format I'm most comfortable with.
 * I will get to that in a bit. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Checked on this MOS says use ABC Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree on your reading of the MOS. That is "[f]or authors who have published more than one work in the same year", but that is not true here. Nilanjana Roy, Rituparna Roy, and Srila Roy are three different authors.  The short references should disambiguate, probably by the initial of their first name, rather than with letters, which implies that the three works share an author. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that no scholarly journal publications were referenced for this article? There are several excellent sources available that would, in some cases, cover aspects of the topic not comprehensively discussed in the article as it stands, especially Mookherjee's paper in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute and Sharlach writing for New Political Science.  Economic and Political Weekly has an acknowledged left bias, but Bose's work there is probably worth considering also, given that it represents a view from the Indian subcontinent that otherwise tends to be underrepresented in journals.
 * I did not have access to them, I now do and am seeing what may be useful in them. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to oppose on 1c as well as the above prose causes, due to the incomplete survey of the literature (on the other hand, I think the reference formatting concerns are sufficiently minor that they would be able to be remedied during FAC, so do not warrant a formal 2c objection). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now covered the points you raised, any further comments? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In a good news/bad news situation, a new source has recently been published (as in, last month) that needs to be examined for inclusion.   By all appearances, it's a well-written and exhaustively-researched work, and has been positively received.  While its focus is not quite the same as this article's, I believe there's ample material in there that does reflect on the topic at hand. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the long run, I really think the best plan for this article might be to get your hands on copies of The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide and Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh and see what the article would look like using those as the most-cited "base" sources, filling in with other material as necessary to provide additional context, details, and opposing viewpoints. That might also make it easier to deal with the fact that many of the opinions and much of the prior scholarship on the topic has come from writers with strong, demonstrable point-of-view biases (which, yes, still includes Bose in my mind, but also Rummel and to some extent Brownmiller). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I dropped Rummel, I think. It will be a few weeks before I have access to the books suggested. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be weeks until you're able to get hold of sources that represent the current scholarship on the topic, then it may very well be best to withdraw this for now, especially considering that additional time will be needed to read that material, incorporate that content into the article, and copy-edit the changes, in addition to the other issues that are outstanding. I know you've said a copyedit it is in progress, but, quite frankly, that's putting the cart before the horse. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on how stridently you discount Bose as a fringe viewpoint. She is certainly a minority author, yes. She's unquestionably controversial, and her claims caused some amount of offense.  But she's not Erich von Däniken, Gavin Menzies, or Anatoly Fomenko.  It might not hurt to drop by WP:FT/N to see what the consensus opinion is regarding the significance of her opinions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Fut.Perf.
Just noting for the record that not all of the points I raised in the last round have been addressed. Open issues include, in particular: the over-long background section; general grammar/copyedit weaknesses; repetitive "pile-on" structuring with poor logical coherence (e.g. the passage about the different estimates of numbers of abortions and pregnancies in the "aftermath" section), and the question of coverage of the Sarmila Bose minority views. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Background section has been trimmed, I am still of the opinion that Bose is fringe, and to use her is a violation of WP:FRINGE Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

 * Currently the article states "The final reports [of the the Hamoodur Rahman Commission] were submitted in July 1972, but all were subsequently destroyed except for one held by the Pakistani premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; the findings were never made public." However, when I was reading this article, it refers to findings of that commission, and indeed criticises Bose for failing to cite them. What's happening here? If they weren't made public, how is Mohaiemen managing to cite them? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most cited the supplementary report which was leaked 25 years after it was written, I recall reading the full report was finally released a few years back, will have to look into it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the findings were never officially made public till it was leaked in some (probably Indian, if I remember correctly) newspaper. Later in 2000 or 2001 Pakistan officially released a part of it in public. -- S M S   Talk 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any further comments? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Anythingyouwant
I am literally sitting at a bus stop with my iPhone, and who knows when the bus is coming (it's late). But here goes....I find the footnoting Byzantine. Consider footnote "a". Click on it and you get a quotation with another footnote at the end. Click on it and you get a mere name. Then you look for the name in the bibliography and it 's not in alphabetical order. Oy vey. Getting on bus now, cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The bibliography is in alphabetical order? The footnotes have a ref, click on that and you get the name, click on that and you get the exact source used in the bibliography. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sharlach is out of order, plus I shouldn't have to click thrice to reach it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will move Sharlach now, but I do not know of another way to do the footnotes, that was the only one I have been shown. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You lost me, Sharlach is in the S's? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All the S's should be ordered according to the second letter of the last name, it seems to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The B and M sections are similarly unordered, for the record. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bum, I did not know that, will do it in a bit. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I got them all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure where/if the MOS comments on the topic, but traditional practice (and my preference) is, when dealing with multiple works by the same author, to sort those in chronological order. So the May 2011 Adams reference should come before the November 2011 Adams reference. The same goes for Brownmiller -- except here, unless I'm mistaken, the 2007 source is a reprint of material from the 1975 source in an edited collection. Is there something which requires treating them separately, or can everything just be cited to one or the other (that is to say, are the two sources actually different)?  And both the M and S names are still out of order (check Siddiqi and Sajjad regarding the latter).  T names, too (check Talbot).  And, lastly, that "East Pakistan" article from Time is nowhere near where it needs to be (also, it either needs a url to the online version or a full journal-format citation with page numbers, etc.). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * God I hope I got it this time Fixed the Time one, url and author (reporter in the field) added. Will have to check on Brownmiller, at a glance it looks to be the same. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite yet! You still have Midlarsky after Minegar; Mohaiemen, Mohsin, and Molla after Mookherjee; Sadique, Sahgal, and Saikia after Sajjad.  Oh, and short reference 31 just needs to be Coggin, not Coggin & Time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and getting into third letters seems like overkill. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And Ossifrage comes before Squeamish. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Overkill"? You use as many letters as it takes. That's simply how alphabetic ordering works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
Oppose While it's good that lots of effort has been placed into the article on this important topic, it remains well short of FA status in my view. Overall, the article reads like a polemic rather than as a serious attempt to explain what happened, and it provides a rather one-dimensional perspective. My specific comments are:
 * The background section is rather lightweight and seems to greatly simplify things. There's no serious attempt to explain the factors which lead to the rapes, and east and west Pakistanis are presented as being unified blocs.
 * Done some on this. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still very lightweight I'm afraid. You could safely double the length of this material. What led the government and armed forces of Pakistan to take such extraordinary action, and factors which could have prevented this, is an important topic which is only lightly covered. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article notes repeatedly that the rapes were pre-planned and coordinated centrally, but what this involved (which seems a key part of the topic) is never described.
 * Not sure what you are after here? Other than what I have added? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article includes the extremely strong assertion that "Historian Ian Talbot has compared the methodical planning behind the genocide to that of the Nazi Holocaust" but then skims over these apparently huge preparations. Modern writings into crimes against humanity tend to devote huge levels of attention to the chain of responsibility and methods through which the crimes were planned and coordinated, but this article has nothing like this (eg, compare this article with the The Holocaust article). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You want me to add stuff on the planning of the war? There is nothing that I have seen, nor anything other than they went in to kill as many as possible to strike the fear of god into those that were left. "kill four million, the rest will eat out of out of our hands" to paraphrase one officer. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that a historian has stated that the genocide was carefully planned that doesn't seem at all credible: if he doesn't provide details (which rather weakens his argument) follow up on the sources he provides to support the statement. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He gives none at all, so I have remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , : Talbot does provide a source. Here is the exact quote: "Indeed it might be argued that the genocide unleashed in East Pakistan in 1971 made later episodes of state repression in these provinces more politically acceptable.  What is most chilling in such accounts as those of Anthony Mascarenhas<> is not the level of the violence unleashed on 25 March 1971, but the meticulous planning which accompanied it. Parallels with the Nazi Holocaust immediately spring to mind."  (Talbot, Pakistan: A Modern History, Palgrave-Macmillan, 1999, page 33)  Have you looked at those chapters of Mascarenhas?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have Mascarenhas work. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove this material on the grounds that Talbot didn't include a source when he actually did? Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not see it, kinda blush worthy really. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Was there any opposition to the rapes within the Pakistani military and government? The article presents them as being unified bodies, which seems hugely unlikely.
 * This one is ironic, RP sent me a paper a few days ago, it has just this in it, added to article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What about attitudes in operational level Army units (especially among the rank and file and junior officers who were directed to carry out these crimes)?, and what effect did the protests which occurred have? Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not found anything on it, one officer spent a few years in the nuthouse following the war, can't recall who it was now, will review my sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem credible - there's no way that the Pakistani military operated as a horde of destructive robots, and there would have been differences between individuals, units and regions. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? And were would you suggest I find sources for what individuals thought at the time? I have added all that I have found, do you know of any sources which cover this? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What happened to the children who were adopted out?
 * Added a bit on this, but of course as they were adopted not a lot is known. D'Costa tried to track some down, she only got one E-Mail back. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The "In literature and media" section is currently a nothing more than a very partial listing of works on this topic (it includes some eye-witness accounts, but not the histories used as references). This section should provide a thematic discussion of how the events have been portrayed, including changes over time.
 * The repeated statements that the rapes attracted media coverage in the west quickly become tedious - they read like an attempt to emphasise how important the topic of the article is to a western audience of Wikipedia readers, which simply isn't needed given that the scale of the events speaks for itself
 * Will scale back on this then. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of the footnotes? a) is an emotive quote which is not placed in any context at all (including identifying who wrote it), b) is an expanded version of the quote which is already in the article, c) simply repeats what's in a referenced and online source and d) is another emotive quote provided without any clear context. The purpose of the notes seems to be to pile on just how awful this was, which seems unnecessary as it's rather clear.
 * Footnote A is due to F&f questioning what genocidal rape was, so I figured the quote would be explanatory. B, though emotive was added as I have had people question stuff like this on other articles, hence the quote. C, same as B, people will question it, hence the quote. D, it was asked above how the rape victims were seen as dishonored. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be frank, they're all unnecessary and come across as POV pushing (by repeating points already made in the article). I'd suggest removing them as there seems to be no good reason for including them. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will remove them and turn them into quotes in the citations. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropped all but one by Sharlach, I think it needed to fully explain the whole "dishonor" thing, we already had one reviewer asking why they were "dishonored", the average reader will likely also be wondering about that. Darkness Shines (talk)
 * As I'm the reviewer whose comments prompted that footnote's insertion, I'd like to point out that I don't really care for the footnote either. Like Nick-D, I feel it's somewhat redundant, which risks implication of a less neutral, more polemnical tone, a problem you have elsewhere in the article as well. And as I mentioned up in my section when you added it, that's not really what I was going at when I asked you about that section (I was fishing for you to include more about why the "heroine" title backfired so badly, which you have largely done). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite the number of reviews this article has been through I'm afraid that some of its prose is not of FA standard. For instance, "In the reasons India officially offered for intervening, it did not include any humanitarian ones, but they are today widely seen as primary" (very unclear wording which acts to confuse the chronology), "The Pakistani government had tried to censor reports coming out of the region, but media reports on the atrocities did reach the public worldwide" (wordy), " 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." (what figures are being referred to here?) and "his policy of casting the victims as "heroines" however had an unintended consequence, due to the social stigma associated with rape, survivors hid the fact that they had been raped, they received no understanding for what they had suffered and, those women who did marry were usually mistreated, and the majority of men, once having received a dowry from the state abandoned their wives" (over-long)
 * Made the Davis sentence clearer. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "In next decade and half, Bengalis became gradually disenchanted with the balance of power in Pakistan, which was under military rule during much of this time, and eventually some began to call for secession.[12][13][14][15][16]" - does this simple sentence need five references?
 * Sorted this out. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "It did not help that General A. A. K. Niazi, head of Pakistani Forces in East Pakistan, called East Pakistan a "low-lying land of low, lying people"." - how did this statement make things worse? Surely it was reflecting an existing prejudice.
 * "According to political scientist R J Rummel" - as I understand it, Rummel has a controversial reputation
 * He is also notable, and the opinion is attributed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The atrocities in East Pakistan were the first instances of war rape to attract international media attention" - not true at all. War rape had been widely reported in many previous conflicts, with the rape of Nanking being widely publicised at the time (as an example).
 * How many reporters were in Nanking when that happened? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of that question? The atrocities there were widely reported, and had an important influence in hardening public attitudes in the US (and elsewhere) against Japanese aggression. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not clear. How many reporters were in there photographing and reporting on the atrocities as they happened? These reports went worldwide, did the reports from Nanking? I am just going by what the sources says here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Critics of the United Nations have used the 1971 atrocities to argue that military intervention was the only thing to stop the mass murder" - this is the first, and only, time the UN is mentioned in the article, and it's relevance is not clear. Who are these "critics" anyway? There are lots of people and groups critical of the UN, and they're not a bloc!
 * I will check the source, but off the top of my head it just says critics. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Writing to The New York Times, a group of women said in response to women being shunned by family and husbands "It is unthinkable that innocent wives whose lives were virtually destroyed by war are now being totally destroyed by their own husbands"" - what's the relevance of this? Did the NY Times publish any letters which took a different view?
 * If this was good enough for Brownmiller to write about I figure it is good enough for us. No different views published by the NYT that I know of. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question: individual letters published in the NY Times are not significant to this topic unless they had some kind of broader influence. This goes to the point I raised above about the article excessively covering how the events were covered in the western media - given that the west did essentially nothing to stop what was happening, it's not all that important. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will drop it then. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Journalist Liz Trotta reported in 1972 from a village in the aftermath of the conflict and,[79] was one of a minority of American reporters to cover the mass rapes" - what's the relevance of this? Also, the article previously suggests that the rapes were widely covered in the international media which this appears to contradict. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made this a bit clearer, Trotta was in country after the war, very few reporters interviewed the victims at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance? All the article says that she was in the country (which is stuck at the tail end of sentence on another, and much more important topic). Also see above on the over-emphasis given to the western media. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have dropped Trotta completely. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead had already been tweaked by me here before you made your comments about the prose. (I was half-asleep after lunch when I tweaked it earlier.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS As for Niazi's public comments, of course they made things worse. There may have been prejudice among some (maybe many) occupying West Pakistanis, but when that prejudice was publicly expressed by the commander of the armed forces, it became quite another matter.  See here.  I haven't really paid attention to the article (except for the lead and background which I tweaked earlier today.), but you do realize that the background was drastically pruned recently because others thought it was too long.  I agree with some of the things you say.  See my very last comments in the first section above.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS "In next decade and half, ..." is not a simple sentence, it has a relative clause. :)  But your point is well-taken.  I was surprised by the number of cites myself.  I hope I didn't bunch them together inadvertently in my tweaking/reshuffling.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, but the input you're getting is clearly pushing this in the right direction. It might help to run this through the Military History Project's A-class review. I'm largely in agreement with Fowler (who is supporting), hamiltonstone and Nick. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have covered a great deal of what you raised, any more input? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was told to cut the background section, and now it is lightweight? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong feeling either way on that. I'm most concerned about the fact that the most important source isn't well-represented, apparently, per this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the most important source, but obviously a good one. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * DarknessShines: I haven't seen the version you were asked to prune, but I think what Nick-D and Dank might be saying is that although the background gives a quick political history of East Pakistan, it doesn't adequately explain the motivations of the West Pakistanis, why the violence was so precipitate and so brutal, why it took this form of gender violence. There is a general background, but the specific background is missing.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It took the form it did due to racism, that is in the article in the Pakistani army section. I can expand on that a bit in the background, the west did not view the Bengalis as "real muslims" Niazi (I think) said in front of a bunch of reporters, "first make them muslim" Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have covered a great many of the points you raised, do you have any further comments? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I can, I focus on prose issues, and prose is the last step. I'd like to wait until Nick is happy before I take another look; I have a lot of respect for his competence as a reviewer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you have just as much respect for my incompetence as a writer Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I get that FAC can be difficult and not at all satisfying, and I'm sorry about that. I do what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone will look at The Blood Telegram and Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh and see if those sources address some of the points under discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as I have regular net access again I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments   The article is currently being copyedited, hopefully this will fix the prose issues raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me be blunt. Is your heart really in this?  Your contributions history of the last two weeks seems to suggest that you are working on everything except this article.  Dank has already stated upstairs, as have others, that there are major sources which are yet to be incorporated in any comprehensive manner.  Among these are: 1), 2) , and 3) .  Their viewpoints, interpretations and data are essential to an article at an FA level.  I do understand that for various reasons you having difficulty getting hold of these books, but you don't seem to be particularly concerned.  I don't see you making posts at the Wikipedia sources noticeboard.  You haven't even scoured Google books for what they are able to offer.  What is the point of having the article copy-edited at this stage?  The copy-editor can't supply the missing warrants of the arguments. If they knew the material, they'd write the article themselves.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I currently only have sporadic net access, which makes it difficult to do major revisions to the article. I have ordered the Blood Telegram from my library, it will be another week before it gets here, as I had to wait a week before they would let me order it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the sporadic net access is good enough for ANI discussions, edit warring discussions, talk page discussions, it is good enough for this article. Find a library that has those books.  Make a trip to the library.  Take notes in the library.  Write up the arguments on paper or in an document editor and get as much in as you can when you do have access.  You've made more edits in 1971 Bangladesh genocide in one day than you have in this article during the entire month of October.  The other reviewers might be too polite to say this, but I'm not buying your excuses, and my patience is wearing thin.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Although this nom hasn't been open as long as some, it's attracted a good deal of critical comment and I'm afraid I don't see the issues raised being fully addressed anytime soon. I'm therefore going to archive and ask that you take whatever time is necessary to rework it away from the FAC process. Once that's done, I think another peer review would be in order before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.