This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Bengal, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Bengal. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Should this Urdu nomenclature be added to the lead? Urdu: سقوطِ مشرقی پاکستانSuqūṭ-i Mas̱ẖriqī Pākistān
Comment - Wikipedia:Lede#Alternative_names says: The lede should contain "significant alternative names for the topic ... [which] ... may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages". Is this alternative language version 'significant'? If so, why?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
General Yahya Khan fits the Wikipedia definition of a dictator, as "a ruler who does not rule through democratic means". He was the head of a martial law government which dismissed an elected national assembly and presided over military operations against the majority of his country's population. So what exactly is the problem in labeling him a dictator? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Look further down the page. The definition of dictator that is used in Game theory excludes military dictators because they require the army to achieve what they want. On a more practical level, though, there will always be wikipedians willing to fight to remove that description stating that it violates WP:NPOV, needs a citation, or whatever, so putting it in leads to making wikipedia an unpleasant place to work. So yes, it is very reasonable to call him a dictator, but the discussion of that should be in just one place in wikipedia, where it can be better defended against people who have been taught something different in school. It belongs on the page about him, not here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
How about "military ruler"? -- SMSTalk 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Well he is widely attested as the second dictator of Pakistan. He is also a dictator who presided over a major genocide of the 20th century. There can't be a case for neutrality in matters of such moral bankruptcy. The caption would have made a significant point about one of the most callous and shameful moments of US foreign policy, when the Nixon White House stood blindly by the side of this murderous tyrant, for whatever ostentatious geopolitical interests.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't there any section or article on the widespread global support and contribution for the liberation of Bangladesh? Bangladesh has honored over a thousand figures for their support, including Indira Gandhi, Ravi Shankar, Ted Kennedy, Marshal Tito, Allen Ginsberg, Edward Heath, Andre Malraux, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, George Harrison, Bob Dylan and Joan Baez among others.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Unclear statistics for Bangladeshi casualties
The information box does not give clear information on the number of Bangladeshi casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The user has been pushing blatant POV by calling the war as Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and making some deliberate factual errors without any source. When I reverted his edits he went onto revert mine, calling it "unsourced".--Zayeem(talk) 11:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Its the same war. Your sources only prove that Indo Pakistan war started on 3rd December. You provided no source to support Bangladesh liberation war. Show me one internationally reputed source or history book that mentions Bangladesh liberation war as a separate war that started prior to Indo Pakistan war in 1971. Until then stop the nationalistic colouring of a Wikipedia article and the edit wars. Don't revert uncontroversial edits with your controversial ones unless your point is settled here in the talk page. Sureshjj (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. That would do. Go ahead and change that part about the Indo Pakistan war. But don't revert all edits wholesale without discussion and documentary support. Sureshjj (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Which part? All of your edits were blatant POV where you even claimed the declaration of independence was proclaimed by Indian politicians, there was nothing constructive. Moreover, you didn't provide any single source to support your claims.--Zayeem(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this the Modi effect in action? Rewriting history is a favorite past time of Hindutva wallahs. Every single major reputed source in India and around the world calls it the Bangladesh Liberation War.--Uck22 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)