Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

The Four Phases

I haven't read the whole article, but I have to say, I feel there may be just a tad bit of bias here... "The Pakistani Army was in a dreadful condition and gradually lost the will to fight because most of their major fortresses had fallen to the allied Bengali-Indian forces. It was a matter of shame for the Pakistani High Command that a well-trained army was losing the war to the common Bengali civilians, who were barely trained and had outdated weapons. To conceal this shameful matter they launched an air attack near the Indian border on December 3 so that the real facts would remain unknown to the common people and people would say that Pakistani Army did not lose to the Mukti Bahini but to more powerful Indian armies. This led India to announce war against Pakistan officially and they started attacking near the Pakistan-India border from the 6th of December. All-out war between Bangladesh-India and Pakistan began. The agility and strategy of the Mukti Bahini, aided by Indian forces, overwhelmed the Pakistani forces and within 10 days of India's joiníng the war, the Pakistani Army was compelled to an unconditional surrender on December 16, 1971." The phrasing is pretty slanted. The "shameful act?" "So that the real facts would remain unknown to the common people." This needs to be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyrannischgott (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Agreed. How about this?

The Pakistani Army was in a dreadful condition and gradually lost the will to fight because most of their major fortresses had fallen to the allied Bengali-Indian forces.[citation needed] It launched an air attack near the Indian border on December 3. This led India to announce war against Pakistan officially and they started attacking near the Pakistan-India border from the 6th of December. All-out war between Bangladesh-India and Pakistan began. The Pakistani Army was soon defeated at many fronts and was compelled to an unconditional surrender to Mitra Bahini on December 16, 1971.

--Ragib 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... pretty damn biased. Very anti-Pakistan, very pro-India and pro-Bangladesh. Ryan Albrey (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Error?

The article says that all of West Pakistan was one provence, but earlier makes references to four provences of West Pakistan. "West Pakistan (consisting of four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and North-West Frontier Province)" verses "the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province." Which is correct? 18.51.0.194 14:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with electoral units ... the West Pakistani areas were combined to form a separate lower house of the parliament (at least that's my impression from the 1970 election results). --Ragib 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Move.--Húsönd 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Bangladesh Liberation War → Bangladesh War of Independence – "Bangladesh War of Independence" is a popular name, used in both journalistic and academic articles as well as in books. It does not carry the non neutral point of view that is implicit in the name "Bangladesh Liberation War". --Philip Baird Shearer 18:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose: "Bangladesh Liberation War" is the official name used by Bangladesh. The name is also used widely in India, and elsewhere. How do you measure popularity? How do you ensure that "Bangladesh War of Independence" is more popular? The ghit stats often quoted is close enough and not conclusive. --Ragib 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the official name used by the BD government should probably be used on wiki.Bakaman 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    But do you consinder it to be a NPOV term? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Bangladesh Liberation War is more popularly used term than Bangladesh War of Independence. I can understand how Bangladesh war of independence could be more accurate in English and specially in anglophone media, specially in the US. However, the name that Bangladeshis use for the event is "Mukti judho" where mukti means liberation and judho means war in the Bengali language. Hence when Bangladeshis term it in English, they usually do direct translation and call it "Bangladesh Liberation War". This makes more sense to local Bangladeshis and this name should get more importance as they are the ones who can relate to this event more than any other people in the world. 173.206.255.34 (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)gromell

Discussion

Add any additional comments

For an earlier discussion on the name of the article see Bangladesh War (2) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the move and nomenclature. --Ragib 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of those that expressed an opinion you were the only one against it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you haven't been able to support your arguments ... the numeric ghits argument isn't conclusive at all. --Ragib 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My main argument is that "Bangladesh War of Independence" does not carry the non neutral point of view that is implicit in the name "Bangladesh Liberation War" and as it is also a popular name it should be used in place of the current name. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I am confused on what Mr. Shearer is trying to imply here by the term "neutral point of view". How does the term Bangladesh Liberation War affect the neutrality of view in this case, compared to the term- Bangladesh war of independence?173.206.255.34 (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)gromell

Collaboration 15 July 07 - 15 September 07

War Sectors Added

I have started constructing the Liberation War Sectors table based on Banglapedia in a sandbox. I request your comments on the following:

  • Is this going to be a copy-vio if I clearly mention that the source is Banglapedia?
  • Should this go into the main article or should it be a separate list with a summary on this article?-Arman Aziz 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added the section applying my best judgement. If anyone still has any comments, please post it here - I'll be glad to make any change that would seem necessary.-Arman Aziz 10:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we can't use exactly the same copy from any source, unless we have a permission (GFDL or Sharealike) to do so. But, we can always tinker and tweak... and get steer the copy away from the copy-vio trap. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful work. The copy in the sandbox represents no copy-vio at all (I have just checked it). But, instead of incorporating it here, turn that into a separate article (yes, it's that excellent and a bit too long to become a part of any article). May be you can ask User:AA to make the font a bit smaller, and categorize the new article, among others, as a Bangladesh related list. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Two anon editors took a highly commendable attempt at improving the sectors section, which I have reverted back. Some of the information put there were better fits for List of Sectors in Bangladesh Liberation War. Besides, it was making this already way-too-long article needlessly longer. On this occasion really appeal to all participants to take care of the article size. With the existence of so many overlapping articles I don't see any reason for it to go longer. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration of the Battles

I think we should have small summaries for each of the battles, instead of simply listing them. If no one has any objection, I'm going to start work on the following:

  • Reorder the battles chronologically;
  • Add small summaries and import good images from battle articles where appropriate;
  • Add description of more battles - especially from the earlier stage of the war.

-Arman Aziz 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Instead of a list the battles should be incorporated into the respective phases of the war. And, at that these don't require summaries as such (they have their separate articles already, right?). No use making the article any longer. In fact, if anyone here wants to make this a featured article or something, the first obstacle would be its size. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It is being suggested a few points or minor sections may be merged with Bangladesh War of Independence 1971 (discuss) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muraad kahn (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

so-called liberation

Civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.57.120 (talk) 13:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This naming issue has been discussed in detail already. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Review by --Toddy1 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

References

After much searching I found two internet articles which contain much of the info that is currently unreferenced on the pages. They are [1] and [2]. Unfortunately neither is an encyclopaedia or some other sort of scholarly research, but these links in turn may provide other references. Hopefully someone will be able to work to removing the ugly tags. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.160.181 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more references for the casualties sections:

[3] - check out her publications :) [4] - excerpts from a PhD publication that show both sides of the issue esp in post-war era [5] - Brownmiller's work with numerous implicit citations and references to other sources

[http://books.google.com/books?id=QaGzA2WA_B0C&pg=PA239&dq=bangladesh+genocide&sig=ATlRBMjKdi58265FU6VNurMHjIs%7CCase Studies on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: A World Survey - Page 239 by Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Winifred Crum Ewing]

Google books has plenty of references. I am ex-wikipedian who is slightly sad to see the status of this article. I don't have the time to reference things, but I'd like to help you by at least finding reading materials that could potentially be useful. :)

65.93.54.74 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be wonderful already. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is useful. This article has become overly apologetic. We go into details of rebuttals of genocide claims without treating the proponents of the genocide claim at the same level of detail.
'Rahman demolishes Sarmila Bose's revisionist history of 1971' describes how Ms. Bose got results that are completely at odds with the commonly accepted story. A detailed version of this article will be published on Monday. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.250.99 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
May be you'd like to take a look at the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Violence of 25 March

This section either needs a rename to something like "Operation Searchlight" or it needs to be pruned to just those events that happened on 25 March. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New Map

I have added a new map, showing what I think are the troop deployments and movements (I don't believe the movements in the map I have replaced! - the Indians seem to cross too many rivers!). Please let me know if you think there are any mistakes in my map. (e.g my map says the Pak division was the 36th, but others have renumbered it the 39th). If you want me to change the picture, I can do my changes using the original Paintshop Pro file if you contact me on my user page. This is taken from some work I did about 10 years ago, and I've lost the original sources! Mike Young 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this sounds like original research. Secondly, either the map caption or the article body should explain the different symbols and numbers used, otherwise this map hardly conveys anything. Arman (Talk) 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your concerns. The work I did was not technically "orginal research" as I copied information from other sources (like everyone does writing a Wiki Article),gathering data from secondary source books (I think I have their titles, but no longer have access to the books). These books specified different numbers for the Pak units (although they seem to agree well on the Indian). Agree about the map. The symbols are internationally recognised military unit symbols, but only people with a military background will know what they mean. I will add a caption to the map (probably overlaying the actual map key in the corner).Mike Young 08:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Found the source for the data on the map: it is "Indian army after Independence" by Maj K.C. Praval 1993 Lancer Paperbacks [ISBN 1 997829 45 0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum]. The maps in the book have lots of info but are a very poor artistic quality. Have noticed some small errors have crept in (I was working on a copy of a copy), I will correct them. Mike Young 09:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
New (more accurate) version of map uploaded (with key) Mike Young 23:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Now laymen like me can understand the map. If you don't mind, I have a few more optional requests. Could you please reduce the size of the key-box a bit, so that it hides minimum portion of the map? I think this can be achieved by simply reducing size of font within the box. Secondly, could you please change the color of Muktibahini? The current pinkish color has very low contrast with the background. A brighter yellow or darker red may be a better option. Arman (Talk) 03:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Does Bangladesh have a "National colour" I can colour the Mukti Bahini units with in my map? I chose Saffron for India and Green for Pakistan, as they seem to be "National Colours" The colour must contrast with the Green and Saffron and must be distingishable if the map is printed out in Black and White. Mike Young 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Full restructure

I have done a full restructure of the article. Hope this helps. It certainly cuts down some of the repetition. Hope you like it. Mike Young 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

POV in Civil War: 27 March to 2nd December 1971?

The article goes in detail over the nomenclature debate. Calling the war "civil war" shows pro-Pakistani POV. It should be changed to something more suitable. There is also a break of logic because the immediately preceding paragraph says Bangladeshi independence day is on 26th of March. If that is true, then how is there a civil war beyond this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.161.202 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition of a civil war according to wikipedia is: a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state. I'm not touching this article because I know every word has some emotional context to it, but how is the 1971 war not a civil war? East Bengal was East Pakistan at the time and tried to secede. This is similar to how the Confederacy tried to secede from the Union in the US civil war. The fact that two parts of one country were fighting makes it a civil war. I'm not sure how this becomes a pro-Pakistani view. To a neutral it was a civil war, and to a Bangladeshi it was a war of independence. Given the definition of a civil war above, can you please explain how this conflict would not be a civil war? Inf fg (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, Bangladesh Liberation War is a war where the overwhelming majority of East Bengal had support for a war to liberate the country. Civil war was the view of the West Pakistanis. It would have been a civil war if Bangladesh was considered East Pakistan during the war. If you look at the time line of the war, it is from March 26 to December 16, 1971. The independence of Bangladesh was declared on the very first day, March 26, 1971 after the brutal Pakistani Army crackdown, known as "Operation Searchlight" on March 25, 1971. The people of Bangladesh considered East Pakistan to be Bangladesh and not a part of Pakistan and Pakistan being an Islamic Republic, had to respect the popular voice of the people. Just months before, Awami League that directed the war, won 98% of the seats in the federal election in Bangladesh, erstwhile East Pakistan. The government of Bangladesh was formed during April, 1971 so there were two countries fighting against each other, not two provinces. Hence, the war was not a civil war where political and militia organization fought against the government as it happens in a Civil War but it was a war of Independence. It is rightly called "Bangladesh Liberation War". I have heard Pakistani people popularly calling the event "Bangladesh Liberation War" instead of Civil War. It would be pro-Pakistani political view in its extremist form to label Bangladesh Liberation War as a Civil War.173.206.255.34 (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)gromell

Confederacy in US Civil war was a political and military organization with support from some elite classes in some geographical location and the public support was also scattered and concentrated on specific location. The support for the Confderates among the public was also a minority and can never be compared to the situation of Bangladesh during 1971. Bangladesh Liberation War was not just any political move but it was popular movement with overwhelming public support in Bangladesh. The people who supported Pakistan Army in Bangladesh was less than 1% of the 70 million people of Bangladesh in 1971. Therefore, it was not a civil war but a liberation war.173.206.255.34 (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)gromell

One Unit Scheme still not explained

It's still not clear how creation of the "One Unit Scheme," ie all of WP being considered a single province, actually benefited WP or the Punjabi ruling classes. There's a discussion of it here, in this talk page's archives. I have added a {{what}} tag to the article to request clarification. Bry9000 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to "A New Phase in Pakistan Politics", Stanley Maron, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 24, No. 11. (Nov., 1955), pp. 161-165. (see page 161 and 162) to see why the One-unit scheme prevented EP to get control of the legislature. --Ragib (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, great. But what are those actual reasons? Would you please summarize them here, or perhaps simply explain it in the article in the appropriate places? Thank you. Bry9000 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The gist of the argument for One-unit is something like this (per the above ref): If proportional representation in the legislature was implemented, East Pakistan, with more population than other provinces, would have gotten control over the legislature. By combining the other provinces into a single unit, the mainly Punjabi politicians and bureaucracy would be able to maintain the status quo. You can refer to the 2 pages I cited. I'll give you quotes from it when I have time (unfortunately, JSTOR provides the papers as image files, so I'll have to type the text, rather than just cut-paste the quote). --Ragib (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of this article are not based upon reliably researched documents and accounts of the Independence War of Bangladesh from Pakistan. They are based on riddled pieces of information unexplained and unproven. This article needs to vastly improved or deleted in total. -- 2:28pm, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Date removal

there has been a user by the name of "uplinkansh" who has been continuously deleting the dates. i have explained to the person that the infobox has the date of the war and the date of the individual combatants entry into the war. i have also put in a proper summary of the war. the person in question says that he has a problem with the dates but keeps reverting the whole summary. if you have a problem with a particular issue only edit that issue do not revert the whole summary that constitutes as vandalism. the infobox has the dates of the war and dates of entry of individual comabatants. Also sentinelr you have kept the dates as well but the user "uplinkansh" keeps removing the dates again and again. the vandalism issue has been forwarded to neutral wikipedia administrators. BangladeshPride (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I added prooflink this article, here - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/03/2010325151839747356.html. It says that the number of civilian casualties around 3 million people. Are you permanently delete the data and replaces the other WITHOUT prooflink. I regard your actions as vandalism.Sentinel R (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

BangladeshPride you should rather visit other War related articles on wikipedia to gain a knowledge of the format used in war articles. There is no need to add the dates of main combatant nations joining the war since it is obvious that that they started or as you say "joined" the war. Dates of other nations who joined at a later date only needs to be mentioned seperately which has already been mentioned with citiation.

Here are some of other war articles in which multiple countries fought together

As it is clearly seen only countries which joined the war at a later date or quit early have been mentioned and not of the main combatants which fought through out the war.

Moreover you are also adding large amount of unsourced data most of which is a repeat of what is already mentioned in the article to stress on certain points which you think are important constuting POV pushing. Moreover you are reverting removal of this unsourced data by other editors under the pretext of date removal.

Finally as Sentinel R said you have removed refrenced data and added unsourced data in your favour constituting vandalism as well as POV pushing.

Please note I followed wiki policy of WP:AGF assuming first 2 edits and had issued you a warning. Editors Drmies and Sentinel R had also reverted your unsourced POV pushing and vandalism on the article with Sentinel R also giving you a warning. You also had been blocked by Administrator Toddst1 for 24 hour warning period to prevent your disruption to the article.

You still edited the article not heeding any warning or blocks, breaching the WP:3RR rule. This is the second time on this article that you have breachedWP:3RR. However as you are new on wikipedia I would be warning you a second time and would ask you to revert your own uncited data till dispute is resolved as wiki policy states that articles must be reverted to the version before dispute started till concensus is reached.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the single sourced data which you had added in the summary section, please note I have not removed the data but rather moved to section 2.1 March to June section which is more proper section. Summary section should contain only the basic information of the war rather details of important incidents like formation of government. The rest of the changes made by you are unsourced repetition of detals already mentioned in the article, all of which needs to go.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Now let me talk about the changes in which you have stated that Mukti bahin and India fought East Pakistan. It seems you lask the knowledge of terminology.

You should understand that there were very few Bengali personal or regiments in Pakistan Army of that time And those who were had joined Mukti bahin. The regiments deployed in East Pakistan at that time were Western Pakistani descent ie. Punjab, Frontier Force, Sind and Baloch. To explain the terminology let me give example

  • If Israel attacks and deploys it's forces in Palestine and Hamas fights the deployed forces, it would be called "Hamas is fighting Israel" and not "Hamas is fighting Palestine" even though the war took place in Palestine.
  • If Serbia attacks and deploys it's forces in Kosovo and Kosovo Liberation Army fights the deployed forces, it would be called "Kosovo Liberation Army is fighting Serbia" and not "Kosovo Liberation Army is fighting Kosovo" even though the war took place in Kosovo.

So the war was fought between Mukti bahin and India on one side and Western Pakistan on other.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote to you, that you have removed the information for which there is evidence. 1.250.000 figure is lower than 3 million. Therefore, it is entirely between 300.000-3 million, as done now in the article. You put 300.000 - 1.250.000, and this is wrong. Do you think that you link that I led in proof lie? then write what you think is wrong. The fact that you delete this information from article regularly, and without explanation.Sentinel R (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

please do not keep reapeating stuff i have already explained that ONE of the links had 1,250 whereas the other might have had 3. pls read explanation properly before accusing someone. this issue has already been resolved, pls read the explanation that the other person gives before again trying to accuse them. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Now the article reserved. You do not like it in the form in which it exists? What do you want to achieve?.Sentinel R (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I put in a proper summary for the bangladesh liberation because the summary in the current form is hopeless. its not saying anything about bangladesh what is the point of this summary? if you want to put this sort of summary you can put it in the india pakistan war. the current summary is not discussing anything properly about bangladesh. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant that its not talking anything about the bangladesh war. if you want to put that sort of summary you can put it in the india pakistan war. the rest of my explanation is below in the next section. BangladeshPride (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your POV that "the summary in the current form is hopeless as its not saying anything about bangladesh" is totally wrong as it is pushing Bangladeshi jingoism. The article is not about "Bangladesh" but rather "Bangladesh Liberation War". Bangladesh was not the only nation who fought the war.

Moreover war article summary contains the basic information the reasons because of which the war took place, the date and conditions in which the war started and the date and result of the war end. Topics like formation for government-in-exile or people affected by the war are added in detail and aftermath section of the war articles.

I already had to give you examples for making you understand the basic things like regarding

  • Addition of dates
  • Terminology used in war

If you want more examples to make you understand the basics of wiki or war terminology I must say I am not here to educate novices. If you are an amature and lack the basic knowledge I would not go on giving examples to teach people "What is the correct format of war articles on wikipedia and how to edit pages". You don't even know which regiments from which side actually fought the war. If East Pakistan had an army which was not deployed in war and whose personals had switched sides to join Mukti bahani to fight against Western Pakistani regiments it means little. Please read Operation Searchlight for details.

Also please note no cited data has been removed but only moved to proper section.

Finally starting new sections on talk page and repeating your views would not make your point more important. The fact is you don't know the basic format of war articles on wikipedia. Please read at least 10 War articles specially involving multiple combatants to get some knowledge of format of war articles on wikipedia before discussing and editing again.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let us bring a simple end to this dicussion. Back up the type of format you want to introduce to this article with other wiki articles and I would myself add your type of format in the article

  • Give an example of a single war article on wikipedia which specifically mentions date of joining of all countries involved in a war in the "Belligerents" section, and I myself would put back the dates
  • Give an example of a single war article on wikipedia which mentions the details formation government-in-exile in the summary section, and I myself would put back the details formation government-in-exile in the summary section.
  • Cite any reliable source that states Mukti bahani only fought East Pakistani regiments and non of the Western Pakistani regiments, and I myself would put back East Pakistan as second combatant in "Belligerents" section.

But unless you do any of this please do not waste time of other editors. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the commander of the Pakistan in this war was Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi which was of Punjab Regiment.From this we can confidently say that - India and Mukti Bahin fought against West Pakistan with the West-Pakistani leadership.Sentinel R (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct Sentinel R regarding Lt Gen Niazi. People like BangladeshPride should first gain knowledge about the topic they are editing specially reading outside the textbooks of their countries.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For your information outside the text books of my country is much more accurate and truthful. the terminology you use is maybe for india pakistan war issues not bangladesh. Gen Niazi has written a book "The Betrayal of East Pakistan". BangladeshPride (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read again what I wrote. There's no word has been written about the book. Do you deny the fact that Niazi was the Western-Pakistani commander? Why, then, after the war, he and other Pakistani soldiers and commanders returned to Pakistan but did not stay to live in Bangladesh?.Sentinel R (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? he is originally from west pakistan so? he was in charge of the east pakistani soldiers. when the war was over and east pakistan was dissolved into the new country of bangladesh. what did you expect him to do? do you think we bangladehis would welcome him with open arms? and you can find his book on google.BangladeshPride (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"he is originally from west pakistan so?" - He is originally from British India. "he was in charge of the east pakistani soldiers" - He obeyed the orders of the President of West Pakistan."what did you expect him to do? do you think we bangladehis would welcome him with open arms?" - he was from West Pakistan, so when the war was lost, he returned to his native country for which he fought."and you can find his book on google" - I know about this book. question now is not about her.Sentinel R (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is getting Really boring. sorry any person can understand what i am talking about. i am not going to argue just for the sake of arguing so that i can get the last word in. pls read what i have wrote. if you want to go that far back yes he is from punjab of british india and he was put in east pakistan to direct the east pakistani soldiers. had east pakistan not dissolved he would obviously keep on living in east pakistan directing the east pakistani army. I dont know how many more times to explain. BangladeshPride (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BangladeshPride please read about the topic you are dicussing. Lt Gen Niazi was sent to East Pakistan along with Punjab Regiment, to lead the troops of Punjab, Sind, NWF and Baloshistan into the war. Moreover I asked you to produce any reliable source of Mukti Bahani fighting only East Pakistani troops. If you have any source produce it and do not waste time in discussing about "Who Wrote which book??"

Also the topic of of Hindus and 10 million has been repeated in the article at least 2 times in the following section:

There is no need to add it a third time. Regarding Dates I must tell you that they are already in proper format. Finally refrain from Dicussion Page Vandalism.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The 8-10 million hindus is a core aspect of the war it cannot simply be put into obscurity it has to be put in the intro at the beginning. if you want you can remove one of the two and i will put my one sentence in the intro. i will put my summary in the discussion page soon. I did not do any discussion page vandalism.BangladeshPride (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism in the article

I had put in the proper summary of the article but uplinkansh wants to maintain his POV. if you want to do such things you can do this in the india pakistan section. there is no need to fill in your POV in bangladesh articles. you have written so much material as explanation yet you have completely changed the original summary that had proper information to completely your pov. you keep referring to my summary as repeating stuff. i have properly summarised and explained everything in my summary yet you simply want your POV.

your arguments of the date is flawed. in majority of those cases you had multiple opponents and mulitple combatants with various dates. in this case you only have 2 combatants and the dates are clearly defined so adding one date is in no way disrupting any aspect of the info box and is extremely beneficial for the article.

secondly your argument of east pakistan is completely wrong. the east pakistan had its own army and its own administrations, the mukti bahani were fighting against the east pakistani army. using your eg. the paletinians and hamas are fighting israel whereas the east pakistani soldiers are not fighting against the west pakistani soldiers. they are fighting against the mukti bahani. your terminology is completely wrong.

i will immediately ask neutral wikipedia administrators to look at my summary BangladeshPride (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

the date in the infobox is not disrupting anything nor is it causing any issues in the article. here you go, you asked me for one article that shows the date see for yourself world war 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

this article is talking about the bangladesh liberation war. If you want to discuss everything about india you are more than welcome to do so in the india pakistan war article. This article is dealing with the bangladesh liberation war which started on 26 march.

if the article does not talk about bangladesh then what should it talk about? ofcourse it will give a small summary of the political situation at that time, will explain the refugee issue and will explain the outcome. I had put a simple summary but obviously instead of making this article about bangladesh you keep saying that i am putting a lot of detail. i did not put a novel in the intro i put a summary. furthermore i would advise you to be respectful of others in wikipedia your constant insults and attitude will get you warnings. just because a person reads 10 war articles does not mean that they are not biased. you can read a 100 war articles and still be the most biased person in wikipedia. BangladeshPride (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in the WW1 article which you gave as examples, dates of countries which fought full length of the war like
  • Germany
  • France
  • British Empire
are not mentioned. Similarly date of joining of Mukti bahani and Pakistan should not be mentioned. Also I repeat the article is about a war and not a country "Bangladesh".--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
wow what does it matter if those dates are there?
but atleast i am willing to compromise i am not the kind of guy who keeps on arguing just for the sake of it. I will put the one date in the proper format tomorrow and i will add the refugee section to the notes. i will also put the sample summary in the discussion page to read because i want to make sure that our leaders who went to prison for our cause during the war are in the summary and the banladeshi hindus who had to leave bangladesh due to the war. I have always made the article about the bangladesh war. BangladeshPride (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected

Due to excessive edit war, I have protected this article. Please resolve the content disputes in this talk page via discussion. --Ragib (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hindu bangladesh refugees

there were approx. 8-10 million bangladeshi hindus who were bangladeshi refugees in the war and settled in india. pls put this back immediately underneath the notes section. removal of this constitutes vanadalism.

I have saved the articles and the references of the refugees issue

Excerpts from the article:-

The Bangladesh Liberation War resulted in one of the largest genocides of the 20th century. While estimates of the number of casualties vary between 300,000 and 3,000,000, it is reasonably certain that Hindus bore a disproportionate brunt of the Pakistan Army's onslaught against the Bengali population.

An article in Time magazine dated August 2, 1971, stated "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Muslim military hatred."[3]

Senator Edward Kennedy wrote in a report that was part of Senate Committee testimony dated November 1, 1971, "Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands, shops and systematically slaughtered. All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad". In the same report, Senator Kennedy reported that 80% of the refugees in India were Hindus and according to numerous international relief agencies such as UNESCO and WHO the number of East Pakistani refugees at their peak in India was close to 10 million. Given that the Hindu population in East Pakistan was around 11 million in 1971, this suggests that up to 8 million, or more than 70% of the Hindu population had fled the country.

The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sydney Schanberg covered the start of the war and wrote extensively on the suffering of the East Bengalis, including the Hindus both during and after the conflict. In a syndicated column "The Pakistani Slaughter That Nixon Ignored", he wrote about his return to liberated Bangladesh in 1972. "Other reminders were the yellow "H"s the Pakistanis had painted on the homes of Hindus, particular targets of "the Muslim army" Newsday April (Newsday, April 29 1994). BangladeshPride (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes

Shouldn't the 2 navboxes in the "See also" section be moved to the bottom with the other one?--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please make the above change.--Rockfang (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:DragonflySixtyseven Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

De-orphaning Independence Day Of Bangladesh

{{editprotected}}

Resolved

Can somebody link to this article please:Independence Day Of Bangladesh.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That might not be considered appropriate for this article per WP:NPOV. There's no equivlent article for India for example. Also, more people will arrive to this article from Independence Day of Bangladesh than vice versa.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs)
?????I'm sorry, how is adding a wikilink from a text already present in the article to an article about the Indepnedence day of the same country POV? Please explain. And how does the absence of a corresponding article for India even relevant to wikilinking when an article already exists. Please create the article for India if necessary. I only added this request becasue the page was protected. And frankly this is the most senseless response I have ever seen on Wikipedia. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
nvm, I've been making too many NPOV statements lately.Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I support this request; in the line 26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh, the last bit should wikilink to Independence Day Of Bangladesh. Also, I see no reason for the italics.  Chzz  ►  15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If you supported this, then their still is a basic consensus so you didn't have to disable {{editprotected}} Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't - although the request has been done. I think the confusion here is, Spitfire19, that you keep using 'resolved', when actually the edits have still not been done - that is what confused me in the other section.
However, I don't know why the link is in italics.  Chzz  ►  19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the italics from 26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh, and the name Bangladesh - per WP:MOS.  Chzz  ►  19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, remove the italics in the line "26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh" just above the "Liberation war" section. Spitfire19 (Talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
minus Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request, grammar, dates, and such

(This section was added by Spitfire19 (talk · contribs) on 11:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC); I am now adding some inline comments  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Please note that not all measures stated below have reached consensus, only those with {{resolved}} next to them.

{{editprotected}}


1. Intro (1st P):

Resolved
per~:Due to how people speak, it is easier to start a list of things starting higher in the alphabet. (Just try yourself)
I agree, the above is clearer.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Belligerents:

  • is-:India(joins the war on 3 December 1971)<r></r>
  • should be-:India(joins war on December 3, 1971)<r></r>
per~:Unless I'm mistaken, the date format in this instance is done incorrectly.

After checking other war articles I see that the above measure is not valid. Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Intro (2nd P):

per~:Unless the army/militant group is officially called "Mukti Bahini Liberation Army" the words in parenthesis should not be included in the article.
Not so sure about this. The article on the org says, (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") - do you disagree with that translation?  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well the question is whether the official name is the Mukti Bahini or the Mukti Bahini Liberation Army Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The official name is, of course, মুক্তি বাহিনী. As this is the English Wikipedia, we would use the transliteration "Mukti Bahini", but the translation is also useful, So, that said, why don't we just go the whole hog, and put it as Mukti Bahini (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") ?  Chzz  ►  15:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
How but kill two birds with one stone and move Mukti Bahini to Mukti Bahini Liberation Army? But first I'll run মুক্তি বাহিনী through Google translate to see what it says. Spitfire19 (Talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Google can't translate Bengali, I will contact User:Pmlineditor to see if he can translate the native title since he has a userbox that says he is a near native speaker of Bengali. Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the suggested move. We would not move e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières to Médecins Sans Frontières Doctors Without Borders. I think that the existing article name is fine, and that Mukti Bahini Liberation Army should redirect to Mukti Bahini.  Chzz  ►  19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That sound's like an idea. I will do that now, but the article should still use the text "Mukti Bahini Liberation Army" instead of its current usage.

Please see #Mukti Bahini Liberation Army or Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army) for continued discussion on this topic. Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

4. #Arocities:

  • is-:Potentiallly not Neutral because it does not cite any atrocities by East Pakistan or India (If there were any). Nor does it include any information regarding any Western Pakistani press releases in responce to these atrocities.
  • should be-:{{NPOV}} (section)
per~:see "is-:"
The section looks to be well-referenced. If you can supply referenced facts to improve the balance, please do so - or supply references to support your claim that it is non-neutral.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll look into the Main article more to see if there is any additional content from it that should be in this "sub-article" to make it less NPOV. Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This might be difficult as the main article itself is marked {{{npov}} so I might not be able to find any info to make this paragraph neutral. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Intro (3rd P):

Resolved
  • is-:and the Mukti Bahini decisively defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.
  • should be-:and the Mukti Bahini defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.
per~:The use of the word "decisively is entirely a matter of opinion.
I agree.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

6. #Background (2nd P):

  • is-:On 25 March 1971, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal[9] suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment[10] in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[11]
  • should be-:On 25 March 1971, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[9][10][11]
per~:The current placement of the references in the above sentence does not follow standards. Refs should be at the end of the sentence. Also, current placement of the refs and effect on implying various things in the sentence may violate WP:NPOV.
Not necessarily, "If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence" (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations) - you would have to elaborate on why, in this case, the placement is non-neutral; I can't see it.  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The placement of a reference immediately following the word "brutal" gives a non-NPOV to the fact. The word brutal simply seemed to pop out at me because there was a citation immediately after it.
I see what you mean; the word 'brutal' is v POV, so the best solution is probably to rephrase the sentence - if that term is to remain, we should make it clear that that is the opinion of a specific report - viz. "described by website genderside watch as brutal" or something, if that can be done with due balance.  Chzz  ►  15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Such as using a footnote? Spitfire19 (Talk) 18:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd try to avoid using a footnote - before you know it, a 'controversial' article like this could easily end up with footnotes for every other sentence. Better to deal with the matter head-on within the prose, I think.  Chzz  ►  19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

7. In Addition=>Similiar issues can be found in the 3rd paragraph of #Background. Please check the rest of the article for similiar mistakes.

An 'edit semiprotected' request needs to be utterly specific, in the form of 'change X to Y' - for any more complex suggestions, please either discuss them on this page with other editors, or request feedback or a peer review.  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

8. Misc:

  • The first sentence of #Background seems like it might be using the incorrect language.
As above  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

9. #Foreign reaction should be in a different article.

As above  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Per your last comments Chzz, I will meet you at IRC(not right now though-school firewall is blocking) and discuss potential changes in User:Spitfire19/Sandbox seeing as requesting that the article be moved back to semiprotected will only relinguish it back to the edit war taking u most of this talk page. Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

10. #Economic exploitation

*should be-: deleted.
per~:There is no rferences stating this was a significant cause to the beginning of the war. There was probabably a smaller population in East Pakistan anyways. And the use of the phrase "political explotation" violates WP:NPOV especially since no references are provided even calling it such. Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No rebuttal, deleted.Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
East Pakistan had a larger population (56% as I recall). I suggest replacing "political exploitation" with "economic disparities" or other NPOV terms. --Ragib (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I did what you suggested, but It would be helpful if you could find the source showing that their was also a population imbalance between the two sides of Pakistan. Spitfire19 (Talk) 05:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only started looking for things, by the way. This article might required an extensive review in order to fox everything that appears to be wrong with it.Spitfire19 (Talk) 11:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; I have cancelled out the {{editprotected}} for now, because most of the stuff that can be changed that way has been done, and the rest needs discussion. And whilst I'm happy to chat on IRC, I recommend that you details any suggested changes on this page, so that all editors can see your ideas and make comments. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Correction - struck - when I saw the 'resolved' tags, I thought you meant that the changes had been done. I will request that the agreed changes are done, in a more concise form, below.  Chzz  ►  19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for edits as discussed above

{{editprotected}}

The above section contained ongoing suggestions up for discussion, but there are two simple, uncontroversial changes (I believe) that could be made immediately.  Chzz  ►  19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Intro (1st P):

2. Intro (3rd P):

  • is-:and the Mukti Bahini decisively defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.
  • should be-:and the Mukti Bahini defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.
per~:The use of the word "decisively is entirely a matter of opinion.

(original requests from Spitfire19 (talk · contribs) on 11:30, 26 April 2010, simple stuff moved here by  Chzz  ►  19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini Liberation Army or Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army)

Side A:

I feel that the proper use in context should be Mukti Bahini Liberation Army because it more appropriately fits the context of the article as of right now. Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Change made

Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army) has been, at least temporarily, to Mukti Bahini Liberation Army. Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


This is totally incorrect. The word Mukti Bahini itself translates as "Liberation Army". So, mukti bahini liberation army is a redundancy. I suggest using Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army), since the proper name of the force is Mukti Bahini.

"Mukti Bahini Liberation Army" would be similar to calling the Viet Cong as "Viet Cong National Liberation Front". So, please revert that change. --Ragib (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army) is a bit better compared to Mukti Bahini Liberation Army. either way it should be fine. BangladeshPride (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


I will be getting back to the discussion soon. I have been away for some time but I am going to make changes in the intro because there are many aspects of bangladesh liberation war that are core issues in the war but are not mentioned in the intro. I will be putting my summary in the discussion page soon. thanks. BangladeshPride (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we simply avoid this potential problem by stating it clearly, in the first usage, as ...civilians formed Mukti Bahini (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") and.... Reasoning: let us be perfectly accurate, and state facts, not giving any scope for interpretation of this obviously controversial issue.  Chzz  ►  03:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
alrighty then, but how do we refer to them at any other point in the article?Spitfire19 (Talk) 07:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What's the problem with using the proper name of the force in the rest of the article? I don't see any problem in the name itself ... the name "Mukti Bahini" is the proper name -- it cannot be POV in any way. Also, Viet Cong is referred to by its proper name, not its English translation. --Ragib (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

it is fine as it is, i dont see any point in making it complicated. mukti bahini (liberation army) is fine just like viet cong. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Decided to add User:Chzz's last suggestion to the article and make general fixesSpitfire19 (Talk) 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Indian Military Operations section needs expansion

The Indian Military Operations which succeeded in defeating an entrenched force in a riverine habitat in 14 days time, needs elaboration. Major military operations were the action which made Bangladesh independent. Too little information is presently available on this aspect. The Mukti Bahini freedom movement had played its important role but this has already been covered adequately.

Please outline the procedure for editing this section of the fully-protected article. AshLin (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, what "Indian Military Operations" section? Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant the "Indian involvement" section. Imho it needs elaboration as a complete military campaign is covered in just a handful of sentances while less important aspects are covered in complete subsections. Also the section has less references than it should. I have access to military history texts about the conflict. I wanted to expand it suitably within reason. As regards guidance, basically, I plan to make a sandbox page and develop the section there before placing it here for consensus to merge. Is that okay? Thanks, Spitfire19 for taking the trouble to post me a message on my talk page. AshLin (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but Imho to a large extent indian text books and indian media wholly exaggerate indian involvement in the war which to a large extent was already over. please keep in mind that we are not talking about the last week we are discussing about the bangladesh war that went on for months. if u would like to talk about indian "operations" there is already an article indo pakistan war in which indian editors have made numerous edits. pls make ur edits in that article. thanks. BangladeshPride (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What's to say he's referencing books based that are wrote or published by Indian authors/companies? And even if that's true, that doesn't mean that any Indian wrote works are inherently not neutral. The indo-pakistan war is a different subject, but only content regarding India fighting against West Pakistan in defense of east Pakistan should be included in the article, with some text relating the two wars only.Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that only military operations concerned with defeat of (West) Pakistani forces in erstwhile East Pakistan is relevant here. My aim is to provide a slightly enlarged, properly cited subsection which brings it out some more details of the military aspects of that campaign here, which is definitely within the scope of this article. I am hoping that "Assume good faith" will be kept in mind during the process. Secondly, I reiterate, perhaps unnecessarily, that this is an encyclopaedia and the content needs to be balanced, complete, accurate and all other attributes that Wikipedia has specified in its values. I understand that these principles apply to all information in the article and needs to followed by all editors, including me. Thirdly, all edits will on such an (apparently) contentious issue needs verifiability by being properly cited. The relevant sources can be checked if any mis-representation of the source is being done by me and reverted if so required. The assertions made about non-neutrality of Indian sources before a single edit is made or a reference mentioned, besides violating "Assume good faith", strikes me of non-NPOV and WP:OWN as well. I put it to you that "User:BangladeshPride" needs to keep in that in mind while posting. AshLin (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

user:ashlin before accusing someone please be sure to read what the person wrote. when you started the topic did i immediately accuse you of pov or other such things, no. i explained to you in a clear manner that you have a whole article dedicated for that purpose. next i said that indian textbooks and indian media to a large extent are partial, i did not point my accusation against any particular reference. There is already a mention of indo-pakistan war in the intro of this article which i feel should be there in the later stages of the article. but for now its there in the intro and takes the reader directly to the article where indian editors have made their edits. as i said before this article deals with the bangladesh liberation war, it talks about the indian entry at the end of the war and also has a sentence at the intro which redirects to the indian article. as such there is no use in putting anyhing further in this article. also i wanted to mention that the Bangladesh government and the Bangladeshi people are making sure that the world knows how bangladesh got its independence and the huge sacrifices made by the Bangladeshi people to get their independence. A number of media companies in Bangladesh have made documentaries of the bangladesh war and more are on the way with original footage showing the bravery of the mukti bahini and the bangladesh people. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I rest my case. AshLin (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
BangladeshPride, the reason there is a mention in it at the beginning of the article is because this war was the major reason cause to the start of the Indo-Pakistan War. Ashlin, I see you've made your point. Go ahead and expand the section, but don't make it too long. That's what the main article is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm on vacation for a week or so. Will do the edits once I get back. AshLin (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
i am unsure who has made the comment since the person did not leave a username and has deleted the time and date of the comment. regardless of why its there in the beginning it takes the reader directly to the main article. user ashlin like i have mentioned before and you agreed which was the reason you rested your case. however i must stress that if you want to add a few more edits, pls make it very very extremely short as there is already a huge main article dedicated for the india purpose. and there are points in the article which redirect the reader to the main indian article. BangladeshPride (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence - Suggestion for Improvement

We need to add some important details to this section:

  1. Name of the person who sent the telegram.
  2. The name of the post office from where the telegram was sent.
  3. The name of the students who received the telegram.
  4. The scanned copy the original declaration text written by Sheik Mujib.
  5. The scanned copy of the received telegram.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhashani (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 May 2010

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  Chzz  ►  06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence - Resolve Inconsistancies

There are some inconsistancies in this atricle, which we need to resolve:

  1. The audio (germanRadio.mp3) linked with this article says that Sheik Mujib's message was sent via EPR radio, which is in contrast with this article.
  2. The message in Major Zia's recorded voice heard in the audio:
    1. does not match at all with what is written in this article as Zia's message.
    2. differ greatly with what most people heard in radio in 1971.
  3. It is not mentioned in the audio from where did they acquired Zia's recorded message.
  4. In this article, in the text of Ziaur Rahman's message says, "At his direction, I have taken command...". We need to explain how did Sheik Mujib came to know about Major Ziaur Rahman and directed that Major Zia to be appointed as commander?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhashani (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War/Archive_3&oldid=1089872014"