Talk:Bangladesh genocide

Meat-puppetry notice

User:Wiki.arfazhxss has been recruiting editors on Reddit to edit this and other related articles as well as influence discussions and consensus building on the talk pages. Reddit link: [1]. In case, the page is deleted, here is an arhcive: [2]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: There has been a series of Reddit threads posted by u/nerdiste (A.K.A User:Wiki.arfazhxss) to swing the consensus in favor of changing "Bengali Hindu" to "Bengali" in the lead. Links: [3], [4], [5]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: The notice has been restored as it has been influencing the RfC. LucrativeOffer (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide

Should this article specify Bengalis or Bengali Hindus as the victims of the Bangladesh genocide? Malerisch (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Bengalis. While it's true that Bengali Hindus were especially targeted in this genocide, they were not the only victims—Bengali Muslims were, too. Muslims were the majority of victims according to Rounaq Jahan [6] (Though Hindus were especially targeted, the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims) and Ben Kiernan (The final toll … included disproportionate numbers of local Hindus and city dwellers, though most victims were Muslim Bengali villagers), so saying that the victims were "primarily Bengali Hindus" is also factually inaccurate.

A 2023 article by NBC News about right-wing Hindu nationalist misinformation says that calling the 1971 massacre of Bangladeshis by Pakistan an exclusively "Hindu genocide" is untrue. A recent article published this month from Hindus for Human Rights calls out the Hindu nationalist framing of this genocide.

In 2023, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution declaring the crimes committed against the Bengali population in 1971 in Bangladesh as genocide. This group is the best source for a consensus among genocide scholars—on Wikipedia, their resolutions are prominently mentioned in articles like Armenian genocide recognition, Sayfo (a featured article), and Greek genocide. The IAGS does not say that only Bengali Hindus were the targets of the genocide.

Other reliable sources on genocide, such as Gary J. Bass in The Cambridge World History of Genocide (2023) [7], Kiernan in Blood and Soil (2007) [8], Adam Jones in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, 3rd edition (2017), and Jahan in Centuries of Genocide, 5th edition (2022) [9], all identify Bengalis as the victims. (See this comment for quotations.)

This article consistently specified Bengalis, not Bengali Hindus, as the victims of the genocide for years until June 2023—when A.Musketeer started editing this article [10]. A.Musketeer has cited a 1972 ICJ report [11] and The Blood Telegram (2013) by Bass to support their position; however, neither source actually says that Bengali Hindus were the only target of the genocide.

Pages 56 and 57 of the ICJ report state that [t]here would seem to be a prima facie case to show that [the indiscriminate killings of Bengalis] was the intention on some occasions, which would constitute genocide against part of the Bengali people. (part refers to the in whole or in part phrase in the definition of genocide.) The 2023 IAGS resolution specifically cites the ICJ report and concludes that Bengalis were the victims. Besides, this 51-year-old report (contemporaneous with the genocide) is a WP:PRIMARY source and should not be relied on to represent the present-day consensus—just like it would be absurd to use the Famine Inquiry Commission as the arbiter of truth for the Bengal famine of 1943.

Bass's book says that Hindus were especially, but not only, targeted: for example, he states that [s]ome West Pakistanis scorned Bengalis—even the Muslim majority—as weak and debased by too much exposure to Hindus among them. In The Cambridge World History of Genocide (2023) [12], Bass writes that [e]ven Muslim Bengalis were seen as Hinduised and therefore unfit for Muslim Pakistan. In any case, Bass makes clear in The Cambridge World History of Genocide that Bengalis were the victims—the first sentence defines the genocide as a massive slaughter of Bengalis.

A.Musketeer has also cited the fact that most refugees to India were Hindus, but this completely ignores internally displaced persons, most of which were Muslims. Christian Gerlach states in The Civilianization of War (2018) [13] that [m]ass migration as a survival strategy was enormous; ten million civilians fled to India, mostly Hindus, and 16 or 17 million were internally displaced, mostly Muslims.

In addition, A.Musketeer has misrepresented Gerlach in Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia (2019) [14] by falsely applying Gerlach's conclusions from his chapter specifically about crowd violence to the genocide as a whole. The scope of Gerlach's chapter about crowd violence notably does not include the mass killings by the Pakistani military, the main perpetrators of the genocide, and overlaps with the persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, a separate topic. Gerlach states that number of victims of crowd violence ran probably into the tens of thousands, while he writes in The Civilianization of War that the overall death toll of the genocide was at least 500,000. In The Civilianization of War, Gerlach states that [t]here were direct mass killings by the Pakistani army, by their auxiliaries, and to a lesser extent also by Bengali formations and crowds, clearly indicating that crowd violence was a small minority of the overall violence.

There is nothing stopping this article from elaborating on the victims (including that Hindus were targeted and that most victims were Muslims) later in the lead and elsewhere. But the simple fact is that reliable secondary sources on genocide uniformly define the victims as Bengalis—without any qualifiers—and this should be reflected in the article. Malerisch (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Malerisch

I just noticed this part "In 2023, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution declaring the crimes committed against the Bengali population in 1971 in Bangladesh as genocide. This group is the best source for a consensus among genocide scholars—on Wikipedia,"

I wanted to share respectfully that, while I agree with you and Bangladeshi Editors, I would still be skeptic towards the "International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)" Because, they are mostly white and western people, who are well known to be biased towards any non white people history and suffering.

Heres one example, on Genocide of Palestinians, http://www.genocidetext.net/israel_palestine02.htm Quote, "In its recent attack on the Gaza Strip, and in its wider policies toward the Palestinian people since Israel's inception in 1948 and again after 1967, Israel has regularly committed crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, including the large-scale killing of Palestinian civilians, their forced displacement by the hundreds of thousands, their torture and arbitrary imprisonment without charge, and the imposition on the Palestinian population of the West Bank of a system akin to apartheid.

Scholarly and legal opinion is divided as to whether Israeli policies have been formally genocidal. Regardless, it is our conviction that they have been, and continue to be, too alarmingly close to ignore. With its responsibility for the continued diminishment of Palestinian quality of life, and periodic intensification of violence, the Government of Israel may be moving closer to a policy of genocide, as defined in the United Nations Genocide Convention and by Raphael Lemkin, who invented the concept. We, the undersigned members of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and the International Network of Genocide Scholars (INoGS), together with other genocide scholars and professionals, call for an end to the silence that has surrounded this subject."

Therefore, I wouldn't use their site, for citing this claim about "Hindu Bengali Genocide" or "Bengali Genocide".

Also, Remember, United Nation still haven't recognized the whole "Bangladesh Genocide" since 1971 either.

Also, these extra sources you may agree with,

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/1430/text#H0C2D52EC643C49FCA02957842552616C "(2) recognizes that such atrocities against ethnic Bengalis and Hindus constitute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide;"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/1430/text#HB26665560B314058A7D37EDC3386495C "(4) recognizes that entire ethnic groups or religious communities are not responsible for the crimes committed by their members;"

https://www.hinduamerican.org/1971-bangladesh-genocide This is American Hindu diaspora's advocacy group.

Again, my apologies, if you don't like this, however there should be another site with trustworthy about this. However, I would still want to leave it as "Bangali Genocide" as Title as you wanted, and would keep the information about "Hindu Bangali" somewhere in the first paragraph.

Thanks ~~~~ RFC Volunteer 74.12.97.59 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the IAGS on Palestine or not, surely they're a better source than unpassed House resolutions (politicians are definitely not reliable sources) or the Hindu American Foundation, which has been widely criticized for its advocacy of Hindutva? Malerisch (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI, this is not an official IAGS resolution, just a declaration by some members of the IAGS, as noted here. Malerisch (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the IAGS on Palestine or not, surely they're a better source than unpassed House resolutions (politicians are definitely not reliable sources)

Okay, Agree that.

the Hindu American Foundation, which has been widely criticized for its advocacy of Hindutva?

Take a look at its founder's tweets. [Spoiler: you guessed right. 🥲]

https://twitter.com/suhagashukla/status/1454582392203747333?s=61https://twitter.com/suhagashukla/status/1437478544981086212?s=61https://twitter.com/suhagashukla/status/1353422208677203968?s=61

I was confused about her, cause I honestly thought, Hindu diaspora in abroad would advocate justice for hindus, as there's been some attacks on them in back country ingot faith. Also Advocating for justice for hindus should not equate with hindutva 🥲

Anyways, thanks for discussing, hope it works out about this wiki. ~~~~ RFC Volunteer 74.12.97.59 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bengalis, particularly the Hindu minority, Bengali leaders and intellectuals. I haven't done anything like the research that Malerisch and some others have done, but a brief sampling of English language sources that a search of "Bangladesh genocide" led me to, speak of Hindus along with others being targets but not "Hindu genocide". Obviously these are not scholarly sources, but the fact that mass/popular sources are defining "Bangladesh genocide" this way has to mean something.
  • "Millions were killed ... Cold War geopolitics left defenseless Muslims vulnerable" (no mention of Hindus) (from The Genocide the U.S. Can’t Remember, But Bangladesh Can’t Forget| Smithsonian magazine| December 16, 2016| Boissoneault, Lorraine)
  • "The genocide began with massacres in the capital, Dhaka, on March 25, 1971, and soon spread to the rest of Bangladesh. The army had premade lists of targets, including members of the Bengali nationalists, intellectuals, and Hindus." (from EDUCATION. Bangladesh, 1971| Holocaust Museum Houston)
  • Kimtee Kundu does say "Hindu were the primary targets" but also "some civilians, protestors, leaders, and freedom fighters who remained, enduring the full brutality of the search and destroy mission …. The initiation of Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971 marked the start of genocide in Bangladesh. … the operation intended to capture activists, intellectuals, and troopers. However, they were not the only victims. Humanitarian crisis broke loose as millions of civilians endured the violent realities of displacement, financial instability, trauma, and death…. (from The Past has yet to Leave the Present: Genocide in Bangladesh| KIMTEE KUNDU 1 February 2023| Harvard Review)
  • …After 1970 elections ... a crisis ensued that culminated in a ... mass slaughter of minority Hindus, students, dissidents and anyone else in the crosshairs of the army and collaborator-led death squads. (from The Bengali blood on Henry Kissinger’s hands| Ishaan Tharoor| Washington Post. WorldView newsletter| 1 December 2023) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Editor is a volunteer for the WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to WP:RfC

• Bengali Hindus - This article was quite stable in stating the target of the genocide to be Bengali Hindus until the recent few weeks when somehow this topic became entangled with India's internal politics. Unfortunately, User:Malerisch has been misinterpreting and misquoting the sources by selective reading to reject the fact that Bengali Hindus were the primary target of the genocide. He is quoting Rounaq Jahan who doesn't specialize on this topic, neither could be claimed to be impartial considering her various affiliations with the Government of Bangladesh. Gary J. Bass has explained that there have been sophisticated attempts to cover up the targeting of Hindus.

The Indian government, from Indira Gandhi on down, worked hard to hide an ugly reality from its own people: by an official reckoning, as many as 90 percent of the refugees were Hindus.7 This skew was the inevitable consequence of Pakistani targeting of Hindus in East Pakistan—what Archer Blood and his staers had condemned as genocide.

...But the Indian government assiduously hid this stark fact from Indians. “In India we have tried to cover that up,” Swaran Singh candidly told a meeting of Indian diplomats in London, “but we have no hesitation in stating the figure to foreigners.” (Sydney Schanberg and John Kenneth Galbraith, the Kennedy administration’s ambassador to India, separately highlighted the fact in the New York Times.) Singh instructed his staff to distort for their country: “We should avoid making this into an Indo-Pakistan or Hindu[-]Muslim conict. We should point out that there are Buddhists and Christians besides the Muslims among the refugees, who had felt the brunt of repression.” In a major speech, Gandhi misleadingly described refugees of “every religious persuasion—Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Christian.”10

The Indian government feared that the plain truth would splinter its own country between Hindus and Muslims. India had almost seventy million Muslim citizens, and as Singh told his diplomats, the government’s worst fear was vengeful sectarian confrontations. By not mentioning the Bengali Hindus, India also avoided hinting to Pakistan that it might be willing to accept them permanently. And Indian officials did not want to provide further ammunition to the irate Hindu nationalists in the Jana Sangh party. From Moscow, D. P. Dhar, India’s ambassador there, decried the Pakistan army’s “preplanned policy of selecting Hindus for butchery,” but, fearing inammatory politicking from “rightist reactionary Hindu chauvinist parties like Jana Sangh,” he wrote, “We were doing our best not to allow this aspect of the matter to be publicised in India.”
— Gary J. Bass, p. 165-66: The Blood Telegram, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (2013)

There's no disagreement over the fact that there were some Muslim deaths during the war, especially those who where associated with Awami League and Mukti Bahini, but whether those killings had Genocidal intent is questionable. There is no evidence in any literature that Pakistan Army and their allies had any intention to partially or wholly destroy the Bengali Muslim population but there are numerous evidences about the Pakistani intention to destroy the Hindu population in East Pakistan. This makes Bengali Hindus the only target when we talk about 'Genocide' specifically. To help the uninvolved editors understand the context, as per the newer scholarly sources (which are especially focused on Bangladesh genocide), the acts of violence in this war could be summarized like this: In the beginning when the war started in March 1971, there were indiscriminate killings by Pakistan Army, anyone in East Pakistan would be killed regardless their religion. However, as the war progressed, the killings became more "systematic" with the specific targeting of Hindus. Gary J. Bass's book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide is the most authoritative source in this topic, given the recognition it received. In the book he explained,

the Dacca consulate was not at first clear on which victims they were talking about. Was this a genocide against the Bengalis, or against the Hindu minority among the Bengalis?

"There was clear targeting of Hindus," says Scott Butcher. "You might also talk about going after Bengalis as a racial or cultural group. It was an extraordinarily brutal crackdown." At first, in his hasty cable about "selective genocide," Blood had meant a genocidal campaign against the Bengalis overall, both the Muslim majority and the Hindu minority. (This was the same way that the Indian government used the word.) "The term ‘selective genocide,' you had an army crackdown on one set of people," says Butcher. "There was a racial prejudice between Punjabis and Bengalis. You'd hear snide remarks that these people are less religious, our little brown brothers." Some West Pakistanis scorned Bengalis—even the Muslim majority—as weak and debased by too much exposure to Hindus among them. As one of Yahya's own ministers noted, the junta "looked down" upon the "non-martial Bengalis" as "Muslims converted from the lower caste Hindus." In similar terms, Sydney Schanberg reported in the New York Times on the "depth of the racial hatred" felt by the dominant Punjabis of West Pakistan for Bengalis.

But there was mounting evidence that among the Bengalis, the Hindu minority was doubly marked out for persecution. From the first few days of the crackdown, Blood had noticed this. Many of the West Pakistanis seemed to blame Bengali nationalism and secessionism on the Hindus, even though the Bengali Muslims had overwhelmingly supported the Awami League. "There was much feeling against Hindus," says Meg Blood. "It was one way they whipped up their soldiers to do such abominable things." Butcher remembers that the Hindus were "seen as making them less pure as Pakistanis."
— Gary J. Bass, Chapter 5: The Blood Telegram, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (2013)

The International Commission of Jurists also argued for the same when discussing the genocidal intent. First they mentioned,

In any case where large numbers were massacred and it can be shown that on the particular occasion the intent was to kill Bengalis indiscriminately as such, then a crime of genocide would be established. There would seem to be a prima facie case to show that this was the intention on some occasions, as for example during the indiscriminate killing of civilians in the poorer quarters of Dacca during the 'crack-down'.
— ICJ, East Pakistan Staff Study (1972)

Then they concluded,

As far as the other three groups are concerned, namely members of the Awami League, students and Hindus, only Hindus would seem to fall within the definition of ' a national, ethnical, racial or religious group '. There is overwhelming evidence that Hindus were slaughtered and their houses and villages destroyed simply because they were Hindus. The oft repeated phrase ' Hindus are enemies of the state ' as a justification for the killing does not gainsay the intent to commit genocide; rather does it confirm the intention. The Nazis regarded the Jews as enemies of the state and killed them as such. In our view there is a strong prima facie case that the crime of genocide was committed against the group comprising the Hindu population of East Bengal.
— ICJ, East Pakistan Staff Study (1972)

User:Malerisch quoted Christian Gerlach and compared the refugee figures with that of IDPs to support his claim but not only it is an unreasonable comparison, it is also a misinterpretation of the author since in Chapter 2 of Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia: An Introductory Reader. ed. Frank Jacob (2019), Gerlach argues that Hindus and the Biharis were the main victims of the violence during the war (not Bengali Muslims).

It is very clear that only in the case of Hindu killings, there were "strong" evidence of genocidal intent and this should reflect in this article. During The Holocaust there were also non-Jew killings but that doesn't negate the fact that Holocaust was essentially targeted at the Jews. A.Musketeer (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your comparison to the Holocaust works. There is a strong consensus that the Romani Holocaust and Nazi crimes against the Polish nation were genocides, regardless of whether they're included in the scope of the Holocaust. The debate around the Holocaust is whether to include them in its definition, not whether they were genocides. Malerisch (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

See this comment for an extended response. Malerisch (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You are cherry picking from the passages. In a different argument between you and @Malerisch, Malerisch has provided same sources stating that the killing intentions was towards Bengali. & you were excluding facts to support your views. In WW2 genocide did not only happened against Jewish people, it happened against Polish, Eastern Roma's.

Also there is not statistics that majority of killed people were hindus. Your saying "some muslims were killed" have no sources. Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, there is no source which says Pakistan Army had an intention to partially or wholly destroy the Bengali Muslim population but there are numerous sources about the intention to destroy the Hindu population of East Pakistan.

Gary J. Bass has explained that Hindus were the main victims as they constituted 80-90% of the refugees leaving East Pakistan. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_genocide&action=history

Why you @A.Musketeer have removed my answer? why you hide other peoples answers?

SMH

Hey guys, @Louis P. Boog@Malerisch@Two Smoking Barrel

Look he switched and removed my answer smh 74.12.97.59 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Now I did revert back, it is at the end of this section.

But why someone have to revert someones answer, if they think, they can prove it? Why they need to remove? 74.12.97.59 (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

According to both J. Bass & ICJ, Bengalis's were targeted. Pakistan had intention to kill or subdue all Bengalis. Hindu population was a priority but not only. You are excluding again. @Malerisch has already provided supported source from Bass & ICJ. Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You mind to have a look on this article https://ia802601.us.archive.org/19/items/the-blood-telegram-nixon-kissinger-and-a-forgotten-genocide-pdfdrive/The%20Blood%20Telegram_%20Nixon%2C%20Kissinger%2C%20and%20a%20Forgotten%20Genocide%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf, he is claiming, "it was 80% of Refugees were Hindus"?

His reply is quoted below,

Check page 267, and also 147-48, in your link. As per Gary J. Bass, both the Americans and Indians had the same assessment regarding Hindus being the main victims who constituted 80-90% of the refugees. First read the full book carefully then come here to object. A.Musketeer (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

74.12.97.59 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

See my response above. It's true that most refugees to India were Hindus, but this ignores the fact that most internally displaced persons were Muslims. And the number of IDPs (16 to 17 million) exceeded the number of refugees (10 million). Malerisch (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@74.12.97.59, I didn't remove your reply, I just moved it to the discussion section below because replying to the !votes are making it difficult for the closer to read through. Your objection also lacked substance because you didn't even read the full book which is why you couldn't find the refugee figure as I mentioned in my reply. @Malerisch measuring refugees and IDPs in the same manner is a poor judgement. Hindus were leaving the country because they were attacked by Pakistan Army as Gary J Bass stated, Muslims were displaced due to the disruption but they didn't have to leave the country. Quite similar to what's happening in Myanmar where Buddhist Rakhines were displaced but Muslim Rohingyas have to leave to their country as refugees following the Rohingya genocide. A.Musketeer (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that refugees and IDPs are entirely equivalent, but I think it's misleading to cite just the number of refugees as evidence that "Hindus were the main victims", a statement that is contradicted by Gerlach (Figures are lacking about important population groups such as Hindus and Bengali Muslims) and Jahan (Though Hindus were especially targeted, the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims). I don't think Bass ever says that Hindus were the majority of victims either, only that Hindus were targeted.

More importantly, we shouldn't be analyzing refugee numbers to determine who the victims of a genocide were, which would be WP:OR—what we should be doing is seeing how reliable sources, like the IAGS, define the genocide. Malerisch (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not WP:OR. Bass has repeatedly stated about the Hindu targeting by referring to the refugee numbers. For example,

The Indian government, from Indira Gandhi on down, worked hard to hide an ugly reality from its own people: by an official reckoning, as many as 90 percent of the refugees were Hindus. This skew was the inevitable consequence of Pakistani targeting of Hindus in East Pakistan—what Archer Blood and his staffers had condemned as genocide.
— Gary J. Bass, page 165: The Blood Telegram, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (2013)

---A.Musketeer (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Being especially targeted is simply not the same as being the majority of victims.

This isn't WP:OR since it's justified by Bass:

• Hindus were especially targeted because the majority of refugees were Hindus.

These are WP:OR (and also false) since they're not justified by Bass:

• Hindus were the majority of the victims of the genocide because the majority of refugees were Hindus.
• Hindus were the "only" victims of the genocide because the majority of refugees were Hindus.

Malerisch (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Bengali Hindus. I do note that it is not really incorrect to say "Bengalis" were targeted and killed by the Pakistani military and its allies since the Hindus living in this region were essentially Bengalis, but in my opinion, it would be a gross oversimplification since, according to the reliable sources, we do understand that among the Bengalis, Bengali Hindus were specifically targeted. If there is an opportunity to present a more accurate picture instead of an oversimplified description, I would always choose the former. I tried my best to go through the responses here and I could not find a single response, quotation, or a source that refutes the targeting of Hindus by the Pakistani military, hence, my first preference would be to specify "Bengali Hindus". Although, a plausible compromise could be — "Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus", as some editors have suggested, if that helps reach a consensus. Nomian (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  *Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus. Agreed with Nomian's explaination. 74.12.97.59 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem with "primarily Bengali Hindus" is that it implies that the majority of victims were Bengali Hindus, which is simply not supported by sources. Rounaq Jahan states that [t]hough Hindus were especially targeted, the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims – ordinary villagers and slum dwellers – who were caught unprepared during the Pakistani army's sweeping spree of wanton killing, rape, and destruction. According to Ben Kiernan, [t]he final toll, variously estimated from 300,000 to well over 1 million, included disproportionate numbers of local Hindus and city dwellers, though most victims were Muslim Bengali villagers. Malerisch (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to be the most rational way to convey the message, especially since the targeting of minorities has already been noted in other parts of the page. Shohure Jagoron (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Shohure Jagoron, could you edit your comment to make your position more explicit? It's not clear what you are agreeing with. According to your comments below, your position seems to be "Bengalis". Malerisch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bengali Hindus are the victims of the Bangladesh genocide. The Hindu population was over 20% of the total population of East Bengal but it dropped to below 13% as a result of the genocide in 1971. A book was launched recently by ThePrint named 'Being a Hindu in Bangladesh' mentioning this incident. The book is published by HarperCollins. Shubhrojeet (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Link the source, please, so we could read. 74.12.97.59 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bengalis: Bengalis part of Independence Movement were indiscriminately targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:408a:841c:b637::c45:e0ad (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Bengalis per User:Malerisch above. Volunteer Marek 07:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • I was pinged to this discussion but honestly, I've been active on this article way before most people here had Wikipedia accounts. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus Maybe we can write it like this. This will point both the things. Bcoz sources says that Bengalis were targeted and specifically, Bengali Hindus and Bihari people were killed with intention of ethnic cleansing. We have also read that at times Bengali Muslim women were let go, but when it came to the Hindu women and children then women were mass ra*p*ed in front of their children and later both were killed. ShaanSengupta^Talk 06:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It should state "Bengalis" only, full stop. As a Bengali Muslim who knows of other Bengali Muslims who were murdered in the genocide, its insulting that an Indian Hindutva extremist such as yourself claim that it should state "Bengali Hindus". You dont have a single family member or relative who was even involved let alone killed in the genocide. The movement for independent Bangladesh was led and primarily supported by Bengali MUSLIMS, as is evident from the history with most of the mukti bahini and awami league being muslims. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @CorrectionalFacility101 goona keep this short. This is an RFC where people come and put forward their views related to the topic based on facts. You too need to do just that. And try to have some civility when you talk to others. You labeling me as something doesn't make sense. Rather you are just digging a hole for yourself. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Shaan Sengupta If Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus seems to strong, how about Bengalis, especially Bengali Hindus? (RFC volunteer) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Louis P. Boog, I don't think there is a major diff between the two. Also I can't understand why are Bangladeshi editors not understanding the difference between War and Genocide. They repeatedly say that Hindus were not the only one killed. Agreed, in war no one is spared. But in this it is about genocide which was of Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, @Malerisch @Louis P. Boog @CorrectionalFacility101 I was about do agree with you as a Bangladeshi Hindu, And I do acknowledge that, this cite was vandalized by that specific group of people. However,

  Would you mind to give some insights, about, "Why using Hindu Genocide is not okay", in Bangladesh Genocide, while, keeping mentioning about muslims, students, protesters getting killed during that time?

  Because, as @Shaan Sengupta said, why Bangladeshi editors are unable to understand the difference between Genocide and War? Let me pull up some definitions,

  Genocide: The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. Source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

  War: War is a phenomenon of organized collective violence that affects either the relations between two or more societies or the power relations within a society. War is governed by the law of armed conflict, also called “international humanitarian law.” https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/war/#:~:text=War%20is%20a%20phenomenon%20of,called%20%E2%80%9Cinternational%20humanitarian%20law.%E2%80%9D

  According to these definitions, War is usually doing lots attacks, harms on a group of people, this is what, Pakistan did that to Bangladeshi people. And Genocide, is killing, ethnical cleansing a group of people of ethnic, or religion, or race, or religion.

  As here, debate is, whether this article be "Genocide of Hindu Bengalis, or all Bengalis, while we know, there were lots of hindus.

  I can say, "Hindu genocide did indeed happened."

  However, one point still comes in mind, is, how about "Students, Professors of Universities, and other people who were fighter for us? Martyred Intellectuals Day (Bengali: শহীদ বুদ্ধিজীবী দিবস, romanized: Śôhīd Buddhijībī Dibôs)? Martyred Intellectuals Day and Operation Searchlight? Operation Searchlight

  So, @Shaan Sengupta, for you too, I would want you to explain, why this two, would not be considered as Genocide here? As far the definition of Genocide by United Nations? Please give insights on this too.

  I as a Volunteer of RFC as Bangladeshi Hindu, and who have studied in Geography, Geopolitics, and Social Science and Justice in university, would appreciate all of your insights on those respective questions I have asked. Thanks. 74.12.97.59 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  All these things are mentioned in the sections though very briefly. I don't have to explain as to why is ut not written. I tried correcting this once but left the article bcoz of people not wanting to discuss gently and rather accusing of propagating propaganda. ShaanSengupta^Talk 06:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  You mind to let me know, are you not okay to mention that part? Martyred Intellectuals Day (Bengali: শহীদ বুদ্ধিজীবী দিবস, romanized: Śôhīd Buddhijībī Dibôs)? Martyred Intellectuals Day and Operation Searchlight? Operation Searchlight

  I mean, let's keep both this and "Hindu Genocide" as you wanted to keep? 74.12.97.59 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't want to keep it "as I wanted". I want it to be correct. I would be happy if everything is given due mention. Which includes students professors and all those who fought on directions of Bangabandu Mujib-ur-Rahman and were mercilessly killed by the occupying forces with the motive of ethnic cleansing. But maybe if I am not wrong, students and professors were killed bcoz they were fighting from Mukti bahini in war and not bcoz of their identity. I once again say I may be wrong and if I am please correct me, just I am not replying again bcoz I am busy for some time now. ShaanSengupta^Talk 06:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the following in an earlier thread: I'm not arguing for scrubbing this article of any mention of the targeting of Hindus, which is clearly very relevant to the genocide—just that the genocide's victims weren't solely Bengali Hindus. I absolutely think the article should mention Hindus, but it shouldn't say that they were the only victims of the genocide, like the article does now. So something like Two Smoking Barrel's comment above could work—the first sentence defines the genocide's victims as Bengalis, and another part of the lead can mention specific targets, like Hindus.

However, I'd oppose using the exact wording of Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus or Bengalis, especially Bengali Hindus in the first sentence—the IAGS and other reliable sources I mentioned don't hedge their definitions like that, so I don't think this article should either. Malerisch (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your input.

However, I am not sure, as what I am getting on those sentence meaning as is,

1. "Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus": This phrase suggests that the majority of the Bengali population is composed of Bengali Hindus. It implies that Hindus make up the primary religious group within the broader Bengali community. However, this wording doesn't exclude the presence of other religious or ethnic groups among Bengalis.
2. "Bengalis, especially Bengali Hindus": This phrase acknowledges the significant presence of Bengali Hindus within the Bengali community. It implies that while there may be diversity within the Bengali population, the focus or attention is particularly on Bengali Hindus. This wording recognizes the importance of the Hindu community in the context being discussed.

However, to maintain neutrality and providing correct facts, contexts are important right, So, would you be okay to use this below, instead of those exact wordings you are opposed to? Here are examples for the two cases you mentioned:

1. For "Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus":
   • "The Bengali population, which included a significant proportion of Bengali Hindus, faced..."
2. For "Bengalis, especially Bengali Hindus":
   • "The Bengali community, with a notable presence of Bengali Hindus, experienced..."

Thank you for discussion. ~~~~ RFC Volunteer 74.12.97.59 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus or any of the variations you mentioned need to be used at all. Shaan Sengupta is saying (if I understand correctly) that the article should start with something like The Bangladesh genocide was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus, residing in East Pakistan…, while I'm in favor of something like The Bangladesh genocide was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis residing in East Pakistan…. Malerisch (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Malerisch you have misunderstood me here. I said to use Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus in infobox for target. The lead should be written with proper mention of every victim. By victim I mean everone whether native Bengalis as whole, Biharis and all others. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay—what do you think the first sentence should be then? Also, while I think Biharis should be mentioned in this article since it's important context, no source that I've found includes the persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh in its definition of the Bangladesh genocide (see this previous RFC). Malerisch (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Malerisch I am not going deep into whether to add Bihari. I just gave it a passing mention whose worth should be considered. I don't know what the first sentence ideally should be, bcoz Bengalis as whole will contain Hindus Muslims and all others, While Hindus were killed bcoz of their religion, Muslims were killed bcoz they fought for independence and according to a Pakistani army man (source mentioned in article) Pakistan thought that Bengali culture has corrupted their (Muslims residing in Bangladesh) mind, so they were to be killed. Both deserve mention. At the same time sources also say that some Muslims were not killed and were let go, but same was not the case with Hindus. The women were gang-ra'p'ed sometimes in front of their family (later killed) sometimes they were kidnapped are taken to West Pakistan as slaves and Hindu children were killed mercilessly. So everything needs to be evaluated. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You are saying as that only Hindu women were being raped. Are there any citation for that? When Pakistani Army raped women, they did not care for their religion. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/apr/03/52-years-bangladesh-birangona-women-mass-rape-surviviors

In this article you can read from a rape survivor of her experience & they were raped because Pakistani army wanted to put "blood from the west". Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Two Smoking Barrel please don't misquote. I wrote The women were gang-ra'p'ed sometimes in front of their family (later killed) sometimes they were kidnapped are taken to West Pakistan as slaves and Hindu children were killed mercilessly. I said women were gang-ra'p'ed not Hindu women which means in general women. Please read carefully. ShaanSengupta^Talk 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it was a mistake from my side. Sorry for that Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed, some possible bias towards Muslims, and their relationships [Friendships, Professional, Coworkers, Neighbours] in this statement below,

While Hindus were killed bcoz of their religion, Muslims were killed bcoz they fought for independence and according to a Pakistani army man

Okay, so are you assuming, Muslims weren't caring about those Hindus that time? They did cared is why, they joined them. If Not, they would be fine with Bangla being in Arabic letter and be in Pakistan.

They clearly weren't okay all those, they were seeing, their Hindu friends, coworkers getting killed. Is why they joined them. I know, a lot of muslims didn't cared about Hindus that time. But they weren't majority, then those Muslims who cared and joined with Hindus.

Also Noticed a reddit post, why your editors are shaming Bangladeshi editors in this reddit post? they even mocking Bangladeshis with wrong accusations? Even in Comments too? https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/18fwbj4/the_main_targets_of_the_1971_bangladesh_genocide/ I would like to mention with that part in the comments, "Bangladeshis don't acknowledge and care about Hindus attacks" "Bangladeshis Hating Indians"

This is generalization. There's an example post about recent Hindu Attacks, a lot of them in this post acknowledge it, and criticized the Jamat, who is the Proxy of Pakistani Extremists (I think so). They are the ones doing most attacks. So, Not all Bangladeshis are attacking Hindus, only a lot of people in this Jamat are doing a lot amounts of attacks on them. https://www.reddit.com/r/bangladesh/comments/18kmogc/3_hindu_temple_attacked/

Also, no Bangladeshi Muslims are Hating Indians, Indian Hindus. They are criticizing the specific group of a rightwing political agenda.

I had to mention this to bring attentions to Mods and Amins, as there's lots of Generalization and some possible Bias noticed,

1. Possible bias towards Muslims and their relationships with Hindus that time
2. Reddit post by editors here to talk and mock about Bangladeshi editors on this article
3. And Generalization about, Bangladeshi Muslims opinions on Hindu Attacks and this war history.
4. And Generalization about, Bangladeshi Muslims on Indians.

~~~~ RFC Volunteer 74.12.97.59 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• It should say "Bengalis" because both were targeted based on their support for a Bengali state, which was a movement primarily led and supported by Bengali Muslims. Its pretty insulting as a Bengali Muslim, who knows of other Bengali Muslims who were murdered by the genociders, to see an Indian Hindutva extremist "Shaan Sengupta" say that it should actually only state "Bengali Hindus". CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @CorrectionalFacility101 better don't misinterpret. I said Bengalis, primarily Bengali Hindus and not just Bengali Hindus. Learn the difference. Also from what you have labelled me, the next time you do so, I shall go to the admins to check if you have violated WP:NPA, and if you have then you are dealt with as per rules. Also to note a user who was regularly active last edited on 22 October and suddenly comes to this talk page discussion. Uses the same language as the blocked sock. Is this user also part of the people who came here from that reddit post? WP:Canvassing ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  What evidence do you have to suggest primarily Bengali hindus were targeted? Every source points towards a mass murder of Bengalis in general. Agentmemestar (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Once again a user logs in and directly comes to this discussion. Shall we apply WP:ARBECR bcoz recent discussion on this talk page has seen WP:CANVASSING and WP:MEATPUPPETRY. ShaanSengupta^Talk 02:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  I simply asked you what historical evidence do you have for such a ridiculously misconstrued claim given that all international bodies say it was a mass murder of Bengalis in general. If you simply can’t answer something as easy as this without talking about technialities then it seems like you’re being disingenuous and very dishonest. Agentmemestar (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Agentmemestar Sources pointing towards both arguments are already mentioned in the above sections. Adding them here once again will just make this discussion Too long to read which I think wouldn't be beneficial. If you want you can read the above discussion. ShaanSengupta^Talk 05:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  In above thread @Malerisch has provided sound arguments with valid citations why it should be Bengalis in first line then mentioning special targets among those Bengalis such as hindus, students, intellectuals. If you notice both arguments, you can clearly see that other user was excluding facts from same article to support his view where as @Malerisch was including to support his. They both were providing same article to support their view, but one of them was cherry picking & other was including all facts. I hope moderators will take notice of this. Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bengalis 27.147.201.20 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bengalis, agree as well. 2001:569:6FE8:DAB:D941:E2EF:4A90:F615 (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Modarators should be aware of this hindu right wing propaganda. 27.147.201.20 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree, this seems to be very clearly pushed by people of a certain political leaning for not-so-historical purposes. Shohure Jagoron (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  It was only Bangalis, NOT Bengali Hindus or Bengali Muslims. 2001:569:6FE8:DAB:D941:E2EF:4A90:F615 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  agreed Shohure Jagoron (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bengalis. Some individuals within the right-wing community in my country label the 1971 massacre of Bangladeshis by Pakistan as a solely "Hindu genocide," a claim that lacks accuracy. Lionel Messi Lover (talk)
• Bengalis, Muslims and Hindus alike were targeted. The genocide occured due to West Pakistan limiting the usage of the Bengali language in public and professional settings. This was a genocide based on culture, not religion 2603:7000:7800:13B6:7124:3BAA:C709:AAF4 (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  This was a genocide based on culture, not religion

  I disagree this last part. It was genocide of 4 things of Bangali. These are:

  1. Language: This was primary and main reason, they wanted to abolish our Bengali Language and replace it with their Urdu language. We didn't wanted, protested, is why.
  2. Culture: This is secondary . Our culture was different than them, don't follow Arabic like culture they follow. They wanted us to follow that, we protested that.
  3. Religious and Identity: They wanted to reduce population of Non-Muslims, here, which already had Hindus as large minority groups. And they claimed Muslims here to be fake, influenced by Hindu culture.
  4. Political and Economic Power: They didn't wanted use to control the whole West-East Pakistan.

  All these are the reason, after lots of protests by us, they suddenly started many massacre missions, such us, Operation Searchlight, etc, to destroy our power, they killed our scholars, to prevent amazing political leaders in our place. And these caused death of many people. And list of people died are:

  • Hindus (Largest Minority), Christians, Buddhists.
  • Bangladeshi Tribal people.
  • Woman
  • Students and Protesters.
  • Faculty staffs and profs of universities.
  • People who weren't happy with their neighbours, friends, coworkers getting killed without no reasons. And many who sided with all those people above.

  So, While largest minority group, the Hindus were targeted, there's still lots of people in diverse groups who were killed too. 74.12.97.59 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Gary J. Bass has explained that Hindus were the main victims as they constituted 80-90% of the refugees leaving East Pakistan.

Objection Objection, this is hearsay.

Around 65–70% of the refugees who came to India in 1971 were Hindus, understandably, Hindus formed a major portion of the genocide victims. However, this percentage aren't accurate, as there's no credible evidence on this.

Also, you need to share the readable version of this "— Gary J. Bass, Chapter 5: The Blood Telegram, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (2013)" Since, you haven't shared the readable version, instead wiki of the book, this is not credible. Please share the readable, so we can read the whole pic, not just quoted part. Thanks -RFC Volunteer 74.12.97.59 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I did checked the readable version,

https://ia802601.us.archive.org/19/items/the-blood-telegram-nixon-kissinger-and-a-forgotten-genocide-pdfdrive/The%20Blood%20Telegram_%20Nixon%2C%20Kissinger%2C%20and%20a%20Forgotten%20Genocide%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf

This don't mention, what percentage of Hindus were in refugees. Therefore, "Gary J. Bass has explained that Hindus were the main victims as they constituted 80-90% of the refugees leaving East Pakistan." statement is hearsay, missing in the PDF. 74.12.97.59 (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Check page 267, and also 147-48, in your link. As per Gary J. Bass, both the Americans and Indians had the same assessment regarding Hindus being the main victims who constituted 80-90% of the refugees. First read the full book carefully then come here to object. A.Musketeer (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there seems to be no indication that would disqualify one or the other, and so it’s most logical to leave it as “Bengalis” Shohure Jagoron (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bengali Hindus While more Russians died in WW2 than any other grouping we don't say that Russians were victims of The Holocaust. Jews were victims of The Holocaust. Not everyone who dies in a specific conflict are victims of genocide. In this conflict Bengali Hindus were victims of genocide. TarnishedPath^talk 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Bengalis - especially Hindus and intellectuals: While Hindus were definitely a primary target, it would be reductive to single them as the only target when many other Bengalis including non-Hindus were targetted for political affiliations and intellectual status.

Professor of Sociology in the University of Rajshahi, Wardatul Akhmam notes in a peer-reviewed paper that West Pakistan killed indiscriminately, but with five primary targets:

(1) Bengali military men (for having the training to resist Pakistani forces)

(2) Hindus (viewed as manufacturing the liberation movement to undermine Pakistan)

(3) Awami-League members (for winning the 1970 election, threatening West Pakistan's domination)

(4) Students (for playing significant role in anti-government movements)

(5) Bengali Intellectuals (seen as guiding the liberation movement)

I've included the full section listing these targets below (from page 549-550 in Journal of Genocide Research, volume 4, issue 4):

Although the army of West Pakistan killed and burned indiscriminately in order to terrorize all the people, they had some specific targets (Jahan, 1995, p 378; Mascarenhas, 1971, pp 117–118; Payne, 1973, p 20). According to Mascarenhas, the following were the main targets. (1) The Bengali military men who were in “the East Bengal Regiment, the East Pakistan Rifles, police and paramilitary Ansars and Mujahids.” The obvious reason for them to be targeted is that they were the only available trained groups that could resist the army of West Pakistan (Mascarenhas, 1971, p 117). (2) The Hindus (because they were considered by the West Pakistanis as the “subverts of Islam and agents of India,” the country which was engineering the movement of autonomy to force the disintegration of Pakistan; Costa, 1972, p 56). Moreover, with the extinction of Hindus in East Pakistan it would be easier to get rid of the Hindu cultural traits still practiced by the Bengali Muslims. (3) “The Awami Leaguers—all of office bearers and volunteers down to the lowest rank in the chain of command” (Mascarenhas, 1971, p 117). This was the party which, after winning over-whelmingly in the 1970 elections, duly demanded transfer of power, which would have ended West Pakistani domination. Therefore, people belonging to this party were to be crushed. (4) Students of colleges and universities who played a significant role in anti-government movements. And (5) Bengali intellectuals: intellectuals were thought to be the ones who guided the independence movement.

Specific massacres also point to the other groups being targeted like the 1971 December killing of Bengali intellectuals and the 1971 Dhaka University massacre.

While intellectuals, military men, political leaders, and students may not be a distinct national, ethnic, or religious group like Bengali Hindus, all of them show that Bengalis in general were the target. While I think intellectuals are significant enough to include too, if the consensus is that Hindu targets should be emphasized as the primary, then that should be alongside Bengalis as a whole (Bengalis, especially Hindus). InterDimensional14 (talk · contribs) 08:17:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 

This is incomplete and hence deeply flawed. Most noteworthily, the Bengali urban slum dwellers who were killed rather indiscriminately and fit in none of these subcategories. They formed the greatest bulk of all the deaths in sheer numbers. MrMkG (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm unsure what you mean by incomplete?

The author notes that West Pakistan killed Bengalis rather indiscriminately, which you can see at the beginning of the quote box. To clarify, I oppose only writing "Bengali Hindus" as the target like the current iteration of the article has. I would prefer simply "Bengalis" to be all-inclusive. However, that doesn't negate that West Pakistan had some specific targets in mind, such as the Hindu population, Awami League members, student protesters, intelligentsia, and military men.

Since the West Pakistan army had a specific intent to target them, I think it's worth including an additional note beside "Bengali" mentioning them. InterDimensional14 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'd like to retract my original proposal in favour of just Bengalis.

My intent of listing the five primary targets (as highlighted by a Bangladeshi scholar) is to show the diverse group of targets beyond just Bengali Hindus, showing that Bengalis as a whole would be more appropriate to highlight. Initially, seeing how many folks were highlighting Hindus as a specific target, I thought it'd be appropriate to include "especially Hindus". But given how many other targets there were, I think it's more appropriate to just say Bengalis broadly since it's all-inclusive and includes the Hindu population. It would also be more accurate to the death toll which includes all Bengalis, not just the Hindus.

I think each of the targets I highlighted -- military men, Hindus, Awami League members, student protesters, and intelligentsia - should be mentioned in the lead alongside the indiscriminate killing of Bengalis more broadly.

I think the targetting of military men from the East Bengal Regiment / East Pakistan Rifles is something that's been neglected in this article even before the debate about Hindus being the only target. The paper I referenced is a good source that highlights this. And while I acknowledge that anecdotes aren't exactly academically rigorous, my own grandfather was targetted for execution by West Pakistan for defecting from the army. He was an East Pakistan army doctor. Another army member warned him that West Pakistan was killing East Pakistan military men, so he and the rest of my family had to flee their homes to avoid capture. InterDimensional14 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is what I had meant. Thank you for your reflection, User InterDimensional14. MrMkG (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Bengalis, Mr. Malerisch has succinctly noted down the gist of the matter. Due to a busy schedule, I was unable to follow through as I had intended therefore I commend Mr. Malerisch for his work and effort. I will make one additional point to all that has been said. In regards to User A.Musketeers argument. It is wafer thin standing majorly upon false equivalence between quotations of people in a book and the scholar Gary Bass's assessment. It is abundantly clear both implicitly in the general narration and occassionally explicitly as inThe Cambridge World History of Genocide, Bass recognises and assess the overarching targets to have been Bengalis generally. User A.Musketeer has quoted parts of the book's narrative in sections where Hindus are mentioned devoid of the overarching context usually depicting some specific reactions, comments and the lile of diplomats, et al, like Archer Blood and Scot Butcher at the time of the genocide. Besides, Gary Bass is not the only scholar. Other were brought up by me as well as by many other both pior and after me. Mr. Malerisch has provided a short and concise overview of the other scholarship as well where there is a obvious and clear unanimity as to who the overarching targets were, Bengalis generally. MrMkG (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is simply not true. While Gary J. Bass's book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide contains several statements from American diplomats and reporters, the excerpts that I shared from the book also included Bass's own words. For instance, he said, The Indian government, from Indira Gandhi on down, worked hard to hide an ugly reality from its own people: by an official reckoning, as many as 90 percent of the refugees were Hindus. This skew was the inevitable consequence of Pakistani targeting of Hindus in East Pakistan".

"Bengali" and "Bengali Hindu" are not mutually exclusive terms and can be used interchangeably. It's very easy to misrepresent the sources by quoting cherry-picked sentences which is why I shared the full excerpts in my comment above to show the entire context. That is a complete opposite to what Malerisch did by quoting cherry-picked sentences out of context. For instance, he quoted this sentence from Bass's book — "Some West Pakistanis scorned Bengalis—even the Muslim majority—as weak and debased by too much exposure to Hindus among them" to falsely claim that Muslims were also targeted in the genocide but refrained from quoting what Bass added few sentences later, But there was mounting evidence that among the Bengalis, the Hindu minority was doubly marked out for persecution. Again, the full excerpt can be seen in my comment above.

Gary J Bass may not be the only scholar but his scholarship in this topic is by far the most recognized among all the sources discussed here. Christian Gerlach in Chapter 2 of "Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia: An Introductory Reader" also talks about Hindus being the target of the violence but doesn't mention Bengali Muslims being a target. In fact, there is no reliable source discussed here that has ever mentioned Bengali Muslims as a target of the genocide but almost all of them mentioned Hindus as such. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've previously made this point, but why do you think a previous domestic cover-up by the Indian government is relevant to the present-day consensus on this genocide? Last I checked, nobody is arguing to remove all mentions of Hindu targeting from this article.

Why do you think Bass wrote the Hindu minority was doubly marked out for persecution instead of only the Hindu minority was marked out for persecution? I have never denied that Hindus were especially targeted.

Here is an excerpt from the chapter by Gerlach that you cited (page 17). How does this read like only Hindus were targeted?

After partition in 1947–48 there emerged the state of Pakistan consisting of two wings that were 1600 kilometers apart and differed widely culturally and economically. A little more than half of the population lived in largely rural East Pakistan (from December 1971: Bangladesh), dominated by a peasant rice economy. Most inhabitants there were Bengali-speaking Muslims. The most important minorities consisted of about 10 million Hindus and between one and two million Urdu-speaking former Muslim refugees from India, dubbed Biharis.

…

The military tried to crush the autonomy movement in a bloody crackdown, and, together with supportive local Muslim militias – including Biharis, but also Bengali conservatives – killed, arrested or expelled Awami League functionaries, students, pro-Bengali intellectuals and Hindus. In April, the army also started with massacres in villages, trying to defeat an emerging guerrilla movement with bases in India. Ten million people, mostly Hindus, fled to India, and even more people, largely Muslims, were displaced within East Pakistan.
— Christian Gerlach, Chapter 2: Crowd Violence in East Pakistan/Bangladesh 1971–1972, Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia (2019)

I'll also point out that Gerlach is the one who is juxtaposing refugees and IDPs in the same sentence—and he's done it in two different sources: this one and The Civilianization of War (2018)—not just me. Malerisch (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

When you "mark out" a specific sub-community within the larger group, it means you are targeting that specific sub-community, not the entire group.

You are again misrepresenting Christian Gerlach by quoting out of context. In the 'Conclusion' section (p. 34), he very clearly said Hindus and Biharis were the main victims of the violence (not Bengali Muslims). Here's the quotation: Therefore victims of this violence were mostly members of easily identifiable and located minority groups that were perceived as ethnically, religiously or culturally different. Non-Bengalis (so-called Biharis) and Hindus lived often in separate settlements, neighborhoods or houses. There were relatively weak ties between groups,104 and ideas about the otherness of certain groups widespread, having in part solidified during former conflicts. Non-Bengalis and West Pakistanis were recognized on the basis of their broken Bengali, West Pakistanis by their fair skin color, male Hindus because they were not circumcized and female ones through their clothing and body painting. Interwoven with ethnoreligious difference was socioeconomic conflict: by the Bengali majority, Biharis and Hindus were still identified with wealth and power although many of the latter groups had lost their elite status before, or their elites had. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No, doubly means especially, not only.

Gerlach's chapter is specific to crowd violence. The Pakistani military is not a "crowd". I quoted out of the "Historical Context" section because that is the only portion of this chapter that is relevant to the genocide as a whole, not crowd violence (which overlaps with the persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, not just the Bangladesh genocide). Gerlach states in his conclusion that the victims of crowd violence ran probably into the tens of thousands—the death toll of this genocide has been estimated to be anywhere from 300,000 to 3 million, so this is a small minority of the violence. Malerisch (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Gerlach never said the death toll to be 300,000 to 3 million rather he has questioned these numbers in his other writings in this topic. You are quoting these figures from other sources and comparing it with Gerlach's figure of "ten's of thousands" to come to this conclusion. That is WP:SYNTHESIS and another misrepresentation by you. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User A. Musketeer, you are projecting here. The misrepresentation is coming from you. Mr. Malerisch is correct in saying that this paper by Mr. Gerlach considers only crowd violence and only looks at a small portion of the genocide. In fact it doesn't even mention the term genocide in anything other than its footnotes. It is a case study on crowd violence and its scope also extends beyond the bounds of what's considered part of the genocide including pre-genocide violence and post-genocide retributory violence.

The death toll at one of its widest range for the Bangladesh genocide is 300,000 to 3 million. Mr. Gerlach's rough estimate of the death toll is at around a cumulative 500,000 in his other works. We reach the same conclusion either way that Mr. Malerisch has pointed out.

He does take a contrarian viewpoint and recognises himself to be not in the mainstream, with respect to the 3 million figure, not the entire range. Had he been saying that 10s of thousands was the death toll of the genocide, it would have been an ahistorical and denialist viewpoint on par with that of the disgraced book Dead Reckoning but that is not so. MrMkG (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In The Civilianization of War (2018) [15], Gerlach himself estimates the death toll to be from 500,000 to 1 million. He also writes there that [t]here were direct mass killings by the Pakistani army, by their auxiliaries, and to a lesser extent also by Bengali formations and crowds, so it's pretty clear that Gerlach views crowd violence as a small portion of the overall violence. Malerisch (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User A. Musketeer, you are clutching at straws. The only quote that you've been able to preserve from your deeply misleading long comment is the only one where Gary Bass is not quoting someone else. That in of itself is indicative. At this instance, it is in the context of the Indian Government's reaction where the Hindus, particularly the refugees in India are relevant. I may pick out another quote from the same book, "The troops had killed much of the Bengali leadership class, including engineers, doctors, and students." Does this mean the book says the victims were solely the leadership class and that we must write the article in accordance with that? No it does not but this is the equivalent of your proposition.

Mr. Gary Bass's words are abundantly clear when he in the opening lines of his chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide, defines the Bangladesh genocide as a "massive slaughter of Bengalis."

You also make another proposition, an even more ridiculous one, one truly devoid of not context but instead reality and logic. That we are supposed to take Bengali as being interchangeable to Bengali Hindus. That is perhaps the only way you can reconcil the unanimity of scholarship referring to the overarching targets being Bengalis with your position. But if that is so then you must take no issue if the article where to mention "Bengalis", after all there are interchangeable, right? Of course they are not, "Bengalis" is inclusive but not exhaustive or limited to "Bengali Hindus".

One does not need to say "Bengalis Muslims" much in the same way one doesn't need to say "Sylheti Bengalis" or "Working Class Bengali" for them to be all inclusive in the term "Bengali". People who were Awami League members, students, Hindus, etc find special mention because they were specially targeted for those characteristics in addition to being Bengali. Nevertheless, it is not even true the scholarship does not mention Bengali Muslims, some do when they juxtapose it with Bengali Hindus. In our previous discussion I had mentioned one, namely the series Centuries of Genocide edited by genocide scholars Samuel Totten, Israel Charny and William Parson and with its chapter on Bangladesh authored by political scientist, Columbia University faculty and Harvard's Radcliffe Award recipient Rounaq Jahan. I suppose it is quite difficult to escape when its narration in the most express terms says "The victims of the 1971 genocide were, thus, first and foremost Bengalis. Though Hindus were especially targeted, the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims—ordinary villagers and slum dwellers—who were caught unprepared during the Pakistani army’s spree of wanton killing, rape, and destruction." Hence you had sought to dismiss it out of hand at the time. Gary Bass has popular recognition because his book Blood Telegram has traction in the popular sphere but that is irrelevant in the context of scholarly credence. He has indeed done a lot of work on the topic but that does not place him above other scholarship or mean that one can nilly willy dismiss everything else and solely look at your misleading representation of a section of Mr. Gary Bass's work. The representation itself a misrepresentation of his overall work. MrMkG (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. While there are various special groups targeted in the genocide, being Bengali is the common identifier. Just saying "Bengali" is a short and efficient way to group all these targets - plus all other Bengalis killed - together.

Any special targets like the Hindu population, Awami League members, intellectuals, and students can be ellaborated on in the article body. InterDimensional14 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

While there were some non-Hindu deaths as well, only the killings of Hindus fall within the specific definition of genocide. As International Commission of Jurists in their report noted, "As far as the other three groups are concerned, namely members of the Awami League, students and Hindus, only Hindus would seem to fall within the definition of ' a national, ethnical, racial or religious group '. There is overwhelming evidence that Hindus were slaughtered and their houses and villages destroyed simply because they were Hindus. The oft repeated phrase ' Hindus are enemies of the state ' as a justification for the killing does not gainsay the intent to commit genocide; rather does it confirm the intention. The Nazis regarded the Jews as enemies of the state and killed them as such. In our view there is a strong prima facie case that the crime of genocide was committed against the group comprising the Hindu population of East Bengal." A.Musketeer (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my !vote, the previous paragraph of the ICJ report states Bengalis as a whole were the victims of genocide. Yes, the report also says that when considered as an isolated subgroup, Bengali Hindus were the victims of genocide, but that in no way means that only Bengali Hindus were the victims of genocide. Logically, if Bengalis were the victims of genocide, then so were Bengali Hindus. You have also never addressed the arguments that 1) the IAGS cited the ICJ report and concluded that Bengalis were the victims, and that 2) this is a WP:PRIMARY source, a policy that you have cited yourself at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, where you wrote that [p]rimary sources are not used in history-related articles. Malerisch (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So does just 'Bengalis'.

Bengalis as a whole are their own distinct national / ethnic group. (Notice your quote says "national, ethnical, racial or religious". The religious component is not necessary.) The genocide occurred under East Bengali aspirations for national liberation - hence "Bangladesh Genocide".

The Hindu victims were Bengali and the non-Hindu victims were Bengali. Only focusing on one subcategory of the Bengali population ignores the rest of the Bengalis who were also targetted and killed. InterDimensional14 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch: I have also explained in my !vote that the ICJ report talked about "strong" prima facie case of genocide only in the case of the "Hindu population of East Bengal", not any other communities. I don't think the ICJ report is WP:PRIMARY in this case. They were not affiliated with Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian governments, neither have any role in this event. The report is basically a review of the violence committed during the war in the context of International Laws. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User A. Musketeer, it would seem like you are confusing non-governmental with primary. The ICJ report is contemporaneous to the immediate aftermath of the genocide and its section on the application of the genocide convention is an exploration of legal arguments for supposedly a prospective ICC case.

It does not amount to much when it says "prima facie", whether strong or not. In so far as common language is concerned, it would be akin to saying "at first glance there appears to be a strong case". The report also says that a prima facie case can be made for genocide of Bengalis in the preceding paragraph and adds this afterwards. It is common for legal arguments to build contingencies and buttress arguments in cases with "if not this then definitely this should apply", "if not genocide then other crimes against humanity", "if not genocide against the whole, then genocide against this sub-group". This is nothing more than an exercise in that.

We are well past the point of first glances, it is not scholarship and scholarship exists now. For the IAGS it is indeed a primary source. It seems as we move forward, you're skipping everything that doesn't work for you and moving on to poor sources now. MrMkG (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Bengali Hindus. In Death by Government, R.J. Rummel states, "West Pakistan was clearly guilty of genocide against the Hindus and mass murder of the Bengalis". The "mass murder of the Bengalis" here refers to the murder of "country’s Bengali intellectual, cultural, and political elite" who chiefly belonged to the opposition Awami League party. He categorizes these murders as "Democide" which is different from "genocide" and includes pretty much any killings under a government's order. While describing the Hindu atrocities, he states, "They planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India." I would also note that aside from Hindus, the non-Bengalis, including the Biharis, were also subject to, what Rumel described as, "countergenocide" by Bengalis. I do not know if the non-Bengali genocide is pertinent to this article since there is a separate Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh page, if yes, I would argue for "Bengali Hindus and non-Bengalis". I.Bhardwaj (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Bengali Hindus: per sources. I would recommend to keep the article as it is. This RfC has been affected by sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry because of the series of reddit threads posted by u/nerdiste (A.K.A User:Wiki.arfazhxss) to recruit editors and swing the consensus in favor of changing "Bengali Hindu" to "Bengali" in the lead. Links: [16] [17], [18], [19]. These threads were posted around the same time when this RfC started. LucrativeOffer (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

!votes in the Discussion section

• A.Musketeer, could you explain why you reverted this edit? Every main bullet point is a different person expressing a clear opinion. How are they not !votes? Malerisch (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If they were really !votes they would have placed their posts in the Survey section themselves. Why should we dictate which is what? And this section clearly looks like a discussion more than !votes. There was already a bit of controversy over moving the comments between the two sections so let's keep things where they are. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Three users (1, 2, and 3) actually didn't place their !votes in the Discussion section. Rather, they replied directly to the question, and their !votes were moved to this section by Shaan Sengupta (1, 2, and 3), who mistakenly seems to believe that new !votes should be placed in the Discussion section. Other users may just have placed their !votes in this section because they saw other !votes placed here. Malerisch (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

They look like comments, not !votes. The survey section is still quite messy with a lot of comments which should have been moved to discussion. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain how they "look like comments, not !votes"? Each expresses a clear opinion. Malerisch (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

!votes It should be "Bengali Hindus" and "Bengali Muslims" and "Bengali Christians" and "Bengali Buddhists" and "Bengali Tribes" in Title and Headings 74.12.97.59 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This was a test with that "!votes"

I don't get, how using this makes it votes? Lol 74.12.97.59 (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"!vote" is just a word (WP:!VOTE); typing it doesn't do anything special. Normally with RFCs, !votes are added in the Survey section, and additional comments are added in the Discussion section, but that isn't the case with this RFC. See this RFC for an arbitrary recent example.

Survey and Discussion sections aren't required, however, so another option could be to delete them entirely, since they don't seem to indicate much with this RFC. Malerisch (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Malerisch

"Could you please provide information on the expected conclusion date of the current RFC? Additionally, there is concern about the Wikipedia page possibly misrepresenting Bengali Hindus by specifically referring to them in a way that may not align with the majority. Is there a process to address and rectify such potentially inaccurate information to prevent it from being labeled as misinformation?" Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@A.Musketeer and @Malerisch, to resolve this I'm going to remove the "Discussion" heading so that everything becomes part of the "Survey section. TarnishedPath^talk 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging all (unblocked) participants of the last RFC about this article to get more input: SheriffIsInTown, Ghatus, Volunteer Marek, TripWire, My very best wishes, Spartacus!, Kautilya3, Vinegarymass911, Homemade Pencils. Malerisch (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That looks like canvassing, you chose to ping selective editors from a 8 years old unrelated RfC. Your desperation is becoming more and more visible, Malerisch. A.Musketeer (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A.Musketeer, it's not canvassing. WP:APPNOTE specifically says that I'm allowed to notify [e]ditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). I did not ping "selective" editors; rather, I pinged every single unblocked editor who !voted in the last RfC for this article. Feel free to ask an admin if you think that my pings were inappropriate. And I would appreciate it if you removed the personal attack (for the record, I'm not "desperate"). Malerisch (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Not only you pinged selective editors, you made sure to place it here where you and Lionel Messi Lover are discussing a false accusation of misinformation. Since you are talking about personal attacks, your passive attempts to besmirch the opposing editors to be Hindu nationalists would also come into review. Please feel free to report to an admin if you think I have done anything inappropriate. A.Musketeer (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@A.Musketeer, if they pinged every editor who partipated in the last RfC who isn't indeffed that's not canvassing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly deseperate than @Malerisch

Also, why you have edited and removed this whole section by an RFC volunteer from YorkU? Are you trying to suppress peoples freedom of speeh, and freedom of reading and forming opnion? Why not let them read every peoples sides? What makes you so bothered for this?

He have removed this whole section, in this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_genocide&oldid=1194127111#Evidence_of_Invasion_of_Wiki_Editors,_putting_up_their_narrative,_by_edit_wars,_for_years. is the evidence, that, it was removed from this current version. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

curprev 10:15, 7 January 2024‎ A.Musketeer talk contribs‎ 162,562 bytes −4,354‎ WP:NOTFORUM undo

curprev 10:08, 7 January 2024‎ A.Musketeer talk contribs‎ 166,916 bytes +268‎ canvassed undo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_genocide&action=history

This is the evidence. that @A.Musketeerhave attempted to remove this RFC from YorkU opinions. I am bringing this attention to public editors, I am tagging all, who are editing here.

@Lionel Messi Lover@Malerisch@TarnishedPathSheriffIsInTown, Ghatus, Volunteer Marek, TripWire, My very best wishes, Spartacus!, Kautilya3, Vinegarymass911, Homemade Pencils@Nomian 64.229.49.146 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@64.229.49.146, @A.Musketeer was correct to make the edit at Special:Diff/1194127792 per WP:NOTFORUM. That thread doesn't even form part of this RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait? it was Musketeer, not @Malerisch?

@Malerischdid you removed that part?

okay sorry for confusion 64.229.49.146 (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

I did not remove anything. A.Musketeer removed it. Malerisch (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

IKR, He the |TarnishedPath turns out to be side of them, not us. lol

look at his quoted part lol,

"* Bengali Hindus While more Russians died in WW2 than any other grouping we don't say that Russians were victims of The Holocaust. Jews were victims of The Holocaust. Not everyone who dies in a specific conflict are victims of genocide. In this conflict Bengali Hindus were victims of genocide. TarnishedPathtalk 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]" 64.229.49.146 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

That is an extremely ridiculous statement. I came here because of a discussion at WP:AN/I and have done what I can to try and resolve some issues which shouldn't be issues. As far as my vote that has been on the merits of the issue and nothing else. I'm not on one side or another. I don't live anywhere near India/Bangladesh. TarnishedPath^talk 06:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath if you're an uninvolved admin/editor/volunteer, act like one. If you don't live close to India/Bangladesh- don't generalize contentious conflicts and geopolitical situation. You have THE ENTIRE BANGLADESHI POPULATION coming out from the 1971 war, losing more than one member from each of their family and having this generational knowledge and coming here and SAYING THIS OUT LOUD, who do you think you are by claiming that this is equivalent to The Holocaust? It's not. I respect your opinion as an editor, but please do not generalize this conflict, and war. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@45.248.151.129 go argue with someone else if an argument is what you want. TarnishedPath^talk 14:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)