Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Evaluation

Although there is plethora of sources which recount the horrific instances during the Bangladesh Liberation War, the language feels very biased and one-sided in the sense that it attributes religion as the main motivation behind this atrocity in the opening paragraphs. The article includes heavy quotations from sources, instead of justified paraphrasing where necessary which leads to the article reading as a recount from memory of individuals instead of evidence. Most of the ‘facts’ represented are direct quotations from recounts of individuals who have studied or experienced the situation, and the writing style makes the article read more like an opinion piece rather than a source of knowledge. Fhuda91 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Organized vandalism by far-rights from India

Here's a detailed comparison of all the disrupted edits made to this page by some users throughout this article. I have been removing their edits throughout other articles. Here's another example from the page Bangladesh Genocide. I have put out a report on the noticeboard for the page 'Bangladesh Genocide' and included their names here. I will open another report for this page if they continue to do this.

For now, I have reverted the changes made to this page back to the first edit made by A.Musketeer where they removed the article as part of a Wikipedia series on Rape, and turned it into a series on Bengali Hindu Rape. Arfaz (chat) | 10:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You have not even given a single reason behind removing the well-sourced contents, other than just ad hominem attacks. False accusation of "vandalism by far-rights from India" is not a valid reason. Point out your concerns with the contents here. Why are these disruptive edits? You can only remove if anything is unsourced but the contents you are removing are all cited with reliable sources. You clearly have no idea how wikipedia works. A.Musketeer (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea, thank you for your attention!

@A.MusketeerCan you please stop reverting back? This is not your country history, this is ours. So please respect us. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See block log – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, give a valid reason behind removing the contents. Talking through anonymous IP doesn't change the rules for you. A.Musketeer (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

So What? You are an Indian, why you feel entitled enough to change with whatever, that is not related to your country? Is Pakistanis doing this? No, Then Why you do? 64.229.49.146 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See block log – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time to reply to this sort of nonsense but still what proof do you have that I'm an Indian? And even if someone is from India, why do you think they cannot edit articles about Bangladesh? Your personal identity doesn't get any weight while evaluating your edit. Read WP:PILLARS to understand. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then we will edit your all Indian wiki pages, history. And Pakistanis will join us. will you be okay with this?

If not, then why we would be okay?

Just stop being hypothetical, and try bringing up those policies.

Your Indian and Pakistani Pages are protected from just actions. We will get this, so people like you cannot do this.

We know, you are Indian, by looking at what you added. "Just hindus were killed." Would any Bangladeshi or Non Indians would say this? Not General Indian Population either?

You are just a group of people from Right Wing India, adn their talking point is same as what you are including here. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See block log – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You can edit whichever page you want, be that Indian, Pakistani, Jewish, Arab, Martian, you don't need my permission, as long as you follow Wikipedia's policies. Also, see WP:NPA to learn what is a personal attack. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This article keeps getting vandalized by far-right Indians who keep writing that it was only the Hindus who got raped. The sheer number of biased and unreliable sources used is noticeable. Reliable sourced materials were removed and replaced with books and page numbers that can't be found in any libraries in Dhaka. The article is protected so can't even revert it. Requesting Wikipedia mods to take action against this vandalism. 103.197.153.207 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is also not a new phenomenon. Far rights from India have been vandalizing Bangladesh Liberation War-related articles for a while now.

Source: Talk:Bangladesh genocide#Organized vandalism by far-rights from India 103.197.153.207 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

---

FYI, the statement in this article that Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women. is based on a misreading of the source. Here's the paragraph that the statement cites, which comes from a short blurb about Bangladesh in the appendix (!) of the book:

What followed was a major outbreak of violence. It is estimated that during the short, nine-month conflict Pakistani and allied forces murdered 990 teachers, 49 physicians, 42 attorneys, 16 writers and artists, and 13 journalists. Some estimates suggest that as many as 200,000 women were raped. Hindus were targeted the most. On April 23 at Jathibhanga, anywhere from 3,000–5,000 Hindus were murdered in their village or while attempting to escape, but the worst atrocity of the entire war occurred on May 20, during the Chuknagar Massacre, in which some 8,000–10,000 Hindus were murdered en masse. The dead included men, women, children, and the elderly. Although it is impossible to pinpoint how many Hindus died during the entirety of the war, their fatality rate was certainly much higher than any other group.
— Paul G. Pierpaoli Jr., Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection (2014)

In this paragraph, Hindus were targeted the most is a statement that introduces the following sentence On April 23 at Jathibhanga, … about mass killings of Hindus; it's not meant to describe the statement that Some estimates suggest that as many as 200,000 women were raped.

This is also explicitly contradicted by Christian Gerlach:

Often gang rapes happened in public. Sometimes this involved the murder of male relatives, or of small children who disturbed the soldiers during their deed. Complaints to the Martial Law Authorities could lead to more rape and destruction. Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. The claim that 80 percent were Muslim has no clear basis. After the war, Hindu activists accused the Bangladesh government of not helping Hindus to find their abducted and forcibly converted women.
— Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

Two Smoking Barrel brought up a similar point at Talk:Bangladesh genocide. Malerisch (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The exact same statement appears in Bangladesh genocide § Rape of Bengali women and is cited to 5 sources, yet none of the sources back up this statement. And it should be noted that this statement was mentioned by Future Perfect at Sunrise as a justification for delisting this article as GA in Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/GA2. Malerisch (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that even if Hindus were targeted the most described the previous sentence (which it doesn't), that's simply not logically the same thing as saying that "most of the victims were Hindus" (given that Hindus were only a minority among the overall population that was subject to atrocities.), to quote Future Perfect at Sunrise in the GA reassessment. Malerisch (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the disputes

"See Archived Talk Pages" to read previous discussion.

Some of the users have raised serious allegation that this article has been vandalized by far right groups, so many users have started editing war. I would urge users to be polite and note the problems you found on the article and crosscheck with the given source. I will include relevant Wikipedia policies how to engage in conversion and relevant archived discussion link about dispute in this section.

About Archiving Talk page: There's no definite duration on when thread should be archived. It states "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Notices are placed at the beginning of the talk page to inform all editors of an archive." and relevant quote "If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion." So Archiving the talk page isn't some kind of law that some users claim to be. And discussion that's still relevant to current work shouldn't be archived. Refer "Help:Archive"[1]

Talk Page guideline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

Gaming the system: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system

How to engage:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view : This is important for this article. read this before engaging!

Template:POV section , Wikipedia:Neutral point of view , Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution , Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement List of templates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index

Inline templates :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inline_citation_and_verifiability_dispute_templates— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salekin.sami36 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Before engaging and using any sort of template please read these carefully Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Salekin.sami36 stepping in here as an uninvolved admin, the last stable archival period was 20 days. 20 days is too short in most circumstances. While 90 days is actually sufficient long enough for discussions to be carried out. The current archival setting is to leave up to latest 3 topics on the page (regardless of when the last comment was left on the topic), and to archive the older topics, as long as the last comment was made less than 90 days ago. These settings gives more than enough time to individual editors to respond to the discussions. It is possible to have more than 3 topics under these settings as long as the discussions are active (i.e. last comment in the topic is less than 90 days old). These settings are also typical of other pages of similar discussion velocities. – robertsky (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as these settings don't obstruct the ongoing discussion, I'm okay with it. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• First of all, you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel and Susan Brownmiller is giving her primary accounts. Primary sources are not used in history-related articles, let alone using in the lead. Secondly, several scholars has disputed the figures, including Christian Gerlach who said The claim that 80 percent were Muslim has no clear basis. However, there is no disagreement over the fact that "Hindus were targeted the most". A.Musketeer (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Before Using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY please read it first yourself what is considered primary source. For your convenience a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

  In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.[1] Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary

  It is clear you're trying to game the system. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol, this is not gaming. Government sources and first hand journalisms are always considered WP:PRIMARY, you can ask anyone and they will say the same. And we only use scholarly publications as sources in history-related articles per WP:HISTRS. Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician. Her book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape has also faced criticisms for its factual inaccuracies and the author's own personal bias. Besides, as I said earlier, there are contradicting views as well by other authors. Your edits are also adding WP:MOS problems, we don't add quotations of individuals in the lead. Most importantly, you need to reach a consensus before mass changing the longstanding version (more than two years old) of this article. I think I have now explained the issues with your edits in detail but if you are still unable to understand anything, I'd be happy to explain again, but please do not restore the problematic edits. Since you have cited different policies and guidelines in your post above, I imagine you are already aware of WP:BRD and WP:IDHT. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

==== Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer: ====

You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.

• On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed" You've removed 5 Quoted sources^{(none original or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209)} which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
• On your 2nd edit ^{edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed"} :You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
• On your 3rd edit ^{edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" :} You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims." with "The Pakistani elite believed that Hindus were behind the revolt and that as soon as there was a solution to the "Hindu problem" the conflict would resolve." And you edit description was NPOV balancing. You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
• On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega(description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
• On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim ""Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." but the source says "Hindus were targeted the most" It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women. Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation, which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead worked on them. You've reverted my edit saying "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician." But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel" so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
• ...

==== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ====

It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."

You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.

The source statement was,

Hindus were targeted the most

Your claim back by source is,

Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.

You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions.

In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,

“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80

In The Daily Star archive

Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'.

Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.

Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43⁽¹⁾ in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314^{(About 7,370,000 results)}, Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.^{(About 2,060,000 results)}

=== Others ===

You're misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.

You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.

• In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
• Your misinterpreted source is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Malerisch here as well 88.239.17.21 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Salekin.sami36: I'm not gonna discuss past edits of mine going back to 2021 because A. I don't remember in which context they were, some of them were even reverts of obvious vandalisms. B. Instead of discussing the current dispute, your bringing up all the past edits to write such a long response appears to be WP:BLUDGEON.
  I have already explained that Susan Brownmiller and her book Against Our Will is not a scholarly source and has its own factual inaccuracies. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is also cited by a lot of authors but still we don't consider it a scholarly source. Please read WP:RS to understand what I am saying. And again, statements/reports of government personnel are considered WP:PRIMARY. We don't use neither Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian government sources for the same reason.
  Taking a closer look at your edit, you have added self-published sources like academia.edu and opinion pieces from Bdnews24.com and New York Times. As I said earlier, we only rely on scholarly sources per WP:HISTRS. Please try to understand the problems with your edits. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please defend your edit "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." and

  Reliability of your only source you've used and deleted 5 sources when you added your claim. The source statement was "Hindus were targeted the most" Why your edit isn't misinterpretion of source?Why we should should trust your source not the 6+ sources you deleted claiming every one of the. primary? among the 6+ sources there was 2 books, 2 newspaper article, and 2 journal. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer

The following is documentation of disruptive edits by A.Musketeer which I originally replied him in a comment in talk section. You can find the original Conversation in the section "Regarding the Disputes". Here 'you' is referring A.Musketeer.

You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.

• On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed" You've removed 5 Quoted sources^{(none original or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209)} which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
• On your 2nd edit ^{edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed"} :You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
• On your 3rd edit ^{edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" :} You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims." with "The Pakistani elite believed that Hindus were behind the revolt and that as soon as there was a solution to the "Hindu problem" the conflict would resolve." And you edit description was NPOV balancing. You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
• On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega(description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
• On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim ""Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." but the source says "Hindus were targeted the most" It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women. Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation, which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead worked on them. You've reverted my edit saying "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician." But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel" so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
• ...

==== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ====

It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."

You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.

The source statement was,

Hindus were targeted the most

Your claim back by source is,

Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.

You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions.

In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,

“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80

In The Daily Star archive

Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'.

Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.

Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43⁽¹⁾ in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314^{(About 7,370,000 results)}, Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.^{(About 2,060,000 results)}

=== Others ===

You're misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.

You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.

• In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
• Your misinterpreted source is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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: [2]. In case, the page is deleted, here is an arhcive: [3]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: Restored this notice again after it was removed by a vandal IP. 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"/"Bengali Muslim" in the lead. Links: [4], [5], [6]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)