Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

is bangla liberation war part of cold war?

this is in response to a couple of edits made by an ip-user[1] ; can this war be considered a part of coldwar because of the effects of cold war politics on it?

The info-box describes the Bangladesh Liberation War as Part of Cold War. The article explains that the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation made the Liberation War relevant to the Cold War, but part of? How so? Was the Cold War the cause of the Liberation War, or did the support of the Soviet Union decide the outcome? --catslash (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

most probably some editors are the anti-activist of Liberation War 1971 (either pakistani or jammat). they always kept an eye on it as Foreign people are watching the trial against War Criminals, they may colect info from wiki, so 24 hours in a day some Anti-Bangladeshi minded people are doing this. SAJIB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajibdhaka (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fabrication in article

't confirmed the looting, rapes and the killings by the Pakistan Army and their local agents although the figures are far lower than the ones quoted by Bangladesh. According to Bangladeshi sources, 200,000 women were raped and over 3 million people were killed, while the Rahman Commission report in Pakistan claimed 26,000 died and the rapes were in the hundreds. However, the army's role in splintering Pakistan after its greatest military debacle was largely ignored by successive Pakistani governments'

that is false, the commission did not confirm that.the 3 million figure always peddled by indians but it has no proof or facts behind it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) also Pakistan did not launch a preemptive war. it was a response to direct Indian intervention.this article if very biased and full of lies.it fails to mention that Mujib had met with Indian Diplomats in London,the whole rebellion was preplanned and the british continued to supply India with missiles through out the war

Date removal

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

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

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

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

• WW1
• WW2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please do not keep reapeating stuff i have already explained that ONE of the links had 1,250 whereas the other might have had 3. pls read explanation properly before accusing someone. this issue has already been resolved, pls read the explanation that the other person gives before again trying to accuse them. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Now the article reserved. You do not like it in the form in which it exists? What do you want to achieve?.Sentinel R (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I put in a proper summary for the bangladesh liberation because the summary in the current form is hopeless. its not saying anything about bangladesh what is the point of this summary? if you want to put this sort of summary you can put it in the india pakistan war. the current summary is not discussing anything properly about bangladesh. BangladeshPride (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant that its not talking anything about the bangladesh war. if you want to put that sort of summary you can put it in the india pakistan war. the rest of my explanation is below in the next section. BangladeshPride (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Addition of dates
• Terminology used in war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your information outside the text books of my country is much more accurate and truthful. the terminology you use is maybe for india pakistan war issues not bangladesh. Gen Niazi has written a book "The Betrayal of East Pakistan". BangladeshPride (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read again what I wrote. There's no word has been written about the book. Do you deny the fact that Niazi was the Western-Pakistani commander? Why, then, after the war, he and other Pakistani soldiers and commanders returned to Pakistan but did not stay to live in Bangladesh?.Sentinel R (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? he is originally from west pakistan so? he was in charge of the east pakistani soldiers. when the war was over and east pakistan was dissolved into the new country of bangladesh. what did you expect him to do? do you think we bangladehis would welcome him with open arms? and you can find his book on google.BangladeshPride (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"he is originally from west pakistan so?" - He is originally from British India. "he was in charge of the east pakistani soldiers" - He obeyed the orders of the President of West Pakistan."what did you expect him to do? do you think we bangladehis would welcome him with open arms?" - he was from West Pakistan, so when the war was lost, he returned to his native country for which he fought."and you can find his book on google" - I know about this book. question now is not about her.Sentinel R (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting Really boring. sorry any person can understand what i am talking about. i am not going to argue just for the sake of arguing so that i can get the last word in. pls read what i have wrote. if you want to go that far back yes he is from punjab of british india and he was put in east pakistan to direct the east pakistani soldiers. had east pakistan not dissolved he would obviously keep on living in east pakistan directing the east pakistani army. I dont know how many more times to explain. BangladeshPride (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Background
• March to June

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

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

Vandalism in the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you can see in the WW1 article which you gave as examples, dates of countries which fought full length of the war like

• Germany
• France
• British Empire

are not mentioned. Similarly date of joining of Mukti bahani and Pakistan should not be mentioned. Also I repeat the article is about a war and not a country "Bangladesh".--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

wow what does it matter if those dates are there?

but atleast i am willing to compromise i am not the kind of guy who keeps on arguing just for the sake of it. I will put the one date in the proper format tomorrow and i will add the refugee section to the notes. i will also put the sample summary in the discussion page to read because i want to make sure that our leaders who went to prison for our cause during the war are in the summary and the banladeshi hindus who had to leave bangladesh due to the war. I have always made the article about the bangladesh war. BangladeshPride (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected

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

Hindu bangladesh refugees

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

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

Excerpts from the article:-

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

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

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

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

Navboxes

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

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

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

De-orphaning Independence Day Of Bangladesh

{{editprotected}}

Resolved

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

That might not be considered appropriate for this article per WP:NPOV. There's no equivlent article for India for example. Also, more people will arrive to this article from Independence Day of Bangladesh than vice versa.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs)

?????I'm sorry, how is adding a wikilink from a text already present in the article to an article about the Indepnedence day of the same country POV? Please explain. And how does the absence of a corresponding article for India even relevant to wikilinking when an article already exists. Please create the article for India if necessary. I only added this request becasue the page was protected. And frankly this is the most senseless response I have ever seen on Wikipedia. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

nvm, I've been making too many NPOV statements lately.Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I support this request; in the line 26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh, the last bit should wikilink to Independence Day Of Bangladesh. Also, I see no reason for the italics.  Chzz  ►  15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you supported this, then their still is a basic consensus so you didn't have to disable {{editprotected}} Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't - although the request has been done. I think the confusion here is, Spitfire19, that you keep using 'resolved', when actually the edits have still not been done - that is what confused me in the other section.

However, I don't know why the link is in italics.  Chzz  ►  19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

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

Agree, remove the italics in the line "26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh" just above the "Liberation war" section. Spitfire19 (Talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request, grammar, dates, and such

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

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

{{editprotected}}

1. Intro (1st P):

Resolved

• is-:West Pakistan against East Pakistan (two halves of one country) and India.
• should be-:East Pakistan and India against West Pakistan

per~:Due to how people speak, it is easier to start a list of things starting higher in the alphabet. (Just try yourself)

I agree, the above is clearer.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Belligerents:

• is-:India(joins the war on 3 December 1971)<r></r>
• should be-:India(joins war on December 3, 1971)<r></r>

per~:Unless I'm mistaken, the date format in this instance is done incorrectly.

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

3. Intro (2nd P):

• is-:civilians formed the Mukti Bahini (or liberation army)
• should be-:civilians formed the Mukti Bahini

per~:Unless the army/militant group is officially called "Mukti Bahini Liberation Army" the words in parenthesis should not be included in the article.

Not so sure about this. The article on the org says, (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") - do you disagree with that translation?  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the question is whether the official name is the Mukti Bahini or the Mukti Bahini Liberation Army Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The official name is, of course, মুক্তি বাহিনী. As this is the English Wikipedia, we would use the transliteration "Mukti Bahini", but the translation is also useful, So, that said, why don't we just go the whole hog, and put it as Mukti Bahini (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") ?  Chzz  ►  15:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How but kill two birds with one stone and move Mukti Bahini to Mukti Bahini Liberation Army? But first I'll run মুক্তি বাহিনী through Google translate to see what it says. Spitfire19 (Talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Google can't translate Bengali, I will contact User:Pmlineditor to see if he can translate the native title since he has a userbox that says he is a near native speaker of Bengali. Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested move. We would not move e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières to Médecins Sans Frontières Doctors Without Borders. I think that the existing article name is fine, and that Mukti Bahini Liberation Army should redirect to Mukti Bahini.  Chzz  ►  19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That sound's like an idea. I will do that now, but the article should still use the text "Mukti Bahini Liberation Army" instead of its current usage.

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

4. #Arocities:

• is-:Potentiallly not Neutral because it does not cite any atrocities by East Pakistan or India (If there were any). Nor does it include any information regarding any Western Pakistani press releases in responce to these atrocities.
• should be-:{{NPOV}} (section)

per~:see "is-:"

The section looks to be well-referenced. If you can supply referenced facts to improve the balance, please do so - or supply references to support your claim that it is non-neutral.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into the Main article more to see if there is any additional content from it that should be in this "sub-article" to make it less NPOV. Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This might be difficult as the main article itself is marked {{{npov}} so I might not be able to find any info to make this paragraph neutral. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Intro (3rd P):

Resolved

• is-:and the Mukti Bahini decisively defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.
• should be-:and the Mukti Bahini defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.

per~:The use of the word "decisively is entirely a matter of opinion.

I agree.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

6. #Background (2nd P):

• is-:On 25 March 1971, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal[9] suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment[10] in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[11]
• should be-:On 25 March 1971, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[9][10][11]

per~:The current placement of the references in the above sentence does not follow standards. Refs should be at the end of the sentence. Also, current placement of the refs and effect on implying various things in the sentence may violate WP:NPOV.

Not necessarily, "If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence" (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations) - you would have to elaborate on why, in this case, the placement is non-neutral; I can't see it.  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The placement of a reference immediately following the word "brutal" gives a non-NPOV to the fact. The word brutal simply seemed to pop out at me because there was a citation immediately after it.

I see what you mean; the word 'brutal' is v POV, so the best solution is probably to rephrase the sentence - if that term is to remain, we should make it clear that that is the opinion of a specific report - viz. "described by website genderside watch as brutal" or something, if that can be done with due balance.  Chzz  ►  15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Such as using a footnote? Spitfire19 (Talk) 18:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd try to avoid using a footnote - before you know it, a 'controversial' article like this could easily end up with footnotes for every other sentence. Better to deal with the matter head-on within the prose, I think.  Chzz  ►  19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

8. Misc:

• The first sentence of #Background seems like it might be using the incorrect language.

As above  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

As above  Chzz  ►  12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

10. #Economic exploitation

*should be-: deleted.

per~:There is no rferences stating this was a significant cause to the beginning of the war. There was probabably a smaller population in East Pakistan anyways. And the use of the phrase "political explotation" violates WP:NPOV especially since no references are provided even calling it such. Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No rebuttal, deleted.Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

East Pakistan had a larger population (56% as I recall). I suggest replacing "political exploitation" with "economic disparities" or other NPOV terms. --Ragib (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I did what you suggested, but It would be helpful if you could find the source showing that their was also a population imbalance between the two sides of Pakistan. Spitfire19 (Talk) 05:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

OK; I have cancelled out the {{editprotected}} for now, because most of the stuff that can be changed that way has been done, and the rest needs discussion. And whilst I'm happy to chat on IRC, I recommend that you details any suggested changes on this page, so that all editors can see your ideas and make comments. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction - struck - when I saw the 'resolved' tags, I thought you meant that the changes had been done. I will request that the agreed changes are done, in a more concise form, below.  Chzz  ►  19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for edits as discussed above

{{editprotected}}

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

1. Intro (1st P):

• is-:West Pakistan against East Pakistan (two halves of one country) and India.
• should be-:East Pakistan and India against West Pakistan

2. Intro (3rd P):

• is-:and the Mukti Bahini decisively defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.
• should be-:and the Mukti Bahini defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East.

per~:The use of the word "decisively is entirely a matter of opinion.

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

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

Mukti Bahini Liberation Army or Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army)

Side A:

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

Change made

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest that we simply avoid this potential problem by stating it clearly, in the first usage, as ...civilians formed Mukti Bahini (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") and.... Reasoning: let us be perfectly accurate, and state facts, not giving any scope for interpretation of this obviously controversial issue.  Chzz  ►  03:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

alrighty then, but how do we refer to them at any other point in the article?Spitfire19 (Talk) 07:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with using the proper name of the force in the rest of the article? I don't see any problem in the name itself ... the name "Mukti Bahini" is the proper name -- it cannot be POV in any way. Also, Viet Cong is referred to by its proper name, not its English translation. --Ragib (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The Indian Military Operations section needs expansion

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

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

Um, what "Indian Military Operations" section? Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

What's to say he's referencing books based that are wrote or published by Indian authors/companies? And even if that's true, that doesn't mean that any Indian wrote works are inherently not neutral. The indo-pakistan war is a different subject, but only content regarding India fighting against West Pakistan in defense of east Pakistan should be included in the article, with some text relating the two wars only.Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that only military operations concerned with defeat of (West) Pakistani forces in erstwhile East Pakistan is relevant here. My aim is to provide a slightly enlarged, properly cited subsection which brings it out some more details of the military aspects of that campaign here, which is definitely within the scope of this article. I am hoping that "Assume good faith" will be kept in mind during the process. Secondly, I reiterate, perhaps unnecessarily, that this is an encyclopaedia and the content needs to be balanced, complete, accurate and all other attributes that Wikipedia has specified in its values. I understand that these principles apply to all information in the article and needs to followed by all editors, including me. Thirdly, all edits will on such an (apparently) contentious issue needs verifiability by being properly cited. The relevant sources can be checked if any mis-representation of the source is being done by me and reverted if so required. The assertions made about non-neutrality of Indian sources before a single edit is made or a reference mentioned, besides violating "Assume good faith", strikes me of non-NPOV and WP:OWN as well. I put it to you that "User:BangladeshPride" needs to keep in that in mind while posting. AshLin (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Thank you for this response. I rest my case. AshLin (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BangladeshPride, the reason there is a mention in it at the beginning of the article is because this war was the major reason cause to the start of the Indo-Pakistan War. Ashlin, I see you've made your point. Go ahead and expand the section, but don't make it too long. That's what the main article is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on vacation for a week or so. Will do the edits once I get back. AshLin (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

i am unsure who has made the comment since the person did not leave a username and has deleted the time and date of the comment. regardless of why its there in the beginning it takes the reader directly to the main article. user ashlin like i have mentioned before and you agreed which was the reason you rested your case. however i must stress that if you want to add a few more edits, pls make it very very extremely short as there is already a huge main article dedicated for the india purpose. and there are points in the article which redirect the reader to the main indian article. BangladeshPride (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence - Suggestion for Improvement

We need to add some important details to this section:

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

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

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

Declaration of Independence - Resolve Inconsistancies

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

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

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

Declaration of Independance by Sheikh Mujib is Disputed

There is no proof with hard evidence or circumstantial evidence that clearly confirms that Mujib has ordered "declaration of independence". Rather hard evidences and circumstantial evidences suggests Major Zia has declared indpendance all by himself on behalf of Mujib (not because of any order issued to him by Sheikh Mujib or Awami League).

Please see timesmachine.nytimes.com to research on 24th March to 27 March 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sraihan (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your reference for Zia being the first? According to the writings of Belal Mahmud and other Radio station staff, Zia was the 8th person to read the announcement. Mujib's declaration on 25th March is backed even by Major Siddique Salique, the Public Relations officer Pakistan Army (interestingly, they'd be least expected to claim anything about Mujib, their rival, right?). --Ragib (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

True what Ragib says, however -- I am not sure that Sheikh Mujib was the major concern for Pakistanis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.213.12 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro picture

The picture has been moved to the indian section of the article where it can be further edited and adjusted.

There are various options for the picture at the intro:

A montage of pictures as in the world war article. it can have around 4 pictures and can have a description reading from clockwise on top. pictures that can be used sheikh mujib, mukti bahini soldier, bengali civilian etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

or it can be left as in the sri lanka civil war which is just a neutral map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

an indian picture in the intro cannot be used since this article is dealing with the bangladesh liberation war that started in march 1971. also there is an entire article for the indian war made by indian users. and there are redirects even in the intro of this article. on top of that there is an indian section later in this article.

A lot has been accomodated. please refrain from indianizing the article. BangladeshPride (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bangladeshpride. Once India lost the war and East Bengal, it has no business in rewriting the history of the war it lost. If anything, this article should reflect more on the sacrifices made by brave Pakistani martyrs who laid down their lives to create a nation like Bangladesh.Harvardoxford (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvardoxford (talk · contribs) is a vandal and troll who is making nonsensical edits on various pages. I am scratching his post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Disorganised until OSmani was put in charge.

Wiki editors, your aim should be to unearth the truth and not propagate "official truth". The war was not disorganised before June 1971 -- that is a myth propagated to give Awami League full credit for the liberation of Bangladesh. Please identify the organisation of a liberation army -- with a full plan of how to build the nation (a constitution of sorts) after liberation. The army had a vision and was preparing for the war since the late 60's. This was outside the Awami League. They fought till the end and fought outside the Awami League sphere. Dig and find out about that army. And we will all learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.213.12 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

nothing will change the fact that Pakistan handed defeat to India and won the 1971 war. So it is pointless arguing on such matters. All that really matters is that Pakistan liberated Bangladesh and that a new nation was created. The organisation in question was only an Indian front involved in trying to retain East Bengal in the Indian Union. Harvardoxford (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are being sarcastic, right? :) --Ragib (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvardoxford (talk · contribs) is a vandal and troll who is making nonsensical edits on various pages. I am scratching his post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Economic disparities

The table showing comparrison of expenditure on West Pakistan vs East Pakistan may be sourced, but without it isn't useful wihtout some contextualizatation such as the population of the two regions. Dainamo (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

China

The word "resapond" should be changed to respond in the following text:

"the reason why Chinese did not resapond as Nixon suggested was unknown." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vypo9 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of Pakistani Troops

The number of Pakistani troops cited to be present in East Pakistan during the war is terribly wrong. The two sources cited are highly biased and use second-hand information from sources that have themselves picked up figures from hear-say. NO Evidence exists of Pakistani troop figures to be that high in East Pakistan. The correct estimate comes from the newly published book, "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War' by Sarmila Bose. She has cross-checked all information in her detailed research. It is about time to revise this article to challenge the dominant narrative of the victors of war which amounts to propaganda as there is no real evidence of many of the claims made in this article; except Indians and Bangladeshis citing third-rate sources that cite other sources, who cite yet other second-hand sources & hear-say.

Other ridiculous claims in the article related to Pakistani POWs where the article states, 93k Pakistani 'troops' were taken as POWs by the Indian Army. Even the source cited for this claim, clearly shows that the 93k POW figure included Pakistani troops PLUS thousands of civilian officials AND their families. The actual Pakistani SOLDIERS taken POWs did not exceed 40k by the most liberal of estimates in researched academia.

Another heinous claim made by the article is that Pakistan Army abducted female students from Dhaka University and kept them as sex slaves in the cantonment. Absolute rubbish! The ONLY TWO books based on 'field research' by reputable scholars Richard Sisson & Leo Rose and now Sarmila Bose - folks who interviewed survivors demonstrates beyond doubt that there were NO female students at the Dhaka university campus since the uprising had shutdown all universities and schools a year prior & students had gone home. The only females that remained were some staffers who lived on the campus along with faculty members. This claim and the claim that 200,000 women were raped by the Army is ludicrous to say the least. The 'Times Magazine' report 'Even the Skies Weep' cited is written by a journalist who based his story on second and third-hand information received from third-rate sources. Even Samantha Power, the so-called Pulitzer Prize winning author who made this claim of massive rape, NEVER cited any sources in her book. NO ONE bothered to verify these claims.

And then comes the claim of 3million killed by Pakistan Army. Here's an excerpt from The Guardian titled 'The Missing Millions' published 6th June, 1972 by William Drummond who sneaked into East Pakistan on several occasions wrote after the war, This figure of three million deaths, which the Sheikh has repeated several times since he returned to Bangladesh in early January, has been carried uncritically in sections of the world press. Through repititions such a claim gains a validity of its own and gradually evolves from assertion to fact needing no attribution. My judgment, based on numerous trips around Bangladesh and extensive discussions with many people at the village level as well as in the government, is that the three million figure is an exaggeration so gross as to be absurd.

Same goes for 'Indian Involvement' section. Amazingly this section starts from the date of December 3, 1971 when war in the Western sector started after PAF launched attack on Indian fields in the West. The actual covert Indian involvement goes all the way back to March but overt Indian involvement started mid-to-late August 1971. This is evident again from The Guardian report on 18th Sept. 1971 whose correspondent got in touch with a Bengali rebel who openly claimed, The big operations are always done by the Indians. This was in reference to blowing up strategic assets & key infrastructure around East Pakistan.

Those guarding this topic from editing seem to be committing a heinous travesty of the highest proportions by letting only ONE side of the story flow. NO attempt is made in the article to present a balanced view by putting forth facts and figures that run counter to Indian and Bangladeshi claims regarding different aspects of the war. A gullible & select set of Western media outlets are sourced over and over again despite there being NO evidence of their journalists actually verifying any of the claims made in their stories. S.faris (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)s.farisS.faris (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of your arguments are from Bose's book. Bose's scholarship is questionable and controversial, and her claims have been debunked by multiple authors. For example, Bose bases her book on Pakistani sources, while disregarding any Bangladeshi source. See Mukherjee et al.'s debunking of Bose's "theories". --Ragib (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that the reports that appeared in The Guardian were written by Sarmila Bose? Of course Sarmila Bose is 'controversial' because she is challenging the established myths of the 1971 war that the victor's repetitive narratives would have the gullible lot believe without question or attempt at verification. The farcical narrative is then defended by those that seek to lose the most credibility by assaulting credentials and character of those who seek to question that narrative. Sir, I can guarantee you a hundred percent, you have NOT read Dead Reckoning at all. Simply saying that a distinguished scholar is 'controversial' is a lame-duck excuse to muzzle dissent against the dominant narrative. And using some Pakistani sources to reveal the other side of the story is wrong? Please tell us as to HOW. The Pakistanis were one of the three belligerents in the war. If the article can use completely Indian and completely Bangladeshi sources, why not balance the article out with Pakistani side of the narrative? Let me guess! All Pakistanis present in East Pakistan were monsters? SO they ALL must be lying? Correct?

Dear S. Faris, you couldn't catch the points correctly that suggests Ms. Bose "biased" and "controversial" in writing her book "Dead Recknoning". Sarmila Bose is "controversial" because she was biased in selecting interviewees while trying to establish the figures and some statements. Her interviewee list shows that she interviewed 30 Pakistani army officers, and three civilians. These officers can not be authentic sources of information as they were the perpetrators. Information, coming directly from perpetrators has a good probability of being flawed. Clearly, you can not use the figures stated in this book as facts in an wikipedia article since there is a high probability that the sources for these figures and some statements are not authentic and biased therefore. NasrinatWiki (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your username denotes Bangladeshi ancestry, your partisan views regarding Sarmila Bose are understandable - this is NOT a personal attack, just my humble observation. Her book is littered with countless Bangladeshi sources & eye-witness accounts of prominent Bangladeshis who supported the 'liberation'. Your argument to keep Bose's material off of Wikipedia is the same tactic used by pro-Liberation folks who wish to silence all voices that seek to question the dominant narrative. If Sarmila Bose's scholarship is questionable, I'm amazed to see sources in the references section whose authors do not exist in the academia beyond their one-page articles on dubious websites. You are effectively working as a policeman to avoid a neutral point-of-view to be presented to people all over the world so that they can see both sides of the story. Presenting a specific narrative of the conflict is NOT your job. This is why Wikipedia continues to be treated with apprehension as a source for proper information by most universities where 'standards' matter.

Next you will say that Richard Sisson and Leo Rose's work is also not acceptable by labeling them 'controversial' as well. And with that, you toss out the two most extensively researched works on the 1971 war thereby shutting out any challenge to the narrative painted in the current article.S.faris (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)s.farisS.faris (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

======================================

I will be changing the number of Pakistani troops cited in the Order of Battle section since it is absolutely wrong and defies all etiquette of sourcing information. The number cited for the figure of regular Pakistan Army troops is 365,000 and is sourced from www.acig.org. To begin with, a simple thorough reading of the article on acig.org will reveal that the article cites 365,000 figure as being the 'total' strength of the Pakistan Army; this Wikipedia article is about 'Bangladesh Liberation War' - by no stretch of imagination was the entire Pakistan Army involved in East Pakistan - heck, the entire Pakistan Army was not even involved once the 'official' Indo-Pak war of 1971 began which brought West Pakistan into the equation.

In 1971, the total strength of the Pakistan Army was about 365.000 men, with additional 280.000 in para-military forces. In the west, the PA deployed its 12 Infantry Division and part of 23 Infantry Division along the ceasefire line in Kashmir.

This sentence is directly quoted from the article at acig.org. Furthermore, the article at NO point claims that the entire strength of 365,000 troops of the Pakistan Army was involved in the 'liberation war' and this is to be treated separately from the Indo-Pak War of 1971. Stating 365,000 Pakistani troop strength for Bangladesh Liberation War is therefore a fallacy and presents the readers who source Wikipedia with misinformation and a skewered rendering of a historical event. To continue further, www.acig.org is a highly unreliable source for this topic since the website is primarily about combat aircraft & to some level pseudo-intellectual discussion of air-warfare, these are NO historians, academics or scholars by any standard, nothing more than a collection of history/military (air-warfare) enthusiasts. To top it all, the 'editor' of the self-styled website, Mr Tom Cooper has pretty much written 75% of the articles on the website.

The article from the website that is used in this Wikipedia article cites NO sources for 'any' of the claims in the written piece by Mr Tom Cooper and his associate Khan Syed Shaiz Ali and merely posts a vague 'bibliography' of SIX 'actual' sources for an article that stretches to such a great length about a complex civil-war, of which, FIVE books cited are about specific combat aircraft written by other 'enthusiasts'. To add insult to injury, the remaining two sources are vaguely cited as 'bharat-rakshak.com' and 'pakdef.info' both highly biased websites aimed at regurgitating national myths and other hyperbole to their respective audiences (not to mention no specific article or anything from those two websites is cited). And MOST amazingly, the article proudly claims that much of the information for the article is sourced from 'discussions' on its online 'forum' between members. WHO are these members? Are they academics? Historians? University-standard scholars? NO CLUE. There is NO information on who runs acig.org, there is NO contact information, there are NO credentials presented for any of its 'staff' who supposedly write the articles posted on the website.

Sadly, this is a travesty to allow such rubbish information to be published here in this Wikipedia article as a 'source'.

I will be citing information from the recently published book, "Dead Reckoning" on the Bangladesh Liberation War by a respected university scholar, professor and the book is published by a respected university's own press which adds immense credibility that acig.org can only dream about. This information has been cross-checked by the author who has seen actual primary documents of troop postings by Pakistan of its units to then East Pakistan. This information also challenges the other 'myth' of the 1971 war that 93,000 Pakistani troops were taken POW by India; which I will be fixing next.S.faris —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

Once again, the book "Dead Reckoning" has been snubbed by many academics as shoddy research and can't be used as an authoritative source. So, it is a POV source that can't be used as a fact. --Ragib (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear S. Faris, you should not cite information from Bose's book "Dead Recknoning" because this book lacks neutrality in method of collecting information on an highly sensitive issue. Ms. Bose used some information as facts which she collected from the people who were the perpetrators of 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh. Obviously there is a very high probability that the information is biased. And again, information coming directly from the perpetrators has high probability of being flawed and these probably flawed information has been used by Ms. Bose. So, you should keep yourself from using information from Bose's book. NasrinatWiki (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And which academics have 'snubbed' "Dead Reckoning" exactly? Almost all of them are Bangladeshis and Indians who dare not let anyone challenge their narrative of the war just as you are protecting it here based on false information from sources such as 'acig.org'; if you can, please try & refute my points regarding acig.org's credibility instead of using the same redundant mantra of accusing a scholarly work published by a 'university press' (hope you know what credibility a university press publication carries) as you've been doing all along since I raised my first objection, that would be most appreciated.

You claim that the book 'Dead Reckoning' which is based on extensive interviews from survivors of the war and primary documents is not authoritative & the author, Sarmila Bose, who is a Senior Researcher in the Politics of South Asia dept. at the University of Oxford and has held Directorship of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University has somehow done 'shoddy' research; yet you provide NO evidence to that effect except your previous mention of ONE individual, Nayanika Mukherjee. Thats about it.

Now lets see, who has more credibility; Sarmila Bose (Senior Researcher at Oxford University & a Director of Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism) or some unknown Tom Cooper from 'acig.org' whose credentials are nowhere to be found, nor is there any contact information on acig.org for him or anyone else & the fact that he cites ZERO sources for his claims while Sarmila Bose has interviewed war survivors & has cited at the very least, a 100 sources (there are plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian ones in there) in her book.

You are doing nothing but killing actual facts by stalling the editing of this fallacious article by raising moot objections such as POV and what not, where they don't even apply. I have yet to see a logical rebuttal from you regarding any of the points I have raised so far, which leads me to believe you are prejudiced towards actual facts and are deliberately hindering the way forward.

You have appointed yourself as the protector of a false narrative that cannot be supported by factual evidence, to which you have yet to provide logical & factual rationale, aside from hurling moot accusations against "Dead Reckoning" & its author without supporting evidence. Its author has conducted extensive interviews with war survivors in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, seen primary documents & the author cites sources for all the information in the book as opposed to 'acig.org' which you are protecting, that has NO source citations of their work whatsoever. I would like to see a response from you that goes beyond a one-liner. ThanksS.faris

Dear S. Faris:

Before you do any kind of edits to this article, please look at the following reviews on S. Bose’s new book "Dead Reckoning" and her research on Bangladesh War:

[1] Srinath Raghavan reviewed Bose's new book which was published by the Indian Express on July 30, 2011: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-dhaka-debacle/824484/1

Here are few excerpts from that article:

“The book examines a number of “case studies” of violence. The contextual framing of most of these is either skewed or missing, resulting in systematic misrepresentation of events….”

“Her claim that “several thousand Biharis” were killed by Bengalis in a single incident is dubious. More importantly, her attempt to pass off these (and other) reprehensible killings of Biharis as driven solely by ethnic hatred — the basis of her claim about “genocide” by Bengali nationalists — is utterly tendentious.”

“Equally problematic is Bose’s consistent effort to present the Bengalis in negative light— even when her own evidence suggests otherwise….”

“Bose makes an important point about the unreliability of most figures of the dead. Yet, her own approach to numbers scarcely inspires confidence…”

“….Far from advancing the cause of truth, it ends up muddying the waters of scholarship.”

[2] Nirupama Subramanian’s review, published by The Hindu on September 27, 2011: http://www.thehindu.com/arts/books/article2488077.ece

Here are some excerpts:

"For me, what is problematic was the moral equivalence Bose has sought to create between the actions of the oppressor and the oppressed, on the one hand, a full-fledged Army — with its superior training and firepower backed by the quiet acquiescence of a superpower — and, on the other, a people who, by her own account, were ill-trained and had no stomach for battle."

"Bose puts down Rumi's disappearance as the “curse of custodial violence that is endemic to all of South Asia”, then goes on to say the Pakistani military personnel were “rather accurate” in picking up the right guys, not detaining anyone who was not involved. And then, citing the example of one rebel who got away, she concludes that “[the Pakistanis] did err in the opposite direction”.

Aside from being equivocal, Bose is free with generalisations about Bengalis and their “demonisation” of the other side and their hatred for the “Shaala Panjabi” or “Khan sena”. On the other hand, she highlights individual acts of kindness of Pakistani soldiers, narrating them with poignancy."

"Bose's interviews with the Pakistani officers who were involved in the “action” in East Pakistan are an important part of the book. But these seem to have none of the interrogative rigour of her interviews in Bangladesh."

[3] And here is what “The Economist” says about S. Bose’s new book:

"Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh war” is an effort by an Indian former journalist to interview Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who took part in, or were victims of, atrocities during the war. Her book is indeed flawed: it rushes to sweeping judgments and fails to offer much context for the snippets of interviews she presents."

Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/08/bangladesh-looks-back

It seems you are aware of Dr. Nayanika Mookerjee’s criticism on Bose’s shoddy research on Bangladesh War published by the “Economic and Political Weekly”: http://www.bricklanecircle.org/uploads/Bangladesh_War_of_1971_-_A_prescription_for_Reconciliation.pdf

Here is another EPW article which raised questions about her research methodology: http://www.epw.org.in/uploads/articles/11334.pdf

I can provide you more reference if you want. But, please tell me why this “flawed” book and her “shoddy” research should be referenced in this article on Wikipedia? Just because she works at Oxford and her book was published by a university press won’t fly my dear. It seems she has clearly an agenda in favor of Pakistan, which is exposed in this CSM article where she defended the U.S. sale of F-16 to Pakistan: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0411/p09s02-coop.html. And it is not hard to understand either why you are so interested using this fictitious book as a reference.

Thank you User:GOM_T —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

New books Insights must be added

There is a new book out on the topic of atrocities in 1971 by Pak Army. The article as is shows bias towards the bangladeshi line. Please see review here:

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110902&page=20

Also, the quote by Mujib "Kill 3 million and they will be eating out of our hands" is of very dubious origin. Pynes book provides no evidence as to where he got the quote. More on this quote is in the article too link provided above.

Im new to wikipedia as you can prob tell. ______________

Taimur Ali Ahmed www.taimurahmed.com taimura@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimura (talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)