Talk:Bangladesh genocide

Brushup of 'Violence against Biharis' section

The following paragraph has been omitted as I find it irrelevant --

In May 2003, a high court ruling in Bangladesh allowed 10 Biharis to obtain citizenship and voting rights. The ruling also exposed a generation gap amongst Biharis, with younger Biharis tending to be "elated" with the ruling, but with many older people feeling "despair at the enthusiasm" of the younger generation. Many Biharis now seek greater civil rights and citizenship in Bangladesh. On May 19, 2008 the Dhaka High court approved citizenship and voting rights for about 150,000 refugees who were minors at the time of Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, and those who were born after would also gain the right to vote.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabih omar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 December 2009‎

Genocide in Bangladesh

The civil war and upheaval at this time certainly resulted in many deaths, but I do not believe that it meets even the most broad definition of genocide. The title should be changed to something less emotive and inaccurate.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The title/usage is determined by reliable sources. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: He may have a point there. I would urge other editors to look into this. Because the ICJ, in 1972, did express reservations about applying the term genocide to all the atrocities in the conflict, applying that term to only sections of the violence (i.e against Hindus and indiscriminate killing towards the end of the conflict).

And the involvement of Bengali collaborators with the Pakistani Army further complicates matters. I am not aware of any accepted genocide where members of one race assisted the genocide of their own race. So its a problematic word. A more better term would be 'atrocities'.

The lead of the article claims that there is academic consensus that it was a genocide. Not only are most of the sources unavailable for me, but its in direct contradiction to the fact that highly reputable American academics Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose denied that a genocide occurred (as mentioned in the article). So either the source about academic consensus is false or it has missed out/ignored dissenting views. If there are dissenting academic views then that means there is no consensus. It would be better to say that there are scholars who term the atrocities a genocide and there are also scholars who don't believe it was a genocide.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict (4 March 2016)

This edit:

• Misrepresents sources and the entire situation. In the lede it tries to pretend that the genocide that occurred during the liberation war was against Biharis. In fact when sources talk about genocide they are specifically referring to the killings perpetrated by the Pakistani army and the allied militias. Rearranging the lede in this way to give this false impression is obviously POV, to put it nicely.

• The sentence and paragraph which begins with "According to political scientist Peter Tomsen..." is specifically referring to Jamaat-e-Islami, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams. The clause "these militias" obviously refers to these groups. Sticking "Mukti Bahini and Indian army" into the middle of it is not only incorrect grammatically, it is also an obvious attempt to POV the text. Mukti Bahini and Indian army are covered elsewhere in the article.

• It repeats the Samil Bose text more than once (at least three times if not more).

• The book by Aziz is not a reliable source.

• Even putting that aside, that book is given waaayyyyyyy too much attention and UNDUE weight in an article that is actually about something else.

Bottom line is that these are clumsy, and very POV edits. Even a portion of this would require talk page consensus. Trying to cram it into the article by force is very disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• You cannot just repeat the words "POV" "POV" "POV" and "consensus" "consensus" consensus" to justify your reverts. My edits and the other editor's edits actually make the article NPOV. The article is completely one sided. You moved a sentence up in the lede which talks about "scholarly consensus" about genocide. If you carefully look at the source, you will see that it doesn't single out one party. It just says "There is a scholarly consensus that events of 1971 were a genocide" but here you misrepresenting the source by moving the sentence about violence against Biharis down from that sentence. This way the source seem to single out a party.

• The source which talks about atrocities by Pakistan allied militias. It clearly mentions both Mukti Bahini and Indian Army in the same sentence. By excluding them, you are making the article POV but their inclusion makes it NPOV.

Edits by another editor to which I mostly agree

• Wherever Sarmila Bose is categorized as controversial, the sourced text which gives the other perspective should go in giving the article an NPOV look.

• No comment about Aziz book. Changing my position on this book as there are editors saying on another talk page that even primary sources are allowed if they are not interpreted by an editor and presented as they are. So I think there should be no problem including this in the format of, "According to this book written by this author..." so that it's properly attributed to that source.

• Putting aside that book, there is huge amount of other text which is sourced to reliable sources such as D'Costa and BBC which makes the article NPOV but being removed by you

Finally, I suggest adding NPOV tag to the article until these issues are resolved because the article in its current stage is highly POV and it needs to be neutralized and carry the perspective of both sides. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the dispute, but on the process/debate. WP:NPOV means representing the views appearing in reliable sources in proportion to the frequency with which they appear. (WP:WEIGHT) Giving undue important to one source is WP:UNDUE. The opposite of NPOV is not "one-sided". The opposite of NPOV is UNDUE. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing that SheriffIsInTown is still POV edit warring, despite the confirmed rejection of POV edits on this talk page and others. Capitals00 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide reasons for rejections, without a valid argument, rejection does not mean anything. You need to reject on policy based reasons, i did give a long reply above addressing all the objections. You cannot just use the term POV so liberally as a pretext to your reverts. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why I should copy paste what has been already told by User:Volunteer Marek. You believe that Aziz is reliable source, its published by Publications Division of the United Press of Pakistan Ltd., which is unreliable. In place of endlessly reverting the edits you need to get consensus for them or just forget if you are not getting any. Capitals00 (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you clearly see, i excluded Aziz from my last edit although i think primary sources can be cited if they are attributed properly as per WP:PRESERVE, also i replied to Volunteer Marek in detail and answered each one of his arguments. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"The perpetrators also included Mukti Bahini and Indian Army who targeted noncombatants and committed rapes as well as other crimes", where it is supported by the provided source?[1] Capitals00 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On page 3 of that book. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems doubtful because it is not specifically alleging mukti bahini and Indian army, do you have any other source that is clear about it? Capitals00 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"You cannot just repeat the words "POV" "POV" "POV" and "consensus" "consensus" consensus" to justify your reverts." - I didn't. I explained in detail what was wrong with those edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And i explained in detail that why the changes are right, do you have counter-argument? And for the record, you did repeat those words in summary lines and you have been doing so for a long time. This is like if you cannot do anything else just accuse the other of POV-pushing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Violence against Biharis

Bangladesh Genocide is about the genocide committed by the Pakistan army against Bengali people, religious minorities etc. It is not about the violence between Bengalis and other Bengalis and Biharis. There should an article about Violence against Biharis, maybe a new article called Violence against Biharis in Bangladesh Liberation War or could be merged to Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. But having all this content in this article is WP:UNDUE.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think having all this content in this article will WP:BALANCE it. Just like all Bangladesh related articles have content from all of its related articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Vinegarymass911. I suggest you create the other page as recommended and one of us can briefly summarize it here. You might also read WP:BALANCE before citing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The related articles is already present. That's not the issue. The issue is of showing both sides of the story (in this article) so the readers are not fed one-sided info, and then leave it to them to decide. The issue is giving due weight to both view points. Having another article do not do that primarily. Because one of the reasons for having a separate article is the 'length' and notability of the topic. Yes, "violence against Beharis in Bangladesh" is notable enough and thus it has a related article: Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, but that does not mean that 1971 Bangladesh genocide should have no content on genocide of Biharis. If that had been the case then there was no need of having a section on Violence against minorities. Why does all other articles on Bangladesh also have sections dedicated to fringe topics? How can you cherry-pick a race/religion and include its genocide in this article but exclude the one you dont like? So yes, may be it is you how need to read WP:BALANCE again.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum or debate. It purpose is not to give arguments in favor or against any topic. WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE does not mean giving equal space to all viewpoints. For example, the article on the Earth does not gives equal space to Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. The Bangladesh genocide is specifically the genocide committed by Pakistan army per reliable sources. It is not our job to redefine the Bangladesh Genocide. Is the violence against Biharis called genocide by reliable sources and is it called "1971 Bangladesh Genocide". From WP:BALANCE "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". Is the article on Holocaust going to give equal prominence to Holocaust denial? The edits are not only undue they also come dangerously close to genocide denial and genocide justification. Content on disputes about total killed can be included, the government of Pakistan's denial can be included because that would in the interest of Balance but not such large content on Violence against Biharis. Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance per WP:GEVAL. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the Bangladesh genocide did not take place would mean genocide denial and genocide justification, but saying that genocide of another race also took place in the same theatre would not - a huge difference. I wonder how did you miss it, it wasn't so subtle. So you need to choose your words carefully before pointing out fingers. It is rather alarming of you to say that WP:BALANCE would rather mean to give 'equal prominence' to Holocaust denial. You are just comparing oranges with apples. The only problem here is about the inclusion of genocide of Biharis alongwith genocide of Bangladeshis in the article. Or do you think (all) Biharis were non-Bangalis? After all this article is about 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Biharis killed by Mukti Bahini were Bangladeshi too as were the Hindu Banglais whose killing already has a place in this article. I think, it should be you who should be careful as it is you who is at the verge of denying that a genocide/systematic persecution of Bihairs and non-Bangalis did take place along side the Bangalis. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not saying your edit was the problem nor have I accused you of anything. Porajmos is an article on the genocide of gypsies while the Holocaust is on the Genocide of Jews that occurred during the same period. The mass murder of Bihari population was not/is not called Bangladesh genocide. They are two separate incidents. It is rather alarming of you to say that WP:BALANCE would rather mean to give 'equal prominence' to Holocaust denial. Never said that, in fact I said the exact opposite. Not against inclusion,I did not remove all content on Violence against Biharis. The content should not be this large on this article because it is offtopic and WP:UNDUE. Create a separate article on Bihari Genocide. I am willing to help with that. P.S. Bihari by definition is not Bengali, two separate ethnicities.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Vinegarymass911: User TripWire has complained to me that you may be using news sources inappropriately. Please note that, as per WP:NEWSORG, newspaper op-eds can be used with only inline attribution. The policy also requires us to determine the reliability of the authors. For historical information, scholarly sources are the only acceptable ones according to WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This guy (TripWire) is doing Disrupting Editing. First he removed entire sourced materials cited by Vinegarymass911 and some other users including me just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT (see) and then again, he removed sourced material (see) labelling relevant info as UNDUE. And, I don't think taking an image from any article and then inserting it in relevant section of another article is vio. of any wiki policy. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze, there are currently numerous disputes on various pages related to Bangladesh War. That means any edit before it is made must get consensus, which you and your gang is not doing. Shouting RS, RS, source, source will not get you through when that info becomes disputed. So instead of pushing the WP:POV, talk it out and stop the Disrupting Editing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You can disagree with the content as long as you want but that won't stop others from inserting sourced material in the article. Also, Vinegarymass911 only added counter-POV additions (by TBZ) in the lede and in below sections. So If you are saying Every Edit must get consensus then FYI, none of the TBZ recent addition of bose books have been discussed here, let alone consensus. You need to provide a valid reason for opposing rather then blatantly reverting other user's contributions. That is considered WP:DE. Beside, I see you didn't reverted Faizan's additions while reverting other users. Why? You should stick to WP:NPOV. Also, See WP:DRNC. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How about this you point out the problem with a specific content or source and I will attempt to fix to it. Newspaper are reliable when, Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. Since Tripwire is so worried about sourcing , I assume he noticed that TBZ had sourced his content to storyofbangladesh.com, an anti Bangladesh blog. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury is a hard man to find as repeated google and amazon search show no presence outside of this work, which has not received mainstream coverage. He appears to be fringe. Sharmila Bose has been quoted by TBZ so many times that you would assume she is the greatest historian in this particular subject, she is not. There are three paragraphs in 3 different sections starting with according to Sarmila Bose and two Sarmila Bose said in two other sections. That is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. WP:HISTRS is an opinion essay, it is not policy or guideline. Regardless, I repeat, raise the exact content or source that is an issue and I will try to solve the problem.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire:, the ball is in your court. Can you point out some instances that you find problematic? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Before proceeding further, and just to set the record straight, allow me to quote Kutilya3 on adding content on historical article from Newspapers: "You are welcome to quote what Naim says, but not what the newspaper says. Newspapers are not reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 3:55 am, 1 April 2016," I wonder how come he is now supporting info from "newspapers" when it pushes the Indian POV? Moreover, I will be giving 'some instances' soon.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Dr Chowdhury is not such a hard man to find: https://www.history.org.uk/resources/general_news_1565.html http://www.sheikhnews.com/2014/01/03/muminchoudhury-2/ TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

His biography in what appears to be a press release, that matches word for word the one in his book. It even has the same typo. He writes he graduated from the universities of Dhaka.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yahya Khan's quote

Yahya Khan's quote: 'Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat of our hands' has no reliable source and sorry the Independent Newspaper is not enough to attribute this quote to Yahya Khan. Its unlikely he could have made a public statement like this. I have found that this quote first came from Robert Payne, who is not WP:RS.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Added two other citations to the quote.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)