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

RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the changes in this diff be made to the article which includes addition of content about violence against Biharis, the edit also includes different figures regarding number of people killed and women raped and reason why Operation Searchlight was launched? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please reword your RfC in a neutral manner. See [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Try a little harder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Again. Please reword your section title and your request in a neutral manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What is not neutral in that section heading? I see it very neutral. Is there a forum where we can take this section heading to find out if its neutral or not instead of fighting with each other? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reject: It's clear case of pushing a fringe theory with an aim to "Genocide Denial". Academically, it was a genocide against Bengalis. And, in that process some Biharis were killed. The "state machinery" was against the Bengalis. So,oppose it totally. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty.Ghatus (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is one source in the article, this one which talks about an academic consensus about 1971 Bangladesh genocide. It talks about the overall events which took place in 1971 in East Pakistan and does not say that the consensus is about atrocities committed by just Pakistan Army. The text of the source is "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."

And then, there are others which say that violence against Biharis were a genocide as well, this is one of those sources. So, clearly the consensus is about overall events being genocide and not just violence committed by one party.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this is false. Pretty much every source that discusses "1971 genocide in Bangladesh" refers to the genocide perpetrated by Pakistani Army and their allies against Bengalis. Yes, other violence also occurred and other groups also suffered. But the specific word "genocide", when used, is specifically referring to Pakistani Army genocide of Bengalis. There are separate articles for the other info, like Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. And as has already been pointed out to you, the Rummel source DOES NOT call the killings of Biharis "genocide" (it calls it "democide" which is a different concept). And even if it did, that would be a different topic than this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Democide is a form of genocide. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Democide is "killing by government". Democide *can be* a genocide. But democide also can be NOT a genocide. And as pointed out previously, this is a separate topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, how about this, this clearly talks about genocide against Biharis? Explain to me why it should not be covered? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Where? See my comment below. It does not talk about "genocide against Biharis". Clearly or otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A. J. Rummel also calls it a counter-genocide, not just democide! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reject as a clear attempt to create a POV WP:COATRACK. And while I think it's completely ridiculous to pretend that this article isnot about the genocide against Bengalis, since some users are trying to actually push that kind of POV, here are some representative sources:

This source explicitly names the Pakistani Army as the perpetrators of the genocide. And while it doesn't explicitly say "against Bengalis" it does say "against unarmed civilians" and from the context it's obvious it's referring to Bengalis.

This source explicitly states that this was a genocide "against Bengalis" although it does emphasize that among Bengalis, Hindus were especially targeted.

This source explicitly names Bengalis as targets of the genocide.

This source explicitly makes the Pakistani army culpable.

Further sources [2], [3], [4].

Pretty much any source on the subject says this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that the article is not about genocide against Bengalis and neither the content in that edit denies that, the edit mentions violence against Biharis part of genocide as well as the violence against Bengalis. It also introduces different figures based on reputable sources which go against the mainstream adapted figures thus balancing the article and making its content more neutral. It's also a partisan viewpoint that your search term is only centered on "genocide in bangladesh Bengalis", also as Freeatlast pointed the second source clearly talks about "genocide against Biharis". It is completely ridiculous to pretend that the genocide excludes non-Bengali civilians massacred by Bengali nationalists". You are trying to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Nobody ever said that the article is not about genocide against Bengalis - uh... you pretty much said exactly that here. I'm having trouble understanding the rest of your comment. But are you questioning the sources I provided? If you have sources which claim that "the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide" was "a genocide against Biharis", by all means provide them. And what comment of Freeatlast are you referring to? Not seeing it. And if you're referring to the Gary Bass source then, NO, it does not talk about "genocide against Biharis". Clearly or otherwise. You're sort of exhausting my monthly allotment of good faith with such claims. And one more time - the fact that non-Bengali civilians were killed by Bengali nationalists should of course be mentioned in the article - and it is! - but that was not part of the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide as sources describe it. Look at Rwandan Genocide for a comparison. There, there were also Hutus killed by Tutsis, especially in reprisal. But the genocide was "against Tutsis".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"You are trying to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia." - Gimme a break. Whenever someone is prevented from pushing their POV on some articles they start crying "WP:CENSOR!". Adhering to NPOV is not censorship.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fully Accept Removing this amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned. We have the same with Holocaust deniers, why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed? It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article. So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included. We are wikipedia, not some crackpot holocaust deniers club, have some decency people. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment is so absurd it's actually offensive. It's you guys who are trying to whitewash and weasel the genocide against Bengalis with these false equivocations. The violence against Biharis *is already mentioned* in the article! No one says it shouldn't. What should not be done however is turning this article into a POV WP:COATRACK about something that matches your POV.

And I really suggest you strike your accusations of "Holocaust denial". That's very very very offensive and if you don't I am soooo reporting you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, see above and examine the edit more carefully one more time, the edit is not denying genocide against Bengalis, it's you who is denying that violence against Biharis should not be included and also removing other sourced content and bent on keeping unsourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek I stand by my comments. All deniers should be treated equally. If is a biased attitude that a person who denies holocaust is sanctioned while here we have people who are saying that "biharis were killed in the process"? Srsly? I mean come one, this is a full blown genocide supported by multiple RS(for example the second source that you yourself provided is agaisnt your claim) and you guys are saying that "no" this is a coatrack? Srsly? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: Honestly, this RfC was an attempt to stop fighting and involve the input of un-involved editors, you have given your comment and you have given your vote, i will suggest that you leave it for others to comment now. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but then you need to reword the request in a neutral manner. And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I already reworded my request in a neutral manner, i don't think it can be reworded any further and still explain the edit. You need to stop with your accusation of tag-teaming. People working on the same project are not a tag-team. This request was published in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Politics, History, Village Pump Policy and Neutral Point of View forums to get a broader point of view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Accept The title clearly says that it is about the genocide that took place in Bangladesh which occurred following/prior to the events in 1971. So how much POV you like to push, it wont change that Biharis were subjected to genocide too, and thus it should be part of the article. When the article is about the genocide in Bangladesh as a country, it included all its residents;Bangalis, non-Bangalis, Biharis, Muslims, Non-Muslims, Hindus, Non-Hindus etc. We cannot limit the article's scope to just one ethnicity or religion or group of people. Or do you want to say that Biharis were not subjected to genocidal acts? If so, you will then be crossing a line - a dangerous line. And Gautus, allow me to explain you what 'genocide denial' actually means; it means, in its simplistic form, to deny that a genocide took place. Which infact you are doing by denying that genocide, persecution or systematic/planned killing of Biharis did not take place. I'd request you to re-read the RfC statement and understand that it is about inclusion of info concerning a(nother) genocide in Bangladesh, not removing any info related to the genocide of a particular group - there's a huge difference in both. So, please clam and tone it down, as requested earlier to you many times. And VM, your references are self-defeating, and the strange thing is that you know it and points the same out in your argument yourself. But I do agree with you that deniers of genocide must be reported, and hence you may want to take a look at Ghautus' comment.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Except there are no sources which say that the violence against Biharis was part of the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh. The article is about "genocide in Bangladesh as a country" as defined by reliable sources. And ALL of these when talking about the "1971 genocide in Bangladesh" are talking about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Army and its allies against Bengalis. That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article are a POV WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There are definitely sources which describe violence against Biharis as a genocide, see this for one.

Ok, finally we have ONE source which refers to what happened to Biharis as a 'genocide'. That doesn't change the fact that: 1) that is just one source and overwhelming majority of sources do not describe it as such and reserve the term "genocide" for what happened to Bengalis. You used "sourceS", plural. 2) That is a separate topic for which we have a different article: Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (if you feel that that article isn't titled correctly, please start a WP:RM over there). This article is about the genocide against Bengalis in 1971 because that's what virtually all sources mean when they write "1971 Bangladesh genocide".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How about you start an RM here and change the title to "1971 genocide against Bengalis" instead of 1971 Bangladesh genocide because according to your statement this article is about genocide against Bengalis. Clearly, the current title do not describe it properly. As long as there is one source describing violence against Biharis as genocide then it warrants mentioning under current title! Here is one more source for you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How about you start a different article if you really must. This article is about the 1971 genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Army against Bengalis because that's how overwhelming majority of sources define "1971 Bangladesh genocide".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Here is one more source for you, let me know how many you need? How can we limit this article just to Bengalis? This would not be NPOV, it would rather be a POV article if we did not mention both genocides which took place in 1971. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• One more. Let me know, when to stop because i have other things to do in life too. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm... that source is clearly referring (very briefly - single word in a hundreds of pages) to *Hindu* Biharis killed by the Pakistani army. (There is a number of sources which do that - use "Bihari" to refer to the non-Bengali Hindus which were also killed by the Pakistanis). Nice try though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No, its not, you are misinterpreting the source. The source does not even mention Pakistan Army or Hindus. It clearly says "Biharis in Bangladesh", I can quote the whole paragraph for you. Do not mislead people. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but from the context it looks to me that is referring to the Hindu Biharis who were also targeted by the Pakistani army. Don't accuse me of... random stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek How can we leave this out from an article titled "1971 Bangladesh genocide":

"A successful war of independence soon followed victorious Bengalis killed about 150000 biharis residents in retributive genocide alongwith about 5000 suspected collaborators."—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to leave it out and no one's proposing that the killings of Biharis get omitted. It just has to be given due weight because this article is about something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I support most, if not all, of the proposed additions. There does need to be some explanation for the fact that the obscenely exaggerated figure of three million apparently originated in a mistranslation of 300,000 (itself likely to be on the high side, but perhaps not totally beyond the realm of plausibility). Noting that the figures of 3 million killed and up to 400,000 women raped were essentially plucked from thin air and "repeated uncritically by Western commentators" through citogenesis is the most moderate, sensible caveat in the world. To be fair, while both sides were in fact culpable for atrocities, I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of the figures attributed to the Awami League, either. And I wouldn't make any claims regarding "both genocides" in lieu of any reliable sources using comparable language.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the 3 million figure might very well be inflated is already in the article. In the lede even. What should not be in the article is an anecdote from a letter to an editor - a primary source - about where it comes from. That can only be included if this info can be found in a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Honestly, you should check the edit before reverting it. I did add a secondary scholarly source to support the primary source so there were two sources supporting Serajur Rehman claim. You have a habit of blind reverts without actually examining the content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, I see that you did indeed add a secondary source here. But here's the problem - you did this as part of a blind revert and it's a very small easy to miss change and there was a ton of other problematic material you restored in that same edit. Had you done that as a separate single edit then maybe I would've left that in (hold on that). So see, before you accuse others of "restoring to his revision without caring much how much content was changed", how about you heed your own advice and refrain from making blind reverts. That way if you do make a slight constructive edit in addition to the reversion, it won't be missed.

Ok, now this secondary source. If you reword that sentence properly, without the non-encyclopedic POV language ("to Serajur Rahman's horror", etc) then we can put that back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Adjusting the language is not a problem but only if someone suggests so. For example, in this case we can change the word "horror" to "surprise" but it was never pointed out as a problem. My reason to add the source in that same edit was that you did not point out any other specific issue. That's why I decided to address the problem area while restoring other content to which no reasonable objection was raised. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that won't work either, because it's just editorializing based on a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a secondary source there as well and you confirmed that you saw it. How about you suggest the wording? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reject for two reasons. First, this RfC asks to support a lot of disputable and already disputed changes simultaneously. This never works. One should discuss individual changes separately. Second, each specific genocide usually has a specific perpetrator and specific victim. That one does not look as an exception, after quickly looking at this discussion. Painting victim as a perpetrator or describing them both as perpetrators is a classic "revisionist/denial" approach. I think we should not do it. Instead, all other violence (which certainly also took place) should be mostly placed to Bangladesh Liberation War and only briefly mentioned here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I did not have any other way to resolve this issue except this RFC. Volunteer Marek has a habit of reverting many edits together. He comes and restores to his revision without caring how much content was changed. If he has an issue with a little bit of content, he would still revert everything which becomes a mess and after we are done with edit-warring and talking at talk page, the only option left is an RFC. Then its hard to single out content when all the content is part of the dispute. Are you suggesting multiple RFCs? Would you like to explain if any of the content change you can support? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure if any of this should be included. Here you tell: "It should discuss all genocidal events, no matter who committed them." Yes, indeed, there was violence by another side. But that was already included on the page, see this section. It also was already mentioned several times that the numbers of victims are highly unreliable. So, these changes look to me as unnecessary repeating of the same. But this is not all. Here is it. Why "ethnic cleansing" was excluded? Why it tells in introduction that genocidal "Operation Searchlight" was somehow "justified"? That does not look good. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You raised some good points, my response is below in my acceptance statement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Accept as nom: My reasons for acceptance are outlined below point by point addressing all changes:

1. This page's title is "1971 Bangladesh genocide", as per sources two genocides happened during that time, one which was against Bengalis and the other which was against Biharis. The title of the article gives a wrong impression if genocides which happened during 1971 are not fully covered. Without that the article do not scale very good on WP:NPOV. I have given several sources in above conversation which categorize the violence against Biharis as a genocide. Its very important that we cover that. As a neutral information portal, we should not be taking sides. This means we should also be adding "Biharis" as target and "Bengalis" more specifically "Mukti Bahini" in the list of perpetrators.
2. "Deportation" and "ethnic cleansing" should be removed as attack types until someone can source them, same for "genocidal rape", i saw sources only for "rape", i did not see sources use the term "genocidal rape", i do not have a problem with anything as long as sources support the content.
3. Pakistan flag should be removed as it represents the whole nation and not just the Armed Forces, it is misrepresentation of the flag as per WP:FLAGICON.
4. The article starts saying that "genocide began with commencement of Operation Searchlight", the next line should describe the background of Operation Searchlight which is supported by a highly valued, neutral scholarly source. Its necessary for WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV.
5. "The war also witnessed killing of Biharis by Bengalis in the genocide during the war and Bihari women were raped and tortured during the war and its aftermath by Bengali males, primarily from Mukti Bahini." is supported by multiple sources in the article. Its also necessary for WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Violence against Biharis need to be described at some level as violence against Bengalis is being described.
6. Attribution to Sarmila Bose is good enough in the beginning of the paragraph, it does not need to be repeated three times in the same paragraph.
7. The text about Serajur Rahman telling Mujib a different figure than what Mujib later on touted is supported by two sources, the word "horror" which was not my addition can be replaced with the word "surprise" or some other NPOV term.
8. The next paragraph which is being added explains the rationale given by Sarmila Bose abut why she has an alternate view about the figures of people killed and women raped. I don't see anything wrong with that as it si attributed to Bose.
9. Javed Jabbar gives a very interesting rationale about why the figures given are overly inflated and it would broaden the reader's comprehension of the subject. It is also attributed to him and we are not stating that text as facts.
10. Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi professor who holds an alternative view about the figures described by mainstream Bangladeshis. It's inclusion makes the article more NPOV.
11. The main objection about Qutbuddin Aziz was that its a primary source but i did support it with a secondary source. I hope there should be no objection to it now.

Most of these changes were not mine but were introduced by another editor and i think they are good changes and should be made. We would not provide any service to encyclopedia if we WP:CENSOR them just because editors with a certain POV do not like them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, one more time - this article is about the genocide of Bengalis by the Pakistani Army. Because that is what sources mean when they use the term "1971 Bangladesh genocide". You, and a few other editors with obvious POV WP:AGENDAs are trying to hijack this article and turn it into a coatrack for persecution of Biharis. The overwhelming majority of sources DO NOT talk about "two genocides", you guys pretty much invented that based on some passing mentions and vague terminology (interpreted in a self-serving POV way) which rarely occurs in sources. You have NOT shown any kind of support for this original research and/or fringe theory above. This is a blatant attempt at POVing the article, as others have also noted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that 'genocide of Biharis' is a fringe theory? What bothers me more is that you at the same time also try to champion one genocide over another?! WP:AGENDA is all I see.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

After spending some time, I found two sources calling violence against Biharies a "reverse genocide". However, the claim of genocide (as oppose to simply "violence") in this case seems to be an obvious "minority view", although not necessarily "fringe". Given that, I agree with VM. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Offcource, you would agree with VM, you must! Did you ever go against him? Any diffs you can show? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• REJECT; The above users belongs to a club of Pakistani POV pushers, who wants to show that Pakistan Army were the good guys and Mukti Bahini were the bad guys. They are working together to promote preposterous theories sourced from Pakistani websites and Pakistani writers. Pakistan Army came to rescue the Bihari women from being raped by Mukti Bahini, Indian Army and Mukti Bahini were involved in mass rapes Mass removal of content, large scale POV pushing to make Wikipedia look like a Pakistani encyclopaedia. They are spreading their propaganda all over Bangladesh related articles, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree. This is definitely a problem for a number of pages; one should simply look at their editing history and changes. Here is typical edit. "Bangladeshi professor Dr Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury also holds an alternate view." and so on. What happens are attempts to disprove views published in a vast majority of "Western" sources using nationalistic "alternative views" on the side of the perpetrator. I do not know, maybe Western scholarship is indeed biased, but it does describe this as a genocide of Bengalis by the Pakistani Army. There is nothing we can do about it. This looks like yet another example from this essay. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: The edit you showed is part of this very RfC. One should check your editing history as well and when we do so, then we find Long-term pattern of tag-teaming between Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes. I am not saying that, its what others are saying. Admins should be careful while considering their opinion when they are together in an RfC or anywhere on Wikipedia. No wonder you would show up here to support VM and at AE to do the same, claiming "you do not know anything about the topic" but you must support him. That explains why you would show up outside of your usual topic areas to support VM. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Would it help, if we first created an article on Violence against Biharis and then summarized some noncontroversial items here? Saw someone suggested it already above. Dorpater (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a suggestion along those lines above. There already is an article on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh though, so care would need to be taken not to create a content or WP:POVFORK. It would also need to be something more specific like Violence against Biharis during the Bangladesh War of Liberation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That can exist as main article. Violence against Biharis is just a very small portion of this edit. There is content in that edit about figures of Bengali genocide and reasoning behind Operation Searchlight. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes. It may come as a surprise to you but numerous Western sources (eg Christian Gerlach) point out to the fallacy of these rape and death statistics. The rape statistics of 200,000-400,000 women raped were 'plucked out of thin air', were not based on any ground research or data. And they were repeated without research by Western sources. However those who have researched, rather than repeated old statistics, do not believe these rape and killed statistics. To the extent that even Human Rights Watch notes that schholars consider the rape stats to be 'excessively inflated'.

Furthermore Germaina Greer, a notable feminist, has stated that the famous allegation of mass rape in Bangladesh was 'not true'. The notion that these statistics of death and rape were wildly exaggerated is now becoming an accepted truth in the mainstream. Thats why alternative viewpoints are more important in this conflict than others.Towns Hill (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@ArghyaIndian

You are displaying bad faith against other editors.

Now do point out where it has been said by me that the Pakistani army were the 'good guys' (although yes there are sources to that effect but I have not ever brought that up nor do I intend to)? Nor has it been written into the article that the Pakistani army came to save Bihari women from being raped. (Needless to say, but a reliable Routledge source does say that Pakistan used anti-Bihari violence as justification to commence Op Searchlight, although it doesn't explicitly refer to the rape).

And the statements being included about the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini are also well-sourced. For example Yasmin Saikia, a reputable scholar, was provided as the source for the statement about rapes committed by Indian Army and Mukti Bahini (I just checked the sentence being referred to here and its source).

Furthermore, let me tell you something. I am trying to neutralise a biased article which is giving a one-sided picture and I make sure to use good references. I don't know why neutralisation of a one sided article seems like POV pushing to you. Towns Hill (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Accept : The article as it exists is already heavily one sided. The changes being proposed will neutralise the article by presenting both perspectives. Lets examine the proposed additions:

1. Adding background information for the origin of Operation Searchlight. The proposed addition is coming from a reliable Routledge source. There is simply no reason to exclude a good-sourced sentence explaining Operation Searchlight's origin. I suspect that those who are opposing this change want to keep the article in its biased form.

2. Serajur Rehman: He says he was the first Bangladeshi to meet Mujib and talk to him about the casualties. This makes him a highly valuable source and also partly explains the reason for where the 3 million number came from (now universally regarded as excessively inflated). And as per Wiki policy, primary sources are allowed so long as editors don't add their own input. Furthermore, David Bergman in The Hindu also quotes him. So a secondary source is available.

3. Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi professor and reputable academic Sarmila Bose (an academic who has received immense praise for her work from Western scholars) has referred to him in one of her journal articles (in the reputable Journal of Genocide Research) as a Bangladeshi who questions the popular narrative. Needless to say the popular narrative comes from unchecked and unaccounted statistics which have been repeated without a thought by Western media. Although the British medical Journal and Population Studies reject these exaggerated statistics (and also include deaths due to malnutrition and disease amongst the casualties).

4. It may not suit some people's nationalist narratives, but Biharis suffered a massive genocide in 1971. The Biharis were an ethnic minority (compared to ethnic Bengalis who constituted the vast majority of East Pakistan's 75 million people) and even by conservative estimates of Bihari casulaties, the proportion of Biharis deaths was extremely high compared to the proportion amongst Bengalis. And Sarmila Bose takes note of this in her journal article.

5. Furthermore, its well known that the violence was initiated by Bengali mobs against Bihari before 25th of March. This is backed up by a neutral reliable source from Routledge (Bina D'Costa). Anti-Pak army journalist Anthony Mascarenhas reports this and in the early days of the conflict gave a figure of 100,000 Biharis and 150,000 Bengalis killed. This is when he said that the Pakistani military reaction was much more brutal. Furthermore, he himself mentions that for 25 days before Operation Searchlight began, the Pakistani troops were being attacked by Bengalis and the Pakistani troops did not retaliate and exercised great restraint until Operation Searchlight. So to make the article neutral, such information should also be included.

6. The ICJ in 1971 had reservations about applying the term 'genocide' to all the killings in the war, preferring to restrict that term to the killings of the Hindu minority and indiscriminate killing of Bengalis towards the end of the war. It doesn't need pointing out, but the presence of pro-Pakistan Bengalis and the killing of fellow Bengalis they committed is also a fact. This fact skews the claim that all the killings were 'genocide'.

Towns Hill (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

1. No, this is written from the Pakistani Army point of view, but presented as factual. That's pretty straight up POV.

2. No, this is from a "letter to the editor", which is a primary source. If there is a secondary source, then please provide it, not just assert its existence.

3. Not sure what this has to do with this particular edit. As for Bose, while she is indeed a reliable source, her views are controversial and we need to observe WP:DUEWEIGHT. I.e. they should not be presented as factually true, or universally accepted, and in places where she is used as source, she needs to be attributed.

4. You need sources which actually call the violence against Biharis a "genocide". So far, there has been only one source provided which makes that claim (plus a purposeful misreading of a couple other sources) and does so in an off-handed manner and is not even about the topic. IF the violence against the Biharis was widely recognized as a genocide there'd be a TON of sources about it. There'd be international commissions issuing reports. There'd be people writing doctoral thesis and books on it. But there isn't. Because generally it's not recognized as a genocide, and even in the colloquial sense of the word, it is not seen as such.

5. No, this is your very skewed misinterpretation of the source. Again, this is the very clearly POV and very biased narrative that "Pakistani Army only committed the genocide against Bengalis to save Biharis". This is clear cut revisionism and has ZERO support in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: For item number two, why do you keep claiming that there is only a primary source after accepting that there is a secondary source? @Towns Hill: There is a secondary source in the edit being discussed to support Serajur Rahman letter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If it was from the Pakistani Army POV then I would have referred to a Pakistani Army website. I referred it instead to a neutral and highly respected source (Bina D'Costa). Of course, if you believe Bina D'Costa is a Pakistani soldier in disguise then thats up to you.

2.I think you need to check up Wiki's policy on using primary sources. I am willing to provide secondary sources if you agree that primary sources can be used as per Wiki policy (just as long as editors don't add their input to it).

3. Now don't take the discussion off on a tangent. So you have agreed that Bose is a reliable (scholarly) source. In extension, we can also agree that Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury (whom the scholar Sarmila Bose quotes) is also a reliable source. What Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury says is relevant because it shows how much these rape statistics were exaggerated. So much that not even many Bangladeshi believe them. And if this was not a major issue, then there would be no debate on the numbers killed/raped. Do we see such debates on the numbers killed in the Holocaust? NO. Because those statistics are agreed upon and based on verifiable information. In the case of Bangladesh, most statistics were exaggerated.

4. The International Commission of Jurists in 1972 said that if there was intent involved, then the killings of Biharis were certainly genocide. The ICJ however expressed reservations about calling the killings of non-Hindu Bengalis a 'genocide'. That should say something. And yes whatever sources that have so far been presented, categorise the killings your freedom fighters did in the same category as the killings the Pakistanis and their local allies did.

5. I have made no interpretation here. I am just pointing out what Bina D'Costa and Anthony Mascarenhas have said. Don't accuse me of making interpretations please when I am just stating what these two have said. Towns Hill (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes, the source is reliable. But sticking an inline citation at the end of a piece of text does not mean that NPOV has been observed. It's trivial to misrepresent the source, take a quote of context or give undue weight and then put an inline citation to make it look legit. And that's what's going on here. Source is reliable. But the text here is written from Pakistani army POV.

2. I know Wikipedia's policy on primary sources quite well, thank you very much. And no, you can't use primary sources for stuff like this.

3. Stating Wikipedia policy on WP:WEIGHT and NPOV is not "taking the discussion off on a tangent". Of course I agreed Bose is reliable. But also controversial. So due weight, and attribution. (and spare me your own personal opinion and original research please)

4. Source please.

5. Nope, your interpretation and exaggeration of what sources actually say. The Pakistani Army DID NOT initiate Op Searchlight to protect Biharis, and it DID NOT conduct massacres and the genocide to protect Biharis. Arguing that that's why they did is sort of offensive.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Point out the sentence where I said the Pak army started Op Searchlight to protect Biharis. You are making up things now and putting fictious words into my mouth.

What I said was that Bina D'Costa says that Pakistan justified Op Searchlight based on anti-Bihari violence by Bengalis. There is a difference. Again you can argue on this point till the cows come home but what we're trying to include is Bina D'Costa's highly valuable and relevant citation which doesn't suit your POV.

As far as Bose is concerned then wherever she has been mentioned then she has been attributed. And there aren't more than a couple of sentences from her on the entire page anyway.

And who said primary sources can't be used for 'stuff like this'? You don't own Wikipedia. Wiki policy allows inclusion of non-interpreted primary sources. Serajur Rehman is relevant under the 'estimated killed' section and thats where his statement has been incorporated.

And also, I have never argued that Pak army carried out massacres of Bengalis to 'protect' Bengalis. This must be a figment of one's imagination. Do point out where I have said that.

What I did say however was that Anthony Mascarenhas said that:

1. Pakistani troops were attacked by Bengais until Op Searchlight.

2. Pakistani troops exercised restraint until Operation Searchlight.

Towns Hill (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• REJECT as premature - [This RfC is a mess; Good luck to the closing admin!] On the first issue, whether to include the mention of "genocide" against Biharis, the issue is premature. If there was such a genocide, it should be discussed in a separate article and then it can be summarised here. There is already a Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh article, whose section on the 1971 events under Mukti Bahini makes no mention of a "genocide." That is where the issue should be developed first, discussing all the available sources in an NPOV manner. On the second issue, regarding the number killed, the 3 million figure is clearly a Bangladesh government figure. The article is using WEASEL wording in claiming that "independent researchers" have stated that figure. This RS says point blank that "most independent estimates" have put the figure at several hundred thousand. If the Wikipedia editors engage in their own assessment (mild form of WP:OR), they need to provide information to support the claim that these are indeed "independent researchers." Many of the citations given are decidedly not independent. I suggest that "several hundred thousand" should be used as the claim of independent researchers, not 3 million. Discussion is still continuing, and it is still continuing inside this RfC. The nom has raised the RfC prematurely. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for pointing that out, this was my first RfC, i will try to get better on that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reject- This is not the job of volunteer editors on Wikipedia to define the Bangladesh Genocide. Almost all reliable sources refer to the Bangladesh genocide as the actions by Pakistan army and associated paramilitaries on Bengali (Especially Hindu) civilians. Atrocities were committed by Bengalis on Biharis, no one is denying that. To call it Genocide there must be reliable sources that do so. Changing Deportation, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, genocidal rape to Mass murder, rape is simple historical revisionism that is not supported by Reliable sources. They are too many quotes to Sarmila Boses work already in the article. The Fact that she is Bengali has nothing to do with her research and it should be judged on its own merits. The Pakistan army's justification on searchlight can stay. Biharis had also committed violence against Bengalis so that should not be changed to imply that only bengalis committed violence. That being said a separate article can be created on Violence against Biharis during Bangladesh liberation war and should be created. Adding this amount of content on violence against Biharis is clearly WP:UNDUE. There are already too many claims cited to Bose in this article. "Anti-Pak army journalist Anthony Mascarenhas"? Really what makes him Anti-Pak? Is that your personal opinion? "1971 Bangladesh genocide", as per sources two genocides happened during that time, one which was against Bengalis and the other which was against Biharis.That is not true. Dr Bina D'Costa, in her article, said some 150 000 to 170 000 women had abortions before government initiative was taken. Take into consideration the number that did have abortions after government initiative, the number that was not pregnant or did not have abortions than 400 000 does not sound unbelievable. Overall the edits are undue and WP:COATRACK.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: I have no problem with Deportation, ethnic cleansing, and genocidal rape being added to the article. Problem is, there is no source saying that. Also, i do not have a problem with adding of 400,000 women raped if sources support that figure, in fact make it a million if a source says so, all i am asking here is that allow the sources which say by logic that number is too high and claim the number was in fact low. Present all view points so that the article becomes an WP:NPOV article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The posing of the RfC is a bit confusing as it links to a diff which is a reversion, so I can't quite figure which side would be supported by an "Accept" or "Reject" vote. With respect to numerical figures of rape and murder, The Guardian and Economic and Political Weekly are clearly reliable and it would be highly remiss to deprive the article of the doubt these sources cast on the figures. The other sources in a similar vein I'm less able to judge, but I see no red flags. Much of the argle bargle seems to be about whether to name a particular ethnicity as being a victim of genocide. If reliable sources say they were, then obviously the article should say they were. Most of the objection seems to be about relative privation. If the impact had a highly disparate impact on various ethnicities, and reliable sources remark on it, then all the advice of WP:DUE comes into play. Nothing should be hidden, but the article should be clear and explicit about any disparity of impact. Rhoark (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Reject This edit relies too much on the work of academic Sarmila Bose. Keeping this edit colors the article with a bias which is hard to miss. Above comments have claimed the article, as it is, to be "one-sided" but juxtaposing it against the work of a single author at length does not address that issue. At best, there would be a short paragraph summarizing Bose's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.185 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Accept - Yes, the sources being added are clearly reliable and there is no reason to censure the information in them. This article will not succeed at achieving neutrality unless it includes details from all the perspectives advocated in scholarly sources. Sheriff said everything that needed to be said, definitely include this.Homemade Pencils (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing during the RfC

Can we PLEASE not have editors trying to sabotage the RfC process by starting edit wars and making POV changes like here [5]? This was the version protected by Ymblanter. Leave it there until the RfC concludes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

References

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violence against women

"however, some scholars consider these numbers to be seriously inflated" cited to HRW appears to be wrong. HRW cites Brownmiller Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape pp 78-86, however Brownmiller gives figures of 200,000 - 400,000. Likewise HRW cites Nayanika Mookherjee as giving lower figures for rape, cited to This article however this article is a critique of the third source given by HRW which was Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War] by Bose, therfore the source cited for this line is incorrect and it either needs to be removed or altered to read that Sarmila Bose believes there were but a few thousand rapes during the genocide.2A02:20B0:32:100:0:0:0:5 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. HRW is using weasel wording when it says "some scholars claim". The word "some" overstates what is said by the sources HRW cites—namely that Sarmila Bose says that the figures are seriously inflated.

HRW also does not fit the description of an ideal source for history given in the essay "Identifying reliable sources (history)". So as a first step, I recommend replacing HRW with a citation to Sarmila Bose. If no other scholar can be found in a reasonable amount of time who also says the figures are seriously inflated, then also change the wording of the text from "some scholars consider" to "Sarmila Bose considers". --Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not currently well weighted on this point, and such a claim should not be cited to HRW. However, I think it would still be useful to include a short mention of the HRW claim, cited to HRW as HRW's opinion. With controversial issues, often it is very valuable to include some opinion as being the opinion of the party concerned, until such a time as a wide consensus of historians describes the issue in detail. Perhaps the article should focus more on the sources already mentioned, and then also include the HRW's cited opinion for now. Using the original historians is of course much better. MPS1992 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarmila Bose's nationality

@TripWire: You have reinstated Sarmila Bose's nationality thrice, the last time here. But you never said a word about why this is important and why it belongs in the article. Please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 You have removed Sarmila Bose' nationality twice [6] [7] which was long standing and quite relevant for the obvious reasons. The last time you reverted it, you also reverted info sourced from two sources which supported the fact that she is an Indian author by giving an edit-summary: "Not in source; and irrelevant to topic".

You need to explain how "it was not in the sources" when:

• the first source says: Sarmila Bose is an American journalist and academic of Indian parentage
• and when the second source (The Guardian) also very clearly says ....the Indian author Sarmila Bose, claimed that....

Second, as regards to your "why it belongs in the article" and that it is "irrelevant to topic", first you need to explain why you are removing a long standing and sourced content. But as you have repeatedly failed to do so, I will explain that it is relevant because despite being an Indian she has challenged what India has been claiming as regards to casualties during 1971 Bangladesh genocide, and hence it is quite pertinent to mention this as it adds weightage and makes it more authentic.

By removing this sourced info you are trying to push POV by omitting this fact so that readers are unable to see who the author is.

Lastly, as you are the one removing long standing and sourced content, the burden to gain consensus lies on you which you are not doing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Good quality scholars of the kind we use on Wikipedia are expected to be objective about the subject matter they study. Their nationality is not relevant, unless we have good reason to believe there could be bias. Multiple reliable sources have argued that Sarmila Bose is biased:

• The second source you have cited states, Bose's book is methodologically inconsistent and appears to be informed by a disdain for Bangladeshis and their movement for political freedom.
• A peer-reviewed critique says, The relationship and pre-existing bias she brings to this work plays out in her selection of stories, credulity about certain accounts, and dismissal of others.... Her stated agenda is to correct the bias. Yet, in that process, her research goes so far to the other side as to create a new set of biases, even more problematic.

The complexities of these biases are not illuminated in your nationalistic caricature as "Indian academic," which is not true anyway. She calls herself an "American of Indian parentage."

This kind of nationalistic argumentation you are doing is precisely what the recent ARE ruling was meant to guard against. But apparently it is not working. So I am requesting RegentsPark and Lord Roem to address the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for pinging the Admins. Didn't you by using phrases like "nationalistic caricature" and "nationalistic argumentation" just break the restrictions which were specifically placed on you? @RegentsPark: and @Lord Roem:—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that is blatant attempt to twist what I have said. "Nationalistic caricature" is what you are doing to the source, Sarmila Bose, by bringing in her supposed nationality and how she is supposed to have overcome it, going against her nation's position. This, despite all the biases in her treatment that have been pointed out by scholars which, they say, are going in the opposite direction. You need to stop bringing sources' nationalities into question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

All the twisting is being done by you alone when you say that she is not an Indian. Can you prove that she was not born to Indian parents when you yourself say that she is an "American of Indian parentage" or when The Guardian says that she is an "Indian author"? You say that I am bringing in her "supposed nationality" and that she being an "Indian academic" is "not true anyway", but can you please prove that it her being an Indian is supposed and not factual/sourced or that it is untrue? Anyone can be educated and brought away from his/her home country, but that does not change their nationality, unless they renounce it formally.

Lastly, you say that she is biased, but at the same time many independent sources do praise her:

• History emerges only slowly from the passion-filled context of contemporary events. Sarmila Bose’s book sets Bangladesh’s struggle for liberation at the start of this long passage.’ — David Washbrook, Trinity College, Cambridge
• Bose has written a book that should provoke both fresh research and fresh thinking about a fateful turning point in the history of the subcontinent.’ — Martin Woollacott, Guardian
• A significant intervention into the historiography of the Bangladesh War of 1971.’ — Amber Abbas, H-Memory

If you want to debate her nationality, you can do so at the Sarmila Bose page. If you want to debate the merits and demerits of the book, you can do so at the book's page. As far as this page is concerned, unless you have evidence of a pro-India bias, she must not be described as an "Indian author." When necessary, "Oxford researcher" is the correct professional description to use. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• It is you who are discussing Sarmila's nationality.
• It was you who FIRST brought the merits and demerits of her book into the discussion.
• It is on you to gain consensus before modifying sourced content. Please do that and stop twisting the discussion. The content stays till you gain consensus.

References

Bangladesh Law

Ref edits by Messiaindarain, I couldnt find any news that says the law criminalizing propaganda regarding 1971 war has been passed. All it says is that it is likely to be passed. So, for now I have reverted the edits, they can be put back when the law actually gets through. Moreover, when it gets through and we add the info here, it would also need to added in a NPOV way so as to include the fact that this new Bangladeshi Law is infact controversial, that people have been against it and that it have been criticized.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The legislation can, of course, be covered here, indeed almost certainly should be covered here, whether it is ever passed into law or not. The article must not state that it has passed, however, unless a reliable source can be cited to that effect. Also, the first paragraph of the "Estimated killed" section may not be the best point for material about the legislation. Much has been written about the proposed law. Whatever set of sources is selected to represent the range of views on the issue, I recommend that they include Bergman's [8] and [9] as one widely read opinion from a notable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The legislation may be covered, even if it hasnt been passed, however, as I pointed out earlier, it should be presented as it is while giving both sides' story to its acceptance, passage and controversy, if any. Also, I agree that the first paragraph may not be the best point where this should be mentioned. Whether to have it in a separate section is open for debate, but I guess that would be acceptable if the legislation could actually get through and is passed/implemented by the Bangladesh govt.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami vs. local Bengali collaborators

@Volunteer Marek: and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Guys, I made very small edits so they are easy to compare so let's discuss each change separately one by one and resolve before moving to the next change.

I changed the wording from "local islamist militias of Jamaat-e-Islami" to "local Bengali collaborators" in this edit because that is what page 40 of Margaret Alston's book says which is referenced. If one of you can add a reference which says otherwise then I will go with your version otherwise accept mine and move forward to next item. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Genocide committed by whole of West Pakistan against whole of East Pakistan

We move on to next item in the list. This text by West Pakistan against the people of Eastern Pakistan was added at the end of first paragraph without discussion and without achieving any consensus otherwise first paragraph have always been ending at the word genocide. The onus to discuss and achieve consensus is on the party which wants to add that text and wants to keep it there. This additional text is unsourced and POV. Their was no entity existing by the name of West Pakistan in 1971. Moreover, the whole of westren region was not involved in a genocide against whole of East Pakistan. In fact, a lot of indiginous East Pakistan elements were involved in that activity as well. Secondly, that Payaslian source only says that events which took place in 1971 were a genocide, that source does not mention the culprti and the victim. Adding that additional unsourced text makes it POV and WP:OR. With starting this discussion, i will go ahead and remove that text. Please participate in the discussion and achieve consensus if anyone wants to add it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212114450/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf to http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2005/12/03/remembrance.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2005/12/30/editorial.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Describing Chowdhury's book as controversial

When i remove the word controversial in this edit, i am merely reverting this edit which was made without achieving any consensus on talk page. So, when something unsourced can be added without consensus then it can be removed as well. If someone can add a reliable source which describe this book as controversial then i am fine with keeping that word. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The word "controversial" may be paraphrasing: Bose, Sarmila (2011). "The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war". Journal of Genocide Research. 13 (4). doi:10.1080/14623528.2011.625750. Bose writes "Publications like the polemical Behind the Myth of Three Million by M. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury ..."

Word choice aside, it isn't clear to me why Wikipedia is citing Behind the Myth of Three Million or (later in the same paragraph) Suppression of the Muslims: US Policy and the Muslim World. Neither seems to fit the description of a reliable source or the advice of WP:HISTRS. Chowdhury is a management consultant with a degree in sociology, the publisher is not an academic one, and the book is held by precisely one worldcat library. Does anyone see any reviews of his work in scholarly journals? I can't find anything on the qualifications of Haque, Archway Publishing is a self-publisher, and no worldcat libraries hold the book. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)