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)

Article is filled with Weasel words in the introduction. Cites one set of figures, than a claim of "independent scholars." Clearly there is more than one independent scholar. Better to make the broader claim of say, estimates vary widely from 50,000 to 3 million. Puck42 (talk) 08:23, 19 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) This editor is a sock-puppet

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) This editor is a sock-puppet

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)

@Vinegarymass911: Take a closer read. It says: 'was educated at the universities of Dhaka, Exeter (England) and London.'No typo.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 03:23, 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)

@Vinegarymass911:If you put your bias aside and start doing some actual research, on Google books for example, you will find that the quote is dubious. It first came from Robert Payne and he is no WP:RS.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

@TalhaZubairButt: Source Please? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

TalhaZubairButt You really need to provide a source for 500,000 figures, otherwise it will be removed. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

Jabbar & Chowdhury

Sourced content added by me and TalhaZubairButt is being removed by Volunteer Marek, Kauntilya3 and Capitals00 under some vague and irrational reasons.

• Kautilya's objection: Not a WP:HISTRS source and WP:UNDUE due to being a long quote

Response to Kautilya: WP:HISTRS (which is an essay and not a policy) does not prohibit press sources rather it encourages scholarly sources, it does not say, "completely do away with press sources", yes we can give priority to scholarly sources but Javed Jabbar is a notable writer from Pakistan and his opinion is completely related to the genocide and should be given weight, we cannot just take one-sided opinions. Javed Jabbar is a writer and scholar from Pakistan and hold quite neutral point of view. He has made movies and written stuff which more often that not goes against mainstream Pakistani point of view. I am not sure how it's WP:UNDUE as it is completely in context of the genocide. Are we supposed to entertain only those sources which support the genocide? Why can't we add sources which negate it to make the article more balanced and NPOV.

• Capitals00's summary "fringe allegation" did not honestly make any sense to me, he might want to explain what he meant by that because i do not see any allegation is either Jabbar or Chowdhury's assessments of the events.
• Voluteer Marek seems to recognize that it is a reliable source but still reverts so i might want him to explain his revert further that under what pretext he is doing that.
• Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi scholar and his point of view is against the mainstream point of view of most Bangladeshis and we should give that some weight here as well. It's very important to add that content.

Let's discuss! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I admit that I have only looked at Javed Jabbar's page, which does not provide any scholarly credentials to the author. If he has any, other than just writing books and producing films, please feel free to bring them forward. And, please don't confuse "notability" with "reliability." Many politicians are notable, but they are not reliable sources. Assuming Jabbar is reliable, you as the editor still need to do the work to sift through his writings to figure out what parts agree with scholarly consensus and what parts don't, and present them separately. A simple very long quote is not going to do the trick. (Is the quote coming from the book or some press release?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is your opinion, please don't write your own policies. Which policy says that I have to do all this? I am looking at WP:RS, it doesn't say any of this. Javed Jabbar is a notable writer and the source Daily Times (Pakistan) is a reliable source. You cannot just undo WP:RS, a policy with a WP:HISTRS, an essay. Policy governs not an essay. The policy does not say that a source must be a scholarly source. The quote is coming from an article which was published in Daily Times. Also, the quote is attributed to him, the text clearly says "According to Pakistani writer Javed Jabbar" so that reader have no confusion and can put things into proper perspective. If the quote is an issue then I can write the text in my own words. That's not an issue. My initial thought was that I should add exact words of the author so there is no confusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." Therefore, you need to determine how far this source represents scholarly consensus and how far it goes against it. You also need to make clear in your commentary the extent of notability of this view. Has anybody else supported the author in this view, or is he all alone? It seems to me that this author is bordering on WP:FRINGE when he says that the Bangladesh Genocide never happened.

WP:HISTRS is an attempt to flesh out what constitutes a scholarly source for history, since many people without any training or credentials claim to write history. If you disagree with what this page says, then we need to go to WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

Here are the problems undone with my edit:

1. The target of the genocide should be filled it. Also, the targets of the genocide were not "Bengali nationalists" but rather "Bengalis" as a whole. That's what made it a genocide.
2. The subject of this article is the genocide. Not the persecution of the Biharis. We have a separate article for that. Of course Biharis should be mentioned in context, but please don't try to hijack this article and turn it into a WP:COATRACK along the lines of "the only reason this genocide happened is because Biharis were being persecuted".
3. Sarmila Bose is a reliable source BUT her views are not representative of the mainstream scholarly consensus. She can be used but with caution and care must be taken so as not to violate WP:UNDUE. And in cases where she is being used the text needs to be attributed to her.
4. Replacing "Pakistani Army and razakars" with "Anti-Bangladesh forces" is WP:WEASEL. It looks like an attempt to hide the identity of those responsible for the genocide.
5. The anecdote about Sheikh Mujibur is a WP:PRIMARY source (a letter to the editor) and cannot be used unless a secondary source about it can be found.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Here are the problems introduced by your edit:

1. The target is your WP:OR, just source it and the source should say something along the lines of "The target of 1971 Bangladesh genocide was Bengalis". I have no problem with it, I am just asking you to source it, please. Look I am saying "please" as well.
2. Agreed, the subject of the article is "genocide" and I have yet to see a source which describes the ethnicity of the victims of genocide, as a matter of fact, I have a source which says the target of the genocide was Biharis. Just naming the article genocide does not automatically mean that the target were Bengalis. You are making the word look like synonymous to "Bengalis".
3. I see the text was attributed to Sarmila Bose. May I ask why did you still remove it?
4. Noone should replace the identity of the perpetrators which is contrary to the sources, please double check the sources and see what they say about perpetrators.
5. You reverted too much but addressed only few points. May I ask that you take the time to single out the content to which you have problem with and only revert that so that a discussion can take place in an amicable fashion.
6. As a guideline, when an unsourced piece of content is removed, it should not be restored without a source and in similar manner, sourced content should not be removed without a very good reason and I don't see you providing very good reasons here.
7. At too many occasions, I have noticed that you do not take time to review sources and revert the edits and then fill up the talk page with your own absurd claims and WP:OR. This needs to stop. Editing Wikipedia is not for lazy. If you cannot take time to participate in a meaningful discussion and review the sources for validity of content then you should not revert.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. This is so trivial that it really doesn't need to be sourced [2]
2. See above. And no, you don't have a source which says that "the target of the genocide was Biharis". You're talking about something else, purposefully trying to confuse the issue. This is also the POV problem with some of the edits to this article.
3. I restored attribution to Bose.
4. I enumerated the specific problems with the text I removed.
5. Not sure what you're referring to.
6. Your opinion is noted but without specific evidence to back it up, properly discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And on a more general level, are you seriously trying to question the fact that the targets of the genocide - perpetrated by Pakistani Armed Forces - were Bengalis? I mean, that's sort of fundamental.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek

Thats not what the ICJ said in 1972. They said a case for genocide can be made against Bengali Hindus and killings of Bengalis at the end of the conflict. But the overall killings of Bengalis can't be classified as a genocide.

Regardless, may I ask why exactly you are afraid of including Serajur Rehman's article? Serajur Rehman was an extremely important personality from that time period. WP: Primary sources can be included as long as no interpretation of ours is added. This is Wiki policy. So I will restore that section.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:

1. There is nothing trivial and fundamental when it comes to sourcing. Please add the source for the content which was removed as unsourced if you want to restore it. Also, the source you added in your talk reply does not say who was the target and who was the perpetrator. Apart from that I am not saying anything. Sourced content will stay and unsourced will be removed. Period!
2. On Sarmila Bose, why do you have a need to add "According to Sarmila Bose" three times in the same paragraph, shouldn't it be enough once in the beginning of the paragraph?
3. On the reasoning of the launch of Operation Searchlight, the content is sourced but I am okay for changing it or removing it if you can provide a scholarly source which says contrary to what that scholarly source says which you are removing!
4. Why are you removing the following which is supported by multiple sources: "and Bihari women were raped and tortured during the war and its aftermath by Bengali males, primarily from Mukti Bahini."

By the way, this is the source which says that Biharis were a target of genocide, that is why violence against Biharis needs mentioning here.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Again, are you seriously questioning that this is an article about a genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces against Bengalis?
2. It's necessary for clarity and anyway, best I can tell, the attribution was being removed from the beginning of the paragraph as well.
3. It's a question of due weight. It's not an article about persecution of Biharis. There's another article for that.
4. Ditto (though that can go in the article main body)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And Rummel does NOT say that there was a genocide of Biharis (he says "democide"), and even if he did, that would be a *different* phenomenon than the topic of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You are driving the conversation off-topic. Consider me a completely dumb editor who do not know anything about the topic who arrived at this page and saw unsourced content and removed it. What you got to do here is to add the source when you add the content back. It's so easy to resolve the matter instead of just bickering and whining at talk and asking stupid questions to put words in other's mouth. No, i am not questioning anything. I am asking you to support the content with the sources or leave it removed. Hopefully some other editor who is willing to resolve the dispute would add the source.

On reasoning of Operation Searchlight, yes, it's very much due when you start the paragraph saying that "genocide started with Operation Searchlight" then it's completely okay to add the reason why that operation was started when it is supported by a source. Nothing undue in that. Also i just saw that you removed text related to Sirajur Rahman again and you claimed it was a primary source. I don't think The Guardian is a primary source here.

See the Democide page for its definition, it clearly says that its a type of genocide and this article is about 1971 Bangladesh genocide which should cover all aspects of that genocide. Article on persecution of Biharis is the main article but 1971 Bangladesh genocide should also cover those atrocities. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"You are driving the conversation off-topic." - no I am not. I am directly answering your numbered queries. Which content is suppose to be supported with sources? That this was a genocide against Bengalis? That's the TOPIC of this article!

The problem with the sentence about Operation Searchlight is that it is too much detail for the lede, and this detail just happens to be the Pakistani Army's POV.

Articles in the Guardian are secondary sources. Letters to the editor of the Guardian are a primary source.

Democide *could* include genocide but not necessarily. The definition states "including genocide, politicide and mass murder". And like I said, regardless, that's not what *this* article is about.

Yes, this article should mention the violence against Biharis but with due weight. This article should NOT be hijacked to turn it into a WP:COATRACK about the persecution of Biharis. It should not try to WP:WEASEL the occurrence of this genocide by trying to provide implicit justification for it by giving undue weight to that persecution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek plz do not edit the article to suit your POV when discussion is ongoing. I have reverted your change as it was a POV change which is not supported by the very title of this article. I take no sides in this discussion, and am just an observer. But please follow WP:BRD and edit through consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please stop being ridiculous. The subject of this article is about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani army, directed mostly at ethnic Bengalis. Any source that talks about the "1971 Bangladesh genocide" THAT is what it is talking about. Your attempts to hijack this article and make it about "genocide in Bangladesh, of Biharis" is what is POV.

And looking at your edit history somehow I seriously doubt that you "take no sides in this discussion" or that you are "just an observer".

And this BRD. I'm actually restoring a previous more neutral version before the article was hijacked by POV pushing accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: No, this article is not solely dedicated to actions of Pakistan military. This is about the events which happened in year 1971 in East Pakistan. It should discuss all genocidal events, no matter who committed them. This is not a decision for you to make. You do not own Wikipedia or this article. You cannot achieve NPOV if you do not discuss all points of view. Read NPOV again, it discusses coverage of minority point of view which you are barring. No body is hijacking the article but you. You are determined to turn this article into one sided coverage and that won't happen. You are not restoring an NPOV version but instead restoring to a POV version. NPOV version is which discusses all points of view which is the one you are reverting. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this article is NOT "about the events which happened in year 1971 in East Pakistan". That's Bangladesh Liberation War. This article is about the genocide, perpetrated by the Pakistani Army and its allies against Bengalis, that happened during that war.

Keeping the article on topic *is* NPOV. Hijacking the article to make it a WP:COATRACK about something else is POV.

And nobody's "barring coverage of minority views". These are included. It's just that they shouldn't be given WP:UNDUE weight in an attempt to make this a POV COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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 [3].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 [4], [5], [6].

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.TalhaZubairButt (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. TalhaZubairButt (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'.

TalhaZubairButt (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? @TalhaZubairButt: 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. TalhaZubairButt (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.

TalhaZubairButt (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)

References

References

Misleading figures in the article

@User:Volunteer Marek and @User:My very best wishes, as User:Puck42 pointed out. The article is filled with Weasel words. Sources are either mispresented or the claims are simply not supported by the given sources. #Lead says a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated and cites a single source and that source is directly linking to Sarmila Bose's book (Her book is not the part of mainstream scholarly consensus)

1. Similarly, lead says estimated 50,000-500,000 Biharis were killed-- a number not supported by the scholars. for ex-- Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh cite a figure of 1000 to150,000 Biharis were killed.
2. These statistics are presented in a way that is misleading. The article is about the genocide (Ofcourse against the bengalis) so the biharis killed figures should be written in its relevant section and not in the lead.
3. The article (specially lead) needs an major overhaul. It seems like these inaccurate and highly misleading figures were recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk. As I said, in my previous comment, there is an ongoing effort to to make Wikipedia look like a Pakistani encyclopaedia. They are spreading their propaganda all over Bangladesh related articles.

I therefore suggest to restore the old and stable version of the article. So anyone please do that! I am also pinging administrator @SpacemanSpiff: here. regards.ArghyaIndian (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Which older version did you have in mind? (and broadly, I agree with your points)Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And just to point out an... umm... "inconsistency", here, you can't have it both ways. You can't quote Rummel to say that between 50k and 500k Biharis were killed, but then quickly throw Rummel out the window when he says that between 300k and 3000k Bengalis were killed and quietly switch to another source which gives you a more ... "favorable" estimate. That's classic cherry picking and POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You must be living in some nationalist fantasy land that the world thinks of the conflict as solely a genocide of Bengalis. It doesn't. The ICJ in 1972 gave serious consideration to the massacres of Biharis. As have many non-Indian/non-Bangladeshi sources. So yes the figures of Biharis killed certainly deserves to be there.

The source used in the lead is a Human Rights Watch report. And yes its you who has to bring proof that Sarmila Bose does not represent scholarly consensus. Whats really going on is that she is one of the few scholars who have conducted an actual study, rather than parrot old figures. So her findings are disturbing and difficult to stomach for some people. Human Rights Watch seems to believe she is a good enough source. Why should you be any different?

And rather than fretting over mythical Pakistani encyclopedias I would be worried at the current anti-Pakistan POV which is pushed across nearly every page to do with Pakistan. Its our job as editors to present neutral articles. I didn't know that Wikipedia has a policy that anti-Pakistan information should be included and all other sourced info should be discarded.

Anyways @Volunteer Marek here is a good article you should go and ponder over in your reading time: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/questioning-an-iconic-number/article5940833.ece

And yes I am willing to remove the 50,000-500,000 figure on the condition that all of R.J Rummerl's material on the conflict be removed since many scholars find his research and methodologies problematic. Christian Gerlach accuses him and his statistics of sensationalism,

TalhaZubairButt (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"You must be living in some nationalist fantasy land" - riiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt. Please enlighten me, what kind of "nationalist" am I? You know, statements like these sort of betray your own bias and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach.

And again, if you assert that the title "1971 Bangladesh genocide" refers to or includes the violence against Biharis then you need to provide sources. You bring up Human Rights Watch above. That source DOES NOT say that the violence against Biharis constituted a genocide. It only says that it occurred (which no one's denying and which is already in the article).

And you know very well that Bose's work is very controversial and has been extensively critiqued (for example here). And again, no one's saying she should be removed from the encyclopedia, only that her work needs to be given DUE WEIGHT and attributed, which is standard (and it is policy) in controversial cases like these.

I have no idea as to what you're going on about in that third paragraph. From what I can see, some editors present here - you, FreeatLastChitChat, TripWire (formerly User:PakSol, as in "Pakistani Soldier") and SheriffsinTown - have been running a bit wild on all articles having to do with India-Pakistan topic, pushing an over-the-top pro-Pakistani Army POV. Now, on more narrow Indian articles it seems like there's a good number of Indian editors there who will stand up to you, so you guys turned to Bangladesh related ones, probably because there aren't that many Bangladeshi editors on en-Wikipedia.

Lastly, I don't know what the relevance of that TheHindu article is suppose to be.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteeer Marek

I said 'nationalist fantasy land' because only Bangladeshi nationalists like to downplay(and sometimes even justify) the genocide of Biharis. Now do you see any Pakistani member downplaying the genocide of Bengalis? (Note: Pointing out to lower death estimates from reliable sources does not equal downplaying nor does pointing out the extreme exaggeration of these statistics).

Bose's work is controversial for Indians/Bangladeshis for obvious reasons. You know very well that her work was praised by several Western academics (eg Dirk A Moses, Stephen Cohen etc). And nowhere is she being given UNDUE emphasis. You basically have most of the article for your POV already. A few sentences on Bose (whose opinion is a major opinion on 1971) will not be WP:Undue. What you seem to be wanting is to not have Bose at all. Also keep in mind most of my sources are non-Bose, but even thats not good enough for you. And wherever Bose has been mentioned, she has been attributed.

The Hindu article is highly relevant. It talks about the various estimates on the number of war dead. And it points out the wild exaggerations and the few authentic studies carried out on the statistics. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"I said 'nationalist fantasy land' because only Bangladeshi nationalists like to..." - apparently not. Like I said, you're so off on this, that you're just revealing the fact that you're nowhere near neutral enough to be editing this article.

Sort of the same with your claim that "you (that would be me - VM) seem to be wanting is to not have Bose at all". You know, if I was not wanting to have her at all I probably would not have said she's reliable and can be used (as long as it's with due weight and attribution). So it may "seem" like that to you, but that's because there is a problem with how you "see" things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely yes! these editors are just pushing fringe theories and trying to put their country's notion into a global source of knowledge (Wikipedia); which is not acceptable. Nationalist editors like you, don't last long!ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@ArghyaIndian: Forgive me if I am wrong but on the Indian Army page you removed well-sourced info abt the Indian Army committing atrocities on Muslims in Hyderabad. And your justification was that it is 'controversial information'. So rather than jumping to accuse others you should sort out your own acts.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed, the opinion of Rummel was quoted incorrectly. I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes, I think I restored a wrong version. Can you please make those changes again? thanksArghyaIndian (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)