Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

"Believing that just such an Indian attack was imminent, Nixon encouraged China to mobilise its armed forces along its border with India to discourage it."

@Aman.kumar.goel, Boing! said Zebedee, Tibet Nation, MarkH21, and Voidvector: In the absence of a source for this claim, I feel that it ought to be removed from the page. Let me know if there is any source that would show that this statement is factually accurate. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Stop WP:CANVASSING and see this and this. Orientls (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Orientls: Thanks for your response. These sources do get closer to the mark, but I need to see specific, clear evidence from notes or documents on what steps the Nixon White House took in respect to their encouragement. Please give me the quotations. Did they call up Mao and say "hey new buddies, send some troops over there" or what specifically? The sources you give don't say what Nixon the man did in respect to encouraging China in this respect. Once the sources are really, really there, then I can remove the citation needed span. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the two books you give are discussing the crisis. But what I'd like to see now is which quotes you propose to be justifying the statement "Nixon encouraged China". I need to see exactly what wording in the secondary source justifies the words "Nixon encouraged China" being used on Wikipedia mainspace. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative:The Berlatsky source added by Orientls has this quote, which should be sufficient:

According to the State Department historian, 'When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration tilted toward Pakistan [...] It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India
— East Pakistan, p. 52-53

Minor modifications might be needed to be made to the paragraph, but this looks like it's supported by the source. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: What I find interesting is that the Berlatsky source is only quoting an anonymous source and not making reference to sources proving the matter. Is a solitary quote of the State Department historian really sufficient to show that "Nixon encouraged China"? Is there any other secondary source beside this quotation from one person to show this event occurred? The quote doesn't go into the ways in which Nixon encouraged China and the manner in which China refused. "Encouragement" implies that there was some kind of communication or action taken on the part of Richard Nixon. What was that action? What if this historian was just speaking off the cuff? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)

I'm not saying these events (whatever they are proposed to be) didn't happen. I'm saying we have not yet reached the threshold to include it on Wikipedia. It's not sourced yet. Also, the crucial sentence in the quote above is grammatically malformed: "It also involved encouraging". This is not even a direct double quotation mark reliable quotation- it's a one-quotation mark paraphrase, and poorly written at that. At best, you've got a grammatically malformed paraphrase from an anonymous source in which "it" (= Nixon administration) may have done something, not Nixon. This is on the level of New Testament apocrypha level evidence for the actions of Jesus, not reliable history- "one guy told me something like this happened". Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The State department historian office is a highly reliable source. They have a very strong team of scholars and access to all the documents, and they are not beholden in any way to Nixon. Reviews of their books in the scholarly literature are VERY strong. The published text is online at https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: From the source you added: "Nixon's prediction was borne out when it developed that China had no intention of threatening military action against India." What I'm looking for is a quotation that says that Nixon or the Nixon administration encouraged China to do something. The above quotation is said to be from a from a State Department historian, but it is an anonymous ungrammatical paraphrase. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

the quote is "When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration "tilted" toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian Government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union." that is pretty clear to me and is from a highly reliable scholarly source (the State Dept History office) that scholars cite. 00:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the sentence with new content based on the State Department source. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a statement from a scholarly journal in 2012: "In 1971, the United States threatened India with the use of military force as West and East Pakistan disintegrated into Pakistan and Bangladesh....The Nixon administration eventually sent the USS Enterprise carrier battle group to the Bay of Bengal in an effort to deter India from what Nixon and national security advisor Henry Kissinger believed was its ultimate goal: the destruction of Pakistan. Although the United States and India never used military force, the threat was present—making the confrontation a militarized interstate dispute." [Jarrod Hayes, "Securitization, social identity, and democratic security: Nixon, India, and the ties that bind." International Organization 66.1 (2012): 63-93. [full text online free on pp 63-64 Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Let me know what you think of the new wording. I used the State Department source to create the new sentence. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good re China. I recommend Add more on carrier "Enterprise" and cite Hayes article. 00:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Rjensen (talk)

Geographyinitiative thinks it is an "amazing and significant fact". I am not so sure it is. Applying pressure on India directly as well as indirectly via China was certainly on the cards. That is all our article is saying. But the State Department historian is saying something much stronger. They are saying Nixon encouraged China to "menace India". Does "menacing" mean just moving troops to the border? Even for Nixon lingo, that would have been too strong an expression. They are saying that Nixon was essentially trying to start a world war. There is an "amazing and significant fact". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: When we first started the discussion, I don't think there was enough evidence for the original sentence. Now there seems to be credible information that gets more specific about what happened. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

re footnote 152 citing Noah Berlatsky --we can do better. the author "Noah Berlatsky edits the online comics-and-culture website The Hooded Utilitarian and is the author of the book Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism" -- this topic has been worked over by a number of established scholars. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Fronts of war

Bangladesh war included conflict with Pakistani state on both fronts by Indian armed forces. Indo Pakistan part of war is related to then border standoff and bombing Indian air bases and can't be seen in separation in anyway except its causes. As reliable sources either don't see both in separation, these edits by @DdBbCc22: are only misrepresentative and WP:POINTY. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The immediate question is whether the strength of the Pakistan Armed Forces involved in the Bangladesh Liberation War was "~365,000 regular troops (~97,000+ in East Pakistan)" or simply "~97,000" [regular troops being implied by militiamen being listed separately].

Both points of view in the dispute cite [1] to support their position. The source contains the number 365,000, but I see no evidence that it is a reliable source for history (or WP:RS for anything, for that matter). Does website ACIG.org (Air Combat Information Group) have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? The first source the authors list is "discussions on ACIG.org forum", which would not be a reliable source.

It would be helpful if both sides gave full citations to between one and three specific reliable sources that support their position rather than simply asserting that reliable sources are on their side. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Along with issue of more reliable sources, my point of view is that the "Bangladesh Liberation War" was fought in between Eastern commands of Pakistan armed forces and Indian armed forces (along with Mukhti Bahni). So only the number of troops of Eastern commands should be added. Because this article is solely about independence war of Bangladesh as the war in between Pakistan and India on western front has separate article.

But if my this point of view is wrong, then the number of Indian troops of western command should be added just like as for Pakistan because how it is possible that both commands of Pakistan armed forces were involved on both fronts but in case of India only Indian eastern command was involved on one front.DdBbCc22 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yours is a reasonable opinion, but Wikipedia's content is determined not by the beliefs of its editors, but by all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Unless you cite reliable sources that support your view, the discussion is unlikely to reach a consensus that favours it. On the basis of the sources presented so far, the policy-based thing to do would be to remove all strength numbers on both sides except the ~25,000 militiamen. But that isn't what either side in the dispute wants, and we should be able to serve our readers better than that. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hope so there will be consensus about my opinion. @Worldbruce:. I want to discuss some sources as mentioned below either they can be considered or not

1) The Betryal of Pakistan 1 - published by Oxford University Press.

2) Pakistan's War Machine: An Encyclopedia of its Weapons, Strategy.... - book published by UK based publisher

3) Sharmila Bose Indian Bangali writer

4) 4 - clearing the confusion about troops present in East Pakistan of both armies, Mukhti Bahni, soldiers ratio and POW's

5) 5 - troops of Pakistan and POW's

6) 6 - timeline from Operation searchlight to Fall of Dhaka, number of troops of Pakistan and Indian forces as well as Mukhti Bahni. DdBbCc22 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering your six:

1. Datta, Antara (2012). Refugees and Borders in South Asia: The Great Exodus of 1971. Routledge. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-25036-1. By November 1971, they [the Mukti Bahini] had an estimated 45,000 soldiers. - This is a reliable source for history. The cited page has no information about the strength of Pakistani forces, which is the immediate question, but might be useful for the strength of the Mukti Bahini. It would be interesting to know what source Datta is citing for that figure.
2. Iqbal, Saghir (2018). Pakistan's War Machine: An Encyclopedia of its Weapons, Strategy and Military Security. CreateSpace. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-25036-1. - This is self-published, not a reliable source.
3. Bose, Sarmila (2011). Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-70164-8. - This is a reliable source for a significant viewpoint, but no one will consider it seriously without a page number.
4. Jabbar, Javed (22 December 2012). "Pakistani PoWs: correct figure". Dawn (Letter to Editor). - A letter to the editor in a newspaper is not a reliable source for history.
5. Khan, Masud Ahmed (17 December 2019). "Myths and realities of 1971 war". Daily Times (Commentary). - An opinion column in a newspaper is not a reliable source for history.
6. Ahmad, Junaid (1 April 2017). "93,000 Pakistani soldiers did not surrender in 1971 because….?". Global Village Space. - A posting by a management consultant on a random website is not a reliable source for history.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@DdBbCc22: Amendment of long established version without support of any reliable source is very problematic. The article doesn't cover only the battle happened on eastern front of Pakistan with Indian forces. But battles with de facto Pakistani in west, and all the diplomatic aspects along which together make up Bangladesh Liberation War. Until you gain concensus that Bangladesh liberation war was strictly only around battle in eastern Pakistani front and not related any Pakistani commands or diplomatic campaigns (which is highly unlikely), your version will be reverted right away. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple fallacies in this article and seems more like a propaganda and biased article

1-In the introductory info box, whole Pakistani strength is written, while only that indian strength is written which was deployed on East Pakistan sector, which is not correct.

2-There is no reliable conformation that civilian casualities were upto 3 million, that is just a propaganda and a hoax.

3-There is no mention about the massacre of Biharis, Punjabis and Pathans which was carried out by Mukti Bahini and Indian BSF.

4-Here it is written that Pakistani troops deployed in East Pakistan numbered 76000 which is never verified as per reliable sources while it is confirmed as per pakistani authorities that there were no more than 45000 to 50000 soldiers ever deployed there.

5-There are sources supporting my claims as Some reputable books but you people already have refuted them above while you people have accepted Indian and Bangladeshi versions whole heartedly. Alizain6534 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you just read the infobox. The article adequately covers point 2 and 3. For 1, the numbers were taken from a reputed sources. For 5, you may remember that 73,000 POWs returned to Pakistan. That would be strange if we believe in that 45,000 soldier theory. Anyways, you are most welcome to provide an alternative number, but do not miss to back it up with reliable sources. Even a Pakistani source need to reliable. You are also most welcome to point out which of sources used are unreliable and why. Being Indian or Bangladeshi doesn't make a source automatically unreliable. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

result = Decisive Indian & Bangladeshi victory Reference = instrument of surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Instrument_of_Surrender, https://archive.thedailystar.net/suppliments/2009/december/victorydayspecial/page01.htm, https://www.indiatimes.com/lifestyle/self/the-pakistan-instrument-of-surrender-in-1971-was-signed-by-my-grandfather-s-pen-248456.html 103.126.149.16 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC) video reference: Replug : A 2012 interview with Lt. Gen (Retd) J.F.R. Jacob on India's historic victory in 1971 war : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq1Hq5bH9pQ

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

Result: Decisive Allied Victory or Indian-Bangladeshi Victory {{Source: Pakistani Instrument of Surrender , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Instrument_of_Surrender) (Various book including)}

}} 'JamanK' (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Result = Decisive India and Bangladeshi Alliance Victory (Reference: https://archive.thedailystar.net/suppliments/2009/december/victorydayspecial/page01.htm) 'JamanK' (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The word "decisive" does not appear in the source or in the current version of this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

AjmainFaieq (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangldesh Liberation war is the biggest achievement in the history of Bangladesh

Right AjmainFaieq (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

To update a information

Liberation war of Bangladesh took place in 1971 from 26th of March till 16th December.This war happened under the leadership of Bangladesh Government in exile. India joined the war on 3rd December and took part in the war as a part of India Bangladesh joint forces. The victory of Liberation war is of both Bangladesh and India. But it is written in the result info box that it is an Indian victory. It should be India Bangladesh joint forces victory. So,I would request the concerned editor to update the information. Yamin Chowdhury (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Most importantly, according to the instrument of surrender, Pakistan surrendered to the joint Bangladeshi and Indian forces, so officially it's a Bangladeshi-Indian joint victory. There are some cherrypicked sources added to cite the claim of Indian victory, but I'm not sure if they really pass WP:HISTRS. For instance, author of one of the sources, V. K. Nayar, is an ex-Indian Army officer. The stable version of this article always showed Bangladeshi-Indian victory as the result in infobox, and it seems it has been changed without any consensus. I'm reverting it back to this stable version. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't push "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" without provided that both official and unofficial sources call it so. The last "stable" version you are talking about was once interrupted by someone and both bothered by others for long. The existing concensus is that all available sources mention it as "Indian victory" what led to liberation of Bangladesh. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" Bangladeshi-Indian victory, this is what stated by the official instrument of surrender which was incidentally formulated by an Indian general himself. The document can be accessed in the wikipedia article and I did provide a note with references (carrying the surrender document) when I edited this article. I don't see any WP:CONSENSUS in the discussion you linked. You can't put forth your own statement as "the existing consensus" since you were involved in the dispute as I can see in the article history. The only third opinion in that discussion seems to be Rzvas who's comments are also aligned with my interpretation of joint victory. And as I said, the sources cited here don't even pass WP:HISTRS, books published by obscure agencies, memoirs written by ex-Indian officers or authors without any credentials are not reliable. Even if you show a reliable source, that won't necessarily prove it was an exclusively Indian victory, overriding the official document. There are many sources that state that World War II resulted in American victory but the most commonly accepted interpretation is that it was Allied victory. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Aman, I believe you are getting carried away by the WP:TRUTH. But, as things are, Wikipedia is about published information from WP:RELIABLE sources, not the truth. And, at that, nothing is more reliable than an "official" instrument of surrender, signed by Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi military commands. A document that is publicly available from both official and unofficial channels. I don't think you will ever be able to hold up the "Indian victory" hearsay at the Wikipedia. If needed we can take this to bigger forum for discussion, and seek opinion from uninvolved editors. If you really want an Indian victory, you may have it at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, though the same Instrument also covers that war, and hence "officially" is an Indo-Bangladeshi victory. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Falsifying statements of other editors is not going to help you with your erroneous WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. What Aman Kumar Goel added back is completely supported by WP:RS. Since you have failed to understand such a simple fact, I would recommend you to take a look at WP:CIR.

@Kmzayeem: I find it rather surprising that you talk about WP:HISTRS yet you stick to unreliable web news sources such as the ones you added on this edit. You are also misrepresenting the reliability of sources by ignoring Scarecrow Press source which is of high quality and you are cobbling it up with some "memoirs written by ex-Indian officers". How about you find a source as credible or more credible than Scarecrow Press supporting your unsourced claim that the result was "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" instead of throwing your false analysis of consensus? Orientls (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The source is the instrument of surrender itself. The links from The Daily Star and others are added as a medium to access the text of the document, not as a source. And how those cherrypicked books even support the claim that Bangladesh liberation war resulted in Indian victory? And why would these books be considered more authoritative than the official document itself? As Aditya Kabir stated, Indian victory can be claimed at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, not at this article. It is even absurd to claim Indian victory in a liberation war against Pakistan since India was not fighting for its independence from Pakistan. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No, dear Orientls, you may be wrong, and I am refraining from asides about your rather strange and WP:INCIVIL comment about "falsifying statements of other editors". Please note that the "official" instrument of surrender says that the Pakistani forces, led by Gneral Niazi, surrendered to the Indian and Bangladeshi forces, both led by General Aurora. None of the sourcces used to establish an "Indian victory" doesn't contradict with it. They just say that India won. India did win, and so did Bangladesh. As a Joint Command. Easy enough?

As for RS, have the following:

• Tom Ruys, Olivier Corten, Alexandra Hofer, The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach, page 170, Oxford University Press, 2018
• S. K. Kochhar, Teaching of History, page 167, Sterling Publishers, 1984
• Avtar Singh Bhasin, India-Bangladesh Relations, Documents, 1971-2002: Political, page 11, Geetika Publishers
• Vijay Prakash Malhotra, Defence-related Treaties of India, page 81, ICC India, 2002

All of them has the text of the Instrument. Ignoring the official "fact" and using WP:SYNTH to read more than what is written in the sources is not helping. Thanks. I hope both of us will be more CIVIL to each other the next time. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me make it very simple for you by asking this question: Which source say "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" or "Indian-Bangladeshi victory" contrary to my sourced edits which clearly support "Indian victory"? You are clearly misrepresenting the policies you are quoting, i.e. there is no WP:SYNTH if the parameter has been appropriately supported by the sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

AdityaKabir, then you are just proving my point further. What WP:SYNTH? While Kmzayeem is refusing to even read the sources.

You need to quote the sources, like this:-

• "S R. Chakravarty and Virendara Narain, Foreign Policy of Bangladesh : Trends and Issues". South Asian Studies, Vol. XIII, Nos. 1-2, January-June and July-December, 1977. p. 80. -dividing Pakistan. They viewed the liberation of Bangladesh as the victory of India and defeat of Bangladesh".[2] P. 41.
• "Indira Gandhi was re-elected after India's victory over Pakistan in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971", p. 137.
• "Indian victory over Pakistan in the war of Bangladesh liberation, p. 408.
• Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780810865020. "A rapid and complete Indian victory brought about the liberation of Bangladesh in December"[3]
• Handbook of ASEAN and Regional Cooperation, Prabhas Chandra Sinha, Pentagon Press, "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image"[4]
• Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher, p.51, "key aspect for the Indian Army with its successful liberation of Bangladesh.... Indian victory in 1971, was in the words of M. J. Akbar" [5]

These sources make it clear "liberation of Bangladesh" was an "Indian victory". Orientls (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me provide a quote from a source brought by Aditya Kabir,

• Ruys, Tom; Corten, Olivier; Hofer, Alexandra (2018). The use of force in international law : a case-based approach (First ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780198784357. At the last of these meetings, on 21 December 1971, the council adopted resolution 307 in which it acknowledged, 'Pakistan's agreement to the cease fire in the western theatre,'... This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan

This is what the instrument of surrender reads,

"The PAKISTAN Eastern Command agree to surrender all PAKISTAN Armed Forces in BANGLA DESH to Lieutenant-General JAGJIT SINGH AURORA, General Officer Commanding in Chief of Indian and BANGLA DESH forces in the Eastern Theatre"[6]

When someone states Pakistan Armed Forces surrendered to the Commander-in Chief of Indian and Bangladesh Forces in a war, it patently implies that the war ended in a joint Indian-Bangladeshi/Bangladeshi-Indian victory. Now which source should we follow from these contested claims? The natural answer would be, the official document which has been agreed by all three parties — Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. The proposition also fits with WP:NPOV. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV isn't about burying common view shared by scholarly sources but giving equal weight to both sides. Where are the section of scholars who say the war ended in "India-Bangladeshi victory"? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. You did not get the point. That's okay. @Kmzayeem: @Aman.kumar.goel: @Orientls: Let's take this to a bigger forum - WP:MILHIST. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, this one makes it even more redundant and misleading that there was a dispute in results. Seems that Aditya is not going to understand the problem what I'm trying to imply. By adding his own research he is breaching WP:OR further. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you warring here when we can get more people to discuss? Are you interested to get to WP:MILHIST or are you afraid of uninvolved (and non-Indian) editors taking a look at this? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with any involved/uninvolved editors regardless of their nationality. Only what I see that fellow editors don't have sources to support their version and hence want to push issue elsewhere to get support. Those editors frequently involved with (regardless of nationality) Afghanistan, India and Pakistan related articles will anyway do better here than WP:MILHIST in general. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Further, WP:TRUTH what you are trying to apply here is actually out of context given verifiability with WP:RS actually lies with Indian victory than Bangladeshi Indian victory. Why I immediately reverted your version, just have a look. What would one interpret reading it? Verifiability with your sources is just another issue I let off. But Indian (although foreign third party sources state same) commentators claim Indian victory versus Indian government claiming Indo Bangladeshi victory. You are risking making lead of a high quality articles a mess just for a trivia official word what barely has been mentioned anywhere else in scholastic/news articles even for decades after war. I'm not definitely wrong when I say Bangladeshi-Indian victory is just being pushed. Not for any good reason but just for the sake keeping it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Even after being warned earlier, you are being totally disruptive by your continuous edit warring and WP:Gaming the system and this is not even limited to this article only. The sources are already shown above. I suggest you self-revert and seek a dispute resolution as suggested by Aditya Kabir to achieve a consensus. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for readbility and accessibility 1

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As confirmed on this edit, scholarly sources say "Indian victory" while not a single source say "India-Bangladesh victory" or anything similar. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The highest RS here is the Instrument of Surrender, the document signed by Pakistani and Joint Commands. This supreme RS says it's a Indian-Bangladeshi Joint Command victory. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are preferably third party scholarly sources and not official press releases (and even there you have only single trivia so far) are used on contentious topics. Official surrender document is ultimately most reliable, something I wasn't expecting from an experienced editor like you at least. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The text of the instrument of surrender is a primary source and we should ignore that. But, that said, are we sure we're not ascribing sources for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with sources for the Bangladesh Liberation War? It does seem odd that a war that was also conducted by Bangladeshi forces that resulted in their independence doesn't include them in the victor list. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

But are they separate wars, or is this just a fork anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out by Aman Kumar Goel above, the six academic sources I laid out in my above message are clearly talking about "Indian victory" in "liberation war". Note that "Liberation war" (this subject) refers to independence of Bangladesh, while Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 also covers the battles that took place at present day India–Pakistan border and Indian Ocean. Orientls (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Bangladesh Liberation War began on 26th March 1971 following the Operation Searchlight and the subsequent Proclamation of Bangladeshi Independence, eventually ending on 16th December 1971. Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 refers to the last 13 days of the conflict which began with India's intervention on 3rd December 1971. In that sense, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 is basically a part of Bangladesh liberation war. Coming back to the discussion on sources, in principle I'm with Aditya Kabir's suggestion of using the document of instrument of surrender as the most authoritative source to determine the result simply because it is the official stance of all three parties in the conflict rather than subjective opinions of different authors. It also addresses the peculiarity mentioned by RegentsPark. If a secondary source needs to be considered, most of the sources cited in this discussion are of dubious credibility, the most unequivocal WP:RS among them would be the one from Oxford University Press,

• Ruys, Tom; Corten, Olivier; Hofer, Alexandra (2018). The use of force in international law : a case-based approach (First ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780198784357.

which states, At the last of these meetings, on 21 December 1971, the council adopted resolution 307 in which it acknowledged, 'Pakistan's agreement to the cease fire in the western theatre,'... This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan

If we are to strictly follow the reliable secondary sources without any WP:SYNTH, the result would be,

Eastern theatre

• Surrender of Pakistan Armed Forces to joint Indian and Bangladesh forces
• Establishment of the sovereignty of Bangladesh

Western theatre:

• Agreement on Ceasefire

--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Indo Pakistani war was subsequent results of tensions between India and Pakistan on both eastern & western fronts, skirmishes at west and illegal immigrants from east Pakistan and war itself started after Pakistani bombing of Indian air bases in Kashmir. Indo Pakistani war of 1971 can't be called entirely a part of Bangladesh liberation war. In same sense, Bangladesh war was just in form of a civil war before Indian intervention. Both overlap with each other here. That said, you are just msrepresenting reliablity of sources and throwing a source that does not even support your claim of "India-Bangladeshi victory". Do you have sources to prove how it was not an "Indian victory"? You are doing only WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by doing your personal analysis. Orientls (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine as long "all analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources" are "referenced to a secondary or tertiary source" is not "an original analysis" (per WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research" (per WP:RSPRIMARY). An editor should "not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source" but "instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" (WP:PRIMARY, also WP:RSPRIMARY) I believe the policy has been followed here not just by spirit, but also by its letters.

Also, context matters and it's ok to use our brains.

None of sources Aaman is proposing have said that it's exclusively an Indian victory. Reading that into those sources is clearly a WP:SYNTH. Like I said already, India did win. And so did Bangladesh. As a joint command. Much like WWII which was an "Allied victory", not an "American victory".

It doesn't make Indian achievements small. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources provided here have said that it was an Indian victory. Quit misrepresenting sources. How about United States war in Haiti? It is considered as "American victory" not "Haiti-allied victory" because the Haiti government was incapable to defeat opposing forces just like Mukti Bahini (not 'Bangladesh') forces were. This is why academics seem to be viewing war as "Indian victory". You are not allowed to engage in WP:OR, nor you are allowed to use primary sources. Orientls (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have to be deeeply immersed into Indian POV to accept "Devika Publishers" or self-published sources like "Indian Foreign Policy: Annual Survey" as more credible than a secondary scholarly source by Oxford University Press, my regrets. Following content from a C-class unrelated article to advance the POV doesn't look like a good idea either.

Aditya Kabir has made a good point, as the text of instrument of surrender is restated by the secondary sources, that clears the conundrum of WP:PRIMARY. Now it boils down to either Bangladeshi-Indian victory or the one I suggested to follow the source almost verbatim. Both of them should work. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Devika Publisher is not a self-published source. Being "restated by the secondary sources" doesn't make you less WP:PRIMARY unless the similar claims have been repeated by reliable sources independent of the primary source. Orientls (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for readbility and accessibility 2

I'm responding to the ping at WT:MILHIST. As this war has been extensively covered in secondary sources, there is no need at all to consult primary sources, which Wikipedia editors should generally avoid doing anyway. My reading of the discussion above is that secondary sources typically describe this as being an Indian victory, with Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs) not identifying any secondary sources which support their preferred wording that it was equally a Bangladeshi victory. The wording of peace treaties, etc, should be treated with great care as they're diplomatic documents which use complex and political language and do not necessarily reflect how the outcome actually came about (for instance, Canada and France were signatories to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender despite having played a very small role in the war against Japan during World War II - historians do not describe the surrender of Japan as being a French or Canadian victory!). Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D.

P.S. @Orientls: Please, do not remove the section break subheaders. A superlong block of text is difficult to read, and it is common tradition in Wikipedia to break them up at intervals. Removing them them serves only one purpose - making it more difficult for peopele to follow the disucussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources that describe this being Bangladeshi victory. For example,

• Maidul Hasan, Muldhara '71, page 207, University Press Limited. ISBN 978 984 8815 63 2. "পাকিস্তানি কমান্ডের মনোবল সম্পূর্ণ ভেঙ্গে পড়ায় বাংলাদেশের বিজয় সম্পন্ন হয়" (Translation: The complete collapse of Pakistani command's morale led to Bangladesh's victory)

In fact, according to Indian General K. K. Singh's assessment, due to India's limitation in troop mobilization in East Pakistan, it was mainly Bangladesh force's contribution that made it possible to achieve victory in the war.

General J. F. R. Jacob states, Freedom fighters won the war, not otherwise.

Describing it as Indian victory is like describing American Revolutionary War as French victory. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, you have made a valid point on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. However, in Bangladesh Liberation War, the Mukti Bahini did play a major role and the war was basically fought between Pakistan and Mukti Bahini for its most part. And there seem to be proponents of "Bangladeshi victory" as well, as pointed above. The point Aditya Kabir made was since the content of instrument of surrender was restated by the secondary sources, the fact of Bangladeshi-Indian victory is no more relied on a primary source only. We also need to examine the quality of the sources as many of them are of dubious reliability as I mentioned earlier. If there is a problem with the term victory we can simply keep "Pakistan's surrender to Bangladesh and Indian forces" as the result. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

One more little thing - France or Canada didn't fight in Japan, the US did. In this case Bangladesh forces, aided by India, was the primary fighting force. By the way, the Indian editors here seem to lose interest in discussion because their version is live. I believe they will rejoin the discussion the moment their version is changed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So everyone who has opposed your WP:OR is ultimately an "Indian"? See WP:BATTLE. If you believe that people would be willing to repeat themselves all the time and entertain discussion involving "American Revolutionary War as French victory", "France or Canada didn't fight in Japan, the US did", "Japanese Instrument of Surrender", or any other violations of WP:NOTAFORUM then you are indeed driving editors away from the talk page. You will also benefit from reading WP:STICK. Orientls (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed as per Za-ari-masen. Most of the sources referring to Indian victory in this conflict are actually referring to Indian victory in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which started with Indian intervention in the conflict in December 1971. It was originally a civil conflict between the two wings of Pakistan over election results. It turned hostile after the start of Operation Search Light which was aimed at Mukti Bahini forces which were believed to be supported by India. Though it's true that India fully supported the Fall of Dhaka for it's personal grudges with Pakistan out of its enmity but direct intervention by India in the conflict came in December 1971 and before that East Pakistani people had fought their war for an year. So there should be a credit to them. It's also true that Indian intervention was an important point in the conflict and turned the result against Pakistani forces but Bangladeshi people can't be robbed off the credit of their struggle. Instrument of surrender itself heavily favours India and giving no credit to Bangladesh except a passing mention but overlooking the conflict, Bangladeshi people deserve a credit for their struggle. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Note: Topic ban violation

@Orientls: Meta:Don't be a jerk. Everyone can quote essays. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion started on 1 August and the opposing side didn't respond till 7 August, only after I made that change in infobox, so Aditya Kabir's suggestion on the lack of interest in discussion by some editors as long as their version is live is not really unfounded. Anyway let's return to the content, I don't think there is any doubt anymore that it's not exclusively an Indian victory especially after seeing the sources brought by Za-ari-masen (rather it now tilts towards "Bangladeshi victory"). Have we reached a consensus? If not, then let's open an RfC.

And Orientls, I would request you to follow the sequence of the discussion and keep your each reply at one place. Breaking the sequence and leaving replies at different places hurts the readability of the discussion. If you want to reply to specific comments of editors, pinging them or even quoting the specific comment would suffice. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you bring exact snippet or verifiable quote from sources brought by Za-ari-masen? I haven't seen any yet. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for readbility and accessibility 3

Two Indian editors pushing for a certain version and five Bangladeshi editors not agreeing to that version is not concensus. One side of the debate refraining from discussion and constantly being WP:UNCIVIL is not consensus building. Since there is no consensus and no effort to build consensus is in sight, I think I am going to revert this back to the only WP:NPOV version (i.e. this version) we had. Until a consensus is reached we need to have a both-sided verion live. Restore that version and start an WP:RFC. May be we can use what is thare at WP:MILHIST as the case for RfC. If the incivilities continue, then there's WP:ANB. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears though that several editors have opposed inclusion of your proposed results citing lack of reliable sources as a reason. You shouldn't be discounting them. Headcounts don't really matter though when it comes to building WP:CON. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Totally agreed. It's not headcount that builds consensus, rather POV pushing and incivility, and a slight lack of competence builds consensus. As is evident here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." If the academic discussion says India won, and that is the scholarly consensus, that is what should be in the article. The text of treaties can be biased for all kinds of reasons, first among them because they can be dictated by the winners. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources actually say it's a Bangladeshi victory, I'm re-posting an earlier comment,

• Maidul Hasan, Muldhara '71, page 207, University Press Limited. ISBN 978 984 8815 63 2. "পাকিস্তানি কমান্ডের মনোবল সম্পূর্ণ ভেঙ্গে পড়ায় বাংলাদেশের বিজয় সম্পন্ন হয়" (Translation: The complete collapse of Pakistani command's morale led to Bangladesh's victory)
• In fact, according to Indian General K. K. Singh's assessment, due to India's limitation in troop mobilization in East Pakistan, it was mainly Bangladesh force's contribution that made it possible to achieve victory in the war.
• General J. F. R. Jacob states, Freedom fighters won the war, not otherwise.

Unlike the other sources shown here, Muldhara '71 is a highly reliable academic source. Regarding Muldhara '71's reliability, below are some of the scholarly sources where the book is cited,

Extended content
Raghavan, Srinath (2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674731295. D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. ISBN 9780415565660.

Considering the reliable secondary sources shown above and when Indian generals themselves state that Bangladesh forces played the most prominent role in achieving victory, it is very safe to conclude that the result of Bangladesh Liberation War is Bangladeshi victory or Bangladeshi-Allied victory, following the content style of American Revolutionary War. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment about the result of the war in infobox

What should be the result of the war in infobox?

• "Bangladeshi victory"
• "Indian victory"
• "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"

Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Taking a look at the discussion below, the options have become more nuanced than what was originally presented. I have posted below my comment what I think is the full list of options. However feel free to add any other options I missed or new options that are raised before the RfC is closed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1. "Bangladeshi victory"
2. "Indian victory"
3. "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"
4. "As a result of the Indian victory, Bangladesh emerged as the third independent state on the subcontinent."
5. "Pakistani defeat"
6. "See Aftermath" (or see [other section name]) - an option to point readers to part of the article where the issue can be presented in more detail.
7. "Pakistani defeat. See Aftermath."

Survey

• Bangladeshi victory - or "Bangladeshi-allied victory", following the content of American Revolutionary War. The reliable sources describe this as Bangladeshi victory, for example,

• Maidul Hasan (1986), Muldhara '71, page 207, University Press Limited (UPL). ISBN 978 984 8815 63 2. "পাকিস্তানি কমান্ডের মনোবল সম্পূর্ণ ভেঙ্গে পড়ায় বাংলাদেশের বিজয় সম্পন্ন হয়" (Translation: The complete collapse of Pakistani command's morale led to Bangladesh's victory)
• In fact, according to Indian General K. K. Singh's assessment, due to India's limitation in troop mobilization in East Pakistan, it was mainly Bangladesh force's contribution that made it possible to achieve victory in the war.
• Indian General J. F. R. Jacob states, Freedom fighters won the war, not otherwise. General Jacob served as chief of staff of the Indian Army's Eastern Command during the war.

Unlike the other sources shown in the discussion, Muldhara '71 is a highly reliable and one of most definitive academic sources on Bangladesh Liberation War. Regarding Muldhara '71's reliability, below are some of the scholarly sources where the book is cited,

• Raghavan, Srinath (2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674731295.
• D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. ISBN 9780415565660.

Considering the reliable secondary sources shown above and when Indian generals themselves state that Bangladesh forces played the most prominent role in achieving victory, it is very safe to conclude that the result of Bangladesh Liberation War is "Bangladeshi victory". Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi victory per reliable sources sighted above, which suggests that it is a Bangladeshi victory. Idealigic (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Idealigic: Can you point out a single "reliable source" which suggests that it is a Bangladeshi victory? I see none. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the source is verifiable as WP:RS, Aman.kumar.goel, see the discussion below.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Indian victory We don't WP:SYNTH statements of army generals due to WP:PRIMARY. Your personal translation of an unknown and unverifiable page number (see WP:VERIFY) isn't convincing.

• "S R. Chakravarty and Virendara Narain, Foreign Policy of Bangladesh : Trends and Issues". South Asian Studies, Vol. XIII, Nos. 1-2, January-June and July-December, 1977. p. 80. -dividing Pakistan. They viewed the liberation of Bangladesh as the victory of India and defeat of Bangladesh".[7] P. 41.
• "Indira Gandhi was re-elected after India's victory over Pakistan in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971", p. 137.
• "Indian victory over Pakistan in the war of Bangladesh liberation, p. 408.
• Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780810865020. "A rapid and complete Indian victory brought about the liberation of Bangladesh in December"[8]
• Handbook of ASEAN and Regional Cooperation, Prabhas Chandra Sinha, Pentagon Press, "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image"[9]
• Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher, p.51, "key aspect for the Indian Army with its successful liberation of Bangladesh.... Indian victory in 1971, was in the words of M. J. Akbar" [10]

These sources make it clear "liberation of Bangladesh" was an "Indian victory". Orientls (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How many of these are reliable secondary sources? None. You cannot regurgitate anything that Google books throws at you without analysing its credibility. Are they even cited by others? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Orientls: If you aren't convinced that Za-ari-masen's translation is accurate, you are welcome to propose your own translation, whether personal, professional, or machine. The page number of Muldhara '71 is known, Za-ari-masen cites page 207. The page number and quotation are both verifiable. There's a copy at SOAS University of London (OCLC 416394904) and another at the International Institute of Social History (OCLC 80307110). Difficulty of access doesn't make it unverifiable. You could request a scan via WP:RX. Alternatively you could ask Za-ari-masen, who, if they have access to a smartphone, digital camera, or scanner, would no doubt be happy to email you a copy of the page. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Worldbruce. Orientls and Aman.kumar.goel also do check the discussion below. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for Orientls' email address where I can send the PDF of web edition of the book. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bangladesh-Indian Victory, notwithstanding some WP:GIBBERISH like "We don't WP:SYNTH statements of army generals due to WP:PRIMARY" made by an editor who throws WP:COMPETENCE as part of discussion.

• "This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan" - Tom Ruys, Olivier Corten, Alexandra Hofer, The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach, page 170, Oxford University Press, 2018
• "In 1971, with military intervention from India, the war ended with victory for Bangladesh." - Nazli Kibria, Muslims in Motion: Islam and National Identity in the Bangladeshi Diaspora, page xi, Rutgers University Press, 2011, ISBN 9780813550886
• "1971 Liberation victory under the leadership of Mujib" - David Lewis, Bangladesh: Politics, Economy and Civil Society, page 75, Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 9781139502573
• "The war ended on December 16, 1971, when Pakistan's Eastern command surrendered in Dhaka to India–Bangladesh joint command with over 93,000 Pakistani (Prisoners of War) POW (Khanna 2007; Burke 1973)." - J.L. Kaul and ‎Anupam Jha, Shifting Horizons of Public International Law: A South Asian Perspective, page 241, Springer, 2018, ISBN 9788132237242
• "Niazi surrendered to the Joint Command of the Indian army and the Mukti Bahini Bangladesh" - Salahuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh: Past and Present, pages 205-206, APH Publishing, 2004, ISBN 9788176484695
• "After a short but brutal civil war , the West Pakistani military surrendered to a joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on December 16 , 1971 , and Bangladesh achieved freedom (Ahmed 2002; Maniruzzaman 1994; Baxter 1997, Mallick and Husain 2004)." - Karl R. DeRouen and Paul Bellamy, International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia (Volume 1), page 85, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, ISBN 9780275992545
• "On December 1 6, the Pakistan army surrendered to the Joint Command of the Indian and Bangladesh forces" - Salman M. A. Salman and Kishor Uprety, Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia's International Rivers: A Legal Perspective, page 125, World Bank Publications, 2002, ISBN 9780821353523
• "The liberation war of Bangladesh was transformed into a full - scale war between the joint forces of Bangladesh and India on the one side and the Pakistani Army on the other on 3 December 1971 . Pakistan surrendered to the joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on 16 December 1971" - Muinul Islam and ‎Nitai Chandra Nag, Economic Integration in South Asia: Issues and Pathways, Pearson Education India, 2010, ISBN 9788131729458
• "The liberation war reached its culmination in a full-scale conventional war between Pakistan and the joint forces of India and Bangladesh." - Samuel Totten and ‎William Spencer Parsons, Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, page 249, Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9780415871914

Our Indian friends are having a hard time believing that Bangladesh could have a victory while India had a victory. It "needs" to be an exclusive Indian victory, though NONE of their sources say so. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources I mentioned above do support the current parameter "Indian victory".

• Your first source makes no mention of a "Bangladeshi victory".
• As for the second source says "with military intervention from India", but the source isn't particularly making conclusions like "Bangladesh-Indian Victory" but instead saying that victory was the result of Indian intervention.
• Now coming to the third source, you are WP:CHERRYPICKING as the whole sentence say: "A period of nation building followed the 1971 Liberation victory under the leadership of Mujib".[11] Where the source is talking about this military conflict? Orientls (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIR. I did not at any point push for a Bangladesh victory. Read first. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

But will you deny that you are attempting to mention "Bangladesh" before "Indian victory"? Where does your echo any words like "Bangladeshi victory" or even "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"? Ironic of you to cite "WP:CIR" when you are struggling with your numerous behavioral issues and showing a continued failure to understand WP:PRIMARY. Orientls (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Orientls, put all your counter-arguments in the discussion section, leave the !votes alone. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• It was Indian victory as totally supported by references on the article. Any mention involving "Bangladesh" would be misleading and ungrammatical because Bangladesh didn't exist as a 'nation-state' in 1971. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Indian victory per scholastic consensus on the subject, and also per above that Bangladesh was founded after this war. All the available secondary sources. The case has remain unchanged since discussion began in February. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi victory - per nom and analysis of reliable sources. "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" could be preferred for neutrality but the Bangladesh forces played the decisive role in achieving victory and it's apt to describe it as Bangladeshi victory. Also, the state of Bangladesh came into being on 26th March 1971 and already had formal recognition of two states by the first week of December, so yes, it was "Bangladesh" that won the war. For additional sources,

• "The government of Sheikh Mujib and the Awami League was accepted with wide acclaim following Bangladesh's victory" in Adult Literacy: Master Or Servant? : a Case Study from Rural Bangladesh by James Jennings, page 58.
• "Radio Bangladesh has been functioning as Bangladesh Betar (Radio) from all stations since the victory of Bangladesh on 16 December 1971." in Role of Community Radio for Community Development in Bangladesh at International Technology Management Review, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3, page 99
• "During the 1971 war... When the war ended and everyone... celebrated the victory of Bangladesh..." in The Blame Game: War and Violence in Dilruba Z. Ara's Blame at Asiatic, Volume 12, No. 1, June 2018, page 53.
• "They were armed with better quality heavy gun which accelerated the victory of Bangladesh" in The Liberation War of Bangladesh: Role of the Army at Journal of Government and Politics, Volume 34. June 2015, page 41.
• "The war started by the declaration of the independence of the country and ended on 16th of December in the same year through the victory of Bangladesh." in The State of Gender in Bangladesh Politics by Md. Mahbubur Rahman, page 16.

--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• See no mention of "Bangladesh's victory" on this source.
• I am seeing more falsification of sources because the actual quote of this book is "When the war ended and everyone in the novel celebrated the victory of Bangladesh". Why you are citing a novel to claim victory of Bangladesh in the war?
• How this book published by a Bangladeshi government-funded university qualifies for WP:HISTRS?
• Same logic applies on this publication by University of Dhaka which is yet another Bangladeshi government-funded university. They don't quality WP:HISTRS. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• The book clearly shows "Bangladesh's victory" in page 58 in my search.
• I didn't cite a novel, it's a scholarly article analyzing fictions on historic wars and conflicts, the quotation was the author's own words and not excerpt from the fiction. Details of the source already provided.
• Peer-reviewed scholarly articles published by journals from universities are reliable sources, doesn't matter if a university is public or private. The universities in this case are both accredited. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Srijanx22: Can you plese discuss in the "discussion section" and have !votes and cites in "survey section"? Commenting at random places makes the discussion very difficult to follow. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have been lurking around through the talk page for a while looking over at discussion. It seems that there is no dispute there in academia about it being an Indian victory. As no secondary sources with any alternative interpretation exist (hence no alternative scholarly opinion). The current version is verifiably correct per academia. The issue leftover here lies with interpretations of the extent of Bangladeshi Mukti Bahini's involvement of war, whether it should be really considered an allied victory like the American war of independence or sole Indian victory.
• Firoz Mehboob Kamal (2018-07-04). "Enforced Indebtedness to India & the Politics of Appeasement in Bangladesh". South Asia Journal. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |author= (help)

• The academic is having a fair profile with enough credentials. He writes that:

Mukti Bahini couldn’t liberate even a single district or a sub-district on their own. They needed a full scale invasion by the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy to do the job. After its victory in the war, India could present Bangladesh –the separated eastern wing of Pakistan, as a gift on a platter to her submissive cronies.

There are many more sources suggesting the same - Mukti Bahini can't be credited for the victory. It's not very hard to determine whether it's like the case of American revolutionary war where great repulsion came from inside or like American expedition into Haiti where locals didn't have strength and resources to resist. This seems sufficient to explain why consensus exists only for Indian victory in the liberation war. Abhishek0831996 13:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Indian victory I have to completely agree with Abhishek0831996 that: 1) comparison with American Revolutionary War is a red herring, 2) there is no reasonable dispute over "Indian victory", 3) there is a lack of scholarly consensus for claiming Mukti Bahini as a victorious or equal contender to India for claiming any credit of the victory.

Haroon, Asif. Roots of 1971 Tragedy. by Sang-e-Meel Publications. p. 299. documents what was the reception of this war even in those days among the mainstream sources;

• The Washington Post wrote, "India regularly supplied arms and ammunition to Mukti Bahini, but when it became clear that Mukti Bahini alone couldn't achieve the target, the Indian Army jumped into it."
• The London Times published an article stating, "There is substantial evidence to prove that, if not all, at least a major portion of Mukti Bahini consisted of Indian soldiers".
• The Yorkshire Post noted on 1 April, 1971: "India's attempts at subversion in Pakistan, of sponsoring a fifth column in East Pakistan, and her machinations to undo Pakistan itself have a longer history behind them. They started from the very day in 1947 when Pakistan was created. Since that day Indians have never reconciled themselves to the fact of Pakistan, and have employed every device to cripple this State."

It is very clear from these mainstream sources together with the one provided by Abhishek0831996 that for reliable sources, the liberation war was yet another "India v. Pakistan war". They don't agree at all that Mukti Bahini achieved or could achieve anything on her own, instead they say that independence was a doing of India. Now since Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs, we shouldn't be contradicting these reliable sources. Eliko007 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi victory Too lazy to check out the rambling discussions here. I just looked at the article's lead and found this reference, Jamal, Ahmed (2008). "Mukti Bahini and the liberation war of Bangladesh: A review of conflicting views". Asian Affairs. 30, No. 4. From the source,

Pakistani view,

General AAK Niazi, who served as the commander of Pakistani occupation forces in Bangladesh during the war, acknowledges the fact that the MB was gradually growing stronger both in terms of military training as well as morale. He also admits the impact of MB operations on the Pakistan army, when he laments that his forces were taking casualties

Indian view

The most comprehensive study of the Indian views on the Mukti Bahini has perhaps been done by Captain (Retd.) S.K. Garg in his book titled “Freedom Fighters of Bangladesh”. He highlights the effects that were made by the guerilla activities of the MB, pointing out that, “As days went by, the Mukti Bahini expanded the scope and frequency of its hit-and run raids, ambushes and attacks on small isolated enemy positions which resulted in liberating the occupied territory

Of course there are conflicting accounts as well but the above view is where both Indians and Pakistanis converge in defining the role of Mukti Bahini or the Bangladesh forces. I'm not even considering the Bangladeshi view here. Hence, following both WP:NPOV and WP:AD, the factually accurate description of the result should be "Bangladeshi victory". Nomian (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You must read the comment from Eliko007. You will know that your personal synthesis of WP:PRIMARY sources in your own words is factually inaccurate and contradicts mainstream view. Orientls (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference I quoted looks like an article from an academic journal reviewing different views, so must be a secondary source. I just quoted words from a single source so it's not synthesis, neither my own words. Mainstream view would be the views of military historians, like what I quoted above. You are of course entitled to your own opinion and don't have to agree with me. Nomian (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi-Indian vicory. Both the Bangladeshis and the Indians fought the Pakistani forces. They were allied with each other and they supported each other. The sources support all of this. So the victory belongs to both of them. Producing sources that label or other as the "victor" makes no difference, unless these sources are arguing that this common sense postion is wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Indian victory as the article currently states. I agree that "Bangladeshi" didn't exist in 1971 so it would be misleading for Wikipedia to treat it as an independent entity for this war. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Indian victory. I am a senior Bangladeshi citizen, I still can recall that in those days Mukti Bahini was incapable of defeating Pakistan military and we were always thinking that Pakistan will either annihilate or enslave us. Nobody cared about and even our top politicians were siding with Pakistan. Only India cared enough and came to rescue us from genocide orchestrated by Pakistan. To say something else is to fabricate history, something these young Bangladeshi nationalists need to understand and stop comparing themselves with Americans by talking about American independence war because Americans were superior and could fight alone against British by 1812, while Bangladesh is still as inferior as Mukti Bahini was. Pakistan will annihilate Bangladesh even today if only these 2 countries had to fight. This is a sad truth. 180.92.224.182 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You might require to look at the policies of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Not that I'm disputing you are really a Bangladeshi citizen. Thank you. Nomian (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I have googled "Muldhara 71" and found several links to download its PDF copy free of cost (this one for example). As a native Bengali speaker, I can confirm the translation of Za-ari-masen is accurate. This is the book's entry on the publisher's website, this is its bibliographic information on Google Books for second edition in 1995. If a source "X" is cited by other reliable sources, I don't think there should be any doubt on the reliability of source X. Some of the sources brought by Aditya Kabir also further restates "Bangladeshi victory" in Bangladesh Liberation War.

I have also checked the sources brought by Orientls, and they don't look credible, definitely no way near Mudhara 71. Consider the following,

• Indian Foreign Policy: Annual Survey is a self-published source.
• "Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India." That's a tertiary source.
• "Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher" the author just quotes MJ Akbar, not the book's own conclusion. So that's WP:PRIMARY.

Also, you cannot quote statements on victory in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and push it on Bangladesh liberation war, that will be WP:SYNTH. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• You are still yet to verify how "Muldhara 71" supports your information.
• Your analysis of sources is inaccurate because "Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India" is a quality WP:RS published by Scarecrow Press, Inc. I don't see anybody confusing Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with Bangladesh liberation war, other than you. Orientls (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I already said that I can confirm Za-ar-masen's translation is accurate and it supports the claim of "Bangladeshi victory". You can also follow the recommendations of Worldbruce stated above. Dictionaries are not secondary sources. Your have to bring sources that discuss "Bangladesh liberation war" and claims Indian victory to support your !vote. Otherwise, it's WP:SYNTH. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Then why you are not capable of making the source verifable for us? You can bring the quotation, scan the copy, or provide an available copy online for actually passing WP:VERIFY. "Historical Dictionary of India" is not a Dictionary but a book about history of Indian subcontinent. Are you only looking at the titles of the book? Each of the source I mentioned is talking about the "liberation" war. Like I said, you are the only one confusing Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with Bangladesh liberation war when sources are clear about "liberation" war. Orientls (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Orientls, stop repeatedly making the same argument. Kmzayeem's post already shows a link where the book can be accessed online where you can verify it yourself. Alternatively, you can give me your email address and I will send you a PDF file of the book's web edition. WP:VERIFY doesn't say offline sources cannot be accepted, in that sense you are typically misrepresenting the policy to mislead others, this is disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Historical Dictionary of India" is a technical dictionary and a tertiary source, no matter how you interpret it. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sachin.cba: You may not be entirely accurate here. (1) "It was Indian victory as totally supported by references on the article." I am sure you haven't checked the citations for a Bangladesh-Indian Victory yet. Because there you will find a lot of sources supporting something else. (2) "Any mention involving "Bangladesh" would be misleading and ungrammatical because Bangladesh didn't exist as a 'nation-state' in 1971." You are in for a surpise. India and Bhutan had already recognized Bangladesh before Pakistan surrendered, many charities were aiding "Bangladesh", the Indian forces formed a joint command with "Bangladesh forces" and so on. It was pretty much a nation state at the time, even if you disagree to the date claimed by Bangladesh - 26th March 1971. Sadly, I didn't get the "ungrammatical" point at all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just like to say one thing. India already has a separate wikipage for this war (Indo-Pakistani War of 1971), in which it is clearly written that India won the war. This page is about the Bangladesh Liberation war, therefore I think the infobox should say "Bangladeshi victory" which encompasses the victory of Bangladeshis who fought for their own liberation. Let us (we Indians) not forget that now Bangladesh is a sovereign nation. They also deserve to tell their liberation story the way they want. I am not saying they are free to fabricate facts. I am saying whenever there comes a subjective dilemma (even after looking at the evidence), we should give the citizens of Bangladesh a little more say in this matter. Therefore I recommend, "Bangladeshi victory". I am sure our Bangladeshi friends will change it into "Bangladeshi-Indian victory". Let us keep the peace and go home. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Solution 1

On a clearly controversial issue such as this, just cut out the local sources and concentrate on what Western sources say. Even Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi academics publishing in the West are likely to be biased. There are a few Western sources above, just pull them together and see what they say. I'd say start with this, which says, inter alia, "As a result of the Indian victory, Bangladesh emerged as the third independent state on the subcontinent." Alternatively, change it to "Pakistani defeat", as that is hardly controversial. Even better, put "See Aftermath section" in the infobox for the result, and explain it all in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Peacemaker67: This really works.

I don't think our Indian friends cared to take a look at the nine books I posted with quotations and all. That tells a lot about their willingness to discuss and achoeve consensus.

I propose to go with PM67's idea. Solves most of our problems. This is the reason I wanted uninvolved experienced editors to join in. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, when Indian generals themselves support the fact that the Bangladesh forces played the most prominent role in achieving victory as India had limitations in troop mobilization in Bangladesh/East Pakistan, it really provides a clear picture what should be the result. That being said, I'm willing to accept the suggestion of "Pakistani defeat" as a compromise to avoid controversy. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Pakistani defeat" wikilinked to lead to the Aftermath section (click on Pakistani defeat to see what mean). I think that's the idea we can use. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will incorporate PM67's idea supported by Zari and me. So, if anyone has an objection, let be known. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: @Kautilya3: @RegentsPark: @Worldbruce: @BrownHairedGirl: Requesting the most level headed editors interested in similar articles to join in. People, please, take a look at this dispute and the solution. This cannot go on forever. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, I think there is no objection to the solution, it's been two days since the proposal was made. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Disputes like these has a way of recurring back. A bulletproof consensus, as opposed to an half-baked consensus like the one quoted above, may be better for continued stability of the article. Besides, if someone wants disrupt a fair consensus in future it will be easier to defend the article through WP:ACDS. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I differ with Peacemaker in this context. Victor and not losing side is conventionally mentioned in infobox (which is more indonated in sources as well). Given certain sources claim stalemate between India & Pak on another front, another dispute might arise. We most certainly should find an in between path when actually a disagreement is there between sources. As we are already clear that Indian victory and not Bangladeshi-Indian victory is the concensus in academia, I can't see any reason to give any weightage to a version unsupported by sources and just being pushed by a certain set of members.

The dispute is an year old when the group wanted to push it as Bangladeshi-allied victory and now Bangladeshi-Indian victory, both of versions which were never supported by sources. They invited volunteers from WP:MILHIST forum here and got same responses what I have been giving for an year. If I don't render this effort as a mere disruption, I don't know what else should I. If no dispute among scholastic sources is there, there is no point in compromising and finding a middle path. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm stuck on, what seems to me undeniable, the difference between the India-Pakistan war and the liberation struggle. Clearly India emerged victorious from the war which ran through December. Equally clearly, Bangladesh achieved liberation because of India's victory in the war. But, wouldn't it also follow that Bangladesh, or the Mukti Bahini to be precise, which fought from March to December, also emerged victorious because they did get what they want? I haven't had time to look at the references but this seems fairly obvious to me. Perhaps something along the lines of "Indian victory in the India Pakistan war of 1971 and Bangladeshi victory in the struggle for Independence"? Or, "Indian and Bangladeshi victory in the struggle for Bangladesh's independence"? If, of course, this is properly sourceable.moments like this, I miss @Darkness Shines:, who knew all about the Bangladesh war!--RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As per my analysis of the sources, Bangladesh and India fought as a joint force or Joutho Bahini from December (see List of sectors in the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mitro Bahini order of battle), so a neutrally stated description would be "Bangladeshi-Indian victory". The misleading suggestion of "academic consensus" stems from the cherrypicked passing lines from cherrypicked sources produced by a search result with preferred keywords on Google. You can find tons of sources in Bengali language that state "Bangladeshi victory", one has been already presented above. This contesting claim of Bangladeshi victory at least makes the "Indian victory" a POV statement, if not false. For this reason, I suggested to simply eliminate the description of "victory" and state it as "Pakistan's surrender" which pretty much falls in the same line of solution stated by Peacemaker67. I don't know why it's so hard to accept as a compromise. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: @Kautilya3: @Worldbruce: @BrownHairedGirl: Where are you? Pinging again. This discussion needs you.

@Peacemaker67: @Nick-D: I guess this discussion needs a second visit by you.

@Buckshot06: @Serial Number 54129: @From Hill To Shore: @Azx2: @UnknownForEver: @AshLin: @Smsarmad: @Bengalpatriot71: @Mercenary2k: @EninE: @Incognito1980: {{subst:DNAU|TrueRavin}} @DPdH: Please, help. This discussion needs military historians, not nationalistic POVs. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker's suggestion at the top of this sub-section looks like an excellent idea to me: if there isn't consensus in the secondary sources, the infobox shouldn't pretend that there is. Peacemaker's suggestion reflect how this kind of issue has been successfully handled in a bunch of other articles. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that and agree. Put something accurate (Pakistan defeat, Indian victory and formation of Bangladesh, see aftermath), down in the infobox and elaborate in the aftermath section. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with just "See Aftermath section", and it appears that this has consensus, support apparent from Nick and I, as well as Aditya Kabir and Za-ari-masen, and partially from RegentsPark. I suggest you implement it and concentrate on ensuring the outcome is neutrally described in the Aftermath section. Annually, thousands of editor-hours are wasted on this sort of bickering over the contents of infoboxes when things are disputed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Endorse everything PM67 says. Just say "See Aftermath section," though you could add "Pakistani defeat." I would suggest you implement it and concentrate on ensuring the outcome is neutrally described in the aftermath section. Annually, thousands of editor-hours are wasted on this sort of bickering over the contents of infoboxes, and reality is too messy, sometimes to be squashed into infobox parameters (h/t PM67 for some of this text). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: be mindful about WP:CANVASSING and WP:BATTLE. The RfC is on the run for community opinion and thus you must stop canvassing editors by sending notifications through pinging. Also, you need to stop ridiculing any other contributors.

Why do we need a "See Aftermath section"? Is it because some editors don't like "Indian victory"? Then I am opposed to adding even just "Pakistani defeat" because I haven't seen a single reliable source disputing "Indian victory" or a policy based explanation for removing "Indian victory" it. I don't see why WP:IDL should be taken into account when we are making a compromise. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: Explained at my talk page. Keep the discussion at one place. If it is here, then here. If at my talk page, then there. Not in two places at the same time. Since you make this personal, better if it happens at my talk page. It will help people to focus on the critical issues here. The personal grudge is pretty distracting. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996, don't remove the POV template as we are still discussing the issue. See WP:MTR to know when to remove such maintenance templates. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

But the addition of the template was overnight and frivolous since there is no "POV" involved. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is no POV dispute what are we discussing here then? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No, our dispute is not related to PoV most certainly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Then what is it related to? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks nothing more than a disagreement over what should be stated in results, essentially over interpretation of sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes and that disagreement is a POV dispute. The readers of article should know that there is a disagreement over the result. Aditya Kabir, am I wrong? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am still working on getting more "experienced" "uninvolved" and "reputed" editors who know about similar stuff to voice their opinions. POV combatants are not really good for a consensus. I guess the combative POV pushers are trying very hard to resist such editors from coming here. But I still believe that on Wikipedia collaboration and consensus will win over POV pushing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of throwing WP:NPAs can you at least address where is the "POV"? These poor skills to interpret Wikipedia policies aren't helping debate in anyway. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Indian victory" is the only thing the infobox can meaningfully say and it is NPOV because it is supported by reliable sources. It can be violation of NPOV only if it is a fringe view or it is meaningfully contradicted by credible sources. I clearly don't see evidence for any of those reasons. Sachin.cba (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is a clear misuse of the maintenance template. Not every dispute needs to be tagged on main article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: You are yet to explain the PoV tag on article. You simply can't give PoV tag to any version you don't like, you have to verify the PoV. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there are at least three editors who support the inclusion of the POV tag, there is no consensus to remove, you need to achieve a consensus before removing it per WP:MTR. There are sources that confirm the opposing POV which are already shown in the discussion. This lengthy discussion and the related RfC on the dispute are enough to "verify" the POV. Don't bludgeon the discussion by repeating the same argument which are already addressed. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

But they don't justify why the tag is warranted. They haven't proven where is the "POV". I am removing the tag. Be aware of WP:POINT. Orientls (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Numbers don't really matter in WP:CON but good standing does. It doesn't matter if two, three or five members support inclusion of tag, just as they support a particular version. They have to verify for both. In case you provide the set of third party secondary sources free of diplomatic language and scholars which support your version and still I try to impose my version, it would be PoV. But as you have not been successful in doing so so far, you can't leave a tag there. The ongoing clash has strictly been in state What sources and academia say versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT unnecessarily being dragged. Neither dragging it longer nor misusing template is going to help you. As I told before, you really need to be more competent and learn where WP:EW and WP:BRD applies. Other way, it will only have adverse effects on your credibility. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Solution 2

I am going to address the elephant in the room, rather than the points being wrangled here. Sources support the facts, which are these: substantially large fighting forces of the Indian Armed Forces engaged in conventional combat with the Pakistani forces in East Pakistan along many axes, defeating them utterly; the Mukti Bahini played a long and substantial fighting role for the whole duration, in the form of an insurgency at first, with small unit actions, and providing guidance and intelligence support to the attacking Indian formations, with Indian cross-border support; that politically the nations had equal status, as can be seen from the joint front that was formed as a politico-militarily front for the fight for Bangladesh's independence. It is clear to any person with common sense, that Indian victory would have been much more costly in time, resources and lives if it weren't for the sterling actions of the Mukti Bahini, and equally that Mukti Bahini were militarily inadequate to defeat and evict East Pakistani military formation without their conventional defeat at the hands of the Indian Army. Efforts to paint this is an Indian victory only is disrespectful of the huge costs and sacrifices of the Bangladeshi people at the hands of the Pakistanis. At the same time, efforts to minimise the importance of the Indian military actions to defeat the Pakistani Army is overstating the capability of the insurgents and disrespectful of the Indian soldiers who lost their lives for the liberation of Bangladesh. Depicting the differing contributions of Indian Army and Mukti Bahini in the form that I mentioned earlier in my comment is neither disrespectful nor belittling either one. I am really not going to say what you should write here, because as a veteran of Indian Army I have COI. My only suggestion is don't go in for over-nationalism or jingoistic views on either side and try to justify the same. Do justice to both sides by accurate presentation of their military contribution and not over-inflating or undermining either. Bangladesh and India are friendly neighbours and as one who had lived as a child in post-Independence Bangladesh, this whole debate to me is distressing and unseemly. AshLin (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Like RegentsPark and AshLin, I also see this as a non-issue, and am deeply disappointed to see so much effort being spent on arguing it. Both the Bangladeshis and the Indians fought the Pakistani forces. They were allied with each other and they supported each other. The victory belongs to both of them. Producing sources that say one or the other makes no difference, unless these sources are somehow able to show that this common sense position is somehow wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Count me in as a support to Peacemaker67's proposal of "Pakistani defeat" if that yields peace. The prime issue at hand is to thwart the disruption to the potential consensus and mediation we are approaching here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: @Worldbruce: @BrownHairedGirl: @Serial Number 54129: @From Hill To Shore: @Azx2: @UnknownForEver: @AshLin: @Smsarmad: @Bengalpatriot71: @Mercenary2k: @EninE: @Slatersteven: Please help. This discussion needs you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to decline to respond here. It looks like you are having a sensible discussion and are working towards a compromise position. Either a consensus will form or it won't. Seeking input from other editors you believe to be sympathetic to one view or another is unlikely to help in building a lasting consensus. If you require input from a broader base, start an RfC, post messages on related WikiProjects or even leave a message at the Village Pump. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, this is becoming interminable. Just implement the consensus solution of "See Aftermath" or "Pakistani defeat" as I suggested or start a neutrally-worded RfC and let the community decide. The sort of constant circular revisiting of old arguments that is going on here only drives away experienced editors who would like to provide some guidance but baulk at the drama. The second option will be more resilient and POV-pushers who edit-war after it are more likely to get blocked because the community has decided on it, not just a group of interested editors, most of whom appear to have at least a bit of a COI because they are from one of the countries/factions involved in the war. And please stop pinging editors, if they want to remain involved in the discussion they will have watchlisted the article or asked to be pinged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: "Seeking input from other editors you believe to be sympathetic to one view or another." I apologise if it seems that way. I frankly don't know where their sympathies lie (for example, I don't know yours). But all are experienced, uninvolved, in good standing, and is knowledgeable about similar articles. This already is an RfC, and I did post to MILHIST. I guess I am bugging people too much. If I could handle this myself, that would not have been needed. Apologising again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I did think we had a conssensus, until some of the editors here rejected that idea. If this wasn't an area under discreationary sanctions I would have made the change myself. But, that probably would get me a sanction and not a soultion. I guess the discussion and the article can take care of itself without my involvement. After all this is the Wikipedia.

A lot of thanks to everyone who came and tried to solve a dispute. I hope I have not tried to sell a viewpoint to anyone. Looking forward to a solution to emerge eventually. Though the entire unfriendliness of the discussion makes me a bit sad. Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, We already have an RfC ongoing if you scroll above but the question is what if even the RfC fails to provide a consensus? Should we implement the solution suggested by you in that case (which was also endorsed by Nick-D and Buckshot06)? I think it has to be implemented and enforced by one of you neutral editors. The reason why Aditya Kabir was pinging the uninvolved editors from WP:MILHIST is to have a community decision on the dispute, especially when there are some bullying and battling going on by some users which is only making the resolution harder. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, it is easy to miss with all this rigmarole, but it was very poorly formulated unfortunately, and there has been serious sidetracking. Given I suggested it, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to implement it, but I would support any neutral editor that did. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to change the infobox to PM67's proposed solution unless there's any objection. Would be "Pakistani defeat. See Aftermath." I would strongly encourage those who are concerned about infobox victory parameters to adopt "See Aftermath" in controversial cases. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Especially the aftermath part. Winners and losers make no sense to me since the results of wars are usually nuanced! --RegentsPark (comment) 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I concur, let Peacemaker67's solution of "Pakistani defeat, see Aftermath" happen. Puts an end to this unseemly squabbling for "my nation's contribution is greater than your's". AshLin (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• But that buries undisputed mainstream view of the war, which is "Indian victory",[12] by replacing with unsupported "Pakistani defeat".[13] Unless the question "Why "Indian victory" should be removed?" can be adequately answered especially with the support of a policy as indicated above, it makes no sense to remove it. Orientls (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• As I have already expressed, I support Peacemaker67's solution of "Pakistani defeat" as a compromise which would address the POV dispute since there are sources for both "Bangladeshi victory" and "Indian victory" as sighted in the discussions above. I am also urging everyone not to remove the POV template from the article until the dispute is solved. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• POV dispute is when you can conclusively prove how WP:NPOV is being violated. Your edit warring with misleading edit summaries haven't proved it.[14] You had 3 days to provide explanation before it was removed. You can't label your personal disagreement over the reliably supported content as "POV". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The POV dispute is already "conclusively proved" with enough reliable sources. This is the fourth time you have asked the same question when it has been already answered by three editors. Also, read some of the latest comments in the discussion by From Hill To Shore[15] and Nomian[16] where neutral point of view has been mentioned. So the tag is justified. You need achieve a consensus before removing the tag. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You have not displayed a single dispute among any secondary sources displayed here. Further, you can't justify a POV tag without reliable sources and that most certainly has not been done. Nomian's comment, made up of his analysis of military men, and Kmzayeem's irrelevant sources or sources lacking context do not stand a chance. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I had already discussed the POV of the infobox at the talk page before placing the template and backed up my comments by providing reliable secondary sources, that should be sufficient enough to explain the template. You might reject all these sources that oppose your POV. I believe I don't have the capacity to convince you or the other users of what now seems like a WP:GANG who are trying to WP:STONEWALL this article, even if I answer your repetitive same question 1000 times in 1000 different ways. A logical way forward is to have a neutral and uninvolved editor to remove the template when there is enough evidence of a consensus. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Still, where is the POV that you have to dispute it with NPOV template? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Peace" at Pakistan's expense? No. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• I said above that I wasn't particularly appreciative of the random ping. However, I am now looking at this in the context of an RfC. Reading the opening statement, the original options are now out of date, so I have expanded them with options from the subsequent discussion. As an impartial reader with no involvement on this topic, I would agree that any of the options that refer to an Aftermath (or similar) section in the article will be the best approach here. If you have a topic that can't be explained (without dispute) within a few words, it should not appear in the infobox. It is always better to point to the body of the article where the nuanced nature of the sourcing can be explained to present a neutral point of view. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pakistani defeat or any similar result to be picked from aftermath is only a third option and it definitely should be used only in case when there's an academic dispute between first two options, especially "Indian victory". And given that the results of this war are not really nuanced or disputed, giving undue weight to this "solution" is against the spirit of consensus. Neither consensus is likely, nor likely to be stable even if pushed and may attract another wave of controversy from editors from Pakistani side. Wikipedia articles should reflect scholastic views and not our personal opinions and should be challenged by only another set of academia. If otherwise, I don't know what's the use of sources and guidelines. Sachin.cba (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no need for there to be an "academic dispute" to decide what goes into an infobox and what goes into the article body. You are confusing arguments of article content and article presentation. All "see aftermath" says is "read the more detailed text below" and is a standard method to avoid edit warring over a few words. There is no requirement to have the victory field in the infobox at all, that is just a matter of presentation. Issues of presentation are decided by consensus. Guidelines are recommended ways of dealing with particular issues but exceptions can be made if consensus determines that the guideline shouldn't apply to a particular article. As the editors of this page can't reach a consensus you have started an RfC to seek the opinions of the community. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS. It is not about how many editors disagree or agree but how strongly a particular view is being supported by the policies. There is a reasonable dispute over "Bangladeshi victory"; there is no dispute over "Indian victory". Just because some editors are not liking "Indian victory" it is their personal problem that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. See Template:Infobox military conflict, it says for "result" that "The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." Moreover the description says "see aftermath" can be used alongside actual results. This page is not that special that it needs special treatment. Sachin.cba (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am very familiar with consensus, thank you. Please point out to me where I have said that forming consensus is a matter of numbers? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

From Hill To Shore, Academic reliable sources are already shown to dispute the exclusive "Indian victory". So the lack of academic dispute argued by that user is quite incorrect. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Show one which rejects "Indian victory" but take a look at this source, which say "Mukti Bahini couldn’t liberate even a single district or a sub-district on their own. They needed a full scale invasion by the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy to do the job. After its victory in the war, India could present Bangladesh –the separated eastern wing of Pakistan, as a gift on a platter to her submissive cronies". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions in random websites like southasiajournal.net don't matter. Already many secondary reliable sources have been shown, look above. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently that "random wesbite" has been cited by scholarly sources,[17] because it is not a "random website" but much better in terms of quality than anything you have cited so far. Saying "look above" won't fly, you have to show the sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh celebrates this as their victory as they fought for 9 months. But Pakistani military didn't surrender to Bangladesh because Bangladesh didn't sign to the Geneva Convention that time so there was no security for them. So this can't be an Indian victory and without this article nowhere it is said that it's an Indian victory. Change it. It is a Bangladeshi victory. Shahjahan Rahman (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We celebrate independence, not victory. We didn't actually fight for 9 months but tried to hide and resist. Many of our politicians tried to justify genocide caused by Pakistan and sided with them. There was no war in true terms. Pakistan was attacking and we were compensating. India came to rescue us and provided us independence. India could use us like a puppet state or annex us, but they showed kindness. Stop being so thankless and dishonest to actual events of Bangladeshi history. 180.92.224.182 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)