Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

land exchange

article doesnt have any info on land exchange .. for example village of turtuk fell into indian hands.. what were the others ? dd pakistan keep any indian land ?

RFC, Should "Decisive victory of Provisional Bangladesh Government" be written in result?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that the information should be included. Though the specific wording showed no consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

• An editor made concern that, along with Indian victory, victory of "Provisional government of Bangladesh" should also be written in result section. like this way. But in my opinion, editor is confusing "Indo-Pak" war with Bangladesh liberation war. This is a war primarily between "India and Pakistan". What is your opinion? --Human3015 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Was there any formal agreement between India and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh, such that the term; coalition, alliance, combined, joint powers, etc.. could be used as a prefix-term (unique to 1971) such as "Alliance of India and Provisional government of Bangladesh" or "1971 Mutually Cooperating India and Provisional Government of Bangladesh". 74.136.159.171 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Indo-Bangladeshi alliance was known as "Mitro Bahini". Faizan (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 

• Decisive victory for Mitro Bahini alliance of India and of Provisional Government of Bangladesh.

 

• Decisive victory for —the Indian and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh— Mitro Bahini alliance.

 

74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) & 74.136.159.171 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, suggest Mitro Bahini alliance be included. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It should be "Decisive Mitro Bahini victory" in the "Eastern front" in the infobox. Faizan (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Don't you think page should be moved to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani War of 1971? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a page on B'desh Liberation War. This page is only about the Indo-Pak confrontation of 1971, mainly that took place in December,1971. For the entire event, there is already a separate page.Ghatus (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want it to be moved to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani War of 1971. Nevertheless, on the eastern front, Mukti Bahini fought along with Indian Army forming Mitro Bahini, and it should be mentioned as such. Faizan (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Again. You want in India vs Pakistan cricket match result should show "Bangladesh won" just because you don't like to see "India won". You want to write in result section that "Decisive victory of Mitro bahini", while article name suggests war was between India and Pakistan, so either India will win or Pakistan will win. If you want to write "Decisive victory Mitro Bahini" removing "India" word then page should be renamed to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani war of 1971. (Please don't do extra-ordinary demands, there are discretionary sanctions) --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The instrument of surrender that ended the war mentions "Indian and Bangladesh forces", so there may be merit in mentioning that, although it would be be best to see how history texts deal with the issue rather than try to come up with our own language and justification. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Abecedare: As per this book of Harvard University Press Srinath Raghavan (12 November 2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. pp. 245–. ISBN 978-0-674-73127-1. instrument of surrender was signed between Pakistani general Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi and Indian general Jagjit Singh Aurora. This Indo-Pak war is part of major Bangladesh liberation war which was confrontation between India and Pakistan. No one is denying Bengalis also won, thats why it is already written in infobox of Bangladesh liberation war. One can see this pic too, there is no one even standing from "Bangladesh" while signing this surrender agreement. G. M. Hiranandani (1 January 2000). Transition to Triumph: History of the Indian Navy, 1965-1975. Lancer Publishers. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-1-897829-72-1. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, The infobox is for clear, factual, unambigous information, it is not very useful as a mere 'score-card'. It is clear that the 'decisive victory' information has a strong claim to be in the article but I think it is much more informative to put in the info-box only CONCRETE outcomes, surrenders, treaties, accords, borders moved, clear political outcomes. I recently edited a wiki-table about WWII thus, I don't know how successful I was, but the intention was to concisely and neutrally present factual information, linking to relevant article. WWII outcome:

Nazi Germany formally surrenders 8 May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.

On August 15, 1945, following the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan announces its surrender, ending World War II.

British, French, American,and Soviet troops occupy Germany until 1955, Italy and Japan lose their colonies, Europe is divided into 'Soviet' and 'Western' spheres of interest.

I do not think 'decisive victory' is very informative, even if it is justified by the sources.Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Support - It seems like the majority have support of including Bangladesh in the results section. Therefore it should be changed to "Mitro Bahini Victory." Xtremedood (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisions by Human3015

user:Human3015, it has been too long and the majority have supported inclusion of Bangladesh in the results section. Xtremedood (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Human3015, once again you choose to revert [1], [2], and are not discussing the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@user:Faizan, @user:EdJohnston, @User:Liz, @user:Sitush user Human3015 keeps on reverting, even though the majority has decided to include Bangladesh in the results section. However, he refuses to discuss this matter on the talk page. Any suggestions on how to continue further? Xtremedood (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is more discusion needed for such topics. See, inclusion of name of Bangladesh doesn't mean that removal of name of India. Name of India can't be removed as it is war between India and Pakistan. You should discuss regarding we should add "decisive victory of India and its allies" or "decisive victory of India and mukti bahini" etc. --Human3015^TALK  14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Took you long enough to respond. Simply reverting and not justifying your reverts through proper discussion does nothing to alleviate the issue. What do you think the wording should be? Xtremedood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, war was between India and Pakistan so winner will be India or Pakistan. You are completely removing name of India and writing name of third party which shows you don't want to see name of "India" in it, but anyway, things don't work like this. Name of Mukti Bahini or Bangladesh is the thing to write in result section of Bangladesh liberation war. Still if there is consensus to add name of Bangladesh then there should be vast discussion regarding that. 2-3 people can't decide it. It is one of prime article under discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBIPA. So think twice before pushing POV. Even if name of Bangladesh is to be added then it can be added as "decisive victory of India and its allies". But I know you will not accept any version having name of "India" in it. So no use of any alternative "result" for you. Moreover, writing exclusively name of Mukti Bahini is no where relevant here, Mukti Bahini does not include India, Mukti Bahini was not name of India-Bangladesh alliance. --Human3015^TALK  15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What you say is factually incorrect. The Provisional Gov't of Bangladesh is clearly listed as a combatant. Your personal attacks also do nothing to justify your claim. You are simply going back to the issue we discussed previously. You are also confusing Mukhti Bahini for Mitro Bahini. This shows your lack of insight into the matter. Mitro Bahini was an alliance between Bangladeshi rebels and India. Xtremedood (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional gov of Bangladesh is in combantant list because of our last edit war over that. Kindly read article name. You can ask move request for article name to Mitro Bahini-Pakistan war of 1971 and add "decisive victory of Mitro Bahini" in result. And merge Bangladesh Liberation War to this.--Human3015^TALK  18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong. The Provisional Gov't of Bangladesh was listed as a combatant long before we had our disagreement. This sort of nonsense about changing the name has nothing to do with the article. You should stay on topic. Major sources indicate it was a Bangladeshi victory as well. This is a historical fact that you can not deny. The name of a war does not necessarily indicate who was involved. Xtremedood (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as you said it was victory of Bangladesh also then we can add "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh". Ok?--Human3015^TALK  15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

+1 for "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh". - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but we have to pipe article Provisional Government of Bangladesh while writing Bangladesh.--Human3015^TALK  17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh did not exist back then, therefore it would not be historically accurate. The 'Provisional Government of Bangladesh' should be included or Mitro Bahini also works. As the majority have pointed out, that Mitro Bahini works. Xtremedood (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is just a quick summary, doesn't need to be fully accurate in all details. I think Human3015's solution is acceptable. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: You yourself were insisting for inclusion of word "Bangladesh" here, now some of editors are agree on it but you still have problem. I think you should clear your stand, tell me, are you debating here for inclusion of word "Bangladesh" or exclusion of word "India"? --Human3015^TALK  15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of Bengali separatists, however, I think that Wikipedia should be a place that includes information that is also historically accurate. Since Bangladesh did not exist back then (as a state), then what is your rationale for using the word "Bangladesh" instead of "Provisional Government of Bangladesh" or the "Mitro Bahini" alliance? Xtremedood (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so in this case "Decisive victory of India and allies" will be better. Or "Decisive victory of India and Mukti Bahini".--Human3015^TALK  02:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To make things easier, I think user:Kautilya3's suggestion of "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh" is probably the suitable compromise (at least for now), although I would prefer "Mitro Bahini Victory" or something that includes the Provisional Government of Bangladesh. Perhaps it could be listed as "decisive victory for India and Bangladesh", with the link associated with Bangladesh linking to the Prov. Gov't of Bangladesh page. Mukthi Bahini is too limited, because it only refers to the fighters, not the entire gov't. Xtremedood (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to you both of you for agreeing on a compromise. I made the change. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To Kautilya3 and Human3015: it was not Bangladeshi victory according to every sources that have been listed, maybe because Bangladesh forces had no victories with themselves. See what sources says,[3][4][5][6][7] they don't think of "Bangladeshi victory". Xtremedood is currently blocked for disruptive sock puppetry and his apparent disregard for Indian achievements is prevalent on other articles too. Capitals00 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood seems to be misrepresenting above discussion. A temporary compromise just to halt his edit warring is not consensus, there is no allowance for misrepresenting source. Capitals00 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The over-whelming amount of editors agree that Bangladesh should be included in the results section. You are one editor going against a previously agreed upon decision. It is your duty to get enough people to agree with you. Do not revert unless you have done so. Xtremedood (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it's Xtremedood again. The three sources given do not mention B'desh. So, wish good luck to you to find a WP:RS mentioning B'desh & your demand will be entertained only then. Ghatus (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested. I see more than two editors participating in discussion here. In view of how long this discussion has been running, I suggest formal mediation. Another RFC would also be an option. I would caution all of the editors to be civil, because this topic is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Naval_hostilities Missing info?

Pointing out (what seems to me like) an omission. In the last paragraph of this section, there's a consolidated "loss" roundup for the Pakistan side, shouldn't it also include one for India as well? Unless the INS Khukri was indeed the only Naval loss for India? (Its known as the only India warship lost, but the Pakistan roundup includes lots of smaller craft like partrol crafts and minesweepers). Zhanzhao (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Failure to Respond to Mediation

Capitals00, you have failed to respond to the mediation request [[8]]. Rather than go against what is soundly sourced and a legitimate inclusion of a main combatant, it is important to first try and discuss why you think Bangladesh should not be included rather than engage in an edit war. Xtremedood (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been already told enough about that, User:Ghatus also disagreed with your unsourced edits. Capitals00 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is well sourced that Bangladesh was a combatant and exclusion of Bangladesh is indicative of a bias.

• "Jointly the Mitro Bahini achieved a decisive victory over Pakistan on December 16, 1971"
• "Soon after Bangladesh was liberated on December 16, 1971, violence became an indulgence of the victouious Bengalis against the Biharis."
• "Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan. It gained political independence as a result of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Soon after independence, the Bangladeshi military, basking on the euphoria of victory over Pakistani Army..." Xtremedood (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Being involved in a battle is not enough, one has to win battles for being called as "victorious", this is not "Bangladesh/Indo-Pakistani War". Only https://books.google.ca/books?id=bR0hIC0Xhb0C has half support for your wording, and it is self-published by an unknown author. Capitals00 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 there is an RFC right there on the top. You can see the consensus in that RFC. So please stop your POV edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC was already superseded by consensus and sources at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Revisions_by_Human3015. Capitals00 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Where the consensus is to include the sentence. What exactly are you aiming for here? That no content should be created until every single editor says "YES"? If this is the case, then sorry to say but you are in a delusion about how consensus works. There will always be POV pushers around and other warriors who will want their own version inserted. Consensus is usually reached without their input, rather despite their input. So when you see four editors agreeing to a basic statement, you should calmly back away and rethink your own position. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that @Kautilya3, Human3015, Ghatus, and Capitals00: have disagreed with the pseudohistory of Xtremedood. Proof is that none of them have opposed the infobox after revisiting sources that only say that the war was "Indian Victory". Freeatlastchitchat must stop disrupting the article when you have nothing to say that would make any sense. Sources[9][10] [11][12][13][14][15] disagree with you. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the result of an RfC is never grounds for violating the core Wikipedia policies of verifiability. Reliable sources are definitely needed to change the wording in the infobox. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 as far as I can see you initiated the compromise and then added the wording in the box, therefore I am reverting to your version as of now. I am also requesting gold lock so that we can get a compromise before getting someone banned. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no need of such disruption. What you meant from "compromise"? We can't misrepresent sources the way you are expecting us to. Capitals00 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitChat:, I haven't participated in the RfC and I haven't researched the issue as to how the victory should be described. My contribution was limited to finding an amicable way to implement the result of the RfC, essentially acting as a mediator. But as I said, the RfC cannot trump the core Wikipedia policy of Verifiability. So, I am afraid the proponents of the compromise wording (reflecting the RfC result) still need to produce reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for 3 days; please use the time to try and find consensus. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005055417/http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/021215/books3.htm to http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/021215/books3.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My edits

1. The Agartala Conspiracy Case cannot be excluded from the background section. It was a fundamental part of the mistrust between the West Pakistani establishment and Awami League. Furthermore nearly all sources pertaining to that section are either Bengali or neutral sources.

2. My edit of the following sentence needs to be restored:

Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army

I added the clause 'and civilians'

You have removed this too. Even though on the 'Bangladesh Liberation War' page it mentions 24,000 civilians as part of the POWs taken (and that statistic are sourced)

3.In the Aftermath-Pakistan section there's a great deal of emphasis on Pakistan's 'humiliating' losses and failures. This section does not take into account the extreme circumstances Pakistan's Army found itself fighting in.

So that statement in praise of Pakistan's millitary performance from the Indian Chief of Army Staff in 1971, Sam Manekshaw (who was a pivotal member of the conflict from the Indian side), should be included to provide a fair assessment of Pakistan's millitary performance in the conflict.

Furthermore the info I added in this regard was sourced, a Youtube clip of Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw's interview was provided.

4. I added a neutral source to backup the paragraph (in the 'Background' section) which said that the Pakistani state claimed that the Pakistani millitary deployment and Operation Searchlight was in response to anti-Bihari mob violence and rioting. You have excluded this pivotal info.

The source for this info is D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 103.

You can search the source yourself.

5. BBC says that most Independent researchers say that the number of civilians was killed was between 300,000-500,000. It also says that 3 million is the Bangladeshi government's figure.

That too should be restored. It is a sourced sentence I had added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first, the sheer size of these additions just raises lots of red flags [16]. Second the edit (purposefully?) mixes possibly legitimate changes with highly POV ones. As examples of the latter we have: adding "and civilians" to the sentence "Between 90,000 and 93,000...". Does this appear in the source? Doesn't look like it. Or the addition of "Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 civilians died during this period ..." The text already says between 300,000 and 3 million - the "independent researchers" part is original research combined with the repeated use of the heavily criticized Bose book. It's textbook POV. The paragraph on the postponement of the National Assembly and the violence against Biharis is also POV for reasons already explained elsewhere. To reiterate, there's POV original research here which tries to establish a *causal* connection, which is not supported by sources. Furthermore, there's misrepresentation of sources which do not say anything about "Bengali mobs" or "the dissidents" (it's actually self-contradictory original research). The use of this language is obviously intended to push a view. And then the Manekshaw quote is repeated several times for some reason, again with the purpose of POV pushing.

Now, then there's the whole Agartala Case addition. First, you need to separate that out from all the other POV edits. Second, as already mentioned, that is way too much attention devoted to it. So before we even begin consider it, it needs to be condensed to a manageable size. How about making a proposal here on talk how that should be handled? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek

1. The source for 'and civilians' is also on the page of Bangladesh Liberation War. Here is one of them. It gives a figure of 24,114 Civilians who were part of the 90-93,000 POWs.

Figures from The Fall of Dacca by Jagjit Singh Aurora in The Illustrated Weekly of India dated 23 December 1973 quoted in Indian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 [ISBN 81-7062-014-7]

Another source for this figure is:

Figure from Pakistani Prisoners of War in India by Col S.P. Salunke p.10 quoted in Indian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 (ISBN 81-7062-014-7)

2. There are a number of BBC articles, with no link to Sarmila Bose's views, which repeat the 300,000-500,000 figure of civilian deaths by independent researchers.

Eg;

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16207201

In fact there's even an Indian newspaper article which talks about this in detail with reference to original research and interviews of high ranking officials.

See:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/questioning-an-iconic-number/article5941870.ece

3. I would like to see the reasons, for which the text on atrocities against Biharis being the justification that the Pakistani state used as justification for its millitary deployment in East Pakistan, are POV. I cannot find them. It would be appreciable if you post them here.

Also this article gives extremely limited references to the atrocities committed on Biharis.The fact that their is a lack of information on Bihari sufferings is itself POV.

4. I will leave it mostly up to you to summarise the Agartala Case, however that entire text is referenced with Bengali sources.

BUT, that bit on Agartala Case should be included. It was a key event in the relationship between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, too important to ignore from the background of 1971.

5. The positive statement from Indian Army Chief of 1971, Sam Manekshaw, needs to be included in the section of 'Aftermath-Pakistan' so it can balance the entire text which seems exceedingly pessimistic and negative. To exclude it is to un-balance it. I think I can reasonably claim that the section on the aftermath on Pakistan is extremely POV.

You have already BEEN WARNED by the ADMINISTRATOR, so thus I suggest you to stop pushing POV on Indo-Pakistani related articles.

1. "Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army.[29][30]" the references mentioned here does not include CIVILIAN here.

2. You are quoting figures from Bangladesh Liberation War and FYI, the two sources mentioned there are actually same (ISBN 81-7062-014-7) and doesn't say anything about "24,114 Civilians", they are WP:FICTREF and I have just added refrence and genuine figures there in the article.

3. You just wanted to add your POV in the lead, this can be understand by your this addition Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 civilians died during this period while the Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million.[31][32][33]" It doesn't make any SENSE AT ALL. It is clearly mentioned in the same paragraph that "It is estimated that between 300,000 and 3,000,000 civilians were killed in Bangladesh."

4. "violence against Biharis" is also obvious POV. the problem is with the language that depicts it's your POV and WP:OR. Yes, there was violence against Biharis prior to Operation Searchlight and Op. Searchlight was launched after this happened and pakistani military used it as a fictitious reason. And, It's an obvious POV and WP:OR to say that operation searchlight was happened *because of* it.

5. Now, you wanted to add a YouTube link to justify the circumstances faced by pakistan military and that they are not cowards at all? Obviously this is your biasness and jingoism. Wikipedia is not a place for jingoistic editors. You are just pushing your point of view, and this will be not added at all.

Nevertheless, It is important to answer you. By that YouTube video (Knowing the fact that Wikipedia don't allows YouTube as a refrence), what actually do you wanted to say? There were more extreme circumstances faced by the Mukti Bahini and the Pakistan was initially aggressor in the war. You are too bias and jingoistic to understand a Gentlemen's code of conduct. Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw is very widely respected in India and it is his high morale that dictates he give credit to pakistan military who could not defend their east side nor the west and lost half of the military and country in just 10 days!

By the way, there are YouTube videos of Nazam Sethi, Pakistan intellectuals, and pakistan's politician (including Bhutto) saying that the pakistan army should wear bangles. Should I add them too? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am amazed to see the way you people use the term POV here. There is a widespread misuse of this term especially whenever someone does not like other's edits, they blame them for POV-pushing. If i was a decision maker here, i would request that the term POV should be banned on Wikipedia or at least added to "Words to Watch" list. Here in this conversation as well, i am seeing a group of editors ganging up on one editor (User:TalhaZubairButt) and calling his perfectly sourced edits as POV and i see this is going on several pages. If you guys are in majority on Wikipedia, that does not mean that you should harass and troll others. Sure, make your point but do not call others POV-pushers just because you do not like their edits. Despite, all the shenanigans above, i do not see a single proof that the conflicting edits were POV, i see that he tried to change a POV article and tried to make it more neutral. So, let me start with my analysis of all of the content which was being added/changed and how sources support that:

1. "Pakistani civilians as prisoners of war" by Indian forces supported by Husain Haqqani's book "Between Mosque and Military" source. Page 87 of that book reads

79,700 of Pakistan's regular soldiers and paramilitary troops were prisoners of war in Indian hands, along with 12,500 civilians.

You can clearly see that 12,500 civilians were among the prisoners. If you are not allowing that to be added then you are misconstruing the encyclopedia based on your POV. TalhahZubairButt's addition of word "civilians" makes the article neutral and supported by the very first source which you are using. I see several editors using Haqqani's book to source anything which is viewed as anti-Pakistan but you are not allowing the same source being used to support this content. By the way, if you add 12,500 to 79,700, the total comes to be 92,200, roundabout the number being mentioned in the article. If you do not agree with the source then call the source, POV source, not the editor but if you are using the source for everything else but not for this then call yourself POV-pusher and not that poor guy who is correcting the information based on a reliable source.

2. Next text that he added which is sourced to two reliable sources BBC and Al Jazeera is this text:

Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 civilians died during this period while the Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million."

Not sure how do you see this text as POV while it's supported by World's two top-notch press organizations and i see this sentence perfectly balanced, it tells what is the figure by "independent researchers" and what is the figure by "Bangladesh Government". He is not excluding Bangladesh Government figures here. So why are you not allowing that? Do you think BBC and Al Jazeera are POV sources? His text is based on sources so you cannot call him POV pusher but you can call the sources as POV sources. By not allowing this perfectly sourced text, you are POV pushing and not him.

3. We move on to next "conflicting piece of text" in this edit here.

After the convening of the National Assembly was postponed by Yahya Khan on the 1st of March, the dissidents in East Pakistan began targeting the ethnic Bihari community which had supported West Pakistan. In early March 1971 300 Biharis were slaughtered in rioting by Bengali mobs in Chittagong alone. The Government of Pakistan used the 'Bihari massacre' to justify its deployment of the military in East Pakistan on March 25, when it initiated its infamous Operation Searchlight.

Here is what analysis of Page 103 of Bina D'Costa's book "Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia" which is published by a highly regarded publisher "Routledge" reveals: Exact text from page 103:

After Yahya Khan post-poned the promised National Assembly on 1 March 1971, the Biharis began to be targetted as symbols of Pakistani domination. Early in March 1971, 300 Biharis were killed by mob attacks in Chitagong following which the Pakistani government used the "Bihari massacre" to justify deploying its military on 25 March -eventually, offcourse, leading to the 1971 conflict.

Not sure why you are calling the editor POV-pusher while he added nothing more over what was in the source. If you think this is POV then you should call the source as POV source and not the editor.

4. The section on "Agartala Conspiracy Case", just look at the sources being used in that section, all Bangladeshi and Indian sources, how can you call it a POV while he is not using Pakistani sources but using Bangladeshi and Indian sources to support the text. First source BDNews24, second source, a book by Asoka Raina, an Indian author, third source Banglapedia which our Bangladeshi friends claim that it is accepted as a reliable source, fourth source The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper.

5. Sam Manekshaw praising Pakistan Army in a YouTube video, i see an editor claiming that "YouTube video cannot be used as a source and he is an upright man or whatever and that is why he praised Pakistan Army". Well, you know what that is what we are claiming here that he is an upright man and cannot lie about what he was saying and for the other claim about YouTube not a WP:RS, i will tend to disagree with that as well. YouTube is a published source, call it a carrier of sources or what ever, same as Google Books, you use Google Books to display a reliable source, in this same manner you can use YouTube to display a video from reliable source, you need to just see if the actual source the TV channel from which the original video is, reliable or not. You cannot discard all videos from YouTube.

So as i explained above, i don't see any POV on User:TalhaZubairButt's part but rather i am seeing that a bunch of Indian editors are ganging up on him and not allowing a perfectly sourced edit and want to keep the article in their preferred POV state and as a matter of fact i would like to see some policy based conversation instead of empty blames of POV-pushing and using an RFC to threaten editors with minority point of view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just quoting a reply I made elsewhere on a similar edit by User:TalhaZubairButt:

I couldnt rumage through the entire info added by User:TalhaZubairButt, but as regards his following addition:

"The war began after the Pakistani military junta based in West Pakistan launched Operation Searchlight against the people of East Pakistan, ....on the basis of violence against the Bihari ethnic minority by Bengali mobs."

I did find that the source 'most certainly' say the following:

"...however, the Biharis, who had been the Urdu-speaking community of East Pakistan, faced mass Bengali outrage. After Yahya Khan postponed the promised National Assembly on 1 March 1971, the Biharis began to be targeted as symbols of Pakistani domination. Early in March 1970, 300 Biharris were killled by mob attacks in Chittagong, following which the Pakistani government used the 'Bihari massacre' to justify deploying its military on 25 March - eventually, ofcourse, leading to the 1971 conflict."

So I feel that the info by TZB is not entirely incorrect, may be a rewording would do?

And now that we have given a similar reply/reason in support of a similar edit, in addition to be being called POV-pushers and unreliable sourcers, be ready to face an SPI soon :). Lastly, I do agree with you that Indian editors are trying to make WP a democracy - sheer numbers, no weight.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lighnting

WOW. I have kept myself restrained and polite. But you... Anyone can read and see the hatred coming from you.

As far as your point is concerned about Najam Sethi, Bhutto etc saying that the Pak Army should wear bangles, then you are conveniently ignoring that none of these people were fighting on the ground in 1971, whereas Indian Army Chief Sam Manekshaw ACTUALLY fought on the ground in 1971 and would have more knowledge about millitary detals and performane than distant politicians and analysts.

Indians have been accusing me of POV here. But nearly every single article I have found on Wiki, whether it be Partition of India, Kashmir Conflict, Indo-Pak wars....they are ALL POV and non-neutral.

One Ed Johnston has even threatened me with a permanent ban. I don't know about that user, but there is certainly a strong illegitimate use of numerical dominance being employed here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate from the sidelines for the last few days. I would like to chime in with a couple of points:

• I support Talha Zubair Butt's proposal to separate the Bangladesh Government's figure of 3 million. The Bergman article in The Hindu clarifies things for me.
• I also believe that Sarmila Bose's views should be stated as a significant minority opinion. She is after all an Oxford University researcher. DUE WEIGHT should be respected and all her views should be attributed in-line. But I don't think they should be censored. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 03:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:STICKTOSOURCE

@Ghatus: Ref your edit: The fact that "There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War were a genocide" is not the argument here. The article makes this quite clear and there's no conflict on this. But what you did by adding (the italic part) to "Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had concluded that instead of taking in millions of refugees, it was economical to go to war against Pakistan to stop the genocide" is outright misrepresentation of the source.

The source preciesly says: The Indian leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi quickly decided that it was cheaper to resort to war against Pakistan than to absorb millions of refugees into India’s already bloated population. which is quite self-explantory. Moreover, the word 'genocide' has not been mentioned in the the source for once. Hence, you by adding your opinion are pushing a POV and you need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. For your ease:

• WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source."
• WP:CHERRYPICKING: "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings."—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 11:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that India only participated in the war for military/financial reasons, not to stop the genocide? As you said, "The article makes this quite clear and there's no conflict on this [genocide]", so why is this Genocide denial ? Nowhere in wiki is written that you have to quote the source in toto. The word is given for clarification and it talks on the intent for India's intervention and it neither distorts the truth nor is a case of cherry picking. It's a case of synthesis to clear the air. As it's said "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source."Ghatus (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what I think, but what the source say. In this case it says that India considered going to war with Pakistan was economical than burdening its economy by sheltering milllion of refugees. You cannot simply misrepeseant the source and add your POV on source's behalf when the source does not say so. This is notwithsatnding the fact that India's intention to stop the genocide have been amply covered in the article, including the lede. There's no need to add it to the end of every sentence. As regrads to your "it neither distorts the truth", have at look at WP:NOTTRUTH.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 12:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You said: "India considered going to war with Pakistan was economical". Then you know nothing about the background - Indira Gandhi's world tours, public speeches and GoI's official stance. Enough sources are there in the article and also in linked page I added.

You said "There's no need to add it to the end of every sentence. " Only thrice the word "genocide" is there in the article including this case.

It's no PoV pushing. However, we must avoid Genocide denial.Ghatus (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"India considered going to war with Pakistan was economical", no I did not say that, the source did and so should you. If you dont, then you are not here to build WP. You need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, adhere to WP:NPOV and stop pretending as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Ghatus's restatement constitutes WP:OR. However, I also think that Microsoft Encarta is not a reliable source. Only signed articles in Encyclopedias are reliable sources as per WP:HISTRS, and even then we shouldn't be using WP:TERTIARY sources for highly delicate interpretations like this. You can take facts from there if you need to, but not interpretations. We have no idea what was the basis of those interpretations, who made them, what evidence used etc. So, in my opinion, the whole statement about Indira Gandhi should be deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Or, this "Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had concluded that instead of taking in millions of refugees, it was economical to go to war against Pakistan to stop the genocide.[51]" can be removed and instead how about adding "India intentions behind intervening East Pakistan was to stop the genocide being carried out by the Pakistan Army. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is better, but "intervention" does not mean waging war, and it is against policy to make it appear as if it does. (WP:SYNTHESIS) I am not confident that anybody has clearly documented that India wanted to go to war. I don't believe it is true even. There was plenty of opposition in India for going to war, especially in the Left and the Muslim communities, both of which were key constituencies for Indira Gandhi. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

But at the same time there is also no consensus that India solely intervened in East Pakistan to stop the genocide:

"....while the Indian government did express its concerns about the Bengali genocide of 1971, its intervention in the Bangladesh Liberation War was not justified on humanitarian grounds, but rather by its national interests. Under this premise, the end of the genocide was an unintended by-product of India’s intervention to the war – not a cause. The first argument of this paper looks at the Bengali refugee crisis and the economic burden it placed on India. The following two arguments look at India’s geopolitical interests of entering the war. The former illustrates that India took advantage of the war as a means to weaken Pakistan. The argument also examines the relevance India’s diplomatic alliance with the USSR had on Pakistan’s defeat. Aside from India’s aim to weaken Pakistan, the latter demonstrates that India also had both geopolitical and economic interests in aiding the Bengalis in establishing their own sovereign state. By replacing a foe with a friendly, but weaker state as its neighbour, India would rise as a regional hegemon in the South Asian region. To prove this point, this argument looks at India’s post-war behavior towards Bangladesh and other neighbouring states like Nepal and Bhutan. Collectively, India intervened in the war to pursue its national interests."

Also, the source explicitly makes mention of refugee crisis was one of the reasons behind India' intervention:

"The influx of Bengali war refugees from East Pakistan placed a burden on India’s economy – which was, at the time, dysfunctional and weak. Because of this, the then-Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, was prompted to intervene in the war to return the refugees back to their motherland. The prospect of these unwanted events prompted Gandhi to publicly threaten Pakistan."

So, by only saying that India intervened into E.Pakistan to stop genocide alone without touching India's "geopolitical, economic and national interests" is POV pushing to say the least.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 03:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that. Rather, the "genocide" point is being left out. Actually, India intervened for three reasons - 1) Humanitarian, 2) Financial, 3) Geo-strategic/Military.Ghatus (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire, It is brilliant that undergraduates at Toronto publish a journal for themselves [17]. But it is doubtful if we will ever accept them as reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, any source (including Encarta) that does not support your POV isnt reliable.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 15:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit war over recent edits is unwanted, I don't agree with the content that was being added because it was highly POV and not supported by major sources. Capitals00 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00: While i gave a detailed reply above but this warrants a separate reply, please enlighten us what you view as major sources and which one of the sources mentioned above are not major? Don't just use the term POV liberally when you have nothing else to say! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to copy paste the arguments above that have been already made against the POV content. Starting with the claim that India took civilians as POW is false. Whole Agartala conspiracy is also UNDUE. Unless you find everyone agree with the content which is impossible, just don't revert. Capitals00 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here i have time to copy/paste the information from first source and type the information from second source for you and this time i do it in your language: "PAKISTANI CIVILIANS AS PRISONERS OF WAR" BY INDIAN FORCES SUPPORTED BY HUSAIN HAQQANI'S BOOK "BETWEEN MOSQUE AND MILITARY" SOURCE. PAGE 87 OF THAT BOOK READS

79,700 OF PAKISTAN'S REGULAR SOLDIERS AND PARAMILITARY TROOPS WERE PRISONERS OF WAR IN INDIAN HANDS, ALONG WITH 12,500 CIVILIANS.

YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT 12,500 CIVILIANS WERE AMONG THE PRISONERS. IF YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THAT TO BE ADDED THEN YOU ARE MISCONSTRUING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BASED ON YOUR POV. TALHAHZUBAIRBUTT'S ADDITION OF WORD "CIVILIANS" MAKES THE ARTICLE NEUTRAL AND SUPPORTED BY THE VERY FIRST SOURCE WHICH YOU ARE USING. I SEE SEVERAL EDITORS USING HAQQANI'S BOOK TO SOURCE ANYTHING WHICH IS VIEWED AS ANTI-PAKISTAN BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THE SAME SOURCE BEING USED TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENT. BY THE WAY, IF YOU ADD 12,500 TO 79,700, THE TOTAL COMES TO BE 92,200, ROUNDABOUT THE NUMBER BEING MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SOURCE THEN CALL THE SOURCE, POV SOURCE, NOT THE EDITOR BUT IF YOU ARE USING THE SOURCE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE BUT NOT FOR THIS THEN CALL YOURSELF POV-PUSHER AND NOT THAT POOR GUY WHO IS CORRECTING THE INFORMATION BASED ON A RELIABLE SOURCE.

THE SECOND SOURCE FOR THAT INFORMATION IS A BOOK TITLED "MAINSPRINGS OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI FOREIGN POLICIES" AUTHORED BY SAMUEL MARTIN BURKE AND PUBLICHED BY UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, PAGE 216 OF THAT BOOK READS

INITIALLY, THE SIMLA AGREEMENT WAS WELL RECEIVED IN BOTH COUNTRIES BUT, BY, THE END OF 1972, MUCH OF THE OPTIMISM THAT IT MIGHT BE THE HARBINGER OF A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN HAD EVAPORATED. THE CHANGE FOR THE WORSE WAS PARTLY DUE TO THE DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWAL OF FORCES BUT MAINLY IT RESULTED FROM THE CONTINUING DEADLOCK OVER THE RELEASE OF SOME 93,000 PAKISTANI PRISONERS OF WAR, INCLUDING 15,000 CIVILIAN MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, CAPTURED IN EAST PAKISTAN.

FINALLY, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME TO ARGUMENTATIVELY AND SUBSTANTIVELY DISCUSS THE CHANGES, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING YOUR QUICK ONE CLICK REVERTS EITHER. IT'S JUST MORALLY WRONG FOR AN EDITOR TO DO SO WHILE OTHERS ENGAGE IN LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ON THE TALK PAGE BUT ONE COMES AND REVERTS WITH ONE CLICK BY JUST YELLING EMPTY SLOGANS SUCH AS POV AND CONSENSUS. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00

The civilians prisoners are mentioned in the sources.

And the Agartala Case being included is definitely not undue. It was part and parcel of the mistrust between the Western Pak establishment and Awami League.

By the same standards it can be argued that the rest of the info about Awami League's being unjustly denied its right to form government on the basis of electoral victory and Yahya Khan launching a millitary crackdown to massacre East Pakistanis (which is the current stance in the article) are something which not all editors agree to and therefore should not be included.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Since, I was busy yesterday, so I couldn't get much time to reply to the ongoing conversation here. However, I just saw recent reverts and counter reverts on the article, therefore, I would like to counter-reply to @SheriffIsInTown: and @TalhaZubairButt: since they are the one who wanted to add their point of view edits on the article.

@SheriffIsInTown: You seems to be in too much hurry to restore this obvious POV edit. You must be very well aware of WP:ARBIPA, I guess. So i suggest you, do not make a revert on any of these disputed articles, without first getting consensus on the article's talk page. though, you are already involve in slow edit wars.

This splitting of Indian and pakistani editors and blah blah majority-minority is your own creation, but no one cares actually!

You need to make yourself familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE again, I guess. His jingoism and POV pushing is clearly visible for us to see and i've already explain in my above comment. I do not need to say anything more, his POV edits clearly depicts, he push his views, gives undue weight in lead and so on. Example: this and even on other articles

The editor (TalhaZubairButt) who has been involve in pushing POV and edit warring on Indo-Pak articles right from the first edit and has been recently warned by the administrator, he doesn't look to me a newbie wikipedian. He does advanced things like can fix references of books properly since his first edit. Perhaps an old user? Who knows.

Coming to your anylasis.

• I'm in favour of the current version It is estimated that between 300,000 and 3,000,000 civilians were killed in Bangladesh. these are back by neutral references only. More neutral sources stating 3 million deaths are as follows: ""

• However, perhaps, TBZ other additions needs a re-wording.

• Amongst 93000+ POWs there were 12000 civilians (members of pak military family) including razakars

Additional references will be needed to complete this paragraph. Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel and 12000 civilians including razakars were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army.

• I am not against this addition, "violence against Biharis" but the problem is with the language that depicts it's POV and WP:OR. Yes, there was violence against Biharis prior to Operation Searchlight and Op. Searchlight was launched after this happened and pakistani military used it as a fictitious reason. And, it's your own original research, if you say that operation searchlight was happened *because of* it. Your own refrence says

"Pakistani government used the Bihari massacre to justify deploying its military on 25 March."

• Thus, if consensus is in favour of adding this then re-wording is a must.

• Now, If anyone wants to add Agartala Case in the article, then consensus is necessary since its WP:UNDUE, let other editors to reply on this. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, so have patience! First, you need to separate that out from all the other POV edits. And there's much attention devoted to it. So before we even begin consider it, it needs to be shortened to a manageable size.

Now, coming to the last point.

@TalhaZubairButt: edit summary: "Rather than giving a one sided account on Pakistan's defeat, it is fair to include the 1971 Indian Field Marshal's opinion on the performance of the Pakistani Army. A youtube link to Sam Manekshaw's interview has been provided as reference."

• One sided seriously? You wanted to say all the neutral references mentioned are one sided and bias? And according to @SheriffIsInTown:, this is not POV pushing? right? Going by your logic, the entire war was one sided, pakistan lost half it's military, half it's country and population in mere 10 days. Well, if I go by history, high ranking Indian soldiers had always praised enemies after wars were over. This doesn't mean you will start adding CROPPED and POV VIDEOS to push your own POV and WP:OR in articles, just to show how does pakistan army performed in the war? You need to understand Manekshaw Gentlemen's code of conduct. It is his high morale only that dictates he give credit to pakistan military who could not defend their east side nor the west and lost half of the military and country in just 10 days. Going by the same logic, there are YouTube videos available of pakistan's former prime minister respected Benazir Bhutto saying pakistan army should wear bangles! Likewise there are videos available of journalists like Najam Sethi, Former defence minster of pakistan, and many war historians giving negative comments on pakistan military performance in 1971 War; this is Wikipedia, not pakistanpedia, where we need to add distorted facts and history to counter the result of the war if it is in favour of your adversary. Got it?

In your recent edit, where you revert the version by @Capitals00: by stating "you should have a valid reason to keep the information out otherwise if we take your argument, encyclopedia will never improve" Frankly saying your intentions were not to improve the article but to add your point of view version".

If you still dispute, then pls go ahead, start an RFC! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning

The source does not say that the Pak Millitary used it as a 'fictitious' reason to start Operation Searchlight. What it says is that the Pak millitary used it as 'justification' to start Operation Searchlight. The very term 'fictitious' is a POV term on your part. There is a difference between the term 'fictitious' which you are using and the words which the source used 'that Pakistan's state used Bihari massacre as justification to deploy Pak military'. Clearly it is best to include words most similar to the one in the text of the original source. That will be the most fair thing to do.

As far as Benazir's statement is concerned abt Pak army, that was abt Zia ul Haq in Siachen not 1971. And yes do go ahead and include war historians and najam sethi's opinion abut pak army performance and also on indian army performance. But also include Sam Manekshaw's opinion on Pak millitary performance. That is my proposition to you as a compromise (even though I believe his statement is more informative than people who were not on the ground, fighting, in 1971). Though the way the text will be structured then will have to be reviewed by other editors to ensure fairness. After all, the very way you are talking here is POV and there is no guarantee that you will structure the text fairly.

As far as this statement of yours goes:

You need to understand Manekshaw Gentlemen's code of conduct. It is his high morale only that dictates he give credit to pakistan military who could not defend their east side nor the west and lost half of the military and country in just 10 days.

Well the I say that you have brought no source to reference the notion that Manekshaw said this due to his high morals. This was an interview on BBC after all and his word should be taken for what he literally said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ‎Capitals00

This edit of your constitutes blanket reversion. Not only did you revert a perfectly fine edit by @Vinegarymass911:, but you also re-added the image which is already present in the article?! I mean, what do you want? Add the same image 10 times inside the same page? Also, the image was never in conflict and it was removed on the simple pretext that it is already present in the article. Pleas stop with this WP:DISRUPT. Thanks—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 08:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How about instead you explain why you are removing the image from the infobox? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No sir, why dont you explain why is there a requirement of adding the same image twice in the article especially when the page is already loaded with one-sided images? This talk section was opened a day ago. None of the editors responded to it, instead three of them (including you) are taking turns in adding the same image without any explanation.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The image is not being added in twice, at least not by me, which is also what you reverted (breaking 3RR). So again, why are you removing the image from the infobox? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"The image is not being added in twice". Care to explain that?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 07:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You reverted this edit. Your edit summary indicates that you actually knew the image was not being in added twice and reverted anyway. Again, you broke 3RR - you should self-revert. This is the second (third?) time I'm giving you a chance to do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, didnt see that you removed the second image. I am wiling to go for a self-revert, but you need to get consensus on moving the image up in the infobox. The image was lying down there for a long time for a good reason, why move it up, the burden's on you and other editors doing so.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)