Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The montage in the top infobox includes un-free images. It can't stay. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Every image in the montage is properly licensed. If you think a better one is necessary, make one yourself. You don't seem to be doing any worthwhile work around here.--F2416 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What's up with the recent IP Edits?[edit]

2 x IPs are constantly fixed on POV pushing by adding/deleting content to present one version of the story. They are likely socks as when one of them was reported to another registered user jumped in to defend the IP. Reversions by three other editors including myself yielded no results. Removing sourced content and POV pushing is totally unacceptable. Phrases like 'West Pakistan Army' have never used nor have existed. Adding these only means that the editor is a POV pusher and / or a sock. PakSol talk 23:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Google hits for "West Pakistan Army" [1]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Facebook, dailystar, etc are mighty reliable. Did you even bothered to see the search results when you Googled?:
  • Facebook is not a source.
  • And guess what, the link from Dawn newspaper actually shows the words 'west Pakistan Army' in the comments section only...lolz, and not the text of the article being linked.
  • Dailystar has it in the title despite that it has loaned the Article from Express Tribune which itself DOES NOT use the words 'West Pakistan Army' ANYWHERE in the original source: Original article's title is Bangladesh independence 1971: Surrender at Chittagong
  • is like a blog, it's authors are nothing but bloggers. Also, it is clear to everyone that info from a 'biased' and onesided source cannot be used hai as it is not WP:NOPV. But then, the funny thing is, the the website does not use 'west pakistan army' and still you are counting it as a source :).
  • So, no, the phrase 'West Pakistan Army' does not exist, and it is just your way of pushing your highly biased POV, and hence wont be allowed. This more than anything else proves that the IPs are a socks and are deliberately resorting to vandalism and disruptive editing and you supporting them mean nothing but that you are probably an accomplice. Your 'research' actually shows that 'West Pakistan Army' cannot be included here more so for the reason that they have never been used they way you guys have been trying to put it. PakSol talk 07:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not pushing anything, just disputing your claim that phrases like "West Pakistan army" never existed. Sure, Google doesn't know what a reliable source is. But we do. Among the hits, there are also articles from the Encyclopedia of Genocide, the BBC and scholarly articles like this one [2]. You just close your eyes to them. "Typical" is what I feel like saying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
First, the link you quoted now does not show in your search results, the result shows another page from the same website. Second, the link shows the story from the Bengali POV - for the Bangalis, West Pakistan was a separate entity as was East Pakistan for the West Pakistanis. For them (East Pakistanis) to use 'West Pakistan Army' may be acceptable, but putting it here from a neutral POV negates WP:NOPV guidelines. For a neutral observer, the "Army" fighting in Bangladesh was Pakistan Army, not West Pakistan Army. Commonsense? So, if you are still adamant, then it is nothing but POV-pushing and you may continue to disagree, but you cant include it at Wikipedia. PakSol talk 08:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear friend, Google showed "97,400 results" for "West Pakistan army." You looked at 10. Or, may be not even 10. NPOV means using reliable sources and setting aside your OR. For you, I take it that your OR is supreme and sources don't matter. Upside down world! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
And that shall make the edit authentic? No, it wont. There's no argument here. One sided POV will not be allowed. No one gives a tosh about how Bangalis or Indians like to address the Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army is and was Pakistan Army even when Pakistan had two wings separated in the East and West and is still known as such. It's that simple. Show want to show that Pakistanis from the Western wing were 'outsider' and thus going by your definition, every Armyman who was fighting inside Bangladesh was a Westerner, but the fact is that even Eastern Pakistanis were part of the so called 'West Pakistan Army' and this 'western' army as you like to Push was not alien, but was headquartered in East Pakistan since the last 24 years. Just because Indians and (now) some Bengalis like to address them as such (which though is alright from their POV and perpecive, but it is not very common nor have been published in neutral sources - only those which pushes the Indian POV), it does not make it a fact nor it is a neutral POV that should be included in Wikipedia, because doing so would amount to POV pushing from the Indian POV.
Lastly, Google hits approx 25,900 results when "Modi is a Terrorist" is searched, so going by your understanding of how thing at Wikipedia works, one should also call and write Mr Modi as such here? PakSol talk 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, if there is a reliable source among them, I would write it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are not applying the same standards here:
DNA India, Hindustan Times, Times of India are not neutral? I get it, they are neutral when they are supporting your own POVs, right? Just quoting three sources out of them 25,900:
Even though Modi is a Terrorist is published for so many times, but I still wouldnt include it here at Wikipedia for the obvious reasons that you seem miss so often.
Anyways, this discussion is going no where. Improve your understanding of citing sources PakSol talk 10:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
As I have explained to you, Modi is not a reliable source for history. You have not shown any understanding of that. Neither have you ever shown any ability to read a scholarly source and summarize it. So you are just woffling without making any point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly :) PakSol talk 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected two days. All editors need to stop edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 16:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate Misinterpretation of Sources[edit]

The reason behind the edit war which was initiated by the IPs was that it was adding 'sources' which did not support the text they were added to. I added a citation needed tag and resultantly the IP came up with certain sources which infact were not accurate. Ref # 13 and 14 added by the IP became the cause of the problem. I have gone through each source and can tell you that they do not support the text they are attached to. I would request editors to see it for yourself.

The sentence which was edited by me was: "The junta formed radical religious (bold part was removed) militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace"(citation needed was added here).

As a response, the IP add sources 13 and 14. I am placing the snapshots of these sources below, I would request you to go through them and decided if they support the unsourced text above:

Does this proof they were 'radical religious'?
Does this prove they assisted Pak Army during raids on civilians? It only mentioned Al-Badar, what about the Razakars & Al-Shams?

PakSol talk 08:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times reported that these militias were directed by a special group of Pakistan army officers.1 The other two sources by Peter Tomsen and Alex Schmid also testify to the same fact. Claiming that these militias weren't religious radicals, when they justified their violence on the basis of religion, is something that falls flat on its face.-- (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Page Protected[edit]

The page was protected by NeilN. Now, no edit-warring should take place, if this one is not resolved here, will open a dispute resolution or an RfC. Faizan (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Al Sham and Razaker's role in 1971 genocide[edit]

Al Shams role in 1971 can be seen in these references. Read the texts marked in yellow and scroll down.


2 ,

Razaker's role.

Razakars in Pakistan Army.--Cosmic  Emperor  05:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC) From Rediff from Firstpost from The Daily Star (Bangladesh)

Google books.

Razakars etc were supported by Pakistan Army, but Mukti Bahini was not supported by the Indian Army? If you want to add the former to the article, how can you not allow the latter to be added to the article too? Hypocrisy? All I did in my edit here which is being roughed out as wrong by Volunteer Marek to add 10 sources to support my edit. It is indeed sheer POV-Pushing and Systemic bias if one edit supporting your POV is allowed and the other is not, where goes the WP:NPOV now? You freely apply WP:NOTTRUTH in case of edits by you and your friends, but not in our case. Why cherry picking rules?—PakSol talk 09:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I may have commented on talkpage of Mukti Bahini but how many edits did i make at the Mukti bahini article:Zero edits.Cosmic  Emperor  09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
But it is you who is behaving like a Champion of Verifiability and WP:NPOV while accepting one source and rejecting the other by quoting all the weird reasons. Quit the cherry-picking and stop feeding other editors your POV even though they are already participating here, if you alone fail to prove anything. Ganging up will not do any result. —PakSol talk 12:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@User:CosmicEmperor Why you don't keep discussions at one place? Faizan (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
PakSol has changed his name to TripWire.Cosmic  Emperor  05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

still misrepresenting sources[edit]

Responding to the request for closure at WP:ANRFC: the RfC question has been withdrawn. There wasn't very much support for the edits in question, although there was some suggestion that the information might be acceptable if written as direct quotes with attribution. The editor supporting the text has been topic-banned, so it's up to everyone here to decide whether further discussion will be useful. Sunrise (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

In edits like these [3], by User:PakSol.

The sources DO NOT support the contention that "The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active, primarily because India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini". Yes, India did support MB. But nowhere in these sources is the *fact* that this was the primary reason for MB activity supported.

The sources DO NOT support the contention that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini". The reason they don't is because that's a nonsense assertion. Look. I'm gonna spell it out. The idea that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is stupid. It's idiotic. It's something that just cannot be true (was it the "desire" of every 10 month old Indian child? Did somebody take a freakin' poll and got 100% results? Was there a divine revelation and it was written in stone by an invisible hand?) Only a dedicated WP:POV-pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior could insert something that ridiculous into the article. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).Please don't put this crap into the article again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop acting like a child. Go through WP:NOTTRUTH. This discussion regarding the edits you have mentioned above have already taken place here. An RfC was raised, discussion caried out and edited. So there is no need to moan and complain here. But as you have brought it up, I would like to point out your and your supporters' hypocrisy that when almost a dozen reliable sources very clearly say:

Modi said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. Modi also admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.

Still, you accuse me of misinterpretation of sources, even though the sources ( Modi saying it live, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] ) clearly mention and support each and every word as quoted above.
When someone from your gang quotes a source which only contains a word which matches the info you are trying to push, they become reliable. Despite that there is no context to the info in the source being quoted in your case. The actual thing is that the entire world now knows that Mr Modi's jingoistics have cause India a great embarrassment and is likely to face repercussion (Pakistan is planning to take India to the Court for its open intervention in Bangladesh and violation of UN Charter), so you simply cant digest this FACT being added to Wikipedia.
Tell me, how the edit here where i have quoted 10 sources is not acceptable even in WP:good-faith although my sources exactly says and support the edits, but the edit here by when the sources he quoted does support the text it in the article are acceptable and not being considered as POV Pushing?—PakSol talk 08:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Modi hasn't said anything new. Not sure about what parallel universe you live in, but humanitarian interventions are always on the right side of history. Obviously there are strategic ambitions involved, but a genocide makes a compelling ground. The NATO intervention in Yugoslavia didn't have UN Security Council backing.-- (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Before jumping to conclusions, I would suggest you go through the discussion on this topic here. And just to clarify, Wikipedia does not judge the facts, but just state verifiable facts, which in this case is Modi's statements. I and neither does the text in all the related articles, doesnt give any thought to whether India's intervention was correct or otherwise. Only that it's a new development and gives new dimension to the articles related to Bangladesh (Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War etc) which must be included at Wikipedia. Just because you say that it is a known fact does not overshadow the fresher version of events which are of considerable significance. What Modi said has never been acknowledged by India in public, and in the interest of showing the correct version of events and making Wikipedia credible and updated, these ought to be included here. BTW, the actual discussion here is regarding the unverifiable sources that you have added here, and if you are so fond of discussing the other dispute, please comment about it in the correct talk page —PakSol talk 12:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can verify that Indian government has never acknowledged its involvement in Bangladesh liberation through WP:HISTRS sources then there would be grounds for including Modi's statements. Without such verification, Modi's statements do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. As mentioned over and over again, Modi is not a WP:HISTRS source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can verify that a sitting Indian PM has said this thing to the entire world, I will retract my claim. Till then, this new development absolutely belong here on Wikipedia. —PakSol talk 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not current affairs. You need a lesson in history.-- (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It sure is at times, depending upon the articles or else timelines would not have been made at Wikipedia. But then you argument is in itself flawed, because Modi's statement is not being added as a current affairs info, but to set the historical track correct. Tomorrow if Obama comes up and says, the Raid to Kill OBL was a joint operation by Pakistan and the US, surely this info will be added to the connected article. So, yes you need a lesson in commonsense. —PakSol talk 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Haha. You still don't get it? Get help, these conspiracy theories won't get you anywhere. You asked if a sitting Indian PM ever admitted to helping the MB in 1971, I gave you an an interview of Indira Gandhi doing just that. If you still don't get it, then seriously, get help.-- (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you are naive then I have initially thought. No, unlike Modi, Indra Gandhi in her interview which you people like to quote did not say:
  • That the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.
  • That she actually participated and volunteered garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.
  • That she alongwith others in the Indian Govt of that time infact conspired to divide Pakistan and that all this hoax of 'humanitarian assistance' for a cover story.
Now if you are unable to read english, I suggest you go through the dozens of SECONDARY sources which have quoted the above points. Seriously, you cannot omit this new development on the pretext of stupidity. —PakSol talk 14:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Get help.-- (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot use one man's opinion to say all indians conspired to divide Pakistan I oppose that (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Modi is not some IP, but the (current) popular and elected leader of One Billion people. Indians voted him to power, now why mind his statements? If you ask me, I would give more weight to a guy who have participated in the 1971 War and is now the PM of a country than what a possible sock says —PakSol talk 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources DO NOT support the contention that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini". The reason they don't is because that's a nonsense assertion. The idea that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is stupid. It's idiotic. It's something that just cannot be true. Only a dedicated WP:POV-pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior could insert something that ridiculous into the article. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).Please don't put this crap into the article again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

One word: WP:NOTTRUTHPakSol talk 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
What the hey does that even mean? (And it's actually two words). Please explain how the essay you are quoting at me is in any way relevant to my comment. I say "The sources DO NOT support your text". You come back with "One word: NOTTRUTH". Huh? It's pretty obvious that at this point you are merely engaging in obscurantist tactic. Pointing out that you're trying to bullshit with sources in no way goes against the idea of Verifiability. Indeed, it is the essence of it. So unless you're addressing yourself, please stop being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


User:PakSol uses the following piece of newspaper text:

Modi said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. Modi also admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.[1]

as the citation for the following claims:

  • "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini"
  • "The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active, primarily because India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini (between March and June)."

User:Volunteer Marek thinks, the reference does not support the claim. User:Kautilya3 thinks, (even if it does) the source, i.e. Narendra Modi quoted by the cite (without quote marks), is not acceptable.

Over this issue PakSol has done quite a bit of edit warring and name calling. He also keeps repeating WP:NOTTRUTH, which looks slightly counter productive to me, as it warns - Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." ("If it's written in a book, it must be true!").

The article is now protected, but the editor PakSol has still not received a consensus or sanction or any other community intevention. That may be required if we consider his warring attitude, ignorance of arguments, and, if I may say so, extreme hard-headedness in pushing his POV, which looks a bit like coming from Pakistani Army POV to me. But, that is just my conjecture, yet to be established.

How real are the claims? Need some advise before I do anything about them. I do have a little CoI here (you see, I come from Bangladesh). Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Fake - As everybody knows, there is already an RfC asking whether Modi's comments should be included in the Mukti Bahini page. I opposed it there with the statement: The 1971 Bangladesh War is history. Reliable sources for history are historians, as specified in WP:HISTRS. Modi isn't a historian. It doesn't matter what he says. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Modi. Neither is it a mouthpiece for Pakistani politicians. Since this RfC is asking how real are the claims, we have to know what the "claim" is in the first place. The version of the statement mentioned in the above quote, especially the bit "that was why Indian forces fought..." is clearly synthesis by Sartaz Aziz, because it doesn't appear in the version of Modi's speech published on the 7 June by ABP Live and others. Aziz seems to imply that the Indian forces were fighting alongside Mukti Bahini before the declaration of war by India on 3 December 1971. That is the sense in which User:TripWire (formerly called "PakSol") inserted the statement in this article. I haven't seen support for such a claim in any RS. Reliable sources such as the Raghavan's book and Gary Bass's book argue that there was a robust debate in India about what role India should play. There were hawks as well as doves. It is clear that Vajpayee and the Jana Sangh were among the hawks. Nobody remembers any of that. What is remembered, on the other hand, is Vajpayee's praise of Indira Gandhi as the "Goddess Durga" after India's victory, which presumably went to her head. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to 2015. Now allow me to once again quote Indian Express to the exact word: During his official visit to Bangladesh, Modi last Sunday in Dhaka said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Now where does Aziz figure out in this statement?
And we have been around this many times already, but then as you fail to understand a very simple thing, that Modi's statement is a new development where he HIMSELF admits primarily 4 x things:
  • establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen.
  • that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini.
  • Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing the rebels in former East Pakistan.
  • Modi said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the satyagraha launched by the Jana Sangh to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.
Now guess what, I didnt even change a word from what has been published in the New Indian Express (the source quoted by Aditiya). Please tell me, what's here to misinterpret or what is that which I have changed and more precisely what is there that I have claimed ? —TripWire talk 04:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
"Modi's statement is a new development where he HIMSELF admits primarily 4 x things". WHO. CARES. We CANNOT put "establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen" into the article as if it was a fact just because a politician said that. We CANNOT put that into the article as it's a ridiculous claim. You - and PakSol - are deliberately misrepresenting a rhetorical statement by a politician for a factual claim and acting like Modi is some kind of reliable source for these facts. If Barrack Obama says "Americans are the greatest people on earth", we don't go running to the article on China and write "China's ok, but Americans are the greatest people on earth [citation: newspaper which quotes Obama]. This really isn't that hard to understand, so it's hard to escape the conclusion that the feigned incomprehension of this basic point is just that - a bad faith attempt to WP:GAME the rules and POV an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the source of the citation is New Indian Express, which is not the Indian Express. It is an offshoot of the latter and is not of the same quality. Secondly, the author of the news story is mentioned as "ANS" which is some unknown news service. India's leading newspapers like The Times of India and The Hindu didn't bother reporting Sartaz Aziz statements. The fact that the news story was reporting Aziz's twisted version of Modi speech is clear from other sources, e.g., ANI News.[1] The actual speech of Modi was published on the 7th June.[2] The so-called "fighting" that the "Indian citizens" were doing, in Modi's remarks, was that of showing support for Mukti Bahini by doing a satyagraha. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


I am sure you must have heard Mr Modi saying it itself on TV? If not, see it [Video Link to Mr Modi's Speech: here. Now please dont say that the recording is fake :). Moreover, the argument here is about Modi's words, not what Aziz has said. All the sources quote Mr Modi saying what he said. For the sake of the discussion and RfC, it is Modi and his words that say things about the 'desire of every Indian to divide Pakistan' and 'the reason why Indian Army fought along with Mukti Bahini' which are to be included, not how Aziz responded to it. But then you already know it, and are just trying to shift the focus of the discussion.—TripWire talk 12:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The video says nothing of the kind. In fact, Modi was saying that when the Indian Army was fighting along side Mukti Bahini, every Indian was wishing for the liberation of Bangladesh. A perfectly fine sentiment. Once again, it is Sartaj Aziz's twisting of Modi speech that has been bandied about over here. I have no idea what world this Aziz has been living in when Gen. Niazi was surrendering to the Indian Army in Dhaka or when Prime Minister Bhutto was negotiating with Indira Gandhi in Simla for the release of 93,000 POWs. But apprently he has now woken up to "revelations." Well, better late than never! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)



  • Thanks for giving a wholesome view of the problem/dispute. Now, whereas you did mention the editors opposing the RfC, but I dont know if deliberately or mistakenly, you forgot to mention that Faizan, Mar4d and Human3015 have supported a similar RfC here
  • It is also unfortunate that whereas you accused me of edit-warring, buy again failed to mention Volunteer Marek and who were equally responsible for the edit war due to which was reported here for committing 3RR on Bangladesh Liberation War and resultantly this page was protected.
  • Whereas, you have shown your concerns now, but you failed to mention that it was me who had already opened up the discussion on the IP edits/edit-war on the topic right here.
  • You accused me of "ignorance of arguments":
  • Can you please elaborate this point? It was me who raised an RfC first at Mukti Bahni talk page to have an argument so that we could formally reach a consensus. Even before I put up the RfC, Volunteer Marek and I were talking about it here and no edit pertaining to the discussion was made. How do you call this "ignorance of arguments"?
  • It was me who put up the page for protection when an IP was involved in an edit war with another editor whil the discussion was ongoing and you accuse me of "ignorance of arguments"?!
  • You have accused me of Pushing Pakistani Army POV
  • How does quoting from Indian Express and including the text and info mentioned in Indian Express (and a dozen other sources) make me push Pakistan Army's POV? —PakSol talk 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Because you are not quoting Indian Express you are putting in a sentence which is very obviously biased and misinterpreting sources. This has been explained to you numerous times now. Can you please stop playing games, and wasting people's time by engaging in tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand English? I think not. Allow me to copy/paste the exact text from Indian Express, the same source that Aditya has quoted: During his official visit to Bangladesh, Modi last Sunday in Dhaka said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.
Now what is there to misinterpret and how am I "putting in a sentence which is very obviously biased and misinterpreting sources"—TripWire talk 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Note to editors - the above user is the same as User:PakSol above, under a changed username. Please do not mistake the above comment for support from multiple users
"Do you understand English? I think not." - quit it with the personal attacks. No one's disputing that Modi said that. That does not mean - nor do the sources say - that what he said is literally true. This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and you are refusing to get it. Or pretending not to get it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Note to editors - First, can you please ask Mr Marek and Kautilya3 to stop raising 'suspicion' and creating a drama over the username change? Anyone with two eye can see that. I have nothing to hide, so you guys should stop acting and propagating as if by changing the username I have tried to become someone else. I have just exercised my right to change it, and you need to get over it, fast! Moreover, you yourself had also used words like 'idiotic' and 'nonsense' in replies to me, so you also need to quit that.
Second, it is heartening to know that you now agree that "No one's disputing that Modi said that". Thankyou! Now let's move forward towards the actual issue. As already mentioned over and again (I dont need to get down to your level, so once should suffice), Wikipedia supports WP:NOTTRUTH, what Modi said is etched in the stone, clear as a day and quoted by numerous secondary sources. So, there is nothing to misinterpret (as the words are very simple English) and hence there is no need to judge whether it is the truth. It's a statement by a PM which reflects upon the events of 1971 and thus need to be added here. Had these words been said by let's say an ex-PM, a political leader who is not in office etc, in private capacity or while giving a random interview, I wouldnt have cared much. But then these were said at the world stage!
I have asked this question before and would repeat it again for you easy comprehension; What if tomorrow President Obama, while still being the POTUS during his visit to lets say UK or France on the eve of OBL's death anniversary tells the world in his speech that the Raid to Kill OBL was indeed a joint operation by the US and Pak Military, would you or would you not reflect this info in the connected article here at Wikipedia??—TripWire talk 05:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I called the contention that the statement "every Indian desired to break up Pakistan" and conspired to that effect should be included in the article as a factual claim idiotic. Because it is. I did not insult you personally, tried to act condescendingly or accused you of "not being able to speak English".
Second, you are still playing games when you say "it is heartening to know that you now agree ...". You are pretending that somewhere this was disputed or that at some point I disagreed with this. I didn't. I disagreed with you misrepresenting sources. That's a different thing.
You are also either failing to understand what WP:NOTTRUTH says (btw, it's an essay), or you are again, playing games.
And also, for the FREAKIN' millionth time. The fact that India supported Bangladesh is well known and already in the article. But that does NOT mean that you get to put "every Indian desired the break up of Pakistan" and "conspired to break up Pakistan" in the article. Please tell me you understand that part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please also allow me to tell you 'for the FREAKIN millionth time' that Modi's statement cannot be equated to the fact that 'India's support to Bangladesh is already known'. The sentence India's support to Bangladesh is already known is quite different than the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.TripWire talk 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
List of policies/guidelines breached or potentially breached by PakSol/TripWire
LOL. India did fight alongside Mukti Bahini. It is called Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. No secret to admit to. ROFL. There is a whole section in the article on Indian involvement.
If you are so bent on making Modi's supposed quotation the sole reference for a very radical and slightly irrelevant information then, please, provide one. You have not furnished a proper "quotation" yet, not in verbatim, and all there is a newspaper's interpretation of the actual quote. Why? Because, it is policy. Check WP:NOTTRUTH:
  • Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts. It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
  • It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
  • In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.
Well, in short, to be Wikipedia compliant you need to phrase it like - "N. Modi said in 2015 that ...". If Modi has said so then you can include it, but as Modi's opinion only. I am sure that you understand that what Modi as a very young man doing some rallies somewhere in India does not make his eyewitness a work of scholarship, documentation or reporting. Please check WP:RELIABLE, especially WP:RSCONTEXT if you are in doubt or confusion, or if you need to know more about the policies and guidelines.
But, you still cannot include things he did not say as far as the newspaper reports go. Example, he did not say that Indian Army helped Mukti Bahini before the Indo-Pak war (it may have happened, but the point is - he didn't say it). Putting that statement in the subsection for March-June alone with the statement that Mukti Bahini grew stronger in that time, and putting words into Modi's mouth is a clear breach of policies. If you don't know why you can't do it please check WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
And, finally, remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. What Modi said in an event in Dhaka, which got reported here and there (not enough to meet WP:INDEPTH), is goes slightly against WP:NOTNEWS. Editorializing facts while applying a strong bias of recentism to a well recorded historic event is not encyclopedic. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, you guys don't need to repeat your points, you have done that many times already. It is not helping. I hope that I have managed shed some new light here. May be you would like to take a look at the long list of policies and guidelines you are breaching. If you are still unconvinced, then it is time to get opinions of un-involved editors of repute.
Please, understand that the more you shout and scream around here the less welcoming it becomes for new editors to comment. Please let others take a look at it (hopefully not by people you invited to comment personally, because that violates WP:CANVASS).
There is an interesting essay for you guys here - WP:Coatrack. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what this discussion is about. We may not agree how the text should be added here, but then we agree that it has to be here because of its significance. You want to put that here in form of a quote, go ahead, we can discuss that too and come to some agreement. Some editor says that it should be paraphrased, it too can be discussed and a conclusion reached. But some here who are saying that Modi's statement does not have any significance and should just be forgotten are wrong.—TripWire talk 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
(inserted) No. Sorry. Per WP:BURDEN you are supposed to work on the improvement, and if they fall short of encyclopedic standards, I am supposed to remove them. Unfortunate for you, that's how Wikipedia works. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from un-involved user(s)[edit]

Summoned by bot. I am starting a new section here because everything above is a bit of a mess and I have no idea where to put my comment. For starters, this RFC is incredibly malformed. It is not neutrally worded, and makes personal attacks/cast aspersions on other involved editors. The discussion above suggests that many of the people involved in this debate are either editing from a very biased POV or do not understand basic wikipedia guidelines like WP:RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The source can only be used as a reference for Modi's personal opinion, and if the language used in the quote appears in the article, it should be attributed to Modi and be in quotation marks. Even then, I am very skeptical why this source would be used at all, or why Modi's opinion about this historical event would be considered noteworthy. This article should be written based on what historians write about it, not what modern day politicians (clearly non-experts) have said about it in passing. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I posted the RfC, and I totally admit that it is exactly what an RfC should not be. For my defense all I can say that too many things where happening, one on top of another, while I was very short on time. So, very stupidly I tried to pack way more into an RfC than its scope, it was about an edit and an editor at the same time. My bad. I found the right platform (WP:DRN) which can handle an edit and an edit at the same time. But, before anyone went there, the editor in concern was already topic banned by some other process.
The edit remained. Because, there was no attempt at forming a consensus when the editor in question vanished from the argument. Very sad. Thanks again for commenting, on the edit only, which is all that is that is needed, and what should have been the content of the RfC. This can be close, per nomination of requesting party, i.e. poor impatient me. I need to start a new consensus forming process now. Apologies and thanks again. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment - Tripwire is paksol and he in in the pak army, this is why he removing infos on army atrocities in balochistat and is pov pusher. I oppose these contents one mans opinion is not all of India (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    Can you prove that? I say you were a member of Mukti Bahini and therefore are against the edits which tells the truth about them. —TripWire talk 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes I can prove. I took screencap of you user page before you deleted (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    Lol...I am also the current Army Chief just because I say so in my user page. —TripWire talk 11:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    Should I add link to you blog and upload image? Or are you saying you are liar? (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    Lol..go ahead. Like someone said On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, who cares. Going by your understanding, everyone on twitter, facebook, wiki, discussion forums etc is what he says on his profile. Really? However, you using an IP and making your first 'edit' directly here definitely tells alot about who you are :) —TripWire talk 11:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@, Sir, dont you now owe me an apology after you have failed to prove what you accused me of at the COI Board here? Or should I just assume that you are a troll. Thanks—TripWire talk 12:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So you admitted to being in Pakistani army, and deleted info on pak army atrocities so you do have A COI (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Declaring yourself to be a part of the Pakistani Army, writing blogs and stuff using the same identity, and then pushing a POV that the Pakistani Army upholds is not good news. Even if you can evade WP:COI, you can't avoid WP:ADVOCACY. Remember, Wikipedia is not an investigation agency like ISI or something. It is an academic project run by a community. Here is another important essay for you - WP:DUCK. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Some wise man once said and I quote: Repeating something or saying it louder, does not make it true.TripWire talk 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we are not guided by wise men here, we are guided by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And, if you decide to follow wise men, instead of Wikipedia policies and guidelines then I strongly recommend that you take your opinions and "facts" somewhere else. May be you have noticed that my ONLY point is adherence to Wikipedia principles. Not interetsed in what you find to be true, relevant, important or documented. Aditya(talkcontribs) 08:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
So now you deny you said you were in Pakistan army? You cannot change the facts like you want. (talk) 13
52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
[10] you blog, you posted on user page and here [11] Quote fom you blog. "this blog is an humble effort by a Siachen veteran who has also seen action in the Tribal Areas and LoC on how he sees the Army he serves," And on wayback so you cannot delete[12] (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Lolzz.. What's there to delete? The blog is still up and the guy running it is doing a commendable job. Just because we two shared a few slides among each other made me an accomplice? Did you read that the slides were from Foreign Office? Just because it was uploaded on a blog having a military tinge and that I further linked info from those slides here made me a 'criminal'? I researched about the Karachi Agreement, I by virtue of my interest in military history (like 1000s of users here) had seen those slides and just because they were further uploaded at a blog which probably is giving you guys heart burns is the sole reason that you are stupidly trying to accuse me. You did not prove anything, less making a mockery out of yourself. It's funny that going by your stupid definition, everyone and anyone interested in a military related topic MUST be a soldier in its respective military, right? Welcome to the Internet, dude! And quite the Wikihounding and grow up! —TripWire talk 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You own words "can be seen at my blog where I have uploaded a couple of slides which Pakistan Foreign Office uses to explain our stance of Siachen." [13] Stop telling lies (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Haha...I was waiting for this. You are making a good case for WP:WIKIHOUNDING and will be reported soon. Anywaz, what I meant was 'my friend's blog', missed a word as I usually do, editing at Wiki is cumbersome. I never said the slides or the edits I made basing on those slides. I dont have a blog so the slides were uploaded elsewhere, what's so 'dangerous' about that? Those slides are open source now and anybody who is interested can carry further study basing on the info of those slides. Going by your understanding anyone in future who would refer anything from that blog has to be from Pakistani Military? No! I also visit Bharat Rakshat, Pakistan Defence, India Defence forums etc, so that should also make me a soldier in the Indian, Pakistani and then Indian Army again respectively? Then every Indian member posting at Indian military forums or Pakistani members posting at Pakistani military forums or Facebook Pages should all be soldiers?—TripWire talk 05:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Lie, on you user page you also said it was you blog. (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the main discussion[edit]

  • Comment - I'm seeing on my watchlist since days that whole lot of discussion is going on here, don't wanted to part of this discussion as it needs lots of research before commenting which consumes time and mud throwing on each other is very common in such nationalist discussions but still I lastly decided to comment here. I didn't read all discussion but I know what point Paksol/Trimwire want to make, I think there is no harm in adding Modi's statement in this article, India's role in Bangladesh liberation is quite obvious. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    But what exactly was the Modi's statement? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You know the statement Kautilya, if Modi said it was dream of "every Indian" then let it be in that way, we are quoting Modi, so its his thoughts, we are mentioning that "its Modi's statement" and not any "historians statement". Quoting any Prime Minister or President of nation is not avoidable thing, Any Prime Minister's statement on foreign visit deserves place in Wikipedia article. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen how the statement appears in the article at present? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If source is quoting Modi then text should also say that its Modi's statement. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The source is quoting Sartaj Aziz. You need to go through my comment for the RfC above. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Smells like WP:SYNTH. 8 newspapers said that Satraj Aziz said that Narendra Modia said that all Indians wanted Bangladesh (and also that Indians fought together with Mukti Bahini, which they did anyways, in December as Indo-Pak War of 71). Can someone tell me what makes such a long train of eventual evidence encyclopedic in any way? Aditya(talkcontribs) 08:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, while we all know that Indians fought together with Mukti Bahini, I am wondering if Pakistani population did. Perhaps they were being fed some make-believe propaganda by the Army and the power blocks and, now that Modi has stated the facts on the TV, it came as a revelation to them. Apparently, it took a whole 48 hours for Aziz and his team to come up with a "response." - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment You guys are just trying to find a bone where it does not exist. Where in the newslinks does it say that Aziz is repeating and interjecting his own words and thoughts in Modi's statement? No one except you guys talked anything about Aziz, but just what Modi has said. The focus since the very start is on Modi's precise words. You guys must understand Hindi, so why dont just listen to what Modi had actually said? I have posted this before and doing it again here: There's no mistake here, you are just trying manipulate the issue. Even the New Indian Express link from where Aditya (talk) quoted the news DOES NOT say that it was Aziz that said what Modi has said! The newspaper is paraphrasing Modis' statement itself, whereas what Aziz said is mentioned as a direct quote in the news link. Stop pretending that you dont know. —TripWire talk 09:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    That is because "we guys" bothered to read the sources rather than take your word for them. The ANI News had a 3-sentence release where the first sentence said Aziz referred to Modi's statement and the second sentence stated the purported Modi statement. This purported Modi statement only appeared on the 10th June and only in connection with Aziz. The better newspapers like the Times of India and The Hindu that have a reputation for fact-checking didn't bother to publish these releases. To tell you the truth, the purported statement always looked fishy. When the Pakistani establishment begins to call the well-known Indo-Pak War of 1971 a "revelation" and "confession", their intelligence looks highly suspect. Or they must have got caught up in their own make-believe propaganda until they suddenly got a reality check from Modi's speech. You mean you really didn't know that you fought a war with India in 1971? What planet were you living on? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
But then why believe what Aziz has said or purported or even what I have said?? I never quoted Aziz's version of events, just what Modi himself have uttered. If you are so doubtful about what Modi has said, and that Aziz or I have been purporting his statements, why dont you just see the video of Modi saying what he said and compare it with the secondary sources which have quoted Modi? hings that match will added here and rest which you think are 'purported' will not be, what's so difficult in it? I know that you would consider and say that this is a 'very difficult' task and will require 'enormous resources' to undertake, hence instead just read what the links say! None of them is quoting Aziz purporting Modi's words. I am surprise as how did even Aziz figured out in this discussion when I neither Aditiya quoted Aziz! Asking a stupid question like 'but what have Modi said' after having a 10 page long discussion is not well taken, sir, not does it commensurate with your experience here on Wikipedia as an editor. Instead, it reinforces my perception that you are trying to push your POV by not accepting and opposing the inclusion of Modi's words as said by him and quoted by numerous mediums.—TripWire talk 11:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you can't take the word of any politician or government spokesman as the eternal truth, at least here you can't. You scrutinize and fact check. In this case we have a ridiculous war of words between the Indian PM and the Pakistan Foreign Office. "Every" Indian could not have possibly supported Bangladesh. And Pakistan certainly didn't discover India's involvement in 1971 in 2015.-- (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh really? When any Tom, Dick or Hamesh says that his relative whose full name is probably not known to him was allegedlly taken away by some FC or Police guy in Balochistan and this news is quoted in The Guardian the next day or when Geo News alleges that Hamid Mir was shot by ISI or when a jingiotic Indian Channel 'breaks news' that ISI is involved in a terror attack which began just 2 minutes eralier and next day that makes news in a newspaper, this can be included here, but when a PM says something and is quoted verbatim, it needs to be 'scrutinized'? This is the crudest example of cherryicking and POV-pushing that I have ever seen.—TripWire talk 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Even though I am no great fan of Modi, in this particular instance, what he said was perfectly fine. If you watch the video link that TripWire posted, even though he has no clue what it says, he is saying that when the Indian Army was fighting along side Mukti Bahini, every Indian hoped for the liberation of Bangladesh, which is almost tautologous. Who wouldn't wish for the victory of one's Army when it is fighting a war? The Pakistani twisting of the statement is quite absurd. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw the whole speech in Dhaka. I was actually very impressed. But Mr Modi does have a habit of slip-ups. What I meant here was the usual Indo-Pak war of words.-- (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Classical and blatant example of POV-pushing. Misrepresenting others words to suit ones POV! What Modi said was: At the time of Bangladesh War, alogwith Mukti Bahini, the rights that the Indian Army performed AND every Indian citizen, at that time, desired that Bangladesh's dreams should come true. So you see now, every Indian was not "wishing for ones Army's victory when it is fighting a war," as you claimed by you above, but for the independence of Bangladesh (something which was unjustified on the pretext refugee 'problem'). In any case, you or I are not the experts to interpret what Modi said, but the secondary sources quoting him what he said is what should be focused upon, including the New Indian Express. —TripWire talk 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Your translation isn't even grammatical English. LOL. But doesn't matter. It is still nowhere near the pseudo-translation done by your hero Sartaj Aziz. You know that he was pulling a fast one. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No one gives a tosh about Aziz'z statement, it's rather naive of you to keep talking about something which has never been the subject of discussion here. Just wasting your own and others time.—TripWire talk 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You may or may not care about Aziz's statement. But you clearly love his twisted translation of Modi's statement. You have been pushing it everywhere for the whole week! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 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.

Narendra Modi is not authorative source of History[edit]

Narendra Modi is famous for slip-ups and wrong statements.

Lets end this discussion.--Cosmic  Emperor  14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares how good or bad Modi is in making speeches, he's not a wikipedia editors whose edits can be reverted if deemed unsuitable. Being a PM of the largest democracy, his words matter and are taken seriously despite his poor grip on English language or pathetic verbal expression. He's a PM and whenever he says something at a public forum infront of international media, it is taken as a content of Strategic communication whether you like it or not. Therefore, his recent words, having a bearing on 1971 war should be included here. —TripWire talk 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody cares that you think helping Bangladesh in 1971 was unjustified. Global public opinion favored the Bangladesh cause.123 Modi obviously meant to point to the widespread public support in India itself. A genocide was taking place and a military intervention brought it to an end. Pakistan lost, now get over it and move on. There's no point in raising baseless grievances.-- (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah! Then have the courage to mention it, as said by Modi here. What's all the fuss about then? Saying over and over again that it already is mentioned and 'known' wont suffice. —TripWire talk 10:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's been my point the whole time. You're acting like a sore loser from 1971. Pakistan would be better off replicating post-war Japan/Germany. The fuss is when you are trying to push an irrelevant speech by Modi and a twisted reaction to that speech from Pakistan. Indo-Pak outbursts over the Bangladesh War are really pointless to this article in 2015.-- (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Quoting an unknown dude sitting in Germany who says 20,000 people have been abducted in Balochistan is not pointless, but a speech by Indian PM is pointless?! Bias! —TripWire talk 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You might be lost, try the Balochistan conflict page for those issues.-- (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That's been my point he whole time. It takes courage to be remain WP:NPOVTripWire talk 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no courage in being neutral when it comes to matters of genocide.-- (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire talk 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian involvement[edit]

In addition to the debate above, there is a need to talk about 'Indian involvement' with a view to show both sides of the picture. The Indian involvement Section of the page opens up with the following lines:

Wary of the growing involvement of India, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on Indian Air Force bases on 3 December 1971........ .......The strike was seen by India as an open act of unprovoked aggression. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War.

The above lines shows as if one fine morning Pakistan became wary of Indian involvement and decided to go for war. However, there are numerous sources and it is a known fact that Indian political, military and material involvement began well before 3 December 1971. There is a need to add this to provide this context to the article. Or else everthing in the article is presenting India as an angle and the other side as evil. There is no denying the fact that atrocities did take place and that India was faced with the refugee problem etc etc. But at the same time, what India (and Pakistan) did which ultimately led to war needs to be added here, albeit not in detail. Now guys, please dont repeat the rhetoric of 'it is well known'. Sir, if it is, then add it to the article! Apropos, I am adding he 'Why' tag to the first sentence to open up a discussion. —TripWire talk 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No comments on this means that edits in this respects can be carried out.—TripWire talk 04:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources and specific text which you would like to add based on these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Will do that when I'll edit the article —TripWire talk 05:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the contentiousness surrounding this article, and the fact that you've been the source of much of it, it would really be better if you proposed the text here on talk first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TripWire, If you follow the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, especially reliable sources for history, in creating new content, nobody will object. It is your inappropriate reliance on newspaper reports on questionable political statements that has been the cause of the problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Why do you have to make it about me? The article being on a controversial topic rightly require a discussion, but that does not mean that everytime a sourced info especially from books has to be added, a formal permission is required for that. Without going into further details, as I am still collecting the info, I would just say that I plan to add, with dates the military actions taken by Indian Army inside or along the Indo-East Pakistan border well before 3 December. This info will primarily relay on books by Indian authors.—TripWire talk 09:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

{{U|}‎ We know that you dont understand English, but I will also ask if you know what 'archiving' is? The MS Encarta source has been used in other articles at Wiki after it was archived, 'source no exist' does not fit here! Self-revert or you are going in to ANI. Use a little commonsense are click on the archive. You otherwise have been very fondly using archives to accuse me, so you exactly know what it is.—TripWire talk 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I check webcite, is here [14] You cannot add that infos as is copyrighted. (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Haha. That's why citations are there for! Every secondary source is copyrighted! FYKI, this info is exactly used in another article right here in Wiki. —TripWire talk 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The info you are stupidly reverting has been here already!! First you said that the source did not exist and when yo were facepalmed on that you now say that info is copyrighted? Are uou stupid?! —TripWire talk 12:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Last warning, stop insulting. Is same, word for word. So is copyright violation. Left link on you talk. (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The IP is in fact, correct. --NeilN talk to me 12:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I will suely reword and paraphrase it. —TripWire talk 13:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
NeilN I have rephrased the words, I hope it clears it up —TripWire talk 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The copyright violation needs to be fixed in the other article, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, as well (and really, someone should do a thorough check of that one because in my experience, where there is one copyvio, there's a ton of them).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right. It is likely that the other article too has CRV in addition to one that you have highlighted. —TripWire talk 09:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Re this revert [15], with the edit summary "well-sourced? You think an official Bangladeshi military site is reliable?".

First, please don't mark non-minor edits as minor. If you're doing so purposefully this can be seen as disruptive and dishonest. If you're not doing it purposefully, please turn off the "minor" option in your preferences (upper left).

More importantly, can you explain how the source is "an official Bangladeshi military site"? Rather the source seems to be this book, which looks like reliable, scholarly source. On top of that, the text, about the 1971 Dhaka University massacre is not exactly controversial. In fact, the name of the massacre should be spelled out rather than linked as an "easter egg".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Re you first said in your edit reverting TripWire, "this looks like well sourced text", I disagree with that. The info is not simply referenced with the reliable sources. I am talking about BAF's official site, that you reinstated in the text during your revert. Do you think it is a reliable source? How you would prove that "Bangladeshi air forces achieved air supremacy in the eastern theater.", a claim not even made by this site, which you cited as a source for it. How that appears to be "well sourced text" to you? Faizan (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to take out the part about BAF that's one thing. But you, and TripWire/PakSol are also removing text sourced to academic sources. Can you please at the very least restore that part of the text, since obviously it is well sourced?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
'Bangladesh', East-Pakistan at that time, had an airforce???? Well-sourced? If it had been, it would not have required a sock/sockmaster to add it—TripWire talk 17:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
One more time, if you want to remove the stuff about the airforce that's fine (for now). But please stop using this as an excuse to remove OTHER, well sourced text, about the 1971 Dhaka University massacre. It would really show that you're acting in good faith if you put that text back in yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: "please stop using this as an excuse to remove OTHER, well sourced text, about the 1971 Dhaka University massacre.". Is this the text you are talking about? "The capital Dacca was the scene of many atrocities, particularly in its university area and police barracks. The junta formed radical religious militias."? And is this the source that you are citing? So now you should do us a favour, please tell us that which page of the academic source supports the above text? Page Number? The whole book does not even include the words of "Dhaka University". Please explain how this academic source "well-sources" the text with which it is cited? Faizan (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I see you insist on acting in bad faith. Was Dacca the scene of many atrocities? Yes. Did the most well known ones take place on the University campus? Yes. Did the junta form various radical religious militias which *assisted* in carrying out these atrocities? Yes. Is any of this controversial? No. Is there a source, right in the next sentence which support this text? Yes. So why the hell are you removing it?
Oh, I see, because ANOTHER source doesn't mention the phrase "Dacca university", even though it talks about the atrocities in general. So you think that makes it okay to change "many atrocities" and "raids on local population" - phrases supported by sources - to some bullshit "military operations"? No. Quit. Playing Games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Where does it even talk about the atrocities? We are playing games? Or someone else? If there is no mention of the university, you cannot put it there. WP:SYNTHESIS. Faizan (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
So you have made another revert while asking others to show good faith? Explain he "academic sources" before putting them again now, or you will be on 3RR. Faizan (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I added two new sources because you objected to one. The info is not controversial. And yet you keep on insisting on changing "atrocities" to "military operations" despite well established academic consensus and against what sources say. You are clearly engaged in WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV pushing. Like I said, you can remove the stuff about the airforce if you want. But please put back the relevant material about the Dhaka University massacre. We have a whole article on it for fig's sake, so it's not like its existence is in question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, allow me to point out - again - that the text you are removing "The junta formed radical religious militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace" already has a source. Wait! No, it actually already has TWO sources. So why are you removing this text? Because a completely different part of article uses a source from the Bangladeshi air force, which you think is not reliable. How. Does. That. Make. Sense? Quit playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And it gets worse...[edit]

Re: [16]

This is essentially a baseless revert which does not advance the discussion in any meaningful way. It just... reverts, reverts, reverts! Why am I getting the sense that you guys (TripWire/PakistaniSoldier and Faizan) are tag-teaming in order to try and get me to break 3RR?

You have not done anything to justify your removal of text based on reliable sources. More, you have done nothing to justify why reliably-based text should be replaced by some POV-WEASELING.

To be explicit and cut off more bullshit excuses for edit warring:

  • This has NOTHING to do with "sockpuppets". You are using the excuse that some account which MAYBE was a sockpuppet of someone or other (I have no idea) made some OTHER edits on this article at SOME point in time, in order to remove reliably sourced text for POV reasons which has nothing to do with that maybe-sockpuppet-account. Please stop lying and bullshitting. I've restored this particular text because it is well sourced. Do NOT revert it again under false pretenses.
  • The initial objection was that a source in the middle of a particular sentence did not use the words "Dacca University", therefore several sentences of text - which WERE well sourced - could be removed. Nonsense. There WERE ALREADY two sources given at the end of the sentence which supported this text. So EVEN IF you throw out that one source, the text is STILL well supported. Please stop removing it or changing it to some ridiculous WEASEL POV version.
  • In addition to the reliable sources which were ALREADY in the the article, I've added two more. I could easily add TWENTY more. This is non-controversial text unless you're a WP:BATTLEGROUND POV warrior. This is well established. So... now you tag teaming guys are removing text which has a plethora of reliable sources to back it up because...
  • ...apparently because "NO CONSENSUS!" As in "if we tag team and engage in edit wars that is the same as consensus". Bullshit. It's not. This text was in the article long before you got here. It is supported by reliable sources. Just because you don't like it and you are physically capable of pressing the "Revert" button three - but not four - times, per day, does not mean that you have "consensus". It's reliably sourced, it's neutral leave it alone.
  • At the very least please at least pretend to engage in good faithed discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources which are being removed[edit]

by TripWire/PakSol, Faizan and assorted suspicious IPs:

  • Genocide in Bangladesh by R. Jahan in the volume "Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts" edit by Samuel Totten and published by Routledge in 2013. This is a high quality academic source. Page 265 specifically talks about the atrocities and massacres on Dhaka University Campus, followed by several pages of eyewitness testimony.

Of course it's quite easy to find other sources related to the atrocities committed in Dhaka and at the University in particular ([17] [18] [19] [20] just to throw out a few). Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from a mostly uninvolved editor: I went to the Bangladesh section of a university research library to see what the books here say about atrocities in Dhaka. The available sources were surprisingly few, but those which discuss this time period seem to somewhat confirm the statements which are being removed. In other words, the sources which addressed this time period suggested that some extreme and one-sided violence did take place. For example, Hasan Zaheer (of the Pakistani civil service, now in academics) writes in The Separation of East Pakistan (1994), p. 167:

The Dhaka University campus, which was regarded as the centre of Bengali resistance, was attacked at 2 a.m. According to army circles, after stiff resistance with rifles and shotguns, the hostel, which was the hotbed of 'rebellion', was finally 'secured' at 5 a.m. Curfew was imposed on the entire city and the army attacked the previously-marked strongholds all over the city.
Major-General Farman Ali was the executor of the Dhaka part of 'Searchlight'. He succeeded in 'shock action' by concentrated and indiscriminate firing on target areas, but failed to arrest the maximum number of students or political activists, particularly the sixteen leaders listed in the plan. [...]
In the ferocity of the army action and indiscriminate killings and arrests, even the moderate elements did not feel safe.

In the electronic databases, I see Wardatul Akman writing in "Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh: A case of genocide" (Journal of Genocide Research, 2010):

On the night of March 25, 1971, the West Pakistani Armed Battalion engaged in indiscriminate mass killing in different parts of Dhaka. This was called "Operation Searchlight," the objective of which was to "neutralize" the Awami League of its political power. In order to achieve this objective, the Army had to (1) capture the leadership of the Awami League, (2) neutralize the student leaders and cultural organizations, which mobilized the renaissance of Bengali nationalism, and (3) disarm the Bengali armed men (Sission and Rose, 1990, pp 157–158). From the huge Hotel Intercontinental, reporters saw the city in flames. They were made to stay inside by heavily armed soldiers (Payne, 1973, p 21). Over 15,000 people were killed "between March 25 and 26" in the city of Dhaka alone (Chaudhury, 1972, p 21; before 1982 "Dhaka" was spelled "Dacca").

An article called "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971" by Sarmila Bose (Economic and Political Weekly, 2005), suggests that what happened in Dhaka is disputed and confusing. Bose is considered by some an apologist for the Pakistani army. But even she seems to confirm the notion that the army roamed through the city, and especially within the university, killing suspected dissidents.

A vivid description of the attack on Jagannath Hall given tome by an eyewitness, Rabindra MohanDas, who lived in the staff quarters on the grounds, corroborates the massive use of force by the army, and also the killing of unarmed staff. According to Lieutenant General (Lt Gen) Kamal Matinuddin's account, the officer in overall command of this attack - then Brigadier Jehanzeb Arbab - admitted "over-reaction and over-kill by the troops under his command".

All that being said, it seems possible that 'atrocities' is a loaded term and better wording for the contested section could be found. Perhaps those who disagree with this wording could propose an alternate statement which acknowledges that violence did take place in Dacca. Or, if anyone feels that this is contentious, I think this discussion would benefit from a more clear statement of alternative perspectives that people might have. If there are significant opposing views these would also warrant some revision of the section called "Atrocities". I hope we can advance this discussion in a respectful and productive way. peace & blessings, groupuscule (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank for checking this. It just confirms the fact that this is how reliable sources treat the matter. "Atrocities" is not a loaded term. This happened in the context of a genocide. The above sources make that clear and they use the word "atrocity". It is no more "loaded" to call these "atrocities" than to discuss Nazi Germany's actions in the territories it occupied as "atrocities".
At the end of the day we follow sources. If reliable sources talk about "atrocities" then we also use that word. If they don't we don't. But they do. So we do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, Marek, we don't do that. We just say that particular sources use the term "atrocities." Because it is a value-laden label, we don't use it in Wikipedia voice. Please see 2002 Gujarat riots for an example of how such terminology is treated. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No, although in some cases it depends. In cases where there is lots of controversy over whether "atrocities" were committed or not, then we attribute. But in cases where there is no controversy - and here there isn't, these killings occurred in midst of what is generally considered a genocide, and virtually ALL reliable sources talk about "atrocities", not some euphemism for these - we simply follow the usage in sources.
For example, the article about the Amritsar massacre has the word "massacre" in the title (there's a separate issue that it's actually under "Jallianwala Bagh" for some reason but I don't even want to open that can of worms). It uses the word massacre more than 50 times in the article itself, without attribution or any other WP:WEASELING. Because quite simply that's how sources refer to it. Same thing here. Reliable sources talk about "atrocities". There's nothing "POV" about referring to things by their name. Quite the opposite actually. Removing what sources and how sources refer to this even violates NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"Massacre" is a perfectly fine word to use. It means mass killing of unarmed people. But "atrocity" is a value-laden WP:LABEL. It should not be used in Wikipedia voice. Please understand the difference. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop the POV Pushing[edit]

Volunteer Marek, if you are so fond of writing about the one sided 'atrocities' without any mention of the atrocities committed by the likes of Mukti Bahini against Non-Bengals, please take it to 1971 Bangladesh genocide and/or 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals. This article has no place for one sided POVs, especially when they never belonged here at the first place and were pushed in by an IP who turned out to be a sockmaster (with atleast 6 x socks and still counting).—TripWire talk 01:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow really? An article on which leads to a genocide needs no mention a all of atrocities (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comment Mar4d (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Says who? A sock?—TripWire talk 17:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You could look at the sources I suppose? (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comment Mar4d (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army during this war should NOT be mentioned at all in the article? DESPITE the fact that these atrocities, including the Dhaka University Massacre get extensive coverage in any half-serious source on the topic? Who's POV pushing? Seriously.

And let me say this right now. I don't care ONE BIT who put what text into this article when and how. All I care about is whether the text is supported by sources and whether it is relevant to the article and whether it follows NPOV. Please stop trying to use the fact that it may have been some sock puppet which improved the article at one point to remove text which you don't like in contravention of policy.

Discuss sources and content. Not about editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I never said that there should be no mention of atrocities in the article, especially when we have an entire sub0section on atrocities. All I am saying is that there is no need to make this article into an extension of 1971 Bangladesh genocide or 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals. And also let me say this right now, the POV which now you are trying to push was added by a sock and was being reverted and debated even when the sock was not blocked. Now that it is, and you want to add the same info, dude, just open up the RfC afresh so that we can discuss it out without any sock infestation. Simple. Actions/comments by that sock are null and void now, and hold no locus standi here anymore. You want it, you had to work for it, convince other editors and you may add it once again.—TripWire talk 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone tried reporting him yet? There's WP:ANI, for instance. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Try this - WP:DRN. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"I am saying is that there is no need to make this article into an extension of 1971 Bangladesh genocide or 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals" - and HOW exactly is putting in the word "atrocities" ONCE into the lede turning this article into an extension of either one of these other two?
Let's be clear here. The dispute is over whether in the lede we should use the sources-backed word "atrocities" to refer to things like the Dhaka University Massacre or this bullshit euphemism "military operations". As if somehow the term "military operation" was the proper term to describe the murder of students and professors as well as the rape of the female students. No. THAT is exactly what "POV pushing" is, quite disgusting POV pushing at that. And this is all about a single word in a single sentence.
Using the proper word, the one that is supported by high quality academic sources (which have been provided numerous times) is how you follow NPOV and it is NOT "making this article into an extension of" something else. It is summarizing the content of THIS article, since as you note, the text of the article does discuss the atrocities (as it should).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please instead of advising others to 'get clear', get yourself clear. The discussion here is not only on the word 'atrocities' but the entire edits made by a sock which were his POV and for which he never sought consensus before adding it. Now you are also trying to do the same.—TripWire talk 10:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is the edit under dispute: [21]. All it involves is you removing the text:
The capital Dacca was the scene of many atrocities, particularly in its university area and police barracks. The junta formed radical religious militias - the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace
to just
"The junta formed militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the army during military operations."
In other words you are removing the sentence about Dacca being the scene of atrocities - which is supported by MULTIPLE, academic, high quality sources AND it summarizes the content of the article, and changing the word "atrocities" to "military operations".
So please, stop lying. It's easy enough to check that you're fibbing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More Pictures for WP:NPOV[edit]

How about some pictures like some of the ones here are added to the page?—TripWire talk 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly the same what your edits of atrocities has to do with this page. Stop the POV pushing already!—TripWire talk 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what it is you're trying to say. Are you saying that the atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War should not be covered in this article? Really? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop acting like a kid, I never said that, I only oppose your POV pushing whereby you want to make this page into an extension of 3 other pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals and Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War) which elaborately expands upon the atrocities. This page already has a dedicated sub-section on atrocities, now if you will add it in every paragraph of this page, it is POV-pushing, nothing else and it does no justice with WP:NPOV either.
Same is the case with pictures, I am going to add few of them which shows the other side of the story to make the article unbiased.—TripWire talk 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"Stop acting like a kid" - right, obviously constructive discussion with you is impossible. But let me keep trying:
I am NOT trying to turn this page into an extension of 3 other pages. All I'm doing is changing language in the lede to accurately reflect sources and summarize the article. In a single sentence. YOU are trying to POV the text and remove sourced info. Now you've come up with some other POV pushing strategy of putting in some photos to bias the article. Who's acting like a kid? Who's POV pushing? Who's engaging in WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior? Who's behaving WP:TENDENTIOUSly? Whose entire editing history evidences the fact that they are a single purpose account with an agenda? Maybe the account that until recently was named "User:PakSol" but changed their account name to TripWire when they realized that being named "Pakistani Soldier" sort of gave away the whole WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior shtick.
If you want to discuss content then please address the - numerous - sources that have been provided. You never responded to this, despite repeated previous requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, none of these photos can actually be used on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes sir, you are not acting like a good editor. Here's why:
  • It has been over a month that the username was changed but you still ae unable to get over it.
  • Adding SOURCED images to ensure WPNPOV is POV pushing? That's exactly how KIDS discuss things at Wiki.
  • I could have very easily added the sourced images, but didnt do it, instead opened it up for debate, that's how good editors do, unlike a kid who, even though the query is mentioned in a separate section, is still discussing and linking the addition of SOURCED images to a totally unrelated discussion above.
  • You are pushing POV by linking the adding of images which are sourced and present the other side of the story in an unbiased way to the edits by a sock which are being debated elsewhere.
  • I will urge you to keep this sub-section for the discussion on the "Images" as the heading says, and not detrack and disrupt it by bringing a totally unlinked discussion into it.—TripWire talk 18:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason I bring up your old username is because it was such an obvious admission of bias and intent to pursue WP:ADVOCACY. But I guess you fixed that naive mistake. And like I said, those images have nothing to do with the topic under dispute, nor can you actually use them on Wikipedia (there's nothing to debate here - they're not free).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
First, you need to get over with the past. My username has been discussed ad-nauseam, have been reported with no result and most importantly, I have never tried to hide anything. Lastly, a sock was already reported for WP:NPA. I suggest, you stop it too or else the option of taking you too to the admins lies open. Second, the images are in the public domain, getty images allow for the images to be used after attribution. —TripWire talk 18:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have not done any NPA - I have exclusively focused on your editing of this article. You on the other hand have made repeated personal attacks. Like, quote, "Stop acting like a kid". Wasn't that a personal attack? Yes? Then stop lecturing others.
You want to go to an admin board? Please. But you should probably read WP:BOOMERANG first.
As to the images, "Open Content" is not the same "Free Content". The restriction that they need to be attributed and may not be modified eliminates them from being free WP:NFC. Second, not all Getty images are even Open Content. In particular I don't think these are. But anyway, all this can be checked. However, even if these images *could* be used, does not mean that they *have to* be used. You've obviously went outhere with the expressed purpose of finding images which will skew the coverage of this article. That's about a textbook definition of WP:NPOV as one can find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest you should stop thinking on my behalf. The article is about a war b/w Pakistan, India and its product, Mukti Bahini. There is not a single image that tells the Pakistan's or for that matter Non-Bangali side of the story. This enough is a reason to add these images. You challanging this simple edit is what is a the text book definition of WP:NPOV. Why would you oppose the addition of images which presents neutral info and balance this highly one sided article? What I understand from you comments is that anyone opposing your POV or adding info which is otherwise neutral, sourced,, authentic and provides WP:NPOV is considered POV-pushing by you? Strange.
The article does not contain a single image which shows actions by Mukti Bahini as regards to Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. There's isnt a single image which shows that there were indeed few POW on the Indian side too. The article shows as if Mukti Bahini were some sort of angles who did not commit any wrong and the Indian Army were aliens who won the war without any casualty or reversals. You call this being neutral?? The only reason any outsider will get from your undue opposition to the addition of such images is that you are a one hell of a POV-pusher who totally disregard wiki [WP:NPOV]] policy. —TripWire talk 19:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, your perception of the article is telling. The article is based on reliable scholarly sources. There's only one photograph of murdered Bangladeshis - a lot more could be added if one wanted. It does mention the persecution of Biharis. The article roughly reflects academic consensus - your comments about MB being a "product of India" merely shows that you have a problem with reliable sources. Your desire to add in a bunch of images... of what exactly? The fact that Indian forces participated in the conflict? ...which aren't even free and cannot be used on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, and WP:UNDUE is just another example of the fact that you're WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This debate is going nowhere. You cannot challenge sourced content. Let the admins decide if the images are free or not. You have been amply explained why there is a need to add these images, you just chose to ignore that and like to run in circles and waste other editors time with your rhetoric. I have no problem with reliable sources, it is just your conjecture. What you want to push as your POV is that during the war there were no killing of non-banglis by MB, is that what you want to say? You also want to push that you Indian troops gave up arms at any point in the war? You want to push that Indian Army was successful in EVERY battle it fought in East Pakistan? This my dear is the CLASSIEST example of POV PUSHING!—TripWire talk 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I can most certainly challenge the *misuse* of sources to push a POV in violation of WP:UNDUE. But you're right, this is going nowhere. Verify that the images are free then we'll discuss the POV issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(and of course I said NONE of these things nor does this have ANYTHING to do with the dispute. You are, once again, pulling things out of your thin air. You're projecting. See classic strawman fallacy) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
So if you agree that MB were not angles and that Indian Army did face a few reversal, there's then a need to show this in the page in the interest of WP:NPOV. (Authentic)Images will do it for now.—TripWire talk 07:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bangladesh Liberation War[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bangladesh Liberation War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Al Jazeera":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)