Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

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

land exchange[edit]

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 ?

spelling: Dhaka or Dacca[edit]

Both spellings are being used. Is there a reason why Dacca is used in some cases? (Do different countries spell it differently?) Should it be made consistent? RJFJR (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Dhaka should be used everywhere. Dacca is colonial name. Knightplex (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the name was changed from Dacca to Dhaka in 1983, although the source cited is not the strongest. The official change may have coincided with the creation of Dhaka City Corporation in 1983. Judging from Google Ngrams it may have been proposed a three or four years earlier. In early 1983, The New York Times thought it useful to mention that the name had been changed, suggesting that the change was then recent.[1][2]
In any case, the English spelling was Dacca during the period covered by this article, so it makes sense to use Dacca in this historical context. The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which discuss when to use modern names and when not to. The right answer really depends on the dominate spelling in recent scholarship about this historical period. Either way, it should be made consistent within the article, with exceptions for titles, direct quotations, and ,depending on date of publication, place of publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Redundant citations in lead for uncontroversial statements[edit]

Cohen and the Los Angeles Times, where cited in the lead, establish only that India supported the Bengali separatists and that war started between India and Pakistan on 3 December 1971. Neither statement is about a living person, a direct quote, or controversial or likely to be challenged. The lead summarizes the body, where the material is already cited. So I have removed from the lead the two redundant citations to Cohen and the Los Angeles Times per MOS:LEADCITE. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)