Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Order issue

"Many of those assaulted were murdered and then bayoneted in the genitalia after being raped". It's unclear in which order the rape, murder and mutilation occur in, needs rewriting for clarity. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, should I also write why this is considered to be an attempt at ethnic cleansing? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a useful addition to the article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not letting me edit

Why is every thing I change removed? I made good changes. Indian Army can claim it saved the world but it is not war's reality. I corrected my mistake as well. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with this guy he even deleted my post here. He tells me that we can not add anything without sources who's adding it now :@ --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Sadly, I fear you chaps are indulging in an open personality clash that will distract other editors too and could lead to both of you suffering sanctions. I've left a comment at Talk:Clan (video gaming)#Unsourced, which I hope may help you both to find a way forward.

@Highstakes00, if there are any other things in this (Bangladesh) article, that we've reverted wrongly in your opinion, please say so here and I will try to help. --Stfg (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the edit conflict, the first part of my comment got lost. The right way to deal with well-written but unsourced content is not to delete it out of hand, but to tag it with {{Citation needed}}, which I have now done. I also explained why "declared" is too strong and "suggested" is too weak for the attempted imposition of Urdu. Will repeat that if wanted. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed raped from raped and gang-raped. Why is it said so many times in a go? That is not good use of English. Tried to impose looks like he tried to do it but has no right to do it. The Indian Army saving the day is saying things from Indian books. I bet Pakistanis say India invaded Pakistan. --Highstakes00 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

who removed my comment? You are an obvious sock, and I urge you to quit now before I report you Darkness Shines (talk) 16

29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Highstakes00: I restored the "raped" from that because when you changed it to just "they were repeatedly gang-raped", it made it look as if all the rapes were gang rapes. It isn't poetry, but it's not actually bad English. It's just accurate.

@Darkness Shines: who removed which comment?

@Both of you: do you want to make good content, or do you want to have a personal battle? If the second, you both already know where it will get you. Your choice. I'm going to to have tea with my Auntie. --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@stfg am on my mobile so unable to edit. I know who's sock this is and will file an spi once I am at my pc Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Order issue

"Many of those assaulted were murdered and then bayoneted in the genitalia after being raped". It's unclear in which order the rape, murder and mutilation occur in, needs rewriting for clarity. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, should I also write why this is considered to be an attempt at ethnic cleansing? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a useful addition to the article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, February 2012

Background

"Though Bengalis formed the majority of the population of Pakistan, they had been politically underrepresented since the partition of India, and East Pakistan was economically exploited by the West". There are three statements in this. All three need citations.

"On 26 March 1971, the Pakistan Army launched Operation Searchlight against the supporters of a nascent Bengali nationalism, indiscriminately killing Bengali civilians.[9]" I wanted to check this because of the strong allegation "indiscriminately killing Bengali civilians". FN9 (The Tilt) makes no mention of March 26, nor of Searchlight. Can you point me to the precise place, or document linked from this one, that supports this statement, please?

Number of deaths (last sentence): Debnath p.49 says nothing of the number killed, only the number raped, so I've removed that reference from here. (By the way, it was a duplicate definition of ref name=Debnath1, which was already defined in the lead section.) Totton (Dictionary) p.34 gives the 3 million figure, so I've placed that there. The table is not very helpful. You could consider replacing "200,000 to 3,000,000" with "up to 3 million", citing Totton.

--Stfg (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocked editor added that, I will be happy to lose it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've pretty much restored your original opening, but re-inserted a mention of the partition, as it helps to provide context. --Stfg (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replace (The Tilt) reference for a reliable one which directly says indiscriminate killing Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All points resolved. --Stfg (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Militias

Al-shams or Ash-shams (by assimilation)? I've also asked at Talk:Al-Shams (Bangladesh). --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They were called Al Shams when set up and remained that until disbanded, all sources call them Al Shams. There have been many groups since then which used the same name. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

"However, human rights advocates are of the opinion that the mass rapes and killings of women may not be addressed." Because this reflects negatively on the ICT, I think this needs citation. --Stfg (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It had one, will dig it out. Also the Irene Khan quote has the wrong reference. It ought to be this one Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The NYT reference is also the reference for the "However, human rights advocates are of the opinion that the mass rapes and killings of women may not be addressed." Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll deal with those in an hour or so. --Stfg (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Verification

Because of the very emotive nature of the subject, and because a recent GAN review (now deleted) questioned the neutrality of the article, I checked far more sources than a copy editor normally would, and noted the publishers of several more. I'm impressed by the quality and impartiality of the sources, the fact that preview is available for most of them, and also by the fairness of the way the sources are representated here. Very good job, and it certainly deserves GA. --Stfg (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work, I shall nominate for GA and hope for the best. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for yours! It's on my watchlist. Good luck! --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JCAla (talk · contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Going to review this article soon. JCAla (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you find some illustrations? I. e. of a place in Bangladesh that was affected or someone responsible from the Pak military or a flag of a militia? Done

There are images of people accused, until such a time as they are convicted I do not think such images should be used though, it smacks of guilt by association. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Background

• "4% Urdu speakers" you sourced with "Shah, Mehtab Ali (1997). The foreign policy of Pakistan: ethnic impacts on diplomacy, 1971–1994. I.B.Tauris. p. 51", in that source are they referring to Sindh or the whole of Pakistan with regards to the 4%?

The whole of Pakistan Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you explain why especially Bengali (opposed to Sindhi i. e.) was as important 1) that it was nominated for second national language and 2) for the Bangladesh conflict? I.e. "Bengali was spoken by such and such number of people and the dominant language in Eastern Pakistan" Done
• Were tensions reduced between 1952-1970? Done
• Can you elaborate for the reader the Awami League's connection to the language dispute. It is hard to understand the connection if you do not have the background knowledge. Done
• Were there also other factors (besides language) for dispute between East and West? Done

Already mentioned, economic and political under representation Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Very interesting: "The genocide in Bangladesh caught the outside observers as well as the Bengali nationalists by surprise. After all, the Bengali nationalists were essentially waging a constitutional peaceful movements for democracy and autonomy. Their only crime, as U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy observed, appeared to have been to win an election. Perhaps, the main reason behind the atrocities was to terrorize the population into submission. The military commander in charge of the Dhaka operations reportedly claimed that he would kill four million people in 48 hours and thus have a "final" solution of the Bengali problem. .... But the reason behind the genocide were not simply to terrorize the people and punish them for resistance; there were also elements of racism in this act of genocide. The Pakistan army, consisting of mainly Punjabis and Pathans, had always looked on the Bengalis as racially inferior (a non-martial, physically weak race, not interested or able to serve in the army)." (p. 147, Samuel Totten) Done

I had missed this, Shall add a little to the Army Action section Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who was Yahya Khan, a reader might ask. Something like "Then acting President of Pakistan Yahya Khan (from the Western establishment)" would do. Done

• More interesting stuff:

"In December 1970 Pakistan held general elections, the first since its independence. The Awami League, headed by East Pakistan's popular leader Mujibur Rahman, won a clear majority of seats in the national assembly, but West Pakistan's chief martial law administrator and president Khan, refused to honour the democratic choice of his country's majority. At the end of March 1971, after Mujib demanded virtual independence for East Pakistan, Yahya Khan ordered a military massacre in Dhaka." (The History of India by Kenneth Pletcher p. 311)

This is already covered really. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan-army actions

• Who is Samuel Totten? => "a genocide scholar and expert on war crimes" Makes it more pleasant to read if people do not have to follow EL to understand.  Done
• "often in front of their families, to "punish" and terrorize." is this in source? As you put source #13 before it. It is reference 14, and yes it says that. Done
• According to Samuel Totten, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) also played an important role to make the army take actions. (p. 149)

Which Totten reference is this? I have more than one source from Totten I believe.

It's "Teaching about genocide: issues, approaches, and resources" p. 149

I really do not see how to fit this in, we do not want to overload the background section. Perhaps in could go under the Pakistani government reaction section somewhere? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Anything specific about the role of Al-Shams and Al-Badr in the atrocities? No other information that I can find, just that they took part  Done

Aftermath

• Who is Delwar Hossain Sayeedi? -> the Deputy Leader of Jammat-e-Islami Bangladesh Done

Media depictions

• Not sure whether assamtribune.com is a reliable source. But you didn't source a controversial subject with it, just that fact that a movie is being screened. So, if you find another source, good, but it's not that great a deal.

Infobox

• Found an infobox which you could use:

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 1

When I tried to add this all I see on the article is a straight line? Not an info box, no idea were I have gone wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the infobox in this article should give the death numbers as it is about the rapes which would go under injuries. Number being 200,000-400,000. Also, the number 3 million how many sources give that fix number? Did you find any sources that gives a number of 200,000 killed? (That's what was claimed in the Pakistan article discussion, but until now I only saw sources with 3 million except for Pakistani commission number of 26,000).

Who gives an estimate of 200,000 killed? Majority of sources I have read say 3million. Will fix infobox now. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Done

Huon at the Pakistani article Bangladesh discussion mentioned that figure because of a Bangladesh Liberation War source which I checked and 1) didn't work and 2) was unreliable as it was something like user.erols.bangladesh ... That is why I ask you if you are aware of any reliable international sources mentioning a number of 200,000 or even 1,000,000 instead of 3,000,000?

No none, I will look in on the chat over at Pakistan article. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, since we now found that gendercide source, the number should be put at "1-3 million according to most estimates", don't you think?

What about the infobox in this way (the picture shows random people in Bangladesh, don't know whether it fits, but afterall it were people like these who were targeted, but you decide since this picture could be a problem, so perhaps not):

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
Location	East Pakistan now Bangladesh
Date	March 1971 - December 1971
Target	women, chidren and men in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan)
Deaths	1-3 million according to most estimates
Injured	200,000-400,000 raped, unknown number injured
Perpetrators	Pakistan army soldiers Al-Shams militia Al-Badr militia local collaborators (1,597 identified and charged)

Indian intervention

• This is a possible source for the role of the Indian intervention:

"On November 21, 1971, India intervened militarily on the basis of the international law doctrine of humanitarian intervention. Three weeks later the Pakistani army's eastern command surrendered to the Indian armed forces ..." (Crimes against humanity in international criminal law By M. Cherif Bassiouni p. 549) Done

25 March

• A minor issue with this sentence: "On 26 March 1971 the Pakistan Army launched Operation Searchlight against the supporters of a nascent Bengali nationalism". See this source:

"Pakistani Lieutenant-General A.A.K. Niazi referred to the Ganges river plain - home to the majority of Bengalis and the largest city, Dhaka, as a "low-lying land of low, lying people." According to R.J. Rummel, "Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. ... The [minority] Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [had] to be exterminated." [...] The spark for the conflagaration came in December 1970, with national elections held to pave the way for a transition from military rule. The [East Pakistan] Awami League won a crushing victory [...] This gave the League a majority in the Pakistani parliament as a whole, and the right to form the next government. West Pakistani rulers, led by General Yahya Khan, saw this as a direct threat to their power and interests. After negotiations failed to resolve the impasse, Khan met with four senior generals on February 22, 1971, and issued orders to annihilate the Awami League and its popular base. From the outset, they planned a campaign of genocide. "Kill three millon [Bengalis]," said Khan, " and the rest will eat out of our hands." On March 25, the genocide was launched. [...]."

(Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones) Done

Already using Adam I believe, this however is quite good for the military section and shall add it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Date was 25 March. Maybe: "On 25 March 1971 the Pakistan Army launched Operation Searchlight to maintain the rule of the West Pakistan-dominated military over East Pakistan and to curb a nascent Bengali nationalism." (?) What do you say? Done

War Crimes Fact Finding Committee

• "In 2009, after a 19-year investigation, the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee released documentation naming 1,597 people they said to be responsible for the atrocities."

A proposal for a slight change, as there might me more than those people, but it were those people which were supposedly identified:

In 2009, after a 19-year investigation, the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee released documentation which was able to identify 1,597 of the people responsible for the atrocities. Not done WP:OR the source does not say that

Yes, but it is obvious that 1,597 people cannot be responsible for 3 million dead and up to 400,000 rapes. But currently the article creates that impression. Further these people in the list were collaborators. Check this source which states:

"A cabal of five Pakistani generals orchestrated the events: President Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, chief of staff General Pirzada, security chief General Umar Khan, and intelligence chief General Akbar Khan. ... The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These "willing executioners" were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. ... And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, 'We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.'

It remains unclear for some of these five people whether they ordered a genocide or just a military operation, but at least Yahya Khan has been quoted as saying 'Kill such and such Bengalis and the rest will eat out of our hands.' The others should be handled with care as it remains unknown what their exact role was, whether they were only involved in planning military actions against combatants or involved in systematic planning of acts of genocide as such.

• Also, as this was a Bangladesh commission, were these people only Bengali collaborators (part of Al-Shams or Jaamat) or did the list include West Pakistani military people? Done

List does not say, currently only collaborators are being prosecuted, already in the article.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Not letting me edit

Why is every thing I change removed? I made good changes. Indian Army can claim it saved the world but it is not war's reality. I corrected my mistake as well. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with this guy he even deleted my post here. He tells me that we can not add anything without sources who's adding it now :@ --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Sadly, I fear you chaps are indulging in an open personality clash that will distract other editors too and could lead to both of you suffering sanctions. I've left a comment at Talk:Clan (video gaming)#Unsourced, which I hope may help you both to find a way forward.

@Highstakes00, if there are any other things in this (Bangladesh) article, that we've reverted wrongly in your opinion, please say so here and I will try to help. --Stfg (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the edit conflict, the first part of my comment got lost. The right way to deal with well-written but unsourced content is not to delete it out of hand, but to tag it with {{Citation needed}}, which I have now done. I also explained why "declared" is too strong and "suggested" is too weak for the attempted imposition of Urdu. Will repeat that if wanted. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed raped from raped and gang-raped. Why is it said so many times in a go? That is not good use of English. Tried to impose looks like he tried to do it but has no right to do it. The Indian Army saving the day is saying things from Indian books. I bet Pakistanis say India invaded Pakistan. --Highstakes00 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

who removed my comment? You are an obvious sock, and I urge you to quit now before I report you Darkness Shines (talk) 16

29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Highstakes00: I restored the "raped" from that because when you changed it to just "they were repeatedly gang-raped", it made it look as if all the rapes were gang rapes. It isn't poetry, but it's not actually bad English. It's just accurate.

@Darkness Shines: who removed which comment?

@Both of you: do you want to make good content, or do you want to have a personal battle? If the second, you both already know where it will get you. Your choice. I'm going to to have tea with my Auntie. --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@stfg am on my mobile so unable to edit. I know who's sock this is and will file an spi once I am at my pc Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A plea

[1] I wanted to write an article were people understood what happened to these people, I have sen this shit first hand, now it is politicking, I an man old man now, follow the link and see why I am finally done with this. What did that child do? To many times have ~I seen this. the same thing happens. I am past it, it is to fucking much to look into anymore. Please do not let what was meant to be a testament to suffering become another political joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear DS, this article is very well written and different users who would never politicize an issue such as this agree on that. It deserves good article status. I will do the two minor fixes for you, so you don't have to deal with it anymore. This article serves the purpose of information and no other. JCAla (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Content removal

Darkness Shines removed reliably sourced content that I had contributed without any reason. It should be restored. There are numerous issues with the 'background' section. The phrase "only 4% of Pakistan's population spoke Urdu" is misleading, because it is only referring to native speakers of Urdu. On the contrary, the Urdu language is used, spoken, written and understood as a second language and official language by Pakistanis.

It is also a fact that Urdu was widely promoted and recognised as the "lingua franca" of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent even before the partition of India. The Urdu movement, which has its origins in the nineteenth century, was the driving force behind the Pakistan independence movement, while the Bengali language on the other hand played little role. Hence when Urdu was declared the official language of the state by the founding fathers, it was based on Urdu's historical symbolization and role in South Asian Muslim-linguistic history. Jinnah did not try to "impose" Urdu on Pakistan or the Indian subcontinent, as ridiculously edited here, and as Darkness Shines has reverted back to the old version, reading the phrase "Mohammad Ali Jinnah tried to impose Urdu as the national language"; this obviously doesn't make sense and needs to be fixed. Jinnah mentioned Urdu as a single national language that would solidly tie the state together and keep it unified. None other but staunch Bengali nationalists developed issues with this and accordingly, Jinnah viewed the language issue (going against the principles of one federated state united by one official language) as a 'fifth column' that would open numerous pandora boxes related to ethnic and linguistic nationalism. Only this is the context where his branding "enemies of the state" comes into relevance. I can see that this phrase is mentioned while the background information is missing, this makes the article a collection of cherry-picked content.

To fix the distorted facts in the article, I addressed all the above mentioned issues in the section before it was deleted. Since no substantial reason was given, for now, I am going to leave a tag on top of the article. Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To begin with the version I reverted from was actually misrepresenting the sources I had added. Kindly check the article history before making unfounded allegations again. And as two editors have commented on how well I represented these sources your allegation of cherry picking is obviously wrong. Instead of raising cain why not suggest (with references) some changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You also did not even look at the changes I has made [2] I retained some of your edits. You are just being disruptive, no doubt as a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with DS. I see no evidence of cherry picking sources.. this article fully meets criteria for Ga and i see no POV issues here. WP:IDL is not a reason for drive by tagging as Mar4d has been doing. It is a painful truth that Pakistani army has killed more muslim men and raped more women than any other muslim army in the world.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a drive by tag... look at the length of his explanation. The article certainly has POV issues, JCAla should have recused himself instead of reviewing this article... this does not pass WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted as one of the sources used is rubbish, southasiaanalysis shows no evidence of editorial control. The second source used point not to an article but to the T&F search engine[3]. As I do not have access to this I request a full quote from the article which shows that Urdu was the lingua franca in eastern Pakistan in 1971 among the Bengali people. As this article just recently received GA status please gain consensus for any further changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• New reference added regarding the use of Urdu and its linguistic identity among Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, content restored. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And again you use shit sources, misrepresent others and edit war on this article, why not trey getting consensus for your changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this edit [4] clarified the bigger picture... it should be kept... maybe a compromise on the phrasing, I don't know. I reverted JCAla's revert without any explanation on the content. Also, that looks like a better explanation of the background. JCAla, I believe you should follow your own advise and discuss. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, what the hell are you blabbering on about? What "shit" sources, what misrepresentation? On the contrary, you're the one edit warring here. I doubt you have even read the source. You are just being an annoying troll. In case you haven't bothered to check, the South Asia analysis source was removed and this is the only source that was added for the sentence about the use of Urdu as a lingua franca of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent:

Phadnis, Urmila; Ganguly, Rajat (2001). Ethnicity and nation-building in South Asia. Sage. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-76-199439-8.

I am going to give you 24 hours. Explain your reasoning of why the book Ethnicity and nation-building in South Asia is "shit" and where it is being mis-represented. Once we are done with that and your response is insufficient, I shall be restoring the content. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I am going to be improving this article with more reliable sources, this article needs tons of them. While I am in the process of doing that, please do not revert me on every single change. I hate edit wars, and I hate wasting time. Get over your ownership ego for once. Mar4d (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your not going to touch this article without discussion first. Ethnicity and nation-building in South Asia does not support what you wrote, you misrepresented it. And I never said "it" was shit, I said you used shit sources as well as misrepresenting others. And how you can say this article needs reliable sources when about 99% of the mare sourced to the academic press is beyond me, did you not see what STGF wrote up above regarding sources?. You must discuss any changes you wish to make and get consensus. And strike your personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break: Indian intervention

• I think after some trivial POVs are balanced, we should get a GA review on this article's status so that a neutral editor can make sure no other problems are left. I'll not assume badfaith or good faith on JCAla's review since I am of opinion he should have recused himself but there certainly are issues. Sock or not, the new user above has identified one of them and should be addressed. This blunt statement had been excluded from the main war article. India's motives for intervention are very much questionable. To make a statement as such that they intervened for humanitarian aid is blatant POV (of the Indian government) among other issues in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I will have to agree with you on that, the sentence "The abuses were only stopped by the intervention of the Indian armed forces" is just sugarcoated with sweet and convenient WP:POV. What a joke this article is becoming. Mar4d (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This view is not even uniform among the Indians, many openly acknowledge that they intervened to partition Pakistan... some one was attributing that to Indra Gandhi on another page maybe... there are existing talk page discussions about this on other articles including 71 war. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, if India had not intervened what exactly would have stopped the abuses? The Pak army had no intention of stopping. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably you consider intervention as only when the regular Indian Army invaded East Pakistan. Actually India intervened in East Pakistan much before the war covertly and Pakistan Army took this action after India. (Source: Arms and warfare: escalation, de-escalation, and negotiation By Michael Brzoska, Frederic S. Pearson, ISBN: 978-0872499829) --SMS ^Talk 11:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To add to this that India's intervention did not save the causalities rather escalated into a full fledged war.... that only increased the violence. India's motives were clear. In no way can this be stated as humanitarian intervention. That is typical WP:SYNTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is no secret that India were training and arming the revolutionaries, but India was attacked by Pak. Also the argument is if India had not sent in their military then who would have stopped the slaughter? The source used is not POV, it is stating a very simple fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

India was attacked by Pakistan (if its true) in the first week of December 1971 in the western sector. And Mukti Bahini was raised and trained by India months before this. And slaughter, rape, etc were reported after India's intervention. --SMS ^Talk 11:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I know this, Pakistan attacked as they were worried about Indian intervention. They did the usual, attack in the west to defend the east, this time it failed. Read page 48 of the source you gave above. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I read it and I think by now you have also read how political settlement was avoided by India. --SMS ^Talk 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To start with, we should exclude the sentence in question as there's no consensus to include it in the first place. Other POV issues should be either dealt similarly or rephrased where applicable. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, India in the end avoided a political settlement IMO, but they did try for a while. This however does not negate the fact that the atrocities were only stopped by Indian military intervention. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right in saying that the atrocities were only stopped by Indian military intervention. but you are missing this fact that these atrocities started after India launched Mukti Bahini in East Pakistan also the refugees entered West Bengal after this launch. So India's indirect intervention started it and direct intervention ended it. --SMS ^Talk 12:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)You need to read up on your nations history, I realize a lot of what happened was swept under the carpet in Pakistan, however the abuses were ongoing before the east took up arms. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You read Hamood ur Rehman Judicial Commission Report which has critically viewed every aspect of this issue, especially the role of Pakistan Army before and during the war. This commission also analyzed the atrocities done by Mukti Bahini and the role of politicians. So in Pakistan, nothing is hidden. --SMS ^Talk 13:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your kidding me right? How long was it hidden away till a whistle blower released it to the press? Don't tell me nothing is not hidden in Pakistan. What do they teach you in school of the events? 13:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the atrocities increased with the war, in one form or another. This was no humanitarian aid. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! and that too when there was political settlement going on by UN (Russia twice vetoed Security Council resolutions paving way for a military solution) and international powers. --SMS ^Talk 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've achieved the consensus for removing the phrase as of now. This doesn't even stand a chance per WP:SNOW since it couldn't pave way into the main articles. Further discussion will be moot. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if there were negotiations ongoing, the only thing which stopped the genocide was military intervention. Find a source which says otherwise and you may have a point. otherwise your just blowing smoke. 13:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Other perpetrators

• Comment This article also needs a section on atrocities (rapes) carried out by the Mukti Bahini rebels against the Bihari community and other elements who were against the country's independence. Some sources relating to this can be found in the liberation war/atrocities article, while there are more reliable sources available on the internet documenting this too. Along with this, there should also be a section discussing the various differences in estimates of the actual number of people raped. Some of the estimates are much lower than the one used on this article. A Bengali writer from India, Sarmila Bose, discusses the exaggeration of the claims by the Bangladeshi government for political purposes. These viewpoints must accordingly be presented. Mar4d (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bose's polemical work is not a reliable source, it has been massively criticized. Please present your sources for the rebel atrocities and we will add them to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: You can make a list of sources (in your userspace) you don't like so other editors avoid pointing to those while in discussion. --SMS ^Talk 12:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I obviously prefer academic books to any other source, but I will not create a list of sources I do not like, all sources need to be treated on merit. Bose's polemic is crap and is not a reliable source at all. Other sources I would rather leave out are newspaper articles. MAR4d used two on his recent edits, Morning News. 7 December 1947 (in Bengali)The Azad (a daily newspaper) (Abul Kalam Shamsuddin, Dhaka). 11 December 1948 which are a joke, how can they be verified? I do not even know how he verified one as he does not speak Bengali. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini/Indian-trained seperatists

• ....It must also be remembered that even after the military action of the 25th of march 1971, Indian infiltrators and members of the Mukti Bahini sponsored by the Awami League continued to indulge in killings, rape and arson during their raids on peaceful villages in east Pakistan, not only in order to cause panic and disruption and carry out their plans of subversion, but also to punish those East Pakistanis who were not willing to go along with them. In any estimate of the extent of atrocities alleged to have been committed on the East Pakistani people, the death and destruction caused by the Awami League militants throughout this period and the atrocities committed by them on their own brothers and sisters must, therefore, always be kept in view.

• There is reliable evidence to show that during this period the miscreants indulged in large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistan elements, in the towns of Dacca, Narayanganj, Chittagong, Chandragona, Rungamati, Khulna, Dinajpur, Dhakargaoa, Kushtia, Ishuali, Noakhali, sylhet, Maulvi Bazaar, Rangpur, Saidpur, Jessore, Barisal, Mymensingh, Rajshal?, Pabna, Sirojgonj, Comilla, Brahman, Baria, Bogra, Naugaon, Santapur and several other smaller places.

Hamoodur Rahman Commission of Inquiry Into the 1971 India-Pakistan War, Supplementary Report. Arc Manor LLC. 2007. p. 41 & 29. ISBN 978-1-60-450020-2. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you not have a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion of above simply on NPOV basis. All views and incidents have to be accounted for. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Move?

Please explain the move. You've moved the content and changed all of it without explaining under the pretext of a 'move to relevant section'. [5]... You've reverted two editors in doing so. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The allegation is made in the official Pakistani reaction by the West Pakistani commission. Since it is no independent source it belongs under the "Pakistani reaction" section. JCAla (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, please exercise some patience before carrying out ruthless restructures. As you can see, everyone here is working hard to get reliable sources on this article. The Hamoodur Rahman is just one part of Mukti Bahini's actions, I am collecting other sources too. Page 157 of Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World by Christian Gerlach discusses rapes committed by Bengali men in 1971, armed abductions against women for forced "sten gun" weddings and about Mukti Bahini rebels raping non-Bengali women in Dhaka just after Bangladeshi independence. Stay tuned, more to come. For now, self-revert please. Mar4d (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1) It is not talking about Pakistani reaction. If you wanted to attribute it to Pakistan, that is one thing... but this certainly goes in that section where all the other details about Mukti Bahini are placed. And you did not explain the change then, and have still not done it. You changed all the content completely. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d, this is the source you just said I misrepresented? And you have yet to respond below. However I will point out in no uncertain terms that should you use this source to say the rebels committed rapes during the conflict it will be a misrepresentation of the source and I will revert you. The article is about "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" the clue is in the title, perhaps you should start the Rapes after the Bangladesh Liberation War by Mukti Bahini Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am a patient person, don't worry, Mar4d. I see you working hard and feeling attacked, how could that have gone unnoticed. TopGun, if only the West Pakistan Rahman commission remains, that belongs under Pakistani reaction and no noticeboard will come to another conclusion. JCAla (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it cool. I'm talking about the removal of town names and all the details. I don't have objections if it is attributed to the commission till other sources are added. But this is not a 'reaction'. It as at best of your view, an allegation (thought it was a commission of the same country so a result probably.. both can be attributed). The aim here was to add details about abuses by Mukti Bahini. Can you revert your change so that we can rephrase it as you objected? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The source is not reliable for such statements, to begin with Hamoodur Rahman only interviewed Pakistani officers, he never went to the east. It is obviously going to be biased. It cannot be used as it is for such accusations. I will remove any addition of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Background ambiguity

Its written in the Background section that The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the East was cut off from the West within an hour of the start of the war, because the military had assigned no units to the defense of the region. I have two concerns related to this:

1. What is meant by East was cut from the West? Wasn't it already cut?
2. Why didn't India took over East Pakistan when there was no military unit there? --SMS ^Talk 14:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your question makes no sense, how was it already cut off? India did not take over because the bulk of the fighting was in Kashmir and along the western borders, you need to realize that India was not fighting a war of conquest in 65, they were retaliating against Pakistani aggression. And what is it with you guys continually slapping tags all over this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

By already cut off I mean East and West Pakistan were 1000 km apart. And even in retaliation India captured about 1840 sq km of Pakistan's land. Why not the whole East Pakistan which was undefended? --SMS ^Talk 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you on? What does the distance between them matter? The fighting was in Kashmir & along the borders between west and India. I do not know why India did not roll over the east, and I really do not care. Why not go ask them? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am on adding a little clarification about this cut off and there was a whole infantry division (some sources say eastern command comprised of a corps) and a jet fighter squadron stationed at East Pakistan. And these jet fighters raided IAF's Kalaikunda air base twice. So, what I mean here is to get the facts straight. --SMS ^Talk 16:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Look the source says the west assigned no troops nor deployed any to the east with the outbreak of war. Hence the people in the east got understandably annoyed. That is all needs to be said on the issue, it is about the grievances of the east, not about the war itself. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am impelled by the facts that the source is making up theories to justify grievances. And my first concern still remain unanswered (What is meant by East was cut from the West?). --SMS ^Talk 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(out)Sorry, did you just say Peter Haggett makes things up? (BTW the source also explains that India did not fight on the eastern front) Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying India did not fight along East Pakistan border does not support that East Pakistan had no military presence. India did fight or not but at least India was attacked by the Pakistan Armed forces present in East Pakistan [6]. --SMS ^Talk 19:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your missing the point, read again what the article says. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the East was cut off from the West within an hour of the start of the war, because the military had assigned no units to the defense of the region It does not say there were no units present, it says quite clearly that the west assigned no troops to the defense nor did they deploy any to the region, the entire strategy of the Pak army at the time was any war would be won or lost in the west. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I read somewhere about the skirmishes between India's paramilitary and Pakistan Army along East Pakistan border in 1965 war. So, from that I guess it was India who didn't deploy regular army not Pakistan. Let me find that source, its pointless to say that without a source. Btw can you please clarify what is meant by cut off? --SMS ^Talk 20:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This explains a lot of things. --SMS ^Talk 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Supposed misrepresentation

[7] So according to Mar4d I have misrepresented this source, whilst I wait on him to self revert perhaps he can explain how it is actually misrepresented. I shall give the quote from the book,

Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan)

Mar4d, explain please how the source is misrepresented. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are misrepresenting the source. He is clearly arguing this also in Chapter 4 of Gerlach 2000 "Ectremely Violent Societies" ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another interesting source: [8]

Thank you I have restored it as the chap who removed it still has not bothered to comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Darkness Shines, p.158 is being grossly misrepresented in the source. To begin with, it is not even talking about Pakistan. It's talking about the status of women in Bengali society and how the women who were supposedly raped were treated in society. See p.157 to understand the context, which in fact talks about atrocities by Mukti Bahini and Bengali rebels against women. Page 158 (which you are quoting) starts with domestic violence against women in Bangladesh. Then the second paragraph starts and has the sentence which you are misquoting. This really takes the cake: Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan). So there you go, the sentence that you cite is itself contextually saying and acknowledging that mass rapes were able to occur at this scale due to the culture of violence against women in Bengali society. You omitted that part, to somehow construct that the word "violent society" is referring to Pakistan. This is selectivity, cherry picking and gross misquotation of the author's words and a page that is otherwise talking wholly about Bangladeshi society. I don't think I even need to clarify what the third paragraph then starts to talk about: In this extremely violent society, many women were left defenseless not only at the time of the rape, but also afterwards. A mockey of reestablishing "ethical" values.......their exclusion from solidarity added to the injustice, often ending in murder, suicide or starvation... Again, Bangladeshi society and the treatment of women. I'm sorry but you can not use this page. I can assume that Christian Gerlach would have been shocked if he saw this. Mar4d (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I didn't catch that - he is clearly stating that there was a general culture of violence against women both on the Pakistani and Bengali side. He is very clearly not singling out either side as a culprit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There were only one instance of mass rape in 1971, and that is what this article is about. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, p. 157 fully contradicts what you say. You're just living in la-la land. Mar4d (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does seem that there was quite a bit more than one instance according to the few sources I was able to look at, which describe it as almost endemic during the partition violence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you miss out how that paragraph actually starts, "Without much doubt there was much sexual violence by Pakistani troops in 1971" The author is quite clearly talking about the armies actions here, not the population in general. And page 157 does not even mention Mukti Bahini and Bengali rebels carrying out rapes during the war, it does however mention the Razakars. What it actually says about the rebels is they committed rapes after the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read p. 157 again then. It is quite clearly talking about Bengali men and Mukti Bahini carrying out rapes. That rape took place at the hands of Mukti Bahini and Bengali armed men is fact. Mar4d (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to reread what I just wrote, I know they carried out rapes, but the source says that the Mukti Bahini carried out rapes after the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, rape is rape, whether it happens during, after or before. It all happened throughout the conflict, and it all needs to be written about. Mar4d (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with that apart from the before and after bits. The article is about rape "during" the war, not before or after. I have actually found a source which mentions Mukti Bahini rapes, the trouble is that there are but one line. It was not something discussed you see so there is very little to go on, certainly not enough for an entire section that I have found so far. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need "rape-specific" articles? Can this not be merged into 1971 Bangladesh atrocities? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should find out if this was a notable event first before suggesting a merger? I dunno, does the systemic rape of around 400000 women not deserve an article? Perhaps they should just have shut up and not complained about it so much that hundreds of sources would not have discussed it in such detail. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And good luck with getting the following merged Rape during the occupation of Germany Rape during the occupation of Japan Rape during the liberation of Poland Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a heavily-sourced, overall good article. Sorry for being confrontational at first, you have brought up some good points. You seem really passionate about the cause, but sometimes moving yourself away from what you believe in and calming down will allow you to avoid tricky conduct issues. So never mind about what I said! No hard feelings? Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini rebels

Is currently sourced to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, it is a primary source and cannot be used in this fashion. Also given the dearth of sources on atrocities carried out by the rebels an entire section as there currently is gives undue weight to this. I propose the section be removed and the content scaled back, there are no need for all the towns names for instance. I propose it be moved to the Pakistani government reaction section were the report is used to source the low end figures for rape and murder. It currently stands as The report said that 26,000 people were killed and that the rapes numbered in the hundreds so I propose we add that the report also said the rebel carried out atrocities. "The report said that 26,000 people were killed and that the rapes numbered in the hundreds and that the Mukti Bahini rebels also carried out atrocities" Any objections to this? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the content as a copyright violation, I discussed it here [9] with Moonriddengirl. I rewrote it and moved it to the Pakistani government reaction, I have retained the use of the primary source but am actively searching for a secondary one. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Pakistan in "see also"

This is not remotely related... that article does not mention military or army rather the police is being accused of incidents. Stop editwarring and read the article! --lTopGunl (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Police! They were officers of Pakistani army. If there are two human rights offences, both having same perpetrators, they are relate to each other. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "army" does not appear any where in Rape in Pakistan. Self revert now, and go read the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It also says "members of the armed forces". Ctrl+F doesn't always work, at those times one should read at least the lead of the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, that is not sourced there (not even in the body - where it relates to the Bangladesh incident and not Pakistan)! Are you serious? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am serious. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Single news incidents that you pick from the news can not be generalized to "Rape in Pakistan" topic. Exactly what WP:COATRACK means. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. read WP:SEEALSO the link is within policy and is also relevent. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO talks about related articles. They are not. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant" Both articles are about rape, both cover Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read that. But they are not even related in the general sense of the topic. One is about a war and the other one about a wide topic in a country which should cover the general issue, different perpetrators, laws etc. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this once more shall we? "enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant" If you disagree with this feel free to call an RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal... the implication it gives is wrong. I'll wait till another editor opposes it instead of starting an RFC right away. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

{{RFC|pol|rfcid=912FF03}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

1. There is currently a section in this article on the Mukti Bahini rebels which is sourced to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission which is a primary source. Should this be used as it is being currently used to make statements of fact.
2. On the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, the author of the report never traveled to Bangladesh and only interviewed Pakistani officers. This makes the reporting on the rebels biased at best and outright lies at worst.
3. Should there be a section on the Mukti Bahini? Given the lack of sources on atrocities committed by the rebel forces does it give undue weight to the few sources which exist to have an entire section on them?
4. The few sources I have found say the rebels committed rapes after the war. I added this information to the aftermath section with these edits[10][11]
5. I also used the Hamoodur Rahman Commission here[12] in the Pakistani government reaction section were I accredited the allegations to the report.

• Remove section as undue Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as contributor + per Mar4d's suggestion of adding this content. Since creating an article for "Rape just after the Bangladesh liberation war" will be both undue and lack context, this content (even if the incidents happened after the war) belong to this article as it is because of this war whether during or after, though I doubt these only took place after the war. This is one of the few actual (and official / court) investigations that looked into the matter with the rest being just blames, so is completely due in this article having a separate section and is not a primary source because the commission was an independent judicial commission only requested by Pakistani government. The judiciary does not automatically become a party to the government just because it is the Pakistani court (infact it was the only legal authority over the matters related to combined east and west Pakistan). It not contains views of multiple witnesses including Pakistani officers and the testimonies aren't simply assertions but a part of inquiry which is made by a judicial body. This support to keep is regardless of related content's mention at other places per its own weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Removed already (before seeing this RFC), as the content does not meet criteria for inclusion in a project that relies on citations from reliable sources. I won't close this RFQ as I recognize others may disagree but this does not actually seem the sort of thing that needs a comment. The source says "there is reliable evidence" - without actually stating what it is. Just because a source uses the word "reliable" does not mean it can be included here. It calls a specific group of individuals "miscreants", which is generally considered a pejorative and does not bode well for this being a neutral, balanced source. (I'm not saying it isn't based solely on that.) Further, by the use of a pronoun ("miscreants") rather than specifically naming a group, the source is vague about what group is accused of the actions specified; the quote put in the article specifically named the group, which was not at all supported by the source. All of this sidesteps the issue of whether or not there is a copyright violation when the information is simply copied and pasted, but...I think copyright is only one problem among several here. Rewording to avoid copyright doesn't solve the underlying issues with the source and the conclusions drawn from that source.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

*keep because this article is one side of the story. It says things like India entered the war to save the abuses. Views from all belligerents have to be covered in this topic. I have also started discussion on Indian motives for this war. I wish to complete that discussion as well. It is neutral to have this section in this topic with this source. I request everyone to find more sources for this side of the story as well. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked for sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And as soon as you find a reliable source which says Indian intervention was not what stopped the genocide we can put that viewpoint in. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is a primary source and can only be used for a direct quote, which is already in the Pakistani government reaction section. The content was not removed it it's entirety. There are very few sources which discuss atrocities carried out by the rebels, certainly not enough for an entire section. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not changed my opinion. I will see in my library for more sources. Commission is a nice source so I will vote for including that. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

...except this is WP:NOTAVOTE; it's a discussion about inclusion based on WP:POLICY.  Frank  |  talk  15:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is not about balance in the article, nor is it about whether the atrocities were committed or not. I have no comment on either of those points. What this discussion is about is whether or not the info in the edit I removed can be kept as it was. It clearly violated WP:RS and WP:SYNTH at the very least, and probably runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY as well, although that is perhaps debatable. If you believe it somehow meets policy for inclusion, please cite the relevant policies. However, if you just want to include "the other side of the story" - that's a different matter and not for this discussion. I would say on that point to find suitable sources and add the info to the article. My objection and my removal of the content are not based on the position the edit advanced, but rather that the information does not meet guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. If material can be found which says something similar - and meets guidelines - that's a different story.  Frank  |  talk  15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

For more reliable sources, go to Google, pull down the top menu and select "Books" to search for books allowing reader viewing of content, and then search them for the terms: Mukti Bahini rape. I found some secondary sources that appear reliable: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and many others. If you can't find reliable sources on Websites using Google, you can use the Google drop-down menu to search in Books. OttawaAC (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep material (but not a devoted section) - (from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot) - The government report is important, and its contents need to be summarized in this article. So, 1 or 2 sentences on the reports about the MB are appropriate. However, any allegations/claims/facts from the report need to be clearly identified as from the report, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The sources do not appear to support an entire section devoted to the MB rebels. If several reliable secondary sources can be found (preferably scholarly sources: historians, etc) which explicitly connect the rebels with rape during the war, then perhaps a section could be justified. See WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY SOURCE. First, though, quotes from those secondary sources should be provided here on the Talk page so other editors can view and validate. Links alone (as provided above) are a good start, but on a contentious issue, per WP:BURDEN, the editors who want to include material should provide quotes from the sources, not just links. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep An article in compliance with NPOV requires all viewpoints to be presented, with attribution. Wikipedia does not decide what or what should not be presented, it puts across all points on a topic and attribute them to the source. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is an independent inquiry by the government of Pakistan which investigates the incident and narrates the events as per the view of the government, so as such, its inclusion is notable. There are numerous other sources howeverm that discuss rape used as a tool by the Mukti Bahini rebels, so this should not by any means be considered the only authoritative source on the issue. Mar4d (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Remove First, the source is primary. We need to see secondary sources that can view the report critically and validate its findings (there are excellent reasons why primary sources are not used on wikipedia). Second, a government commission investigating a war that went badly for that country (to put it mildly) is not really something we should be treating as the gospel truth. Pending reliable secondary sources, this material should not be in the article at all. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove. Vide regentspark above. AshLin (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would say keep with attribution. It is important to present all significant views per NPOV, and this seems like the Pakistani view. Alongside this material, it can of course be noted that the commission may not be very reliable. And yes there will probably have to be a section on this, since it can't be classified under Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Pakistani_Army_actions.VR _talk 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I think this RFC should be relisted to get an apparently more clear consensus or requested for a close since one of the opposing editors objected on my adding this with attribution. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• From what I see here is a consensus for the changes I already made, Vice regent says keep the content with attribution, this is already done as explained at the start of the RFC. Noleander also appears to be of the opinion that the changes I already made to include the content are enough. Frank is of the opinion it ought not be in the article at all, though I see he has made no objection to the edits I made to include the content, so I think I can assume he is not opposed to my edit. RegentsPark & AshLin are of the opinion the content has no place in the article, due to the source being primary. Perhaps they could comment on the edit I made to include the content? Mar4d says keep, it is of course already mentioned in the article, does he also mean keep a section which will never be more than a few lines? Highstakes00 makes no valid points at all, his view may as well be discounted. Overall I see a consensus for the content in the article as it currently stands based on the edits I did before this RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any independent sources that make the same allegations? Or, at least, is it the official position of Pakistan that the Mukti Bahini were responsible for rape? If not, I still don't agree with its inclusion. NPOV does not mean that we include every piece of information just for the sake of balance and information from a single primary source is completely meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at point 4 of the rfc you will see I added two academic sources which say the MB carried out rapes after the conflict, that was all I was able to find. I found none which discuss MB abuses during the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see those. But, the second source says "according to general Niazi" which is not really usable. One would, for example, want to know whether General Niazi is quoting the same report. I'll take a look at the first source and comment here again in a couple of days.--regentspark (comment) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the gerlach source and it is much clearer. Gerlach says that, in addition to the certainty that Pakistani forces raped Bengali women, there is evidence that Razakars raped Bengali women (though, since the razakars were pro-Pakistani Bengalis, that is probably included in the pakistani part itself) and also by Bengali men on non-Bengali women. He also says that Mukti Bahini independence fighters raped non-Bengali women in Dacca especially just after victory. (all this on page 157). It appears that non-Bengali women were systematically raped starting in March all the way till after the war ("frequent and sometimes public" according to Gerlach). All this seems well documented enough for a separate sub section. --regentspark (comment) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(out)I have no objection to a section on MB abuses providing it will be more that a few lines. Those two sources are all I have found so far. The RC report cannot be used in such a section as it belongs where I put it, it Pakistani government response section. I will try to find more sources and see what I can manage to write, is that ok with you? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is vald. your point is not valid. want it to censor. Commission say it mukti bahini was responsible so article will say this --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the opening statements of this RFC? Or look at the diffs provided? The content is not only still in the article I expanded upon it, there are no censorship here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have study it. you should not hide Pakistani commission view. --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just wrote? It is already in the article, how exactly is it hidded? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Remove - but the subject does warrant further exploration. I have to query the validity of the source and it's use - but not the nature of the claims made. The language in the report uses tenses and language that indicate progression over time from within the war to afterwards - indicating that the use of rape was ongoing and did not stop with a cease fire. It also links into known ethnic issues and atrocities linked to the complexity of India/E' Pakistan/Bangladesh traced back to the 1947 partition. The Mukti Bahini were acting as agents of the Indian Army and were trained by them. Due to time frames this raises certain none apparent legal issues linked to the Indian "The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958" - which allowed army and militia to act with impunity, and they even do so today - and as a result rape has been and is an issue by any groups covered. The Indian legal position allows rape to be used as a control measure in what has been described as a "Riot Culture". To none involved and immersed individuals the links would not be apparent and do warrant further exploration and consideration of more valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep material (but not a devoted section) - (from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot) per Noleander. - A government report is worth including, if only with a short summary, but its allegations/claims/facts should be clearly identified as from the report, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This appears to be what you have in the Pakistani government reaction section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Remove any material cited against primary sources as OR, remove such sources any material cited against material meeting the WP:HISTRS criteria for sourcing in historical articles should stay. The interpretation of primary sources for historical information is the work and profession of historians; the work and profession of encyclopaedists is reporting the results of historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No interpretation is being made from the source, the result is being quoted and all views are being presented as they are. If an interpretation is to be made, a secondary analysis will be quoted along side. The source is appropriate to quote just what the commission pointed out. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Garbage. Selection of quotes from a primary source is an implicit acknowledgement that that source has WEIGHT in the matter. This is a historical article, and government reports are not the source or fount of history, scholarly works are. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The usage here does not contradict WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which is an actual content guideline unlike WP:HISTRS. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• How many times is this RFC going to get relisted? This is the third one. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (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.

Source problem

The following passage is problematic:

Estimates of those raped vary from two hundred thousand[32] to four hundred thousand.[46] However according to Dr. Geoffrey Davis who had been requested to go to the region by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood Federation the number was probably much higher.

First, Davis didn't say the real figures were "much higher"; he said the official figures were "probably [...] very conservative", i.e. he was denying the real figures were lower. But, what is worse for our context, he didn't say which official figures he was comparing things against. The source currently cited [18], by one "Anushay Hossain, Contributor" at Forbes Magazine, is an unreliable op-ed which is quoting Davis second hand. The actual, direct source, which provides the full text of the interview and which ought to have been quoted instead, is this one [19]. The context is:

• [question:] Numerous documents from Pakistan still suggest that the number of rapes had been grossly exaggerated. Do you think that’s true?
• [answer by Davis:] No. Probably the numbers are very conservative compared with what they did.

Nothing in this exchange tells us exactly which set of figures either Davis or his interviewer were thinking about. Did Davis mean the 200,000 figure was very conservative? Or the 400,000 figure? Or some other figure he might have been familiar with? We don't know. It is only the author of the second-hand source, Anushay Hossain, who adds the interpretative summary that Davis was making this comparison against commonly assumed figures of "200-400,000".

It is incorrect to summarize this as Davis saying that the figures were even higher (let alone "much higher") than even the upper bound of the previously mentioned estimates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone says the figures touted are very conservative I see no issue with paraphrasing it as he believe they were much higher, which is what the opposite to very conservative would be. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't get the main point. The point is: higher than what? Davis didn't say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I get it, bit of an issue indeed. I believe 200,000 is the most commonly accepted number, with 400,000 being the highest estimate. Naturally we cannot do a lot with that as it would be OR. We can only go with what Davis said, he believed that the of the figures mentioned they were probably higher. BTW where has the little box which usually sits near the top which links sections gone? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I like your fix, except nobody knows the real numbers, should we but estimated instead? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've tried a rewording. I've also removed the following quote. Mr Davis account about how he personally felt while working there really doesn't add much to the article. Also, his comparison to the "Lebensborn" is pretty off-topic and in fact misleading (the Lebensborn programme was nothing of the kind implied here; inserting a reference to that myth in this article rather diverts from the strength of the actual facts reported here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits thus far have been pretty good, Re the "Lebensborn" thing, I had assumed he meant it in the myth way, but I agree with it being removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian intervention

Per my comment at the FAC, the true motives of Indian intervention as explained in the lead are disputed. I will quote my comment from there for convenience. I propose removing the sentence as it is factually inaccurate and plain historical revisionism.

Comment The lead of the article says that the abuses were stopped "only by the intervention of Indian armed forces". However, this is factually disputed. According to Thomas George Weiss, "at no time did India claim a right of humanitarian intervention but rather insisted that it had used military force in self-defense." So even while references were made to human rights, India's primary motive of entering the war was not to stop human rights violations, but for what it perceived as military defense. Further quotes:

In a debate that involved more than half of the UN's member states, few (essentially the Soviet Union and its allies) accepted that the circumstances actually justified India's claimed use of force in self-defense, and not a single country argued that India had a right to intervene militarily to rescue the beleagured Bengalis. Although India had not expressly invoked a right to intervene for humanitarian reasons, the countries participating in the debate were well aware of claims of mass murder, even of genocide, in East Pakistan. Except for the Soviet bloc countries, other states chose to ignore the well-founded claims concerning human rights violations. Many countries emphasised the importance of non-intervention. New Delhi portrayed itself as a bystander to events, one that used military force reluctantly and in self-defense. Most states were not prepared to accept the argument. That a weakened Pakistan was in India's strategic interest was lost on no one, nor was the fact that India's assistance to the Mukti Bahini over many months had considerably strengthened their fighting capacity against the Pakistani army. Moreover, heavy fighting actually made the refugee situation significantly worse.

— Thomas George Weiss (2005), Military-Civilian Interactions: Humanitarian Crises And The Responsibility To Protect, p. 183

Also note: When civil tensions erupted (prior to the war), India began supporting Mukti Bahini, providing them safe haven on its territory and giving them aid, as well as air cover through the Indian Air Force. Border incidents multiplied as India became more and more involved, each side accusing the other of violations. Pakistan bombed Indian air bases on 3rd December to disable the Indian Air Force. It was after this episode that India became involved. So human rights violations are not the reason for intervention.

Mar4d (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• India's intervention in the 71 war was not to provide peace but to break up Pakistan and that is very obvious. The motive stated in the lead is Indian POV and should be removed right away. The discussion of the motive belongs to the main war article and there too it should be stated as India's claim of entering the war and not as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also clear that the international community was well-aware of this. Furthermore, India has itself admitted that it did not enter the war for humanitarian plight, but for military purposes. The sentence actually bears hallmarks of WP:COATRACK. Mar4d (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be right to say that India entered the war on the pretext of humanitarian aid, but then the actual motive should also be mentioned. Better to simply remove the motive from here, the article will have no loss as it does not cover that. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article dies not say India intervened on humanitarian grounds, you are raising a straw man Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"'The abuses were only stopped by the intervention of the Indian armed forces..." << really? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the sources, yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So now you agree that India claims to have intervened on the humanitarian grounds? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with D.S. to a limited extent: the statement "X was stopped by action Y" does not logically entail that "action Y was performed with the goal of X". However, and here I partly agree with TG, it does create an implicature to that effect, and as such it may be problematic. I also question why that statement has to be in the lead in the first place. The point to be made in the lead is that the abuses stopped only when the war ended. Why the war ended at the time it did, and what the role of the Indian intervention was in that, is not directly relevant to the narrative of the abuses as such. However, on the basis of the literature already cited (e.g. the Wheeler book has a whole chapter about the India/Pakistan situation, far more substantial than whatever he is saying on the cited page 13 in the introduction; cf. also the Weiss source cited above), there would be plenty of material for a whole section further down, seriously discussing to what extent and in what ways the human rights abuses were either the true reason or the declared motive in India's intervention. (In this context I should also remind people that it remains necessary to stay focussed on the nominal topic of the article: it is supposed to be about rape, not about human rights abuses in general. Saying that India may have intervened to stop human rights abuses is one thing; discussing what part in that was played specifically by the reports about rape is another.) By the way, the third source cited currently in the article (Zaman 2007, Broken limbs...) is of much lower quality than the others and should be left out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add "it might not necessarily entail as such" to your first argument.. but the point remains that it also brings forward a suggestion about India's motive and that is a wrong implication. It shouldn't even be here... discussion of motive for war is not really for this article, not to mention lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to add "necessarily" to "entail", because "necessarily" is precisely, well, entailed by "entail". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, yeah, I'm fasting and exhausted.. forgive the poor semantics. I should have focused on "might not". Edited. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, four more hours and a half to go? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! It's a ~16 hour day, and Monsoon's some what ineffective at day. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Darkness Shines. Why the war and abuses ended per the sources is of relevance to the article. We have the same on Second World War i. e.: "The total victory of the Allies over the Axis in 1945 ended the conflict." JCAla (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ended the conflict" is something different. This one gives the implication that the intention was to stop the alleged abuses, that was not really India's motive. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Indian prime minister Indira Ghandi ("Shall we sit and watch their women get raped?") it was. But for this discussion the intention behind the intervention doesn't matter, what matters is the de facto consequence of the intervention as described by the sources. JCAla (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The intention is being implied by the wording that is not of any other use anyway and is obviously suspected as deliberate POV,,, and that's the topic of discussion. I know about the Indian prime minister's statement; that's Indian POV. Read the comments above. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read them. I don't necessarily agree with them. Saying i. e. "India's intervention ended the war, stopped the abuses and let to the secession of East Pakistan" is a de facto statement if that is what reliable sources univocally say. The specific sentence is therefore indeed of use for the reader to understand when and why those abuses (topic of the article) stopped. How they ended is just as an integral part as why and when they began. JCAla (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WE have academic sources which say the abuses were only stopped after military intervention, that is not a pov, it is a fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mine and Mar4d's concerns have not been addressed by any one other than FP who acknowledged the issue it presents. If India wanted to enter the war on the claim of stopping "abuses", fine... say that, as India's claim. If you've to say that the abuses stopped as a result of war, that is fine too... say that without implying India's motive. If you can discuss on those lines present a rephrase here. If you can not, I don't think you've cleared WP:BURDEN for this. If there's no agreement on a rephrase, start an RFC on how to include this without POV implications. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not fucking Indian, they are western academic publishers, your removal of well sourced content and edit warring against cinsensus us disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Present them here and follow up the discussion instead of being uncivil.. that's what you should do when reverted. As for the previous implication from the sentence, I've addressed it in detail. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know if you are aware of it, but Fut.Perf. already addressed the perceived problem.[20] Both DS and me agreed with the change. As such this version stands as the last stable. JCAla (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of it and he too pointed out what could be a problem. The version you reverted to is POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are removing content sourced to western academic publishers with the spurious claim that they are "Indian POV". You have come to this article and caused massive disruption based on your own beliefs, you have not cited a single source which gives a reason for why the abuses were stopped. Either provide reliable academic sources which support your contention or leave the article alone. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Mukti Bahini

The RFC was started on this version of the content and the consensus was to keep it with attribution. Self revert and do not revert again without getting consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was keep with attribution, it is already in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on the version I added. And it is not already in the article. None of the city names and the facts are mentioned else where. The version on which the RFC started was the one I added. If you move it without changing the consensus again, I'll report you.--lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the rfc was based on the rfc I started it is already in the Pakistan reaction section. And I will remove it as there is no consensus for the addition Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately you specifically said "There is currently a section in this article on the Mukti Bahini rebels which is sourced to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission which is a primary source. Should this be used as it is being currently used to make statements of fact."

The RFC concluded in favour of inclusion with attribution. The section you were talking about was definitely the one I added. Reverting after RFC closure will get you a block.. and you've already done it a few times. lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No the RFC is close with attribution, which is already in the article. I have already clarified this with the closing admin, [21] "I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage" There is no consensus for your addition and more than one editor has removed it in the past. It adds nothing to the article and is not going to stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The closer does not tell you to revert the content out in the clarification. He said the consensus is to keep with attribution and you can discuss and work out details. I did not stop you from discussion, however, reverting out content is against consensus. Also note that I can only respond to your comments when I edit the wiki, not when I'm offline. That's not a justification to revert to your favoured version either. I've already addressed your objection and the content is per RFC. I've nothing more to say to this now. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I've re-read the RfC several times and I still have trouble understanding how it was closed with "It appears there is a consensus to keep the material with attribution". Well, actually I do understand it (it was closed by Beeblebrox who always closes/comments/adjudicates EVERY QUESTION about sources, text, info with a "keep but attribute" notion, even when this doesn't make sense or violates WP:UNDUE)). I don't really see a consensus to keep and my sense is that Darkness Shines original intuition to remove the section was the correct one. The scale of the two events (rapes by Pakistani army and pro-Pakistnai militias vs. rapes by some independence paramilitaries) was of a completely different magnitude and a lot of this is an exercise in a POV moral equivalence. And of course this very controversial and undue text is based on biased - perhaps unreliable - sources. In a way you can't have both: you can have questionable and primary sources if the topic isn't controversial or undue, or you can have a controversial and undue topic but then you use only high quality sources. So perhaps revisiting that RfC is in order.VolunteerMarek 01:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that the close has me flummoxed, particularly because it seems to say that it is perfectly alright to use primary sources to support statements in an article (not to mention the reliance on readers to judge and weigh sources). The approval of the use of the primary source is also puzzling given that there appear to be reliable secondary sources on the same material, and that it is easy to rewrite it without reference to the Pakistani Government. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement in Background

The statement that there were no military units in East Pakistan during 1965 war is factually wrong as multiple source state the presence of troops, besides the cut off thing is also dubious. I invite editors for discussion as this issue was ignored before. --SMS ^Talk 09:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to this -

But when the 1965 war against India started East Pakistan was totally cut off for 17 days from any military help from West Pakistan.

— Salahuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh: Past and Present, p.157

I hope that this clarifies all your doubts. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this does not address it. He did not contest the cutting off of the two wings... he contested the statement saying there were no units in the east. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He said,"the cut off thing is also dubious." It would be great if you can provide a source which says that there was a unit, because the article already has an offline source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some mis-confusion. The source says that "none of Pakistan's forces were assigned to defend it [East Pakistan]". Following WP:BOLD, I have remove the tag and rephrased the line so that its matches with what is written in the source. I hope that everybody is comfortable with that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have expanded upon it and added further academic sources. hopefully this can now be put to rest. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have already linked to the previous discussion where I did provide source, take time to read it. There was more than 1 regular division force of Pakistan Army, at least 2 squadrons of air force at Dhaka and Chittagong and East Pakistan Rifles, a paramilitary force deployed at the border, (not counting Navy). Pakistan Air Force launched multiple offensive operations from the East Pakistan bases notably at Kalaikunda. (FYI it is stated by multiple historians that Pakistan never perceived a full war with India in 1965, but a limited scale fight in Kashmir. So naturally force was concentrated there. West Pakistan's western border was more unguarded than the East Pakistan.)

About the "cut off" thing, yes it is dubious as two entities thousand kilometer apart are already cut off, so it needs to be clarified how it was cut off, for an ignorant reader, who doesn't know much about the region. Besides this argument is equally vague even if clarified, as West Pakistan had no role in the "cut off". --SMS ^Talk 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The troops you mention were already there. The sources say the west deployed no troops to the region during the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were already there deployed by respective headquarters which were in West Pakistan, so saying that East Pakistan was left defenseless with no units assigned is like writing the history again, with new facts. --SMS ^Talk 13:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, they were stationed there, that is a bit different to troop deployment. WE have academic sources which say Pakistan assigned to extra units to the Easts defense and we use what those reliable sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we have to say the facts and and avoid mentioning concocted reasons for Bengalis' grievances that conflict the ground realities. --SMS ^Talk 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And now you are saying western academic publishers "concoct things" Tell me, were is your academic source which says the people of Bangladesh were not pissed of with the west for being left almost defenseless? We use what the sources say, present your sources which present an alternative view of the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the exact wording that the dispute concerns?VolunteerMarek 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This "The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the East was cut off from the West within an hour of the start of the war, as the military assigned no units to the defense of the region.[9] The official Pakistani strategy at the time was that the defense of the east lay in the west. This was a matter of concern to the Bengalis who saw their nation undefended in case of Indian attack during the conflict of 65.[10][11]" Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

as the military assigned no units to the defense of the region - given that there were military units stationed there I agree that this wording is misleading and should be rewritten.VolunteerMarek 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What is your suggestion, we add "extra" Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Something like that. Maybe change "assigned" to "deployed no new units". It does seem like the lack of precision in the statement is part of what is causing the problem. I think the second and third sentences in the quoted portion though are appropriate and necessary. The phrase "defense of the east lay in the west" appears in a number of sources AFAICR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues with that suggestion. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help "The outcome of the 1965 war had significant consequences for the future of Pakistan's security and territorial integrity. The Pakistani leadership had long adhered to the belief that "the defense of the East lay in the West." Consequently during the 1965 war it had expended little effort to protect East Pakistan. The fact that East Pakistan had been spared the rigors of war was solely due to the Indian leadership's decision not to extend thew war there. This was not lost on the Bengali political leaders of East Pakistan. The neglect of East Pakistan's security intensified a mounting resentment against Islamabad's historic pattern of economic and social discrimination against the Bengalis." Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can add what User:JCAla removed (without giving any reason) and that Pakistan had 7 divisions at Western Front and 1 at Eastern, while India had 10 divisions on Western border and none at Eastern (Source: [22]). --SMS ^Talk 23:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? This is not about the war. Who cares what was stationed there? The sources say the East was pissed with the West for not deploying troops to defend the region. And they did not, did they? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this is not about the war, that is why I am asking for a single sentence to be added for the context. Anybody reading the grievances will assume that East Pakistan was left completely defenseless and there was not a single solider there. So its best not to leave our readers assuming and give them complete information. Going by your interpretation of deployment, they even didn't deploy any troops for the West Pakistan itself. --SMS ^Talk 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So you will be content with the existing edit if we put "Although Pakistan had one division stationed in the East" existing text after that? Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this will be good: "The outcome of the 1965 war had significant consequences for the future of Pakistan's security and territorial integrity. The Pakistani leadership had long adhered to the belief that "the defense of the East lay in the West." Consequently during the 1965 war it had expended little effort to protect East Pakistan. Although Pakistan had one division stationed in the East, while India had no force at the East. The fact that East Pakistan had been spared the rigors of war was solely due to the Indian leadership's decision not to extend thew war there. But according to Boobli George Verghese, India didn't attack East Pakistan to avoid crushing the Bengali National movement that was in its early phase. This was not lost on the Bengali political leaders of East Pakistan. The neglect of East Pakistan's security intensified a mounting resentment against Islamabad's historic pattern of economic and social discrimination against the Bengalis." --SMS ^Talk 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be a copyright violation. I will propose some text later today. 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about some other issue

(edit conflict)Well, Volunteer Marek (if your a dispute resolver), I'm new to this. In this article, as far as I can tell, a group of Pakistani POV-warriors seem to be inserting text purporting to show moral equivalence of the major (internationally documented and condemned) genocide and rape of the Pakistani army with the piddling retaliation by the Bangladeshis after the Pakistanis were routed by the Indians in 1971. To insert manifestly false content, they are both content-blanking other editors' edits and using a primary source, a white paper issued by a Pakistani-government appointed commission for their own edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a separate issue, one which I already commented on above in regard to the RfC. I do agree that there is a bit of moral-equivalence POV pushing going on. On the other hand, it is my understanding that most of the rapes and war crimes were committed by pro-Pakistani paramilitary groups within Bangladesh, not by the Pakistani army itself (though with their more or less direct approval). I'll try looking at this in more detail when i have a bit more time.VolunteerMarek 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is terribly wrong, read any of the sources in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. There are several reliable secondary sources that confirm that the Pakistani Army was directly responsible for raping women during the BLW. There are also reliable secondary sources, but far fewer in number, attesting that the Mukti Bahini raped non-Bengali women at the end of the war. --regentspark (comment) 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know what the exact brake down between Pakistani army and pro-Pakistani Bengali militias is, but sources do definitely put the blame on both (for example [23]). A lot of sources I've seen in the past put more emphasis on the razakar militias, perhaps exactly because they were "native".VolunteerMarek 20:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the majority of the abuses were carried out by the Pakistani army as part of a systematic campaign of terror. All the sources say this, including the one you just referred to which I have used as a citation in this article. See page154 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't access page 154 online so I'll have to take a walk down to the library. At any rate, as long as the article makes it clear that BOTH the Pakistani Army and the pro-Pakistani militias were responsible, I don't see a reason to press this further at this point.VolunteerMarek 20:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that in this particular instance I am referring here to pro-Pakistani militias, like Al-Badr, not the Mukti Bahini).VolunteerMarek 20:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

F&F, I inserted the Mukti bahini contribution to the incidents in the lead (which is a summary of what the article says). It is not undue in anyway judging by the number of people affected, both attributed and unattributed which makes it unaffected by the previous dispute too. As for calling other editors POV warriors, this is the last time you are doing this. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It was already in the lede, you just duplicated it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that was something else; details. This line was defining what the scope was and who the perpetrators were. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You did not even read it did you. "Rape and other atrocities were also carried out by the rebel militia raised by the independence movement and India. Called the Mukti Bahini (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army"), they targeted the Bihari ethnic group as well as those they thought gave aid to the Pakistani forces" That is what I added a few days[24] ago to appease the POV pushers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, and what I added does not duplicate it. Maybe it's not very elegant at the moment, but the first line was defining who all were involved. If you want you can suggest a rephrase of the full lead to be discussed here, after all it's what's already in the article and shouldn't need another dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

?????????????? You added "and the opposing Mukti Bahini fighters which were supported by Indian Army."[25] So you think that is not duplication????????????????? Or you think the rebels were so bad they ought be mentioned twice in the lede????????????????????????????????? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh... the current lede most certaintly does duplicate the same sentence/info twice. Removing it. Even once may be undue. Even if it is not undue it is written in a very POV way, by suggesting that the responsibility for the "hundreds of thousands of men, women and children (who) were raped" was evenly split between Pakistani military/the militias and the Mukti Bahini fighters, which wasn't the case.VolunteerMarek 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not say that it was evenly split, it says that these were the different sides involved and later explains who did what and at what intensity. If you want to use the current sentence, it should be moved up with the starting line in a way that first mentions all the perpetrators and then continues to the details. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, that would be misleading as the info after the first sentence is referring explicitly to rapes committed by the Pakistani army and the pro-Pakistani militias, not the Mukti Bahini.VolunteerMarek 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That can only happen if you do it with disregard to the sentence structure. The article should list the perpetrators in the first line and then details of each respectively. There can't be any confusion in that when things are specified. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The evenly split or moral equivalency suggestion is implicitly there. I'd suggest a simpler version, a single sentence tacked on to the end of the first paragraph. Along the lines of "The Mukti Bahini, the Bangladesh liberation forces, were also complicit in rape, particularly of non-Bengali women, at the end of the war."--regentspark (comment) 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Like this you mean[26] It is already done a few days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

With that you mean to suggest that the main scope of the article is the crimes by Pakistani military and the abuses by Mukti Bahini are just something on the side, that's coatrack as the title of the article is rape during Bangladesh Liberation War, not Rape by Pakistan army during Bangladesh Liberation War. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a question of weight TG. The Pakistani Army were, according to reliable sources, the principle perpetrators. The Mukti Bahini were, again according to reliable sources, not as complicit. The text already includes a section on Mukti Bahini, so this is not something that is 'just on the side' nor does it make this a coat track. --regentspark (comment) 20:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a problem if they were the main perpetrators, the problem is with the fact that the other perpetrators are being not covered in the lead as they should be in the scope of the article in the article's introduction (and scope), which in this case, is being given in the very first line with the next line covering the rest of the summary. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why was this (With the withdrawal of the Pakistani army the Mukti Bahini also carried out rapes and other atrocities) [27] removed? I can't find anywhere else, information about Mukti Bahini's crimes after withdrawl... or some one should point out to me. Also the other edits in the same section, which apparently changed nothing, have worsened the grammar. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Minar-e-pakistan edit

Minar-e-pakistan blocked as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[28] Is patently false, a commission was established and people are currently being tried for these crimes. It is in the article for Christs sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Bangladesh government did nothing for 40 years. No compensation, no trails. No even if trails are going on, this fact is relevant. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Excuse me? What do you think these are International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) War Crimes Fact Finding Committee Your source is out of date, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) My book of 2009 and not old. Any government can set up tribunal decades after war. Lot of victims are dead most uncompensated. Setting up a tribunal does not change fact. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC) God how I hate having to argue with so obvious a sock. You wrote "However, Bangladesh government itself has made no efforts to address sexual crimes against women in 1971." This is obviously not true anymore is it. Self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I hate having to argue with rape specialists too. I can add "for 40 years". It is fact cannot be denied. Also efforts are not just setting up tribunal. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC) No you cannot, unless of course you have a source which states such and is published after the tribunals began. Looks like I will have to remove it then. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Predominantly Urdu-speaking"

DS has removed the "contradictory" tag here. It's only a minor matter, but it is in fact contradictory to say in that sentence that the west was "predominantly Urdu-speaking", when the next paragraph says that "only 4% of Pakistan's population spoke Urdu". Unless the West as such made up for less than about 8% of the total population of both parts together, these two statements can't both be true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that refers to the politicians, I will double check when I get home tonight. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I could try to explain the seeming contradiction. The clue lies in the phrase "at the time." In 1947, it is quite possible that only 4% of Pakistanis spoke Urdu, the language of the Delhi region in India (and also of the United Provinces). It was very much spoken though; in fact, two of the major 20th century poets of Urdu, Allama Iqbal and Faiz Ahmad Faiz were from regions that later became parts of Pakistan. (Perhaps they mean that 4% were "native speakers of the language.") After Urdu was declared the national language by Jinnah in 1947, a massive Urdu-education program was undertaken in West Pakistan,. As a result, most Pakistanis today can speak Urdu, though it is often not their mother-tongue. In their homes, they might speak Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, ..., but they learn Urdu in school and from the popular media. This makes Urdu the lingua franca. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fowler is correct. The statements are not contradictory because they're talking about two different points in time. In 1947, only a small proportion of Pakistani's were Urdu speakers but, by 1971, the situation had changed. --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

May not be contradictory but it is confusing. "Urdu-speaking" can mean native speaker of Urdu or people who can speak Urdu. Both are different and its the first one which are usually referred as "Urdu-speaking". I think a little more explanation should be added to avoid this confusion. --SMS ^Talk 04:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Or, preferably, the whole section should be cut down. It's all WP:COATRACK material in this article anyway. We don't need the full story of the backgrounds and reasons of the war here; that's why we have main articles and sub-articles. This here is only a sub-article and it should concentrate on its nominal topic and leave the general background to where it belongs, at Bangladesh Liberation War. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Giving a background to the reader, to help him get a clue is NOT coatrack. --DBigXray 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

FPOS makes a good point. I'm not sure why the urdu or non-urdu speaking nature of Pakistan is central to the discussion of rape during the Bangladesh war. It might merit a comment in an article on the war itself, but here? --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A lengthy explanation could be confusing in the main text. It could be moved into a Template:Refn note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No he does not, he cites an essay so he can remove content? this is context which is needed to provide a full background on how this all came to happen. I see no reason to remopve it and every reason to keep it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source?

The text in the Background section saying that Jinnah called anyone supporting Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state is cited from Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts which further cites it from this opinion based article, which I don't think is a reliable source. --SMS ^Talk 04:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is cited from a reliable secondary academic source, so yes it is reliable as the academic source believes it to be so. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI. --SMS ^Talk 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Support for assertions that Jinnah considered Urdu to be the State language of Pakistan and considered advocates of Bengali to be enemies of Pakistan, communists, and traitors can be found at

• Amy B.M. Tsui; James W. Tollefson (2006), Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts, Taylor & Francis, p. 245, ISBN 978-0-8058-5693-4
• Braj B. Kachru; Yamuna Kachru; S. N. Sridhar (2008), Language in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, p. 138, ISBN 978-0-521-78141-1

and probably elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wtmitchell for providing the sources. The first source you gave is already disputed at the RSN. The second source only quotes Jinnah as saying "it is for you, the people of this province, to decide what shall be the language of your provinve. But let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan", as much as I find, which I think can't be used to source the statement in the article. --SMS ^Talk 01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have Jinnah's actual speech from which the text in question was concluded by Manik, I think it should be attributed at least to Manik. Besides Jinnah didn't called anyone who supported Bengali but one who supported Bengali as State language. --SMS ^Talk 01:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for attribution, it is cited to a reliable secondary source. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And the last person to comment on the RSN board seems to agree with my assessment. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it should be attributed to the the author of this opinion or not, is a content issue, which was not (can't be) discussed at RSN. It is clearly opinion of the author to interpret it like this, it can be interpreted in other ways too. Though this issue in the article should be a summary but it should be neutral and for that we need to add what did he meant by saying, which he himself did by giving the example of America in the same speech. Otherwise the content is presented like this as if Jinnah was against Bengali, which he was not. --SMS ^Talk 17:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"if Jinnah was against Bengali, which he was not" Your OR is of no interest to me, the source is reliable, attribution is not required. Let it go. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I can't let this article to be a POV ground of falsely presented sources. --SMS ^Talk 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. which source is falsely presented? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This speech of Jinnah is falsely presented. --SMS ^Talk 19:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Erm, no. We do not use primary sources on Wikipedia. We use reliable secondary sources which have interpreted those sources for us. If you do not like the policy feel free to go change it. Until then we will use the reliable sources and we will use what those sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of a morbid curiosity, which part do you think is misrepresented? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This: "He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state". --SMS ^Talk 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Here are the excerpts from the speech which you seem to have missed. "Quite frankly and openly I must tell you that you have got amongst you a few communists and other agents financed by foreign help and if you are not careful, you will be disrupted." "But let me make it very clear to you that the State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan." "you have fifth columnists --and I am sorry to say they are Muslims --who are financed by outsiders. But they are making a great mistake. We are not going to tolerate sabotage any more; we are not going to tolerate the enemies of Pakistan; we are not going to tolerate quislings and fifth-columnists in our State, and if this is not stopped, I am confident that your Government and the Pakistan Government will take the strongest measures and deal with them ruthlessly, because they are a poison" So, are you still sure he did not say these things? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not saying he did not say this, read my above comments again or read the speech completely to understand what I mean. --SMS ^Talk 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to read it again, the context in which he said those things is quite clear. As I have stated, it is a primary source, it cannot be used here. We have an academic source which does the job for us, now please just let it go. You failed on the RSN board and now you are trying to shoehorn a primary source into the article, it is not going to happen. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not a battleground where I failed, it was a constructive discussion at RSN and I left the venue after link to this speech was presented and I read it, after which it was out of the jurisdiction of RSN because it is a content issue now. And I say it again that you are presenting the sources as if Jinnah was against the Bengali language, whereas he was just against replacing the widely understandable language Urdu, that was declared state language with any other language. So first you need to attribute this statement to Manik per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, secondly you need to make it neutral by adding the other POV too. --SMS ^Talk 16:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you first tried to rubbish this source you have changed tack at every turn. First it was not an RS, then the academic who was cited was not an RS and now you think an academic source needs to be attributed because you do not like what it says about Jinnah? For the last time NO. The RSN board has said the source is solid. Jinnah said exactly what the source says he said. Just drop it already. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

POV

Actually almost the whole background section is POV. Two issue I have already identified, one about the a POV attributed to Jinnah and the other about 1965 war. The third being that there is no mention that Bengali was declared as State language along with Urdu in 1956 by a constitutional amendment. Yet the whole section portrays a particular point of view rather than NPOV. --SMS ^Talk 17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lmfao, so because you got it wrong over the source on Jinnah which BTW is spot on with what Jinnah said. You were also wrong about the 65 conflict, no extra troops were deployed at all. And it does not matter at all what happened in 56, because the section is about what caused the grievances which ultimately lead to conflict. Stop trying to shoehjorn in crap whic hhas no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There ya go[29] Not sure why you did not do that, we discussed it above. The rest you are wrong on, so tough. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by a POV pusher

Using a crap source and duplicating content already mentioned in the lede.[30] Another editor who thinks the actions of the rebels was so bad it needs to be mentioned twice. There is an obvious consensus[31] that the two cannot be equated, and to have the rebels mentioned in the first line violates WP:UNDUE Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment II

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.

---

I am responding to the request for closure left at WP:ANRFC. I see a weak consensus to use option two, the version without the list of towns. However, due to the low level of participation compared to the previous RfC, this close shouldn't be assumed to have any more weight than normal talkpage discussion. This close is not intended to stop editors from improving the wording of the material, and further discussion is encouraged. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

---

With the very ambiguous closure of the previous RFC a dispute has now sprung up over how the content should be presented. Two editors favor this edit

1. [32] "The Hamoodur Rahman Commission found Mukti Bahini rebels responsible for large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistani community at Dacca, Narayanganj, Chittagong, Chandragona, Rungamati, Khulna, Dinajpur, Dhakargaoa, Kushtia, Ishuali, Noakhali, sylhet, Maulvi Bazaar, Rangpur, Saidpur, Jessore, Barisal, Mymensingh, Rajshal, Pabna, Sirojgonj, Comilla, Brahman, Baria, Bogra, Naugaon, Santapur and other smaller areas." Others support the existing edit
2. [33] which is in the Pakistani government reaction section which reads "and that the Mukti Bahini rebels engaged in widespread rape and other human rights abuses"

Which edit ought be used?

1. with the list of towns, or
2. without the towns in the Pakistani government reaction section

Discussion

• 2 ought to be used. 1 is not even remotely encyclopedic and adds naught to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the RFC tag until you have something that was already not discussed and closed. You may not repeatedly open an RFC on the same thing until you get the consensus of your choice. In the Previous RFC you already asked the question: "There is currently a section in this article on the Mukti Bahini rebels which is sourced to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission which is a primary source. Should this be used as it is being currently used to make statements of fact." The consensus was summarized as to keep with attribution. There's no dispute left there and as far as I remember you even objected to tagging of RFC even in the interval when it was not closed. The closure is not ambiguous. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Secondly, you also already asked your second question, "I also used the Hamoodur Rahman Commission here[3] in the Pakistani government reaction section were I accredited the allegations to the report." in the previous RFC too and it was addressed with the same "keep (the section in dispute) with attribution". --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Never fucking do that again. I am pissed off enough with your disruption without you now reverting a valid RFC over this stupid dispute caused by you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Then come back when you've cleaned your tongue. Do not engage me into an uncivil discussion again. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think further discussion on this issue is definitely warranted. Note also that this RfC is asking about more specific and detailed issues. My thoughts on this are that:
  1. I'm not seeing enough to warrant a separate section, other than the already existing "Pakistani government reaction"
  2. Readers are not going to know what the Hamoodur Rahman Commission was, so proper attribution requires that it's clear that it was a Pakistani government commission.
  3. The towns/districts should NOT be listed per WP:Primary and WP:UNDUE. For comparison were we to list every single place where the Pakistani army and the pro-Pakistani militias committed atrocities you'd have to more or less list almost every single place in Bangladesh. VolunteerMarek 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

About your first point, that was already asked by DS in the previous RFC (as I quoted) and it was still kept. Second, the wikilink covers your issue and now you've added "Pakistani government" to it anyway (which is redundant). As for the last, we're not here to re discuss what was already covered in the previous discussion (you might not be a part of that, but RFCs are not generally reopened after a new users enters the discussion - esp. if called by one of the involved). Just now you say the crimes by pro-Pakistan militias were all over the area, but these were specific and thus need the detail. You would obviously not detail something that is in general, where as you would give the details of something that was not done in as much extent... or do you say now that they're equals? --lTopGunl (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What was "kept" is "material with attribution", not a separate section.

There is an obvious difference between having "Pakistani government" in the HRC article (behind a wikilink), and that fact being explicitly spelled out in THIS article. So no, it's not redundant.

I also see no previous discussion as to whether the individual towns/districts should be listed.VolunteerMarek 21:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Should there be a section on the Mukti Bahini?" << This is from the previous RFC too. Read that before you start on this. This is a habitual restart by DS on closed discussions to get consensus in his favour like he did elsewhere. I've asked the closer to comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the previous RFC was closed "keep material with attribution" not "keep section".VolunteerMarek 21:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to continue with how DS very specifically framed his RFC so as to not let me off on anything and got the taste of his own when the consensus was otherwise and that the section also is to be kept as a result of the discussion as material does not exclude anything out of the section including the heading, but how about saying it will seem very funny if we add the Mukti Bahini crimes under the general sections which appear to be about pro Pakistan forces. A section is meant to separate things that are different from the rest. This is what it is doing right here. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see this discussed on the talk page rather than through an RfC. In my experience, consensus determination through community input has become a mess on Wikipedia and local discussions usually do a much better job. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, in my experience local discussions often get bogged down in a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.VolunteerMarek 21:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rspark, Lets try talkpage consensus first. other forms of WP:DR can be tried later.--DBigXray 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• 2, obviously. I concur with Volunteer Marek. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rape against Biharis

The source only says that Bihari women were raped, not men, also the info should be only about the rapes as per the title.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The source says "In Chittagong thousands of men and women were bayoneted or raped" Do you think men cannot be raped? I expect you to remove your tag as it is obvious the sentence is supported by the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy source use and sloppy use of logic, again. Your sentence claimed that – according to Niazi's account – thousands of men and women were killed and raped – i.e. every single individual among those thousands was both raped and killed. That is clearly not what the source says, and it would be rather odd for Niazi to claim such a thing. The source says "men and women were bayoneted or raped". Worded like this, it doesn't imply anything about how each of these two fates was distributed across the two sexes. Given the fact that all the other sources cited in the article appear to be speaking only of women as the victims of rape, it would be a stretch to suppose that Niazi meant to specifically imply that in the Chittagong events sexual violence had also been directed against men. The far more likely reading is that he meant it as a simple shorthand way of saying that men were killed, and women were either killed or raped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in your interpretation as that is OR. It is more than plausible than men and women were raped and then killed, it happened a lot during that conflict. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with DS. Secondly the other editor is under 4RR. Faizan 14:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between "some" and "all", and that between "and" and "or". Look them up in a dictionary. Do you realize your sentence was not claiming that some men were raped, but that every man who was killed was also raped before, and that every woman who was raped was also killed? It's not OR to point out that this is simply the plain grammatical meaning of what you wrote, and it is not what the source says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• In addition, why don't you provide online sources (eg. Google Book preview)? I faced similar issue in Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 15:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Which policy says that sources need be online? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Most applicable this one! When previews are available in web why don't you add those in references? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Because I do not need to. GBooks are not always available in preview, I have copies of the majority of books used as sources in this article and other I have written. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I asked for a policy, not an essay. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Common sense is required to create policies, not the vice versa! It is common sense to add "available web pages" in citations so that readers can easily verify the sources if they want! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 16:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous responses, I have no need to add URLs and no policy says I have to. Pointless discussion which is now over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case the page cited is not even available for preview (at least not when I look it up), so the request is sort of pointless (given ISBN's already there).Volunteer Marek 16:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And if this is settled, shouldn't the "disputed" tag be removed? Volunteer Marek 16:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You would think so, but Kmzayeem seems to have commented tagged and gone. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing settled (by fact) is the sloppy source used in a sloppy way as Fut.Perf. pointed out above. Leave it out or rewrite is in order.TMCk (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Is the source sloppy?

2. Best as I can tell FP already rewrote the "sloppy way".

Volunteer Marek 18:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I correct myself:
1. The passage in the source is sloppy.
2. Didn't see the change made by FP, so yes, IMO this can stand as is unless someone has a better suggestion which they could propose here on talk.
TMCk (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've searched for that statement by Niazi, and the only thing I found that he only claimed that he had ordered his troops to remain "Gentlemen" and refrain from committing any atrocity (in other words denying the accusations of the genocide against Bengalis).[34] I guess the book also says the same. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I would like to ask DS to introduce a second source (online) which supports the fact, as it is hard to assume good faith on a controversial matter like this.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"In Chittagong thousands of men and women were bayoneted or raped" is what the source says. There are but one source so your suggestion of SYNTHESIS is plain ridiculous. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

thousands of men and women were bayoneted or raped it doesn't say that they were Biharis and killed by Mukti Bahini. Moreover, Bangladesh liberation war is a major event in South Asian history and Niazi was a major actor in that event. It sounds absurd that an important statement made by Niazi is not covered by any other sources. This only means either it is a clear case of SYNTHESIS, or a blatant abuse of an offline source.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Were in the sentence are Biharis mentioned? Niazi claimed that thousands of men and women had been raped or killed in Chittagong by the rebel forces, he did that in his book, that book was cited by Owen Jones in Pakistan: eye of the storm (2nd revised ed.). Yale University Press p 171. There is only one source so your claim of a "clear case of SYNTHESIS" is pointless. I already quoted what the source said, that is it as far as I am concerned, the sentence is reliably sourced, it is verifiable, another pointless discussion over. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why it is under the section Mukti Bahini actions? Also, even in the quote you presented, there is no mention that Niazi stated that. This is a blatant abuse of a source. And why did you remove the tags without reaching a consensus?--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Google does have this book passage online.TMCk (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he said it, why the do you think I wrote that he did? Do not accuse me of misrepresenting a source which you have not even checked. You violated 3RR and accuse me of misrepresentation, self revert your tag or I will remove it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the tag which you removed without reaching a consensus. This is not a violation of 3RR. Now about the matter, the quote you presented from the book is In Chittagong thousands of men and women were bayoneted or raped, and the sentence you added in the article is Pakistani General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi claimed that thousands of men and women had been raped or killed in Chittagong. Firstly, as the quote seems, there is no mention that Niazi had given that statement, Secondly, the quote only says that men and women were bayoneted or raped, doesn't exactly say that the men and women were Biharis and killed by Mukti Bahini.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(out)I quoted the part you originally disputed, again of course he said it, the source is quoting him. And yes he is accusing the MB, and it does not matter if they were Biharis as that is not even mentioned in the sentence. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Here "On General Niazi's account: 'In Bogra 15,000 persons were killed in cold blood. In Chittagong, thousands of men and women were bayoneted or raped" Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I had made a little change in that sentence per the quote, if it's ok than the tag might be removed.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

All this time wasted so you could swap two words around, wonderful. Why have you not removed the tag which was obviously pointless to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not pointless, given the controversy that the topic possesses (as well as your issues as an editor) it was hard for me to assume good faith and rely on that offline source. However, the details presented lately, convinced me to some extent. I will surely try to look on the book anyway.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:17, 9 June 2013 (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.

Content problem

Hi! I feel darkness shines is hoping for another fac for this article. I think one content-related problem still persists here. Although the topic is rape, other crimes tend to be heavily discussed. I am not saying do not mention killing ! But, the topic should focus less on non-rape atrocities.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dwaipayan: I have been trimming those down over the last few days and adding stuff which is more directly related to the article, all advice and help gratefully taken. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The Bengali people were the demographic majority in Pakistan after the Partition of India, making up an estimated 75 million in the East compared with 55 million in the predominately Urdu-speaking West" Need to mention the year of that data.
• "The people of the East were looked upon as second-class citizens by the West, and Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi referred to the region as..." Provide a small descriptor for Niazi. Who was he? Also, providing the year of that quote might be good.
• "The refusal by successive governments to recognize Bengali as the second national language led to the formation of the Bengali language movement and to further support for the newly formed Awami League" Probably grammatically weak sentence, perhaps breaking is needed? Also, a descriptor of Awami League (such as , "established as the Bengali alternative to the domination of the Muslim League in Pakistan..).
• "Nationalists viewed those who had died as martyrs for their cause,..." Nationalists in the East viewed...
• "...and that Ayub Khan was willing to lose the East if it meant" Descriptor for Ayub Khan.
• "...the quick rehabilitation of the perpetrators back in Pakistan was to have salient implications for the country's future". May not be needed in the article; however, this is kind of mysterious. What implications?
• Overall, I think the background is ok-ish. Two sentences in the beginning, mentioning West and East Pakistan (due to partition of India) and their physical distance may help readers.
• "... lead by Tikka Khan" A small descriptor for Tikka Khan
• "who was given the name the "butcher of Bengal" for his actions" By whom?
• "..reportedly said when reminded that he was in charge of a majority province "I will reduce this majority to a minority". When did he say so? Mention year, and, if needed, month.
• "...some as young as eighteen who had been kidnapped..." Eighteen is not really young; perhaps can remove this phrase.
• "... some as young as eighteen who had been kidnapped from private homes and Dacca University who had been held in military brothels" grammar error.
• "Entire villages were razed to the ground and the inhabitants killed. Over a two-day period intellectuals and professionals were taken from their homes and murdered. Their names were found in the diary of Major-General Rao Farman Ali.[30] This has since been declared Martyred Intellectuals Day by the Bangladeshi government" Entirely can go; nothing directly with rape.
• "Liz Trotta reported in 1972 from a village ..." descriptor for Trotta.
• "...but media reports on the atrocities did reach the public, and gave rise to widespread support for the liberation movement" Public where? worldwide? Also, widespread support means international?
• "According to Peter Tomsen, the Inter-Services Intelligence in conjunction with Jamaat-e-Islami formed militias..." All three names, Tomsen, ISI, and Jamaat need descriptor.
• "The Mukti Bahini targeted the Biharis..." Mukti Bahini and Bihari needs descriptors/explanation.
• " Adam Jones has suggested that in terms of the relative rate of killings in a short time span the events in Bangladesh may have been among the top most intense genocidal events of all time, together with the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the killings of Soviet POWs by Nazi Germany in 1941–42, provided that the true number of victims was close to the upper bound of current estimates, around 3 million" This whole section is probably ok to remove. This is appropriate for the conflict article, but this one should focus on rape specifically.
• "...were the first instances of war rape to attract international media attention,[52] and Sally J. Scholz has written that this was the first genocide to capture the interest of the mass media." First? First since when? There was Holocaust before, and some more.
• "In an interview in 1972 Indira Gandhi justified the use of military intervention, saying, "Shall we sit and watch their women get raped?" Descriptor for Indira Gandhi. This comes somewhat suddenly. Perhaps needs to be moved someplace else.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dwaipayan: Thank you for your review, I think I have gotten everything you have mentioned, Re your last two points, Scholz I believe is referring to the fact that this was the first genocide and instance of war rapes covered by the media as it happened, perhaps a copyedit will cover that? Re Gandhi, I am not really to sure where else in the article that should? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mention, perhaps at the start of Aftermath, the result of the war as a whole: the East Pakistan seceded as Bangladesh, and West Pakistan became Pakistan.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• I did not read the lead earlier. Not sure, but the lead for whatever reason does not read good. I will try to have a look later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)