Wikireader41 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:You also did not even look at the changes I has made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=480354970&oldid=480354139] I retained some of your edits. You are just being disruptive, no doubt as a meatpuppet. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
:You also did not even look at the changes I has made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=480354970&oldid=480354139] I retained some of your edits. You are just being disruptive, no doubt as a meatpuppet. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 20:40, 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.--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk: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]]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 20:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:52, 6 March 2012
![]() | Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
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)
- I have replace (The Tilt) reference for a reliable one which directly says indiscriminate killing Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 23 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)
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 [1] 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)
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)
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
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
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)
- It's "Teaching about genocide: issues, approaches, and resources" p. 149
- Which Totten reference is this? I have more than one source from Totten I believe.
- 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 |
---|
- 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
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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?
- 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
- "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)
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)
- (Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones)
- "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. [...]."
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.
- 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:
- 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
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- ^ Roy, Nilanjana S. (August 24, 2010). "Bangladesh War's Toll on Women Still Undiscussed". New York Times.