![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
Contents
- 1 Brushup of 'Violence against Biharis' section
- 2 Sarmila Bose's nationality
- 3 Bangladesh Law
- 4 Jamaat-e-Islami vs. local Bengali collaborators
- 5 Genocide committed by whole of West Pakistan against whole of East Pakistan
- 6 External links modified
- 7 Describing Chowdhury's book as controversial
- 8 Serious source misrepresentation
- 9 Alternative number of victims
- 10 POV edits
Brushup of 'Violence against Biharis' section
The following paragraph has been omitted as I find it irrelevant --
- In May 2003, a high court ruling in Bangladesh allowed 10 Biharis to obtain citizenship and voting rights. The ruling also exposed a generation gap amongst Biharis, with younger Biharis tending to be "elated" with the ruling, but with many older people feeling "despair at the enthusiasm" of the younger generation. Many Biharis now seek greater civil rights and citizenship in Bangladesh. On May 19, 2008 the Dhaka High court approved citizenship and voting rights for about 150,000 refugees who were minors at the time of Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, and those who were born after would also gain the right to vote.
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabih omar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 December 2009
Sarmila Bose's nationality
@TripWire: You have reinstated Sarmila Bose's nationality thrice, the last time here. But you never said a word about why this is important and why it belongs in the article. Please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Kautilya3 You have removed Sarmila Bose' nationality twice [1] [2] which was long standing and quite relevant for the obvious reasons. The last time you reverted it, you also reverted info sourced from two sources which supported the fact that she is an Indian author by giving an edit-summary: "Not in source; and irrelevant to topic".
- You need to explain how "it was not in the sources" when:
- Second, as regards to your "why it belongs in the article" and that it is "irrelevant to topic", first you need to explain why you are removing a long standing and sourced content. But as you have repeatedly failed to do so, I will explain that it is relevant because despite being an Indian she has challenged what India has been claiming as regards to casualties during 1971 Bangladesh genocide, and hence it is quite pertinent to mention this as it adds weightage and makes it more authentic.
- By removing this sourced info you are trying to push POV by omitting this fact so that readers are unable to see who the author is.
- Lastly, as you are the one removing long standing and sourced content, the burden to gain consensus lies on you which you are not doing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good quality scholars of the kind we use on Wikipedia are expected to be objective about the subject matter they study. Their nationality is not relevant, unless we have good reason to believe there could be bias. Multiple reliable sources have argued that Sarmila Bose is biased:
- The second source you have cited[2] states, Bose's book is methodologically inconsistent and appears to be informed by a disdain for Bangladeshis and their movement for political freedom.
- A peer-reviewed critique[3] says, The relationship and pre-existing bias she brings to this work plays out in her selection of stories, credulity about certain accounts, and dismissal of others.... Her stated agenda is to correct the bias. Yet, in that process, her research goes so far to the other side as to create a new set of biases, even more problematic.
- The complexities of these biases are not illuminated in your nationalistic caricature as "Indian academic," which is not true anyway. She calls herself an "American of Indian parentage."[1]
- This kind of nationalistic argumentation you are doing is precisely what the recent ARE ruling was meant to guard against. But apparently it is not working. So I am requesting RegentsPark and Lord Roem to address the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thankyou for pinging the Admins. Didn't you by using phrases like "nationalistic caricature" and "nationalistic argumentation" just break the restrictions which were specifically placed on you? @RegentsPark: and @Lord Roem:—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 16:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is blatant attempt to twist what I have said. "Nationalistic caricature" is what you are doing to the source, Sarmila Bose, by bringing in her supposed nationality and how she is supposed to have overcome it, going against her nation's position. This, despite all the biases in her treatment that have been pointed out by scholars which, they say, are going in the opposite direction. You need to stop bringing sources' nationalities into question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thankyou for pinging the Admins. Didn't you by using phrases like "nationalistic caricature" and "nationalistic argumentation" just break the restrictions which were specifically placed on you? @RegentsPark: and @Lord Roem:—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 16:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good quality scholars of the kind we use on Wikipedia are expected to be objective about the subject matter they study. Their nationality is not relevant, unless we have good reason to believe there could be bias. Multiple reliable sources have argued that Sarmila Bose is biased:
All the twisting is being done by you alone when you say that she is not an Indian. Can you prove that she was not born to Indian parents when you yourself say that she is an "American of Indian parentage"[1] or when The Guardian says that she is an "Indian author"[2]? You say that I am bringing in her "supposed nationality" and that she being an "Indian academic" is "not true anyway", but can you please prove that it her being an Indian is supposed and not factual/sourced or that it is untrue? Anyone can be educated and brought away from his/her home country, but that does not change their nationality, unless they renounce it formally. Lastly, you say that she is biased, but at the same time many independent sources do praise her:
- History emerges only slowly from the passion-filled context of contemporary events. Sarmila Bose’s book sets Bangladesh’s struggle for liberation at the start of this long passage.’ — David Washbrook, Trinity College, Cambridge
- Bose has written a book that should provoke both fresh research and fresh thinking about a fateful turning point in the history of the subcontinent.’ — Martin Woollacott, Guardian
- A significant intervention into the historiography of the Bangladesh War of 1971.’ — Amber Abbas, H-Memory
-
- If you want to debate her nationality, you can do so at the Sarmila Bose page. If you want to debate the merits and demerits of the book, you can do so at the book's page. As far as this page is concerned, unless you have evidence of a pro-India bias, she must not be described as an "Indian author." When necessary, "Oxford researcher" is the correct professional description to use. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It is you who are discussing Sarmila's nationality.
- It was you who FIRST brought the merits and demerits of her book into the discussion.
- It is on you to gain consensus before modifying sourced content. Please do that and stop twisting the discussion. The content stays till you gain consensus.
-
-
References
- ^ a b c "Sarmila Bose". Sarmila Bose.
- ^ a b c "This account of the Bangladesh war should not be seen as unbiased". theguardian.
- ^ Mohaiemen, Naeem (2011-09-03). "Flying Blind: Waiting for a Real Reckoning on 1971". Economic & Political Weekly. 46 (36): 40–52. Retrieved 2015-03-19.
Bangladesh Law
Ref edits by Messiaindarain, I couldnt find any news that says the law criminalizing propaganda regarding 1971 war has been passed. All it says is that it is likely to be passed. So, for now I have reverted the edits, they can be put back when the law actually gets through. Moreover, when it gets through and we add the info here, it would also need to added in a NPOV way so as to include the fact that this new Bangladeshi Law is infact controversial, that people have been against it and that it have been criticized.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The legislation can, of course, be covered here, indeed almost certainly should be covered here, whether it is ever passed into law or not. The article must not state that it has passed, however, unless a reliable source can be cited to that effect. Also, the first paragraph of the "Estimated killed" section may not be the best point for material about the legislation. Much has been written about the proposed law. Whatever set of sources is selected to represent the range of views on the issue, I recommend that they include Bergman's [3] and [4] as one widely read opinion from a notable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The legislation may be covered, even if it hasnt been passed, however, as I pointed out earlier, it should be presented as it is while giving both sides' story to its acceptance, passage and controversy, if any. Also, I agree that the first paragraph may not be the best point where this should be mentioned. Whether to have it in a separate section is open for debate, but I guess that would be acceptable if the legislation could actually get through and is passed/implemented by the Bangladesh govt.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Saying that the law has not been passed, but has been proposed warrants notability. I implore my fellow editors to not remove link without consensus. Thanks. :)Messiaindarain (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The legislation may be covered, even if it hasnt been passed, however, as I pointed out earlier, it should be presented as it is while giving both sides' story to its acceptance, passage and controversy, if any. Also, I agree that the first paragraph may not be the best point where this should be mentioned. Whether to have it in a separate section is open for debate, but I guess that would be acceptable if the legislation could actually get through and is passed/implemented by the Bangladesh govt.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Jamaat-e-Islami vs. local Bengali collaborators
@Volunteer Marek: and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Guys, I made very small edits so they are easy to compare so let's discuss each change separately one by one and resolve before moving to the next change.
I changed the wording from "local islamist militias of Jamaat-e-Islami" to "local Bengali collaborators" in this edit because that is what page 40 of Margaret Alston's book says which is referenced. If one of you can add a reference which says otherwise then I will go with your version otherwise accept mine and move forward to next item. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Local Bengali collaborators" is vague. Since J-e-I was the main party responsible, why not state that explicitly? I added a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Genocide committed by whole of West Pakistan against whole of East Pakistan
We move on to next item in the list. This text by West Pakistan against the people of Eastern Pakistan was added at the end of first paragraph without discussion and without achieving any consensus otherwise first paragraph have always been ending at the word genocide. The onus to discuss and achieve consensus is on the party which wants to add that text and wants to keep it there. This additional text is unsourced and POV. Their was no entity existing by the name of West Pakistan in 1971. Moreover, the whole of westren region was not involved in a genocide against whole of East Pakistan. In fact, a lot of indiginous East Pakistan elements were involved in that activity as well. Secondly, that Payaslian source only says that events which took place in 1971 were a genocide, that source does not mention the culprti and the victim. Adding that additional unsourced text makes it POV and WP:OR. With starting this discussion, i will go ahead and remove that text. Please participate in the discussion and achieve consensus if anyone wants to add it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212114450/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf to http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2005/12/03/remembrance.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2005/12/30/editorial.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Archived sources have been checked
but failed to be useful/working
Archived sources have been checked to be working
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Describing Chowdhury's book as controversial
When i remove the word controversial in this edit, i am merely reverting this edit which was made without achieving any consensus on talk page. So, when something unsourced can be added without consensus then it can be removed as well. If someone can add a reliable source which describe this book as controversial then i am fine with keeping that word. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The word "controversial" may be paraphrasing: Bose, Sarmila (2011). "The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war". Journal of Genocide Research. 13 (4). doi:10.1080/14623528.2011.625750. Bose writes "Publications like the polemical Behind the Myth of Three Million by M. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury ..."
- Word choice aside, it isn't clear to me why Wikipedia is citing Behind the Myth of Three Million or (later in the same paragraph) Suppression of the Muslims: US Policy and the Muslim World. Neither seems to fit the description of a reliable source or the advice of WP:HISTRS. Chowdhury is a management consultant with a degree in sociology, the publisher is not an academic one, and the book is held by precisely one worldcat library. Does anyone see any reviews of his work in scholarly journals? I can't find anything on the qualifications of Haque, Archway Publishing is a self-publisher, and no worldcat libraries hold the book. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article contains quite a few citations which doesn't fit the requirement of WP:HISTRS, if we want to strictly follow this policy, I would suggest that we should also discuss those sources too. Some of them are from BBC, Banglapedia, DhakaTribune etc to name a few.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the source is not reliable and so the simplest solution is to just remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: The whole paragraph which you removed after dropping this line here enjoyed consensus for months. This section was about me removing the word controversial without discussing it so if the decision comes out in favour of removing the whole paragraph then we will remove it but we need to restore it while the discussion is going on to preserve the WP:STATUSQUO, you cannot just drop a line here and presume that consensus has been achieved in your favor. When it comes to deciding about reliability of the source, we cannot decide it here, its not proper forum. Moreover, the text is properly attributed so I do not see anything in keeping that text Witt proper attribution. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it has not "enjoyed consensus for months". It got snuck in and then people expressed reservation. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline and it doesn't say what you think it says (it does not say "we must restore the status quo" as that'd be really dumb). There's obviously several editors objecting to the inclusion of this source. Which is pretty much a no-brainer as it's a non-reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, anyone can claim that it got snuck in but read WP:CONSENSUS, according to guidelines provided in it, this paragraph had consensus, now in order to remove it, you need a new consensus. The only objection being raised is that it is not reliable and you know on which forum you should be discussing that. Fighting to death on this in not an answer. You are also removing another source in there, this one, [1] what objection do you have about this? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it did not have consensus. There's people objecting to it right above for funky sake. And yes, reliability can be discussed at WP:RSN, but that's actually up to you, not those who wish to remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I'm removing the part sourced to Bartrop and Jacobs because without Chowdhury's book, it doesn't make sense to have that (very ungrammatical) sentence in there. But I guess we could put back in the fact that the students were unarmed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it did have consensus, I went back at least 250 edits in the history and the text is there. You have edited yourself several times since then and several other editors have edited the page even neutral editors who are not party to this dispute have edited it. People who are objecting above are providing one reason that the source is not reliable, well you need to take it to WP:RSN in a most neutral way, actually I am willing to take it but the text stays in the page until it is decided that the source is unreliable, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. For your information, WP:STATUSQUO is part of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and both of these are policies. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not consensus. That's "managed to stay in the article for 250 edits when no one noticed it". And no, the burden of proof for inclusion is on you - take it to RSN, then if that says it's reliable (it won't), you can include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it did have consensus, I went back at least 250 edits in the history and the text is there. You have edited yourself several times since then and several other editors have edited the page even neutral editors who are not party to this dispute have edited it. People who are objecting above are providing one reason that the source is not reliable, well you need to take it to WP:RSN in a most neutral way, actually I am willing to take it but the text stays in the page until it is decided that the source is unreliable, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. For your information, WP:STATUSQUO is part of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and both of these are policies. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, anyone can claim that it got snuck in but read WP:CONSENSUS, according to guidelines provided in it, this paragraph had consensus, now in order to remove it, you need a new consensus. The only objection being raised is that it is not reliable and you know on which forum you should be discussing that. Fighting to death on this in not an answer. You are also removing another source in there, this one, [1] what objection do you have about this? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, it has not "enjoyed consensus for months". It got snuck in and then people expressed reservation. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline and it doesn't say what you think it says (it does not say "we must restore the status quo" as that'd be really dumb). There's obviously several editors objecting to the inclusion of this source. Which is pretty much a no-brainer as it's a non-reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."
Your revision after over 250 edits is not without dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's several editors here who are saying this is not a reliable source. That's consensus. Consensus is NOT "I managed to sneak it into the article and it was awhile before anyone noticed".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bartrop, Paul R.; Jacobs, Steven Leonard (2014-12-17). Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 1866. ISBN 9781610693646.
Serious source misrepresentation
In this [5] edit SheriffIsInTown added this text "Academic Christian Gerlach has argued that the majority of the deaths in the 1971 period were due to hunger and disease and not due to direct army killings."[1] Is miksrepresented by the user Sheriffisintown, the cited source says the famine followed the 1975 coup, this was four years after the genocide and Gerlach says nothing of the sort which Sheriff has written, I shall check the rest of his edits to this article. @Volunteer Marek and Kautilya3: to take a look. 45.125.128.130 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Some scholars also consider the number of women raped to be seriously inflated.[2] was shown some months ago as to be wrong, only Bose writes such nonsense, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_women in sections above 45.125.128.130 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
More misrepresentation "There is no consensus among independent researchers on number of people killed. Some put that number between 300,000-500,000,[3] and describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated.[4]" The first source given does not say "There is no consensus among independent researchers" The second source is seriously misrepresented again, Hiro clearly says Bose gives a figure of 50-100 thousand dead, not "some" has Sheriff has written, and nowhere in the source is the term "describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated" even remotely hinted at. 45.125.128.130 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World. Cambridge University Press. p. 136. ISBN 9781139493512.
- ^ Alffram, Henrik (2009). Ignoring Executions and Torture: Impunity for Bangladesh's Security Forces. Human Rights Watch. p. 9. ISBN 9781564324832.
- ^ "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history - BBC News". BBC News. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
- ^ Hiro, Dilip (2015). The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan. Nation Books. p. 216. ISBN 9781568585031.
Alternative number of victims
Justification for this edit
- The BBC source in this edit says Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 died. The Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million.
- Hiro says on Page 216: The figure of three million - five times the estimate for the unparalleled communal butchery in Punjab during 1947 - first mentioned by Shaikh Rahman in his interview with British TV personality David Frost in January 1972 after his return to Dacca as a free man is now universally regarded as excessively inflated.
- Page 9 of Henrik Alffram's book reads like this: figures of 200,000 to 400,000 victims are often mentioned in the literature, though some scholars claim that these figures are seriously inflated Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- BBC does not say "There is no consensus among independent researchers" you made that up and misrepresented the source. I was wrong with regards to Hiro, but shall check his source. The Human Rights Watch was already shown to be wrong, two months ago, yet you persist in adding it? 45.125.128.247 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I have given a Pakistani claim about the origin of the 3 million figure [6] and Bangladeshi counter-claim in The Hindu (See [7]). Here, David Bergman, who is the son-in-law of Bangladeshi foreign minister Kamal Hossain posits a figure of 500,000 based on a 1976 study. Is this POV pushing if both arguments are present!? :)Messiaindarain (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also note, I propose that the "Estimated killings" section be sub-sectioned to "Bangladeshi claims," "Pakistani claims" "Independent" and "Others." There could be matter of debate as to whether, "Sarmila Bose" goes under "others" or gets her own section.Messiaindarain (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I would take the bbc view as more correct. Some people who even say its 100,000 but nobody talks of them because small number of people who say what they want. more general correct view bbc seem to meSaadkhan12345 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
POV edits
Please stop trying to sneak "Mukti Bahini" into the "perpetrators" list in the infobox. It's inaccurate and highly POV. It's trying to establish a false equivalence. It's also been discussed to death, here and on related articles. THIS article is NOT about violence against Biharis during the Bangladesh Liberation War.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's important to discuss these issues rather than pre-empting edit wars. First, it would be useful if you could explain why you think the violence against Biharis in the 71 war should be excluded from this article, which is on the 71 atrocities? Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- These issues have been discussed. I guess we can discuss it some more but in the meantime cut it out with the POV edits. Don't put this in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This article is about a genocide which happened in 1971 in Bangladesh. Its not a one ethnicity issue. If there are sources saying Mukti Bahini committed genocide against Biharis in Bangladesh in 1971 then it applies to this article and must be mentioned otherwise the article will not be neutral. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This article is about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces against Bangladeshis. It is NOT about the violence against Biharis. You know this. We've been over this. Stop trying to construct this false equivalence which is not supported by sources. The violence against Biharis ALREADY is mentioned in the article (in fact, with way too much WEIGHT, so that section should be cut). This is about putting it in the infobox. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean seriously, the RfC for that is still up above! Please stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken the liberty of going through the RfC from May, and as the closer accurately noted, that discussion certainly lacked a specific purpose. What I see mostly is a collection of strong opinions, ranging from what constitutes 'genocide' to arguments over sources. I am inclined to agree with the closing admin regarding working on each proposed addition incrementally. The first question, and the most relevant one for now, is establishing the parties in the conflict - on both sides. We do have multiple reliable sources stating that atrocities were committed by the rebel Mukti Bahini forces during the war. So this brings me to the other question - could you briefly summarize why, in your view, the article should not cover that violence? Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but this article isn't about the Bangladesh Liberation War. Nor is it my view, as I've already made it plain, that the article should not "cover the violence" (there's already a way too big section about it). So please take that strawman home. This article is about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces and their collaborators against Bangladeshis. So putting in "Mukti Bahini" into the "perpetrators" in the infobox is both POV and obnoxiously offensive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please feel free to create a new article about the violence against Bihari during Bangladesh liberation war instead of trying to get undue content in this article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken the liberty of going through the RfC from May, and as the closer accurately noted, that discussion certainly lacked a specific purpose. What I see mostly is a collection of strong opinions, ranging from what constitutes 'genocide' to arguments over sources. I am inclined to agree with the closing admin regarding working on each proposed addition incrementally. The first question, and the most relevant one for now, is establishing the parties in the conflict - on both sides. We do have multiple reliable sources stating that atrocities were committed by the rebel Mukti Bahini forces during the war. So this brings me to the other question - could you briefly summarize why, in your view, the article should not cover that violence? Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There already is an article on the subject and a couple POV forks to boot (at least there were, there was some consolidation at some point).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
@Volunteer Marek: Who defined that this article is just about genocide committed by Pakistan Army? This article should cover all aspects of the genocide which happened in 1971 in East Pakistan and genocide against Biharis was one aspect of that conflict. Biharis are a significant population of Bangladesh and they are Bangladeshis as well. This article will cover genocide perpetrated by Pakistan Army and Mukti Bahini both and that would make it neutral. @Vinegarymass911: Violence against Biharis must be covered in this article and if the sources say that it was the cause of start of genocide against the other folks then that needs to be covered too. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- "Who defined that this article is just about genocide committed by Pakistan Army?" - Reliable sources. What you are doing is original research. Very very POV original research, which borders on the insulting. It's like putting Red Army into the infobox of the article on the Holocaust under "perpetrators". And I'm pretty sure this has been explained several times to you already so you're behaving in bad faith and being disruptive. (You're also inventing a new meaning for the word "neutral")
- And for the millionth freaking time. "Violence against Beharis" ALREADY IS COVERED IN THE FLYING ARTICLE!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: @SheriffIsInTown: Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, Volunteer Marek, I don't see your argument addressing any of the questions raised. It's important to note that the previous name of this article was 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, before it was moved to the current title. While I saw agreement regarding the title move, I see no agreement over redefining or changing the article's scope regarding the killings of non-Bengali minorities. Please note that what you are proposing is essentially historical revisionism, which is fundamentally WP:POV (i.e. against NPOV, which relies on coverage of all sides). The idea of censoring one side of the conflict is preposterous, hence why I asked you the question. Your claim for instance, that the 1971 war atrocities do not include Mukti Bahini atrocities, is just not true if we look at some sources. For example, Carl Skutsch in Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities (Routledge, ISBN 9781135193881) writes: The civil war also saw tragic atrocities being committed by the Bengalis against Biharis, a situation that degenerated into official acts of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing.... The same source also attributes an account to Anthony Mascarenhas (who btw, is quoted in this Wikipedia article) that: 1) "refugees from Bihar were mercilessly wiped out. Women were raped and mutilated. Children did not escape the horror..."; 2) 20,000 "bodies of non-Bengalis have been found in the main towns of Chittagong, Khulna and Jessore. The real toll may have been as high as 100,000...". Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean " Unfortunately, Volunteer Marek, I don't see your argument addressing any of the questions raised"???
- You say "First, it would be useful if you could explain why you think the violence against Biharis in the 71 war should be excluded from this article"
- I reply - NO ONE IS TRYING TO EXCLUDE "violence against Biharis" from this article. You're making stuff up.
- You say "could you briefly summarize why, in your view, the article should not cover that violence?"
- I reply - that's NOT "my view". You're constructing a strawman.
- You say "the first question, and the most relevant one for now, is establishing the parties in the conflict - on both sides"
- I reply - this article is NOT ABOUT any "conflict" (i.e. the Bangladesh Liberation War). It's about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces and their collaborators against Bangladeshis.
- So, no, your "argument" - which is just pure strawman - and "your questions" - have been more than adequately addressed.
- Nothing is being "censored" (whenever someone starts crying about "censorship" on Wikipedia it's a near-certain red flag that they're just complaining that they don't get to push their POV in a given article).
- Likewise I NEVER "claimed that the 1971 war atrocities do not include Mukti Bahini atrocities". STOP attributing views or statements to me that I never made. That's bordering really close to lying about someone. What I said is that the atrocities committed by Mukti Bahini were NOT part of the "1971 Bangladesh genocide". They weren't and reliable sources do not describe either the MB actions nor the genocide in those terms.
- Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not trying to say which content is undue or not, but if "Violence against Biharis" is included, Mukti Bahini must be included in the "Perpetrator" list. If it is not included then the section "Violence against Biharis" must be discarded. The ONLY other option is to split this article into 2: 1971 Bangladesh genocide against Bengalis and 1971 Bangladesh genocide against Biharis. The content cannot contradict the infobox. Alt. discard this infobox and use belligerents list. Thanks :)Messiaindarain (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: @SheriffIsInTown: Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, Volunteer Marek, I don't see your argument addressing any of the questions raised. It's important to note that the previous name of this article was 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, before it was moved to the current title. While I saw agreement regarding the title move, I see no agreement over redefining or changing the article's scope regarding the killings of non-Bengali minorities. Please note that what you are proposing is essentially historical revisionism, which is fundamentally WP:POV (i.e. against NPOV, which relies on coverage of all sides). The idea of censoring one side of the conflict is preposterous, hence why I asked you the question. Your claim for instance, that the 1971 war atrocities do not include Mukti Bahini atrocities, is just not true if we look at some sources. For example, Carl Skutsch in Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities (Routledge, ISBN 9781135193881) writes: The civil war also saw tragic atrocities being committed by the Bengalis against Biharis, a situation that degenerated into official acts of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing.... The same source also attributes an account to Anthony Mascarenhas (who btw, is quoted in this Wikipedia article) that: 1) "refugees from Bihar were mercilessly wiped out. Women were raped and mutilated. Children did not escape the horror..."; 2) 20,000 "bodies of non-Bengalis have been found in the main towns of Chittagong, Khulna and Jessore. The real toll may have been as high as 100,000...". Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)