| Revision as of 11:13, 15 June 2015 editTripWire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,780 edits →Comments← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:24, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 11) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2005-12-16|oldid1=31623101|date2=2007-03-26|oldid2=117833777|date3=2007-12-16|oldid3=177826599|date4=2008-03-26|oldid4=201148208|date5=2009-03-26|oldid5=279314851|date6=2009-12-16|oldid6=331744007|date7=2010-03-26|oldid7=352160065|date8=2018-03-26|oldid8=832371828|date9=2021-03-26|oldid9=1014270496|date10=2021-12-16|oldid10=1060348023|date11=2022-12-16|oldid11=1127829667}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|class=B|importance=high|assess-date=April 2012}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=y|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Military History|class=B |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|South-Asian=y|Cold-War=y}} |
|
|importance=mid |
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=Top|history=yes}} |
|
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Mid}} |
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=High|assess-date=March 2024|bengal=yes|bengal-importance=Low}} |
|
|B-Class-1= yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Bengal}} |
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=Mid}} |
|
|B-Class-2= yes |
|
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-3= yes |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4= yes |
|
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5= yes |
|
|
|South-Asian-task-force=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ipa|protection=ecp}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh |class=B |importance=Top |history=yes |past-collaboration=2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
|
{{Bangladeshi English}} |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan |class=B |importance=high }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bengal|class=B|importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cold War |class=B |importance=high}}}} |
|
|
{{On this day |date1=2005-12-16|oldid1=31623101 |date2=2007-03-26|oldid2=117833777 |date3=2007-12-16|oldid3=177826599 |date4=2008-03-26|oldid4=201148208 |date5=2009-03-26|oldid5=279314851 |date6=2009-12-16|oldid6=331744007 |date7=2010-03-26|oldid7=352160065 }} |
|
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019 == |
|
== Montage == |
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Bangladesh Liberation War|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Support Box == |
|
The montage in the top infobox includes un-free images. It can't stay. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 02:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is the '''UK''' listed? The Box should only be kept with the 3 powers, Soviets, US and Chinese. The UK i understand were selling weapons to both India and Pakistan, it did not support a party against another, certainly not Pakistan against its own insurgency either. I don't think mere sale of weapons was this particular article's rule precedent policy for listing a country in the support by section. ] (]) 19:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Every image in the montage is properly licensed. If you think a better one is necessary, make one yourself. You don't seem to be doing any worthwhile work around here.--] (]) 06:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] Oh. ] (]) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== What's up with the recent IP Edits? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== November 2024 == |
|
2 x IPs are constantly fixed on POV pushing by adding/deleting content to present one version of the story. They are likely socks as when one of them was reported to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism another registered user jumped in to defend the IP. Reversions by three other editors including myself yielded no results. Removing sourced content and POV pushing is totally unacceptable. Phrases like 'West Pakistan Army' have never used nor have existed. Adding these only means that the editor is a POV pusher and / or a sock. ] <sup>] </sup> 23:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Google hits for "West Pakistan Army" . - ] (]) 07:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Sure, Facebook, dailystar, bangladeshgenocide.org etc are mighty reliable. Did you even bothered to see the search results when you Googled?: |
|
|
::* '''Facebook''' is not a source. |
|
|
::* And guess what, the link from '''Dawn''' newspaper actually shows the words 'west Pakistan Army' in the comments section only...lolz, and not the text of the article being linked. |
|
|
::* '''Dailystar''' has it in the title despite that it has loaned the Article from Express Tribune which itself DOES NOT use the words 'West Pakistan Army' '''ANYWHERE''' in the original source: Original article's title is '''Bangladesh independence 1971: Surrender at Chittagong''' http://tribune.com.pk/story/307304/surrender-at-chittagong/. |
|
|
::* '''bangladeshgenocide.org''' is like a blog, it's authors are nothing but bloggers. Also, it is clear to everyone that info from a 'biased' and onesided source cannot be used hai as it is not ]. But then, the funny thing is, the the website does not use 'west pakistan army' and still you are counting it as a source :). |
|
|
::* So, no, the phrase 'West Pakistan Army' does not exist, and it is just your way of pushing your highly biased POV, and hence wont be allowed. This more than anything else proves that the IPs are a socks and are deliberately resorting to vandalism and disruptive editing and you supporting them mean nothing but that you are probably an accomplice. Your 'research' actually shows that 'West Pakistan Army' cannot be included here more so for the reason that they have never been used they way you guys have been trying to put it. ] <sup>] </sup> 07:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I am not pushing anything, just disputing your claim that phrases like "West Pakistan army" never existed. Sure, Google doesn't know what a reliable source is. But we do. Among the hits, there are also articles from the Encyclopedia of Genocide, the BBC and scholarly articles like this one . You just close your eyes to them. "Typical" is what I feel like saying. -- ] (]) 08:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: First, the link you quoted now does not show in your search results, the result shows another page from the same website. Second, the link shows the story from the Bengali POV - for the Bangalis, West Pakistan was a separate entity as was East Pakistan for the West Pakistanis. For them (East Pakistanis) to use 'West Pakistan Army' may be acceptable, but putting it here from a neutral POV negates ] guidelines. For a neutral observer, the "Army" fighting in Bangladesh was Pakistan Army, not West Pakistan Army. Commonsense? So, if you are still adamant, then it is nothing but POV-pushing and you may continue to disagree, but you cant include it at Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>] </sup> 08:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Dear friend, Google showed "97,400 results" for "West Pakistan army." You looked at 10. Or, may be not even 10. NPOV means using reliable sources and setting aside your OR. For you, I take it that your OR is supreme and sources don't matter. Upside down world! -- ] (]) 09:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: And that shall make the edit authentic? No, it wont. There's no argument here. One sided POV will not be allowed. No one gives a tosh about how Bangalis or Indians like to address the Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army is and was Pakistan Army even when Pakistan had two wings separated in the East and West and is still known as such. It's that simple. Show want to show that Pakistanis from the Western wing were 'outsider' and thus going by your definition, every Armyman who was fighting inside Bangladesh was a Westerner, but the fact is that even Eastern Pakistanis were part of the so called 'West Pakistan Army' and this 'western' army as you like to Push was not alien, but was headquartered in East Pakistan since the last 24 years. Just because Indians and (now) some Bengalis like to address them as such (which though is alright from their POV and perpecive, but it is not very common nor have been published in neutral sources - only those which pushes the Indian POV), it does not make it a fact nor it is a neutral POV that should be included in Misplaced Pages, because doing so would amount to POV pushing from the Indian POV. |
|
|
::::::: Lastly, Google hits approx '''25,900 results''' when "Modi is a Terrorist" is searched, so going by your understanding of how thing at Misplaced Pages works, one should also call and write Mr Modi as such here? ] <sup>] </sup> 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Sure, if there is a ] among them, I would write it. - ] (]) 10:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Unfortunately, you are not applying the same standards here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mukti_Bahini#RfC:_Should_the_revelations.2Fadmission_by_Prime_Minister_Modi_be_included_in_the_article.3F |
|
|
::::::::: DNA India, Hindustan Times, Times of India are not neutral? I get it, they are neutral when they are supporting your own POVs, right? Just quoting three sources out of them '''25,900''': |
|
|
::::::::: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/modi-says-upa-sinking-cong-calls-him-terrorist/article1-868817.aspx |
|
|
::::::::: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-narendra-modi-is-a-political-terrorist-congress-1700637 |
|
|
::::::::: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modi-a-political-terrorist-trying-to-divert-attention-Congress/articleshow/14002162.cms |
|
|
::::::::: Even though Modi is a Terrorist is published for so many times, but I still wouldnt include it here at Misplaced Pages for the obvious reasons that you seem miss so often. |
|
|
::::::::: Anyways, this discussion is going no where. Improve your understanding of ] ] <sup>] </sup> 10:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: As I have explained to you, Modi is not a ]. You have not shown any understanding of that. Neither have you ever shown any ability to read a scholarly source and summarize it. So you are just woffling without making any point. -- ] (]) 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: Exactly :) ] <sup>] </sup> 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], @] can you both please explain me where do my edits look controversial?? Is adding missing items controversial?? I just wanted to improve the infobox in light of ] & ] and added the names of some missing leaders. ] (]) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Fully protected two days. '''All editors''' need to stop edit warring. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@], @] ] (]) 07:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
=== Deliberate Misinterpretation of Sources === |
|
|
|
:{{Reply-to|Ahammed Saad}} I haven't examined at the edits in question, but a common mistake is trying to cram too much information into the infobox, which defeats ] as a high level summary of the article. ] says the infobox shouldn't contain material not present in the article, which the current list of commanders already violates. It also says, "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted." That's two more ways in which the current list deviates from convention. "Adding missing items" could be controversial if it makes the above violations even greater. See ] for more information. |
|
The reason behind the edit war which was initiated by the IPs was that it was adding 'sources' which did not support the text they were added to. I added a citation needed tag and resultantly the IP came up with certain sources which infact were not accurate. Ref # 13 and 14 added by the IP became the cause of the problem. I have gone through each source and can tell you that they do not support the text they are attached to. I would request editors to see it for yourself. |
|
|
|
:If you think your edits are in line with guidelines, the best way to gain consensus for them would be to break them into easy to understand groups of changes (like changes you want to make to the commanders section). For each batch, show the before and after versions side by side on this talk page, and explain why it's an improvement in terms of policies and guidelines. Comparisons with other articles can be drawn, but I recommend using only ] as examples, since there's no guarantee that any random article follows Misplaced Pages's rules any better than this article. --] (]) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for discussing ] (]) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Bihari casualties in Infobox? == |
|
The sentence which was edited by me was: ''"The junta formed '''radical religious''' (bold part was removed) militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace"''(citation needed was added here). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should we attempt to add Bihari casualties in the Infobox? ] (]) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
As a response, the IP add sources 13 and 14. I am placing the snapshots of these sources below, I would request you to go through them and decided if they support the unsourced text above: |
|
|
{|style="margin: 0 auto;" |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|}—] <sup>] </sup> 08:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:] reported that these militias were directed by a special group of Pakistan army officers. The other two sources by ] and Alex Schmid also testify to the same fact. Claiming that these militias weren't religious radicals, when they justified their violence on the basis of religion, is something that falls flat on its face.--] (]) 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes. ] (]) 11:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Page Protected== |
|
|
The page was protected by NeilN. Now, no edit-warring should take place, if this one is not resolved here, will open a dispute resolution or an RfC. ] (]) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "The China" == |
|
== Al Sham and Razaker's role in 1971 genocide == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A minor grammatical correction in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. There is no need for "the" before "China". ] (]) 15:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Al Shams role in 1971 can be seen in these references. Read the texts marked in yellow and scroll down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 --- 17,000 Indian Soldiers Killed during 1971 War == |
|
, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Bangladesh Liberation War|answered=yes}} |
|
, |
|
|
|
We need to include that Indian Forces lost 17,000 Soldier during the 1971 War with Pakistan. This is very important edit as India lost more soldiers than it reported to the media. |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.news18.com/world/india-now-supposedly-an-enemy-taslima-nasreen-slams-bangladeshs-shift-towards-pakistan-9147802.html ] (]) 12:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
. |
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is from reliable Indian News Agency News18.Com, are you saying Indian News Outlets are completely fake as I can point out multiple garbage resources on the following Wiki Article about 1971 War. Please confirm or I will escalate the issue. ] (]) 20:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
.--<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 05:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::News media is generally reliable for news reporting. In this case, News18.com is a reliable source for the statement that ] wrote something on Facebook. So what? That doesn't mean that what Nasreen wrote is historically accurate. "Garbage resource" isn't really a term we use here, but for history, books written by historians and published by academic presses make far better sources. --] (]) 04:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hey, as Worldbruce pointed out - News18.com is a reliable source for stating the fact that Narseen wrote something on FaceBook - but that doesn't mean what Nasreen wrote is historically accurate. Additionaly I would like to know what you mean by {{tq| I will escalate the issue}}? ] (]) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/04spec.htm From ] |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.firstpost.com/world/1971-is-dividing-bangladesh-again-and-theres-nothing-india-can-do-771217.html from ] |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.thedailystar.net/top-news/jamaat-the-core-76296 from ] |
|
|
|
|
|
. |
|
|
{{collapsetop|Following text shift from my to here for a wholesome discussion}} |
|
|
{{ping|Mar4d}}, {{ping|Faizan}} This article mentions the same thing. Sources are Bengali news. |
|
|
] --<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 05:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Only a paragraph containing Crime Tribunal proceedings is referenced, rest of it is not verifiable. ] (]) 05:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::You have to say, sources are reliable or not. Academic books are reliable or not. I am not going to investigate and verify myself. They appeared in google book search.]. <span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 05:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am talking about the , not about the above references you gave. ] (]) 05:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
: Razakars etc were supported by Pakistan Army, but Mukti Bahini was not supported by the Indian Army? If you want to add the former to the article, how can you not allow the latter to be added to the article too? Hypocrisy? All I did in my edit which is being roughed out as wrong by ] to add 10 sources to support my edit. It is indeed sheer POV-Pushing and ] if one edit supporting your POV is allowed and the other is not, where goes the ] now? You freely apply ] in case of edits by you and your friends, but not in our case. Why cherry picking rules?—] <sup>] </sup> 09:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I may have commented on talkpage of Mukti Bahini but how many edits did i make at the Mukti bahini article:.<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: But it is you who is behaving like a Champion of ] and ] while accepting one source and rejecting the other by quoting all the weird reasons. Quit the cherry-picking and even though they are already participating here, if you alone fail to prove anything. Ganging up will not do any result. —] <sup>] </sup> 12:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] Why you don't keep discussions at one place? ] (]) 09:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: PakSol has changed his name to TripWire.<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== still misrepresenting sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
In edits like these , by ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The sources DO NOT support the contention that ''"The ] became increasingly active, primarily because India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini"''. Yes, India did support MB. But nowhere in these sources is the *fact* that this was the <u>primary</u> reason for MB activity supported. |
|
|
|
|
|
The sources DO NOT support the contention that ''"Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini"''. The reason they don't is because that's a nonsense assertion. Look. I'm gonna spell it out. The idea that ''"Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian"'' is stupid. It's idiotic. It's something that just cannot be true (was it the "desire" of every 10 month old Indian child? Did somebody take a freakin' poll and got 100% results? Was there a divine revelation and it was written in stone by an invisible hand?) Only a dedicated ]-pushing ] warrior could insert something that ridiculous into the article. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious (see ]).Please don't put this crap into the article again.] (]) 07:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Stop acting like a child. Go through ]. This discussion regarding the edits you have mentioned above have already taken place . An RfC was raised, discussion caried out and edited. So there is no need to moan and complain here. But as you have brought it up, I would like to point out your and your supporters' hypocrisy that when almost a dozen reliable sources very clearly say: |
|
|
::<blockquote>''Modi said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. Modi also admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.''</blockquote> |
|
|
::Still, you accuse me of misinterpretation of sources, even though the sources ( , , , , , and ) clearly mention and support each and every word as quoted above. |
|
|
::But, |
|
|
:: When someone from your gang quotes a source which only contains a word which matches the info you are trying to push, they become reliable. Despite that there is no context to the info in the source being quoted in your case. The actual thing is that the entire world now knows that Mr Modi's jingoistics have cause India a great embarrassment and is likely to face repercussion (Pakistan is planning to take India to the Court for its open intervention in Bangladesh and violation of UN Charter), so you simply cant digest this FACT being added to Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
:: Tell me, how the edit where i have quoted '''10 sources''' is not acceptable even in ] although my sources exactly says and support the edits, but the edit by ] when the sources he quoted does support the text it in the article are acceptable and not being considered as POV Pushing?—] <sup>] </sup> 08:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Modi hasn't said anything new. Not sure about what parallel universe you live in, but humanitarian interventions are always on the right side of history. Obviously there are strategic ambitions involved, but a genocide makes a compelling ground. The NATO intervention in Yugoslavia didn't have UN Security Council backing.--] (]) 12:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Before jumping to conclusions, I would suggest you go through the discussion on this topic . And just to clarify, Misplaced Pages does not judge the facts, but just state verifiable facts, which in this case is Modi's statements. I and neither does the text in all the related articles, doesnt give any thought to whether India's intervention was correct or otherwise. Only that it's a new development and gives new dimension to the articles related to Bangladesh (], ] etc) which must be included at Misplaced Pages. Just because you say that it is a known fact does not overshadow the fresher version of events which are of considerable significance. What Modi said has never been acknowledged by India in public, and in the interest of showing the correct version of events and making Misplaced Pages credible and updated, these ought to be included here. BTW, the actual discussion here is regarding the unverifiable sources that you have added , and if you are so fond of discussing the other dispute, please comment about it in the correct talk page —] <sup>] </sup> 12:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: If you can verify that Indian government has never acknowledged its involvement in Bangladesh liberation through ] sources then there would be grounds for including Modi's statements. Without such verification, Modi's statements do not belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages. As mentioned over and over again, Modi is not a ] source. - ] (]) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: If you can verify that a sitting Indian PM has said this thing to the entire world, I will retract my claim. Till then, this new development absolutely belong here on Misplaced Pages. —] <sup>] </sup> 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Misplaced Pages is not current affairs. You need a .--] (]) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: It sure is at times, depending upon the articles or else timelines would not have been made at Misplaced Pages. But then you argument is in itself flawed, because Modi's statement is not being added as a current affairs info, but to set the historical track correct. Tomorrow if Obama comes up and says, the Raid to Kill OBL was a joint operation by Pakistan and the US, surely this info will be added to the connected article. So, yes you need a lesson in ]. —] <sup>] </sup> 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Haha. You still don't get it? , these conspiracy theories won't get you anywhere. You asked if a sitting Indian PM ever admitted to helping the MB in 1971, I gave you an doing just that. If you still don't get it, then seriously, get help.--] (]) 13:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: Lol, you are naive then I have initially thought. No, unlike Modi, Indra Gandhi in her interview which you people like to quote did not say: |
|
|
::::::::::* That the establishment of Bangladesh was a '''desire of every Indian citizen''' and '''that was why''' Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. |
|
|
::::::::::* That she actually participated and volunteered garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. |
|
|
::::::::::* That she alongwith others in the Indian Govt of that time infact '''conspired''' to divide Pakistan and that all this hoax of 'humanitarian assistance' for a cover story. |
|
|
:::::::::: Now if you are unable to read english, I suggest you go through the dozens of SECONDARY sources which have quoted the above points. Seriously, you cannot omit this new development on the pretext of stupidity. —] <sup>] </sup> 14:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Get help.--] (]) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
You cannot use one man's opinion to say all indians '''conspired''' to divide Pakistan I oppose that ] (]) 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Modi is not some IP ], but the (current) popular and elected leader of One Billion people. Indians voted him to power, now why mind his statements? If you ask me, I would give more weight to a guy who have participated in the 1971 War and is now the PM of a country than what a possible sock says —] <sup>] </sup> 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The sources DO NOT support the contention that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini". The reason they don't is because that's a nonsense assertion. The idea that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is stupid. It's idiotic. It's something that just cannot be true. Only a dedicated WP:POV-pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior could insert something that ridiculous into the article. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).Please don't put this crap into the article again.] (]) 14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: One word: ]—] <sup>] </sup> 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: What the hey does that even mean? (And it's actually two words). Please explain how the essay you are quoting at me is in any way relevant to my comment. I say "The sources DO NOT support your text". You come back with "One word: NOTTRUTH". Huh? It's pretty obvious that at this point you are merely engaging in obscurantist tactic. Pointing out that you're trying to bullshit with sources in no way goes against the idea of ]. Indeed, it is the essence of it. So unless you're addressing yourself, please stop being disruptive.] (]) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====RfC==== |
|
|
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=7BD633B}} |
|
|
] uses the following piece of newspaper text: |
|
|
<blockquote>''Modi said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. Modi also admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.''<ref>{{cite news |title=Pakistan Urges UN to Take Note of Modi's Remark on 1971 War |newspaper=] |date=10 June 2015 |url=http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Pakistan-Urges-UN-to-Take-Note-of-Modis-Remark-on-1971-War/2015/06/10/article2859365.ece}}</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
as the citation for the following claims: |
|
|
*"Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini" |
|
|
*"The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active, primarily because India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini (between March and June)." |
|
|
|
|
|
] thinks, the reference does not support the claim. ] thinks, (even if it does) the source, i.e. Narendra Modi quoted by the cite (''without'' quote marks), is not acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Over this issue PakSol has done quite a bit of edit warring and name calling. He also keeps repeating ], which looks slightly counter productive to me, as it warns - ''Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us."'' (]). |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is now protected, but the editor PakSol has still not received a consensus or sanction or any other community intevention. That may be required if we consider his warring attitude, ignorance of arguments, and, if I may say so, extreme hard-headedness in pushing his POV, which looks a bit like coming from Pakistani Army POV to me. But, that is just my conjecture, yet to be established. |
|
|
|
|
|
How real are the claims? Need some advise before I do anything about them. I do have a little CoI here (you see, I come from Bangladesh). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Comments ===== |
|
|
* '''Fake''' - As everybody knows, there is already an RfC asking whether Modi's comments should be included in the ] page. I opposed it there with the statement: ''The 1971 Bangladesh War is history. Reliable sources for history are historians, as specified in ]. Modi isn't a historian. It doesn't matter what he says. Misplaced Pages is not a mouthpiece for Modi. Neither is it a mouthpiece for Pakistani politicians.'' Since this RfC is asking how real are the claims, we have to know what the "claim" is in the first place. The version of the statement mentioned in the above quote, especially the bit "that was why Indian forces fought..." is clearly synthesis by Sartaz Aziz, because it doesn't appear in the version of Modi's speech published on the 7 June by ABP Live and others. Aziz seems to imply that the Indian forces were fighting alongside Mukti Bahini ''before'' the declaration of war by India on 3 December 1971. That is the sense in which ] (formerly called "PakSol") inserted the statement in this article. I haven't seen support for such a claim in any RS. Reliable sources such as the Raghavan's book and Gary Bass's book argue that there was a robust debate in India about what role India should play. There were hawks as well as doves. It is clear that Vajpayee and the Jana Sangh were among the hawks. Nobody remembers any of that. What is remembered, on the other hand, is Vajpayee's praise of Indira Gandhi as the "Goddess Durga" after India's victory, which presumably went to her head. - ] (]) 23:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Welcome to 2015. Now allow me to once again quote Indian Express to the exact word: ''During his official visit to Bangladesh, '''Modi last Sunday in Dhaka said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen''' and '''that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini''', thus creating a new country.'' Now where does Aziz figure out in this statement? |
|
|
:: And we have been around this many times already, but then as you fail to understand a very simple thing, that Modi's statement is a new development where he HIMSELF admits primarily 4 x things: |
|
|
::* establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen. |
|
|
::* that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini. |
|
|
::* Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing the rebels in former East Pakistan. |
|
|
::* Modi said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the satyagraha launched by the Jana Sangh to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. |
|
|
:: Now guess what, I didnt even change a word from what has been published in the New Indian Express (the source quoted by Aditiya). Please tell me, what's here to misinterpret or what is that which I have changed and more precisely what is there that I have '''claimed''' ? —] <sup>] </sup> 04:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::''"Modi's statement is a new development where he HIMSELF admits primarily 4 x things"''. WHO. CARES. We CANNOT put "establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen" into the article as if it was a fact just because a politician said that. We CANNOT put that into the article as it's a ridiculous claim. You - and PakSol - are deliberately misrepresenting a rhetorical statement by a politician for a factual claim and acting like Modi is some kind of reliable source for these facts. If Barrack Obama says "Americans are the greatest people on earth", we don't go running to the article on China and write "China's ok, but Americans are the greatest people on earth . This really isn't that hard to understand, so it's hard to escape the conclusion that the feigned incomprehension of this basic point is just that - a bad faith attempt to ] the rules and POV an article.] (]) 04:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: When the following can be included to Misplaced Pages: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>According to the '''Pakistani high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Wajid Shamsul Hasa'''n, Pakistan had prior knowledge that an operation would happen. Pakistan was "in the know of certain things" and "what happened, happened with our consent. Americans got to know him—where he was first—and that's why they struck it and struck it precisely." '''Husain Haqqani, Pakistani ambassador to the U.S'''., had said that Pakistan would have pursued bin Laden had the intelligence of his location existed with them and Pakistan was "very glad that our American partners did. They had superior intelligence, superior technology, and we are grateful to them." |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Another Pakistani official stated that''' Pakistan "assisted only in terms of authorization of the helicopter flights in our airspace" and the operation was conducted by the United States. He also said that "in any event, we did not want anything to do with such an operation in case something went wrong."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Pakistani_response}}</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the statement by a portfolio like an Indian Prime Minister can always be added too. —] <sup>] </sup> 11:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
Tripwire is paksol and he in in the pak army, this is why he removing infos on army atrocities in balochistat and is pov pusher. I oppose these contents one mans opinion is not all of India ] (]) 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Can you prove that? I say you were a member of Mukti Bahini and therefore are against the edits which tells the truth about them. —] <sup>] </sup> 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I can prove. I took screencap of you user page before you deleted ] (]) 11:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Discussion ===== |
|
|
@], |
|
|
* Thanks for giving a wholesome view of the problem/dispute. Now, whereas you did mention the editors opposing the RfC, but I dont know if deliberately or mistakenly, you forgot to mention that ], ] and Human3015 have supported a similar RfC |
|
|
* |
|
|
* It is also unfortunate that whereas you accused me of edit-warring, buy again failed to mention ] and ] who were equally responsible for the edit war due to which ] was reported for committing 3RR on ] and resultantly this page was protected. |
|
|
* |
|
|
* Whereas, you have shown your concerns now, but you failed to mention that it was me who had already opened up the discussion on the IP edits/edit-war on the topic right . |
|
|
* |
|
|
* '''You accused me of "ignorance of arguments":''' |
|
|
:* Can you please elaborate this point? It was me who raised an RfC first at to have an argument so that we could formally reach a consensus. Even before I put up the RfC, Volunteer Marek and I were talking about it and no edit pertaining to the discussion was made. How do you call this "ignorance of arguments"? |
|
|
* It was me who put up the page for protection when an IP was involved in an edit war with another editor whil the discussion was ongoing and you accuse me of "ignorance of arguments"?! |
|
|
* |
|
|
* '''You have accused me of Pushing Pakistani Army POV''' |
|
|
:* How does quoting from Indian Express and including the text and info mentioned in Indian Express (and a dozen other sources) make me push Pakistan Army's POV? —] <sup>] </sup> 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Because you are not quoting Indian Express you are putting in a sentence which is very obviously biased and misinterpreting sources. This has been explained to you numerous times now. Can you please stop ], and wasting people's time by engaging in tendentious ]? ] (]) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Do you understand English? I think not. Allow me to copy/paste the exact text from Indian Express, the same source that ] has quoted: ''During his official visit to Bangladesh, Modi last Sunday in Dhaka '''said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen''' and '''that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini''', thus creating a new country.'' |
|
|
::: Now what is there to misinterpret and how am I "putting in a sentence which is very obviously biased and misinterpreting sources"—] <sup>] </sup> 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''Note to editors''' - the above user is the same as User:PakSol above, under a changed username. Please do not mistake the above comment for support from multiple users''' |
|
|
::::''"Do you understand English? I think not."'' - quit it with the personal attacks. No one's disputing that Modi said that. That does not mean - nor do the sources say - that what he said is literally true. This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and you are refusing to get it. Or pretending not to get it.] (]) 05:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: '''Note to editors''' - First, can you please ask Mr Marek and Kautilya3 to stop raising 'suspicion' and creating a drama over the username change? Anyone with two eye can see that. I have nothing to hide, so you guys should stop acting and propagating as if by changing the username I have tried to become someone else. I have just exercised my right to change it, and you need to get over it, fast! Moreover, you yourself had also used words like 'idiotic' and 'nonsense' in replies to me, so you also need to quit that. |
|
|
::::: Second, it is heartening to know that you now agree that "No one's disputing that Modi said that". Thankyou! Now let's move forward towards the actual issue. As already mentioned over and again (I dont need to get down to your level, so once should suffice), Misplaced Pages supports ], what Modi said is etched in the stone, clear as a day and quoted by numerous secondary sources. So, there is nothing to misinterpret (as the words are very simple English) and hence there is no need to judge whether it is the truth. It's a statement by a PM which reflects upon the events of 1971 and thus need to be added here. Had these words been said by let's say an ex-PM, a political leader who is not in office etc, in private capacity or while giving a random interview, I wouldnt have cared much. But then these were said at the world stage! |
|
|
::::: I have asked this question before and would repeat it again for you easy comprehension; What if tomorrow President Obama, while still being the POTUS during his visit to lets say UK or France on the eve of OBL's death anniversary tells the world in his speech that the Raid to Kill OBL was indeed a joint operation by the US and Pak Military, would you or would you not reflect this info in the connected article here at Misplaced Pages??—] <sup>] </sup> 05:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I called the contention that the statement "every Indian desired to break up Pakistan" and conspired to that effect should be included in the article as a factual claim idiotic. Because it is. I did not insult you personally, tried to act condescendingly or accused you of "not being able to speak English". |
|
|
:::::: Second, you are still playing games when you say "it is heartening to know that you now agree ...". You are pretending that somewhere this was disputed or that at some point I disagreed with this. I didn't. I disagreed with you misrepresenting sources. That's a different thing. |
|
|
:::::: You are also either failing to understand what ] says (btw, it's an essay), or you are again, playing games. |
|
|
:::::: And also, for the FREAKIN' millionth time. The fact that India supported Bangladesh is well known and already in the article. But that does NOT mean that you get to put "every Indian desired the break up of Pakistan" and "conspired to break up Pakistan" in the article. Please tell me you understand that part.] (]) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quote box |
|
|
|title = PakSol against the Misplaced Pages |
|
|
|quote = |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
|align = right |
|
|
|width = 220px |
|
|
|border = 1px |
|
|
|fontsize = 80% |
|
|
|bgcolor = #FFFFE0 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
:::::::LOL. India did fight alongside Mukti Bahini. It is called ]. No secret to admit to. ROFL. There is a whole section in the article on Indian involvement. |
|
|
:::::::If you are so bent on making Modi's supposed quotation the sole reference for a very radical and slightly irrelevant information then, please, provide one. You have not furnished a proper "quotation" yet, not in verbatim, and all there is a newspaper's interpretation of the actual quote. Why? Because, it is policy. Check ]: |
|
|
:::::::*Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts. It is the task of the Misplaced Pages editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Misplaced Pages's voice; this is one reason Misplaced Pages's voice should be neutral. |
|
|
:::::::*It is important not to "]" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately. |
|
|
:::::::*In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources. |
|
|
:::::::Well, in short, to be Misplaced Pages compliant you need to phrase it like - "''N. Modi said in 2015 that ...''". If Modi has said so then you can include it, but as Modi's opinion only. I am sure that you understand that what Modi as a very young man doing some rallies somewhere in India does not make his eyewitness a work of scholarship, documentation or reporting. Please check ], especially ] if you are in doubt or confusion, or if you need to know more about the policies and guidelines. |
|
|
:::::::But, you still ''cannot'' include things he did not say as far as the newspaper reports go. Example, he did not say that Indian Army helped Mukti Bahini before the Indo-Pak war (it may have happened, but the point is - he didn't say it). Putting that statement in the subsection for March-June alone with the statement that Mukti Bahini grew stronger in that time, and putting words into Modi's mouth is a clear breach of policies. If you don't know why you can't do it please check ] and ]. |
|
|
:::::::And, finally, remember we are ]. What Modi said in an event in Dhaka, which got reported here and there (not enough to meet ]), is goes slightly against ]. Editorializing facts while applying a strong bias of recentism to a well recorded historic event is not encyclopedic. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 10:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::BTW, you guys don't need to repeat your points, you have done that many times already. It is not helping. I hope that I have managed shed some new light here. May be you would like to take a look at the long list of policies and guidelines you are breaching. If you are still unconvinced, then it is time to get opinions of un-involved editors of repute. |
|
|
::::::::Please, understand that the more you shout and scream around here the less welcoming it becomes for new editors to comment. Please let others take a look at it (hopefully not by people you invited to comment personally, because that violates ]). |
|
|
::::::::There is an interesting essay for you guys here - ]. Cheers. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 10:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The AP (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)