Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:44, 21 June 2015 editTripWire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,780 edits →Indian involvement← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:24, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,054 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}}

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)

: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)

== What's up with the recent IP Edits? ==

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. ]&nbsp;<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. ]&nbsp;<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. ]&nbsp;<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? ]&nbsp;<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 ] ]&nbsp;<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 :) ]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected two days. '''All editors''' need to stop edit warring. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

=== Deliberate Misinterpretation of Sources ===
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.

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).

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;"
| ]
| ]
|}—]&nbsp;<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)

==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)

== Al Sham and Razaker's role in 1971 genocide ==

Al Shams role in 1971 can be seen in these references. Read the texts marked in yellow and scroll down.

,

,

.

.--<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">]&nbsp;]</span> 05:22, 14 June 2015 (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;">]&nbsp;]</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;">]&nbsp;]</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?—]&nbsp;<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;">]&nbsp;]</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. —]&nbsp;<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;">]&nbsp;]</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?—]&nbsp;<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 —]&nbsp;<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. —]&nbsp;<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 ]. —]&nbsp;<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. —]&nbsp;<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 —]&nbsp;<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: ]—]&nbsp;<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''' ? —]&nbsp;<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)
::::: First of all, the source of the citation is ], which is not the ]. It is an offshoot of the latter and is not of the same quality. Secondly, the author of the news story is mentioned as "ANS" which is some unknown news service. India's leading newspapers like ] and ] didn't bother reporting Sartaz Aziz statements. The fact that the news story was reporting Aziz's twisted version of Modi speech is clear from other sources, e.g., ANI News.<ref>, ANI News, 10 June 2015.</ref> The actual speech of Modi was published on the 7th June.<ref>, ABP Live, 7 June 2015.</ref> The so-called "fighting" that the "Indian citizens" were doing, in Modi's remarks, was that of showing support for ] by doing a satyagraha. - ] (]) 12:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
:::::: I am sure you must have heard Mr Modi saying it itself on TV? If not, see it . Now please dont say that the recording is fake :). Moreover, the argument here is about Modi's words, not what Aziz has said. All the sources quote Mr Modi saying what he said. For the sake of the discussion and RfC, it is Modi and his words that say things about the 'desire of every Indian to divide Pakistan' and 'the reason why Indian Army fought along with Mukti Bahini' which are to be included, not how Aziz responded to it. But then you already know it, and are just trying to shift the focus of the discussion.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::: The video says nothing of the kind. In fact, Modi was saying that ''when'' the Indian Army was fighting along side Mukti Bahini, every Indian was wishing for the liberation of Bangladesh. A perfectly fine sentiment. Once again, it is ''Sartaj Aziz's twisting of Modi speech that has been bandied about over here''. I have no idea what world this Aziz has been living in when Gen. Niazi was surrendering to the Indian Army in Dhaka or when Prime Minister Bhutto was negotiating with Indira Gandhi in Simla for the release of 93,000 POWs. But apprently he has now woken up to "revelations." Well, better late than never! - ] (]) 19:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


{{collapse top | Text from Misplaced Pages Article quoting Direct Quotes as a justification for the ongoing discussion}}

:::: When the following can be included to Misplaced Pages:

::::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."<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|title=Death of Osama bin Laden|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Pakistani_response}}</ref></nowiki>

:::: Surely the statement by a portfolio like an Indian Prime Minister can always be added too. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

===== 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? —]&nbsp;<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"—]&nbsp;<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??—]&nbsp;<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)
::::::: Please also allow me to tell you 'for the FREAKIN millionth time' that Modi's statement cannot be equated to the fact that 'India's support to Bangladesh is already known'. The sentence '''India's support to Bangladesh is already known''' is quite different than ''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.''—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{Quote box
|title = List of policies/guidelines breached or potentially breached by PakSol/TripWire
|quote =
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# (essay) ]
# (essay) ]
|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)
::::::::: That's what this discussion is about. We may not agree how the text should be added here, but then we agree that it has to be here because of its significance. You want to put that here in form of a quote, go ahead, we can discuss that too and come to some agreement. Some editor says that it should be paraphrased, it too can be discussed and a conclusion reached. But some here who are saying that Modi's statement does not have any significance and should just be forgotten are wrong.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::(inserted) No. Sorry. Per ] you are supposed to work on the improvement, and if they fall short of encyclopedic standards, I am supposed to remove them. Unfortunate for you, that's how Misplaced Pages works. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

====Break====
* '''Comment''' - 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. —]&nbsp;<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)
*::: Lol...I am also the current Army Chief just because I say so in my user page. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
*::::Should I add link to you blog and upload image? Or are you saying you are liar? ] (]) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
*::::: Lol..go ahead. Like someone said ], who cares. Going by your understanding, everyone on twitter, facebook, wiki, discussion forums etc is what he says on his profile. Really? However, you using an IP and making your first 'edit' directly here definitely tells alot about who you are :) —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::: @ ], Sir, dont you now owe me an apology after you have failed to prove what you accused me of at the COI Board ? Or should I just assume that you are a troll. Thanks—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:So you admitted to being in Pakistani army, and deleted info on pak army atrocities so you do have A COI ] (]) 12:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Declaring yourself to be a part of the Pakistani Army, writing blogs and stuff using the same identity, and then pushing a POV that the Pakistani Army upholds is not good news. Even if you can evade ], you can't avoid ]. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not an investigation agency like ISI or something. It is an academic project run by a community. Here is another important essay for you - ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::: Some wise man once said and I quote: ''Repeating something or saying it louder, does not make it true.'' —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, we are not guided by wise men here, we are guided by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. And, if you decide to follow wise men, instead of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines then I strongly recommend that you take your opinions and "facts" somewhere else. May be you have noticed that my ONLY point is adherence to Misplaced Pages principles. Not interetsed in what you find to be true, relevant, important or documented. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 08:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
;;;;So now you deny you said you were in Pakistan army? You cannot change the facts like you want. ] (]) 13:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::: you blog, you posted on user page and here Quote fom you blog. "this blog is an humble effort by a Siachen veteran who has also seen action in the Tribal Areas and LoC on how he sees the Army he serves," And on wayback so you cannot delete ] (]) 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::: Lolzz.. What's there to delete? The blog is still up and the guy running it is doing a commendable job. Just because we two shared a few slides among each other made me an accomplice? Did you read that the slides were from Foreign Office? Just because it was uploaded on a blog having a military tinge and that I further linked info from those slides here made me a 'criminal'? I researched about the Karachi Agreement, I by virtue of my interest in military history (like 1000s of users here) had seen those slides and just because they were further uploaded at a blog which probably is giving you guys heart burns is the sole reason that you are stupidly trying to accuse me. You did not prove anything, less making a mockery out of yourself. It's funny that going by your stupid definition, everyone and anyone interested in a military related topic MUST be a soldier in its respective military, right? Welcome to the Internet, dude! And quite the ] and grow up! —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::: You own words "can be seen at my blog where I have uploaded a couple of slides which Pakistan Foreign Office uses to explain our stance of Siachen." Stop telling lies ] (]) 21:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::Haha...I was waiting for this. You are making a good case for ] and will be reported soon. Anywaz, what I meant was 'my friend's blog', missed a word as I usually do, editing at Wiki is cumbersome. I never said the slides or the edits I made basing on those slides. I dont have a blog so the slides were uploaded elsewhere, what's so 'dangerous' about that? Those slides are open source now and anybody who is interested can carry further study basing on the info of those slides. Going by your understanding anyone in future who would refer anything from that blog has to be from Pakistani Military? No! I also visit Bharat Rakshat, Pakistan Defence, India Defence forums etc, so that should also make me a soldier in the Indian, Pakistani and then Indian Army again respectively? Then every Indian member posting at Indian military forums or Pakistani members posting at Pakistani military forums or Facebook Pages should all be soldiers?—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 05:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::Lie, on you user page you also said it was you blog. ] (]) 06:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

====Back to the main discussion====
* '''Comment''' - I'm seeing on my watchlist since days that whole lot of discussion is going on here, don't wanted to part of this discussion as it needs lots of research before commenting which consumes time and mud throwing on each other is very common in such nationalist discussions but still I lastly decided to comment here. I didn't read all discussion but I know what point Paksol/Trimwire want to make, I think there is no harm in adding Modi's statement in this article, India's role in Bangladesh liberation is quite obvious. --]]&nbsp;• 19:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
*: But what exactly was the Modi's statement? - ] (]) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::You know the statement Kautilya, if Modi said it was dream of "every Indian" then let it be in that way, we are quoting Modi, so its his thoughts, we are mentioning that "its Modi's statement" and not any "historians statement". Quoting any Prime Minister or President of nation is not avoidable thing, Any Prime Minister's statement on foreign visit deserves place in Misplaced Pages article. --]]&nbsp;• 20:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::: Have you seen how the statement appears in the article at present? - ] (]) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::If source is quoting Modi then text should also say that its Modi's statement. --]]&nbsp;• 20:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::: The source is quoting Sartaj Aziz. You need to go through my comment for the RfC above. - ] (]) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm. Smells like ]. '''8 newspapers said that Satraj Aziz said that Narendra Modia said that all Indians wanted Bangladesh''' (and also that Indians fought together with Mukti Bahini, which they did anyways, in December as Indo-Pak War of 71). Can someone tell me what makes such a long train of eventual evidence encyclopedic in any way? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 08:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: Well, while we all know that Indians fought together with Mukti Bahini, I am wondering if Pakistani population did. Perhaps they were being fed some make-believe propaganda by the Army and the power blocks and, now that Modi has stated the facts on the TV, it came as a revelation to them. Apparently, it took a whole 48 hours for Aziz and his team to come up with a "response." - ] (]) 09:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' You guys are just trying to find a bone where it does not exist. Where in the newslinks does it say that Aziz is repeating and interjecting his own words and thoughts in Modi's statement? No one except you guys talked anything about Aziz, but just what Modi has said. The focus since the very start is on Modi's precise words. You guys must understand Hindi, so why dont just listen to what Modi had actually said? I have posted this before and doing it again here: http://www.zemtv.com/2015/06/08/narendra-modi-accepted-of-spreading-terrorism-in-bangladesh-but-our-foreign-ministry-is-silent-on-this/ There's no mistake here, you are just trying manipulate the issue. Even the New Indian Express link from where ] (]) quoted the news DOES NOT say that it was Aziz that said what Modi has said! The newspaper is paraphrasing Modis' statement itself, whereas what Aziz said is mentioned as a direct quote in the news link. Stop pretending that you dont know. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 09:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
*: That is because "we guys" bothered to read the sources rather than take your word for them. The ANI News had a 3-sentence release where the first sentence said Aziz referred to Modi's statement and the second sentence stated the purported Modi statement. This purported Modi statement only appeared on the 10th June and only in connection with Aziz. The better newspapers like the Times of India and The Hindu that have a reputation for fact-checking didn't bother to publish these releases. To tell you the truth, the purported statement always looked fishy. When the Pakistani establishment begins to call the well-known Indo-Pak War of 1971 a "revelation" and "confession", their intelligence looks highly suspect. Or they must have got caught up in their own make-believe propaganda until they suddenly got a reality check from Modi's speech. You mean you really didn't know that you fought a war with India in 1971? What planet were you living on? - ] (]) 10:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::* '''Comment''':: 'You guys' really dont get it, do you. None of the sources that I had quoted, nor did the source Aditiya hai quoted says anything about Aziz and the purported statement. It is only you who is bringing Aziz into the mix even when no one cares what he has said as that has never been the focus of this discussion of the discussion that took place . A few sources are:
::* http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/international/2015/June/international_June247.xml&section=international
::* http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/pakistan-slams-modi-s-statement-in-dhaka-115060900533_1.html
::* http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/08-Jun-2015/indian-forces-fought-along-mukti-bahini
::* http://www.theweekendleader.com/Headlines/4568/pakistan-slams-modi%27s-statement-in-dhaka.html

:::But then why believe what Aziz has said or purported or even what I have said?? I never quoted Aziz's version of events, just what Modi himself have uttered. If you are so doubtful about what Modi has said, and that Aziz or I have been purporting his statements, why dont you just see the of Modi saying what he said and compare it with the secondary sources which have quoted Modi? hings that match will added here and rest which you think are 'purported' will not be, what's so difficult in it? I know that you would consider and say that this is a 'very difficult' task and will require 'enormous resources' to undertake, hence instead just read what the links say! None of them is quoting Aziz purporting Modi's words. I am surprise as how did even Aziz figured out in this discussion when I neither Aditiya quoted Aziz! Asking a stupid question like 'but what have Modi said' after having a 10 page long discussion is not well taken, sir, not does it commensurate with your experience here on Misplaced Pages as an editor. Instead, it reinforces my perception that you are trying to push your POV by not accepting and opposing the inclusion of Modi's words as said by him and quoted by numerous mediums.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::Obviously you can't take the word of any politician or government spokesman as the eternal truth, at least here you can't. You scrutinize and fact check. In this case we have a ridiculous war of words between the Indian PM and the Pakistan Foreign Office. "Every" Indian could not have possibly supported Bangladesh. And Pakistan certainly didn't discover India's involvement in 1971 in 2015.--] (]) 12:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Oh really? When any Tom, Dick or Hamesh says that his relative whose full name is probably not known to him was allegedlly taken away by some FC or Police guy in Balochistan and this news is quoted in The Guardian the next day or when Geo News alleges that Hamid Mir was shot by ISI or when a jingiotic Indian Channel 'breaks news' that ISI is involved in a terror attack which began just 2 minutes eralier and next day that makes news in a newspaper, this can be included here, but when a PM says something and is quoted verbatim, it needs to be 'scrutinized'? This is the crudest example of cherryicking and POV-pushing that I have ever seen.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::: Even though I am no great fan of Modi, in this particular instance, what he said was perfectly fine. If you watch the video link that TripWire posted, even though he has no clue what it says, he is saying that ''when the Indian Army was fighting along side Mukti Bahini, every Indian hoped for the liberation of Bangladesh'', which is almost tautologous. Who wouldn't wish for the victory of one's Army when it is fighting a war? The Pakistani twisting of the statement is quite absurd. - ] (]) 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::I saw the whole speech in Dhaka. I was actually very impressed. But Mr Modi does have a habit of slip-ups. What I meant here was the usual Indo-Pak war of words.--] (]) 12:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::Classical and blatant example of POV-pushing. Misrepresenting others words to suit ones POV! What Modi said was: ''At the time of Bangladesh War, alogwith Mukti Bahini, the rights that the Indian Army performed '''AND''' every Indian citizen, at that time, desired that Bangladesh's dreams should come true.'' So you see now, every Indian was not "wishing for ones Army's victory when it is fighting a war," as you claimed by you above, but for the independence of Bangladesh (something which was unjustified on the pretext refugee 'problem'). In any case, you or I are not the experts to interpret what Modi said, but the secondary sources quoting him what he said is what should be focused upon, including the New Indian Express. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Your translation isn't even grammatical English. LOL. But doesn't matter. It is still nowhere near the pseudo-translation done by your hero Sartaj Aziz. You know that he was pulling a fast one. - ] (]) 13:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: No one gives a tosh about Aziz'z statement, it's rather naive of you to keep talking about something which has never been the subject of discussion here. Just wasting your own and others time.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: You may or may not care about Aziz's statement. But you clearly love his twisted translation of Modi's statement. You have been pushing it everywhere for the whole week! - ] (]) 14:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


== Support Box ==
== '''Narendra Modi is not authorative source of History''' ==


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)
Narendra Modi is famous for slip-ups and wrong statements.


:@] Oh. ] (]) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
* http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/narendra-modi-s-mistakes-give-foes-chance-to-teach-him-history/article1-1145612.aspx


== November 2024 ==
* http://indiatoday.intoday.in/gallery/narendra-modis-11-mistakes/1/11746.html


@], @] 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)
* http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modi-must-guard-against-more-slip-ups-feels-party/articleshow/25606731.cms


:@], @] ] (]) 07:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
* http://www.mensxp.com/special-features/lok-sabha-elections-2014/22381-top-10-embarrassing-goofups-by-narendra-modi.html
:{{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.
: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? ==
* http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modis-nepal-slip-in-bhutan-fires-up-twitter-578510


Should we attempt to add Bihari casualties in the Infobox? ] (]) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
'''Lets end this discussion.'''--<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
: Nobody cares how good or bad Modi is in making speeches, he's not a wikipedia editors whose edits can be reverted if deemed unsuitable. Being a PM of the largest democracy, his words matter and are taken seriously despite his poor grip on English language or pathetic verbal expression. He's a PM and whenever he says something at a public forum infront of international media, it is taken as a content of ] whether you like it or not. Therefore, his recent words, having a bearing on 1971 war should be included here. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::Nobody cares that you think helping Bangladesh in 1971 was unjustified. Global public opinion favored the Bangladesh cause. Modi obviously meant to point to the widespread public support in India itself. A genocide was taking place and a military intervention brought it to an end. Pakistan lost, now get over it and move on. There's no point in raising baseless grievances.--] (]) 05:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::: Yeah! Then have the courage to mention it, as said by Modi here. What's all the fuss about then? Saying over and over again that it already is mentioned and 'known' wont suffice. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 10:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::That's been my point the whole time. You're acting like a sore loser from 1971. Pakistan would be better off replicating post-war Japan/Germany. The fuss is when you are trying to push an irrelevant speech by Modi and a twisted reaction to that speech from Pakistan. Indo-Pak outbursts over the Bangladesh War are really pointless to this article in 2015.--] (]) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::: Quoting an unknown dude sitting in Germany who says 20,000 people have been abducted in Balochistan is not pointless, but a speech by Indian PM is pointless?! Bias! —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::You might be lost, try the ] page for those issues.--] (]) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::: That's been my point he whole time. It takes courage to be remain ]—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::There is no courage in being neutral when it comes to matters of genocide.--] (]) 01:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


:Yes. ] (]) 11:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Indian involvement ==


== "The China" ==
In addition to the debate above, there is a need to talk about 'Indian involvement' with a view to show both sides of the picture. The Indian involvement Section of the page opens up with the following lines:


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)
<blockquote>Wary of the growing involvement of India, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on Indian Air Force bases on 3 December 1971........
.......The strike was seen by India as an open act of unprovoked aggression. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War.</blockquote>


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 --- 17,000 Indian Soldiers Killed during 1971 War ==
The above lines shows as if one fine morning Pakistan became wary of Indian involvement and decided to go for war. However, there are numerous sources and it is a known fact that Indian political, military and material involvement began well before 3 December 1971. There is a need to add this to provide this context to the article. Or else everthing in the article is presenting India as an angle and the other side as evil. There is no denying the fact that atrocities did take place and that India was faced with the refugee problem etc etc. But at the same time, what India (and Pakistan) did which ultimately led to war needs to be added here, albeit not in detail. Now guys, please dont repeat the rhetoric of 'it is well known'. Sir, if it is, then add it to the article! Apropos, I am adding he 'Why' tag to the first sentence to open up a discussion. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
: No comments on this means that edits in this respects can be carried out.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 04:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
::Please provide reliable sources and specific text which you would like to add based on these.] (]) 04:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
::: Will do that when I'll edit the article —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 05:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
::::Given the contentiousness surrounding this article, and the fact that you've been the source of much of it, it would really be better if you proposed the text here on talk first.] (]) 05:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{U|TripWire}}, If you follow the Misplaced Pages policies on ], especially ], in creating new content, nobody will object. It is your inappropriate reliance on newspaper reports on questionable political statements that has been the cause of the problem. - ] (]) 07:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
:: ] Why do you have to make it about me? The article being on a controversial topic rightly require a discussion, but that does not mean that everytime a sourced info especially from books has to be added, a formal permission is required for that. Without going into further details, as I am still collecting the info, I would just say that I plan to add, with dates the military actions taken by Indian Army inside or along the Indo-East Pakistan border well before 3 December. This info will primarily relay on books by Indian authors.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 09:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Bangladesh Liberation War|answered=yes}}
{{U|82.11.33.86}‎ We know that you dont understand English, but I will also ask if you know what 'archiving' is? The MS Encarta source has been used in other articles at Wiki after it was archived, 'source no exist' does not fit here! Self-revert or you are going in to ANI. Use a little commonsense are click on the archive. You otherwise have been very fondly using archives to accuse me, so you exactly know what it is.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
:No, I check webcite, is here You cannot add that infos as is copyrighted. ] (]) 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
:: Haha. That's why citations are there for! Every secondary source is copyrighted! FYKI, this info is exactly used in another article right here in Wiki. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::: The info you are stupidly reverting has been already!! First you said that the source did not exist and when yo were facepalmed on that you now say that info is copyrighted? Are uou stupid?! —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 12:44, 21 June 2015 (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)
:::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)

Latest revision as of 17:24, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bangladesh Liberation War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Bangladesh Liberation War received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. December 16, 2005, March 26, 2007, December 16, 2007, March 26, 2008, March 26, 2009, December 16, 2009, March 26, 2010, March 26, 2018, March 26, 2021, December 16, 2021, and December 16, 2022
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / South Asia / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
South Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBangladesh Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh
WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:
WikiProject iconPakistan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia: West Bengal High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2024.
WikiProject iconBengal (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal
WikiProject iconCold War Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in Bangladeshi English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analyse, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.



Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Support Box

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. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryPatriot Oh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

@Orientls, @Ratnahastin 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 Israel–Hamas War & Irish War of Independence and added the names of some missing leaders. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Orientls, @Ratnahastin Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@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 its purpose as a high level summary of the article. Template:Infobox military conflict/doc 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 Help:Infobox for more information.
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 featured articles as examples, since there's no guarantee that any random article follows Misplaced Pages's rules any better than this article. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bihari casualties in Infobox?

Should we attempt to add Bihari casualties in the Infobox? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. ਸਰਦਾਰਅਮਨਦੀਪਸਿੰਘ (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"The China"

A minor grammatical correction in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. There is no need for "the" before "China". 2001:4DD6:887:0:1988:B960:D1C3:58BA (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 --- 17,000 Indian Soldiers Killed during 1971 War

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 2607:FEA8:4FE5:6F00:8DD8:BC6F:9901:DC3A (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The AP (talk) 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. 2607:FEA8:4FE5:6F00:7984:14A8:D91C:C5C (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
News media is generally reliable for news reporting. In this case, News18.com is a reliable source for the statement that Taslima Nasreen 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. --Worldbruce (talk) 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 I will escalate the issue? The AP (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: