Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:13, 23 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bangladesh High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 16, 2005, December 16, 2007, and December 16, 2009.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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.

land exchange

article doesnt have any info on land exchange .. for example village of turtuk fell into indian hands.. what were the others ? dd pakistan keep any indian land ?

RFC, Should "Decisive victory of Provisional Banlgladesh Government" be written in result?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• An editor made concern that, along with Indian victory, victory of "Provisional government of Bangladesh" should also be written in result section. like this way. But in my opinion, editor is confusing "Indo-Pak" war with Bangladesh liberation war. This is a war primarily between "India and Pakistan". What is your opinion? --Human3015 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Was there any formal agreement between India and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh, such that the term; coalition, alliance, combined, joint powers, etc.. could be used as a prefix-term (unique to 1971) such as "Alliance of India and Provisional government of Bangladesh" or "1971 Mutually Cooperating India and Provisional Government of Bangladesh". 74.136.159.171 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Indo-Bangladeshi alliance was known as "Mitro Bahini". Faizan (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 

• Decisive victory for Mitro Bahini alliance of India and of Provisional Government of Bangladesh.

 

• Decisive victory for —the Indian and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh— Mitro Bahini alliance.

 

74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) & 74.136.159.171 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, suggest Mitro Bahini alliance be included. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It should be "Decisive Mitro Bahini victory" in the "Eastern front" in the infobox. Faizan (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Don't you think page should be moved to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani War of 1971? --Human3015  21:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a page on B'desh Liberation War. This page is only about the Indo-Pak confrontation of 1971, mainly that took place in December,1971. For the entire event, there is already a separate page.Ghatus (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want it to be moved to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani War of 1971. Nevertheless, on the eastern front, Mukti Bahini fought along with Indian Army forming Mitro Bahini, and it should be mentioned as such. Faizan (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Again. You want in India vs Pakistan cricket match result should show "Bangladesh won" just because you don't like to see "India won". You want to write in result section that "Decisive victory of Mitro bahini", while article name suggests war was between India and Pakistan, so either India will win or Pakistan will win. If you want to write "Decisive victory Mitro Bahini" removing "India" word then page should be renamed to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani war of 1971. (Please don't do extra-ordinary demands, there are discretionary sanctions) --Human3015  09:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The instrument of surrender that ended the war mentions "Indian and Bangladesh forces", so there may be merit in mentioning that, although it would be be best to see how history texts deal with the issue rather than try to come up with our own language and justification. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Abecedare: As per this book of Harvard University Press Srinath Raghavan (12 November 2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. pp. 245–. ISBN 978-0-674-73127-1. instrument of surrender was signed between Pakistani general Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi and Indian general Jagjit Singh Aurora. This Indo-Pak war is part of major Bangladesh liberation war which was confrontation between India and Pakistan. No one is denying Bengalis also won, thats why it is already written in infobox of Bangladesh liberation war. One can see this pic too, there is no one even standing from "Bangladesh" while signing this surrender agreement. G. M. Hiranandani (1 January 2000). Transition to Triumph: History of the Indian Navy, 1965-1975. Lancer Publishers. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-1-897829-72-1. --Human3015  19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, The infobox is for clear, factual, unambigous information, it is not very useful as a mere 'score-card'. It is clear that the 'decisive victory' information has a strong claim to be in the article but I think it is much more informative to put in the info-box only CONCRETE outcomes, surrenders, treaties, accords, borders moved, clear political outcomes. I recently edited a wiki-table about WWII thus, I don't know how successful I was, but the intention was to concisely and neutrally present factual information, linking to relevant article. WWII outcome:

Nazi Germany formally surrenders 8 May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.

On August 15, 1945, following the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan announces its surrender, ending World War II.

British, French, American,and Soviet troops occupy Germany until 1955, Italy and Japan lose their colonies, Europe is divided into 'Soviet' and 'Western' spheres of interest.

I do not think 'decisive victory' is very informative, even if it is justified by the sources.Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - It seems like the majority have support of including Bangladesh in the results section. Therefore it should be changed to "Mitro Bahini Victory." Xtremedood (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisions by Human3015

user:Human3015, it has been too long and the majority have supported inclusion of Bangladesh in the results section. Xtremedood (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Human3015, once again you choose to revert , , and are not discussing the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@user:Faizan, @user:EdJohnston, @User:Liz, @user:Sitush user Human3015 keeps on reverting, even though the majority has decided to include Bangladesh in the results section. However, he refuses to discuss this matter on the talk page. Any suggestions on how to continue further? Xtremedood (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is more discusion needed for such topics. See, inclusion of name of Bangladesh doesn't mean that removal of name of India. Name of India can't be removed as it is war between India and Pakistan. You should discuss regarding we should add "decisive victory of India and its allies" or "decisive victory of India and mukti bahini" etc. --Human3015  14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Took you long enough to respond. Simply reverting and not justifying your reverts through proper discussion does nothing to alleviate the issue. What do you think the wording should be? Xtremedood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, war was between India and Pakistan so winner will be India or Pakistan. You are completely removing name of India and writing name of third party which shows you don't want to see name of "India" in it, but anyway, things don't work like this. Name of Mukti Bahini or Bangladesh is the thing to write in result section of Bangladesh liberation war. Still if there is consensus to add name of Bangladesh then there should be vast discussion regarding that. 2-3 people can't decide it. It is one of prime article under discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBIPA. So think twice before pushing POV. Even if name of Bangladesh is to be added then it can be added as "decisive victory of India and its allies". But I know you will not accept any version having name of "India" in it. So no use of any alternative "result" for you. Moreover, writing exclusively name of Mukti Bahini is no where relevant here, Mukti Bahini does not include India, Mukti Bahini was not name of India-Bangladesh alliance. --Human3015  15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What you say is factually incorrect. The Provisional Gov't of Bangladesh is clearly listed as a combatant. Your personal attacks also do nothing to justify your claim. You are simply going back to the issue we discussed previously. You are also confusing Mukhti Bahini for Mitro Bahini. This shows your lack of insight into the matter. Mitro Bahini was an alliance between Bangladeshi rebels and India. Xtremedood (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional gov of Bangladesh is in combantant list because of our last edit war over that. Kindly read article name. You can ask move request for article name to Mitro Bahini-Pakistan war of 1971 and add "decisive victory of Mitro Bahini" in result. And merge Bangladesh Liberation War to this.--Human3015  18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong. The Provisional Gov't of Bangladesh was listed as a combatant long before we had our disagreement. This sort of nonsense about changing the name has nothing to do with the article. You should stay on topic. Major sources indicate it was a Bangladeshi victory as well. This is a historical fact that you can not deny. The name of a war does not necessarily indicate who was involved. Xtremedood (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as you said it was victory of Bangladesh also then we can add "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh". Ok?--Human3015  15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

+1 for "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh". - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but we have to pipe article Provisional Government of Bangladesh while writing Bangladesh.--Human3015  17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh did not exist back then, therefore it would not be historically accurate. The 'Provisional Government of Bangladesh' should be included or Mitro Bahini also works. As the majority have pointed out, that Mitro Bahini works. Xtremedood (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is just a quick summary, doesn't need to be fully accurate in all details. I think Human3015's solution is acceptable. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: You yourself were insisting for inclusion of word "Bangladesh" here, now some of editors are agree on it but you still have problem. I think you should clear your stand, tell me, are you debating here for inclusion of word "Bangladesh" or exclusion of word "India"? --Human3015  15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of Bengali separatists, however, I think that Misplaced Pages should be a place that includes information that is also historically accurate. Since Bangladesh did not exist back then (as a state), then what is your rationale for using the word "Bangladesh" instead of "Provisional Government of Bangladesh" or the "Mitro Bahini" alliance? Xtremedood (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so in this case "Decisive victory of India and allies" will be better. Or "Decisive victory of India and Mukti Bahini".--Human3015  02:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To make things easier, I think user:Kautilya3's suggestion of "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh" is probably the suitable compromise (at least for now), although I would prefer "Mitro Bahini Victory" or something that includes the Provisional Government of Bangladesh. Perhaps it could be listed as "decisive victory for India and Bangladesh", with the link associated with Bangladesh linking to the Prov. Gov't of Bangladesh page. Mukthi Bahini is too limited, because it only refers to the fighters, not the entire gov't. Xtremedood (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to you both of you for agreeing on a compromise. I made the change. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To Kautilya3 and Human3015: it was not Bangladeshi victory according to every sources that have been listed, maybe because Bangladesh forces had no victories with themselves. See what sources says, they don't think of "Bangladeshi victory". Xtremedood is currently blocked for disruptive sock puppetry and his apparent disregard for Indian achievements is prevalent on other articles too. Capitals00 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood seems to be misrepresenting above discussion. A temporary compromise just to halt his edit warring is not consensus, there is no allowance for misrepresenting source. Capitals00 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The over-whelming amount of editors agree that Bangladesh should be included in the results section. You are one editor going against a previously agreed upon decision. It is your duty to get enough people to agree with you. Do not revert unless you have done so. Xtremedood (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it's Xtremedood again. The three sources given do not mention B'desh. So, wish good luck to you to find a WP:RS mentioning B'desh & your demand will be entertained only then. Ghatus (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested. I see more than two editors participating in discussion here. In view of how long this discussion has been running, I suggest formal mediation. Another RFC would also be an option. I would caution all of the editors to be civil, because this topic is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Naval_hostilities Missing info?

Pointing out (what seems to me like) an omission. In the last paragraph of this section, there's a consolidated "loss" roundup for the Pakistan side, shouldn't it also include one for India as well? Unless the INS Khukri was indeed the only Naval loss for India? (Its known as the only India warship lost, but the Pakistan roundup includes lots of smaller craft like partrol crafts and minesweepers). Zhanzhao (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Failure to Respond to Mediation

Capitals00, you have failed to respond to the mediation request ]. Rather than go against what is soundly sourced and a legitimate inclusion of a main combatant, it is important to first try and discuss why you think Bangladesh should not be included rather than engage in an edit war. Xtremedood (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been already told enough about that, User:Ghatus also disagreed with your unsourced edits. Capitals00 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is well sourced that Bangladesh was a combatant and exclusion of Bangladesh is indicative of a bias.

• "Jointly the Mitro Bahini achieved a decisive victory over Pakistan on December 16, 1971"
• "Soon after Bangladesh was liberated on December 16, 1971, violence became an indulgence of the victouious Bengalis against the Biharis."
• "Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan. It gained political independence as a result of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Soon after independence, the Bangladeshi military, basking on the euphoria of victory over Pakistani Army..." Xtremedood (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Countries and Territories of the World, p. 181 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
2. Yasmin Saikia, Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971, p. 96 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
3. Political Science Review, Volumes 32-33, University of Rajasthan, 1996, p. 79 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Being involved in a battle is not enough, one has to win battles for being called as "victorious", this is not "Bangladesh/Indo-Pakistani War". Only https://books.google.ca/books?id=bR0hIC0Xhb0C has half support for your wording, and it is self-published by an unknown author. Capitals00 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 there is an RFC right there on the top. You can see the consensus in that RFC. So please stop your POV edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC was already superseded by consensus and sources at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Revisions_by_Human3015. Capitals00 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Where the consensus is to include the sentence. What exactly are you aiming for here? That no content should be created until every single editor says "YES"? If this is the case, then sorry to say but you are in a delusion about how consensus works. There will always be POV pushers around and other warriors who will want their own version inserted. Consensus is usually reached without their input, rather despite their input. So when you see four editors agreeing to a basic statement, you should calmly back away and rethink your own position. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• C-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Top-importance
• C-Class Indian history articles
• Top-importance Indian history articles
• C-Class Indian history articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Bangladesh articles
• High-importance Bangladesh articles
• Help of History Workgroup of Bangladesh needed
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2009)
• Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board