Misplaced Pages

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 13 December 2021 (→Territorial changes: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:08, 13 December 2021 by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) (→Territorial changes: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articlesIndo-Pakistani war of 1971 was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 4, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
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.
Article policies
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:
Template:Vital article
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Indian / South Asia
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 not 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
Indian military history task force
Taskforce icon
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.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia: History 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 the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2019.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBangladesh High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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:
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.
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

This edit request to Bangladeshi-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The war happened between Bangladesh and Pakistan. There was never a war in 1971 between India and Pakistan. I can send links if you want proof of that. Many of us(family members) fought in the war. It was a liberation war of east Pakistan Present Bangladesh. Please edit it. 213.31.232.197 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the article properly, this was a 13 day war which formed part of the nine month long Bangladesh Liberation War. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's a spelling mistake in the infobox, which says "Chhamb" instead of "Chamb." The link is also broken, so could someone make it link to Battle of Chamb and correct the spelling mistake? Cipher21 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Broken link corrected. However, according to one of the sources (), and Battle of Chamb, it seems the territory was indeed called "Chhamb". So I've left the name unaffected. —Sirdog (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Supportive nations removal

Why editors removed supportive nations from belligerents section? 122.174.33.58 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Please help me (lol). Please other editor do this edit at earliest. --Contributers2020 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
bel·lig·er·ent, noun, "A state or other armed participant in warfare". Infoboxes are terrible places to describe things that are complex. The combatants parameter of {{Infobox military conflict}} is best for listing the countries whose forces took part in the conflict. Lesser degrees of supportiveness such as any from Russia, the US, the UK, etc., are better explained in the text of the article, and should cite high quality sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Worldbruce Umm, Russia was a armed participant in the war with have sent submarines to it. USA and Britain, as well, sent submarines and air fighters to help Pakistan win the war. I don't really see how it is complex. It is just like the Provision government of Bangladesh (at that time) was supporting India. --Contributers2020 17:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
1) it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is, all that matters is what the Reliable Sources provide, and 2) belligerents are those that do the actual fighting - suppliers of weapons and/or intelligence materials are NOT 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk)

Territorial changes

Both sides captured territory across the international border, which was subsequently returned in the Simla Agreement. This has been omitted for some reason, but I'm going to add it to the article. I also propose moving the specific areas captured to the casualties section of the infobox. Cipher21 (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Existing infobox touched on that aspect with brevity, Gyan publishing house does not measure up to the standards expounded in WP:RS. Kerberous (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
No, the existing infobox suggests only India captured territory which is POV pushing. If you object to a source, you don't undo every revision since it was added, unless you're suggesting other RS like NYT are unreliable. Cipher21 (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, that news report does not state that Pakistan captured Indian territory across the international border. You are risking sanctions by deliberately misrepresenting sources. Kerberous (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The report states, India is scheduled to give up 5,000 square miles of Pakistani territory in exchange for Pakistan's return of 70 square miles of Indian territory. The only territory returned in the Simla agreement was across the international border. Cipher21 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Still, the source will have to conclude just the way you are doing if you really want to modify the existing text. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This falls within the domain of WP:COMMONSENSE. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Putting the areas captured under "casualties" is common sense? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it’s common sense what NYT is referring to. SpicyBiryani (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not your inferences are correct is immaterial. We require explicit and unequivocal statement to that effect as a matter of policy. Furnish the same or simply drop the stick. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more sources which explicitly state the territory was returned at Simla, including NYT. Cipher21 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We can now be certain that the information present in the New York Times news article is reliable for the purpose of WP:V. At the same time, however, its placement in the infobox would be injudicious and unjustified given the apparent lack of scholarly consideration of the trivia (vide WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD). I do think it merits a line in the body. Kerberous (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not some minority opinion, though. It's just a fact. A glance at the presently cited sources shows that one is a book about Benazir Bhutto which refers to the 1971 war in an offhand manner. Similarly, Kashmir in conflict focuses on Kashmir and seems to be conveying how badly Pakistan was defeated. It has a number of factual errors such as claiming India captured all 5,000 square miles in Sindh, 94,000 PoWs were taken (where did the extra 1,000 come from?) and so on. Perhaps NarSakSasLee has access to Crossed swords : Pakistan, its army, and the wars within. I could not verify its content online.
Against those 3 sources, I have presented 3 sources as well (4 if you include the Office of the Historian, US govt.)
I am tagging @Fowler&fowler: and @Kautilya3: for their thoughts on this. Cipher21 (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what is being debated. There is no problem with adding reliably sourced content to the article. Only infobox changes need a discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
By infobox changes, are you referring to moving the territorial changes to the casualties or adding Pakistani gains to the existing format? Cipher21 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. This discussion is all over the place and I am not sure what is being debated. One thing I can make out that the Indian territory returned by Pakistan is not mentioned in the infobox. I think it should be mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

See this diff. The specific numbers were moved to the "casualties" section (similar to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965) and the overall changes were left in the "territorial changes" section. Cipher21 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be more constructive if Kautilya3 explained the rationale underpinning their comment, considering that some of the opponents above have aired some well-founded and legitimate concerns concerning the OP's edits. While it is doubtless that the Indian territorial gain is a key facet of the subject matter as attested to by the magnitude of scholarly attention that it has received, the same cannot be said of the trivia at issue. A lead of which infobox is an important dimension, by its nature. recapitulates some of the most important content of an article (MOS:LEAD), while WP:UNDUE's applicability is not confined to "some minority opinion" as the OP erroneously reasons or regurgitates, but is broad enough to encompass within its purview all minor "aspects" of a subject. To juxtapose the same under the same infobox parameter is to engender discrepancy and unjustified indeed, besides patently constituting non-observance of WP:NPOV, a key content policy. In consequence, I would caution against proceeding with the edit until the concerns are addressed to everyone's contentment. Lastly, I would be curious to know how the two Gbooks references that the OP has cascaded to us to weigh in favor of their position are even reliable to begin with. The text by SS Agarwalla reads like a college textbook and provides no particulars about the author, his credentials and scholarship, and in any case deals with the Shimla agreement in passing (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS); the text by the Saudi journalist James Wynbrandt is also likewise sketchy, superficial, and facile when it comes to its treatment of the same. These are not the sources that were demanded. WP:NEWSORG foregrounds scholarly sources as sources to use for such topics; the trivia should find a place only in an appropriate section in the body. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. The infobox is meant for factual information, not any statements of note. The territory won and returned by both sides deserves mention. If you are contesting the factuality of the Pakistani-won territory, that is a different matter. (By the way, the first source cited, Shuja Nawaz does mention the territorial holding of both the sides, but the numbers are different, because he is including J&K. Chitkara is a poor source. The fact that Schofield doesn't mention it doesn't mean much, since it is a book on the Kashmir conflict.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Times, James P. Sterba Special to The New York (1972-08-25). "Pakistan Affirms Agreement on Troop Withdrawals". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  2. Sundararajan, Saroja (2010). Kashmir Crisis: Unholy Anglo-Pak Nexus. Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7835-808-6.
  3. "INDIA TALKS END, PACT IS AFFIRMED". The New York Times. 1972-08-30. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-12-11. The Simla accord provided that India give up 5,000 square miles of Pakistani territory in the states of Sind and the Punjab in exchange for the return by Pakistan of 70 square miles of Indian territory
  4. Agarwalla, S. S. (1994). Contemporary India and Its Burning Problems. Mittal Publications. p. 22. ISBN 978-81-7099-575-3.
  5. Wynbrandt, James (2009). A Brief History of Pakistan. Infobase Publishing. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8160-6184-6.
  6. "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972 - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved 2021-12-11.

Rape victims during Bangladesh liberation war

False claims: Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

  • It was also a means of purifying the "tainted" blood of Bengali Muslims.
  • … 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …

The False sentence should be removed from lead para.❯❯❯Praveg 12:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not just harmonize the same with the sources and substitute Muslim for Hindu? Does that sound good to you Pravega? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@MBlaze Lightning: much more improvement needed at Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, It seems some editors are trying to portray that most victims were Hindus and so they are trying to justify the barbarism of Pak army in a particular group's mindset.❯❯❯Praveg 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Siddiqi, Dina M. (1998). "Taslima Nasreen and Others: The Contest over Gender in Bangladesh". In Bodman, Herbert L.; Tohidi, Nayereh (eds.). Women in Muslim Societies: Diversity Within Unity. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 209. ISBN 978-1-55587-558-9.
  2. Brownmiller, Susan (2013) . Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Open Road Media. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-4804-4195-8.
Categories: