Talk:2001 Bangladesh–India border clashes

message: I was suprised that this wasn't already written, I would appreciate all the help from fellow wikipedians in "completing" this article and making it a much more informative article.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: I've just read this article that i created and others helped edit,
but the question that goes through my mind and other readers would be: So Who Won This?
Thanks S Seagal 08:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone "won" this. The whole thing ended in a stalemate, and the land borders reverted to the status quo before the conflict. --Ragib 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, Wikipedia is for simply stating the facts of the incident, not making judgments on either side. Per WP:NPOV, no one should impose their interpretation, their version of events. Rama's arrow 14:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So who won this? 

message: I've found some pictures of BSF troops killed and hung upside down on Bamboo poles by Bengalis I will upload the images and put the pictures on the page.
I also plan on expanding this article considerably.
thanks S Seagal 08:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I did some copyediting and reorganization to try to make sense out of the the content without going back to read the reports of the conflict. There were a number of redundant passages and a confusing timetable. I don't know whether I got the sequence correct, but at least it seems to flow a little better. Vontrotta (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing facts 

message: Somebody added random figures for each side during the conflict but failed to provide any sources for these claims. Also, how come Mr. Vajpayee was one of the "commanders" of this conflict? And seriously.. please cut the nationalistic crap. It is silly. --Nosedown (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just noticed that someone added a blog/forum as a source while mentioning Indian casualties. Please go through WP:Reliability before adding nonsense to Wikipedia. --Nosedown (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTICE: Ok. Lets get this straight - 700,000 Indian troops and 5,000 Bangladeshi troops fight resulting in 99 Indian deaths and 3 Bangladeshi deaths. None of the sources say this. Most of the references provided lead to 404s. The few references that still exist refers to the claim by Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) border guard chief Maj-Gen Fazlur Rahman that 300 Indian soldiers were involved and that 16 Indian soldiers were killed. . The Indian claim is that it is 15 and names of these soldiers have been provided.  I will be making these corrections and cleaning up the article based on the still existing and verifiable sources soon. I do not want to trigger an edit war - I am willing to listen/look at any reliable sources saying anything to the contrary. Please discuss your views on this here. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Undid an edit by 180.149.3.253. Please discuss here before editing. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources please 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nautilus.org/archives/sand/Updates2001/V2N17.html
** In 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict on 2011-05-25 07:09:57, 404 Not Found
** In 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict on 2011-06-10 07:22:13, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1293069.stm
** In 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict on 2011-05-25 07:09:57, 404 Not Found
** In 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict on 2011-06-10 07:22:23, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Hi,TitoDutta what do you really want?BSF had 215 man?The link does not work.BDR had 17 it did not work,finally the source which is provided about causality says the BSF dead is 15,not 16.Ovsek (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at my talk where you asked the same question! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh?

message: The source provided about Causality saying 215 and 17 is dead and no other sources confirm this.So dead link is not acceptable,and for causality the link which is provided says Indian causality was 15 not 16.Any reply?Ovsek (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing to it Ovsek. It has been fixed, the ref tag was wrong, and the figures have been corrected too. Faizan 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: User "A.Musketeer" ,whose account was created only a few days ago ,keeps making repeated changes to this article to introduce an Anti-India and Pro-Bangladesh bias. This User is very likely a Wikipedia:Sock puppetry since all the articles he has edited since account creation aim to introduce pro-bangaladesh bias into the respective pages). I am listing out the issues which he keeps changing so as to find out if this really needs to be changed.
The mistreatment , torture and execution of POWs is expressly forbidden under the Geneva conventions, and this is the crux of the reason why the issue of this border conflict received so much attention in the media and in politics, it is for this reason that i have chosen to highlight the fact that these were illegal killings. please provide your reasons for reverting them.
before you attempt to introduce your biased version, please add relevant neutral sources which state that india has "ILLEGALY" occupied these exclaves and which state that the border guards died in battle and rest fled away, since all almost neutral sources point to the fact that they were murdered in cold blood. Pvpoodle (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are new to wiki please try to under stand that the result section is different from the introduction and the infobox, most people look at the summary and the infobox to get the details of the article without bothering to read through the entire page. I have added the report of torture and execution to the introduction and infobox since it is highly relevant to the reason why this incident is infamous and therefore the reason why this article is in existence not because i am biased towards one side or the other. you question my agenda? my agenda is to present the truth in its entirety and not fragments of the truth that benefits one party over the other. may i ask what is your agenda is reverting this edit? you should actually read through the article you just referenced. It clearly states that the BSF partol did not fire back since they are trained not to fire at civillians and that they were captured and executed. Pvpoodle (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Incident" (incidence is different from incident. please learn to spell as spell check does not always work to your advantage) is "infamous" (please learn the difference between famous and infamous) because of the unlawful killings. This is not the first border conflict between India and Bangladesh since the creation of Bangladesh, there have been numerous instances of armed confrontation between 1971 and 2001 and many more since then. i am providing the following source that is considered reliable to verify this statement | nytimes report. I have stated my reasons for why i have included torture in the introduction passage and info box and i believe them to be valid. This does not introduce a pro or anti bias in any way as the reason for the infobox and introduction are to summarize the content of the article,  which makes it valid to mention what happened while also preserving a neutral point of view. The words torture and execution are not used any more than necessary as you claim it to be. Most readers of wikipedia are mature enough to understand the harsh realities of the world we live in and a silly reason like "unsatisfactory for reading" is not going to hold up anywhere to provide a distorted impression of what actually happened. you do not provide any sources for your changes and do not seem to be willing to reach an amicable compromise and resort to edit warring to resolve your disputes. this behavior along with the other biased points of view you try to be attempting to push forth on all the articles you seem to have edited on your contributions page, since your account was created leads me to believe that you are a  sock puppet of another user trying to push forth his biased views. it is in light of this behavior that i have reported you for edit warring. Pvpoodle (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: well you have been reported. the article from NYTIMES is considered reliable since they actually take efforts to verify facts before reporting them. i have noticed that since you have been reported you have again vandalised the numbers of casualties without providing any sources. and the existing sources only claim 15 casualties. as per my earlier statement you are the sockpuppet or the master of the ip user who has been repeatedly vandalising this and other bengladesh related pages. (also maybe you should actually read WP:SOCK before you accuse me of being a sock puppet. Pvpoodle (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

text: The very source you have quoted [ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/barbaric-killing-of-bsf-jawans-puts-india-bangladesh-relations-under-severe-strain/1/233646.html ] has pictures taken by the Bangladeshis of the event with the torture clearly apparent. the bangaladesh government might refute this fact all they want but almost everyone else agrees on what happened. as i said before you are pushing your opinions. Pvpoodle (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro bangaladesh bias by user "A.Musketeer" 

message: "Conflict" is too much, and gives impetus to hardliners from both sides to push their fantasy that this was a full scale war. Neither governments were involved; this was a local border skirmish instigated by a few adventurous officers. Matters became worse with a BJP government in India trying to cash in on the violence. 
I suggest we move the page to the above mentioned title. Nearly all reliable international sources see this as nothing more than a border clash.--Bazaan (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to 2001 Indo-Bangladesh border clash 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion