Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 2

message: The current text says: "Among them, the infamous Blood telegram from the US embassy in Dacca, East Pakistan, stated the horrors of genocide taking place in East Pakistan." -- but the source given: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB1.pdf does not describe the actions as genocide instead it uses terms like "reign of terror", "systematically eliminating" "systematically attacking" and "murdering". Unless it is an incorrect link the wikipedia text should be changed to reflect the source. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I see the problem with the sentence. I agree, that particular sentence is out of place. I've removed it. Thanks. --Ragib 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: current sources for the genocide

message: The start of the section does not have a reference for most of the opening paragraph. It it is to remain in the article in its current format then it needs citations. In most cases the first half of the sentence, or frist of two short sentences, are probably undisputable, but the second half of the sentence, or second sentence, need sources: Eg "at a level that Bangladeshis maintain is one of the worst genocides in history".
To quote from the policy document WP:V "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." --Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atrocities

message: I think a better and less POV title for this article is Bangladesh War this is also the most common name on Google:
* about 32,800 English pages for "Bangladesh War" -wikipedia
* about 11,500 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" -wikipedia
* about 14,200 English pages for "Bangladesh War" 1971 -wikipedia
* about 982 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" 1971 -wikipedia
To break those figures down a little, "Bangladesh War of" returns:
* about 9,090 English pages for "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia
* about 370 English pages for "Bangladesh War of Liberation" -wikipedia
* about 211 English pages for "Bangladesh War of 1971" -wikipedia
If a disambiguation problem with "Bangladesh War" the the name "Bangladesh War of Independence" carries less POV --Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on Talk:American Revolutionary War#American_Revolutionary War vs. American War of Independence --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it adding to this topic? You seem to be suggesting to call it "American war of independence", which seems equally POV. Also, I googled "bangladesh war" and it returned numerous links that actually use the words "independenc" or "liberation" in them. Google is a very good engine.--ppm 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your raised ARW as an example. Why do you think that "American War of Independence" an equally POV title and what is it equal to? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Officially the govts. of Bangladesh and India call it "Bangladesh Liberation War" or "Liberation War of Bangladesh". So I don't see any issue. Idleguy 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The US Library of Congress talks in detail about this war under "liberation war" which was one of the sources used. The Russians obviously call it something like that as an ally of India then. Though officially Pak calls it as civil war - a nomenclature justification included in the article - it is NOT the way how the majority remember this war. The word "liberation war" is used in many media and historical accounts from Pakistan as well as since then. The UN refers to this as liberation war so I don't see any POV issue for an official name. Idleguy 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bangladesh War

message: i think pakistanis are either too stupid or too barerous like cavemen.well if mass murdering and gangrapes doesnt account o genocide,what else corresponds to genocide from the pakistani point of view?something even more worse?
true,the pakistani army doesnt know how to fight,they only know how to butcher innocent civilian populations like those in bangladesh and balochistan.and another thing they are famous for is raping, especially punjabi pakistanis.
93000 soldiers surrendered unconditionally,what else is required to show that pakistani army is a worthless army.and even more so,the present "president"as mr pervert musharaf calls himself was among those 90000 soldiers who surrendered to mitro bahini,a allied force of mukto bahini and indian army.--Jayanthv86 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bangladesh Liberation War is not a soapbox nor a lecture pulpit for anyone. It was an atrocity commited by a government against its own people. Bengalis were as much Pakistanis as the pakistanis for west pakistan. Anyway, the 90,000 number has been referenced in a lot of sources. Instead of handwaving, if you provide some solid proof, that would work better. Civilian Pakistani administrators count as 40,000!!! Wow, isn't that stretching facts too much? Not even today, the Bangladeshi Govt has that much police force!! Thanks. --Ragib 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pakistani army

message: What is this?  Wikipedia or a soapbox for the Indians to stand on and lecture people??  How about you deal with the genocide of Kashmiris before claiming others to be stupid.
Secondly, this 90,000 soldiers is a common BS mistake used by the Indians all the time.  There were a total of 3 Pakistani Divisions in East Pakistan and some independent brigades.  Combined, their numbers do not come close to 50,000.  If you had a clue about the structure and size of Divisions in Pakistani and Indians armies, you would get an idea as to how shoddy your biased claim here is.  The rest of the 90,000 included civilian Pakistani administration in East Pakistan that included police etc. of West Pakistani origin (these were not combatants). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.163.213 (talk • contribs).
:Bangladesh Liberation War is not a soapbox nor a lecture pulpit for anyone. It was an atrocity commited by a government against its own people. Bengalis were as much Pakistanis as the pakistanis for west pakistan. Anyway, the 90,000 number has been referenced in a lot of sources. Instead of handwaving, if you provide some solid proof, that would work better. Civilian Pakistani administrators count as 40,000!!! Wow, isn't that stretching facts too much? Not even today, the Bangladeshi Govt has that much police force!! Thanks. --Ragib 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clueless as usual 

message: Anon  continues to add the POV tag almost on a daily basis, without any explanation for that. Since no explanation is given for the tag, I am removing it. Thanks. --Ragib 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: Is anyone aware of the Bengali population during the war? CJK 02:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the exact figure, but it is close to 78 million. Thanks. --Ragib 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here is the census from 1974: 76,398,000. Considering the growth rate of 2 years, plus portions of the people killed (1-1.5 million), and the minority refugees of war who stayed back in India (at least 1 million?) the population of 1971 should be somewhat close to 75 million. Thanks.
OK, thanks. I think should be incorporated. CJK 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population of Bangladesh

message: It was interesting to read the discussion. By the way, when the War was being fought, I was a student of Patna University, India. The situation was really grim. In my state of Jharkhand, thousands of the troops of the Pakistani Army who had surrendered to the Indian Army were lodged. They were kept in camps in Ramgarh (headquarters of the Sikh Regiment) located about 30 km away from my hometown Ranchi. --Bhadani 14:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: I have added an Unreferencedsect to this section. After the first paragraph which does have references there are a lot of specific facts and allegations for which there are no citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please add the citationneeded tag to the specific sentence for which you are seeking references? Marking the whole section as "unreferenced" seem quite ambiguous as several references are already there. So, mark the particular sentences. Thanks. --Ragib 09:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I feel I have added enough reference to support almost every sentence of this section. I hope you are satisfied now. Many of these references are taken from US State department briefs or Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the Senate Judiciary committee. I have a ton of references, but for saving space, I added only these now. In case this still isn't enough, let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atrocities on women and minorities 

message: Shouldn't we put in something under US and USSR about the US sending its Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal? That seemed pretty important. Shayon 22:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Seventh Fleet

message: Reference for allegation of circumcision checks, death of women by forcing bayonets between their legs, gang rape, "leaving of seed" by Pakistani Army
Rape as Genocide: Bangladesh, the Former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda
Lisa Sharlach 
New Political Science
Publisher:Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
Issue:Volume 22, Number 1 / March 1, 2000
Pages:89 - 102
Reference for "Systematic rape as a war tool" in 1971 Bangladesh
THE TRAUMA OF WAR RAPE: A COMPARATIVE VIEW ON THE BOSNIAN CONFLICT AND THE GREEK CIVIL WAR
History and Anthropology
Publisher:Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
Issue:Volume 14, Number 1 / March 2003
Pages:41 - 44
I hope editors will incorporate them. --ppm 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for women and minority section ([[English language|English]]) 

message: I had added the following sentence to this article: "A smaller number of non-Bengali citizens were also killed in clashes with the Mukti Bahini." It was removed, probably considering a POV. I would definitely learn a thing or two about wikipedia's contribution policy, if someone could please tell me why the above sentence was considered inappropriate. Thanks. Mokal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.69.36.44 (talk • contribs).
:I did not remove it but a citation would be nice to have. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing of non-Bengali citizens 

message: I do not have any leanings or any favourites in Bangladeshi politics and I find it demeaning and disturbing when different parties re-write history for self glorification. Here are just a few points even though I would like to give a longer lecture. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points in your article "Bangladesh Liberation War" 

message: "East Pakistanis noticed that whenever one of them, such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra, or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy were elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, they were swiftly deposed by the largely West Pakistani establishment." Quoted from the article.
I do not know how far the above mentioned "heroes" can be called one of them(Bangladesh's own). 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First

message: On 27th January, 1952, Khaja Najimuddin betrayed his commitment and again declared Urdu as the only State Language. 
Hmmm does not sound like he is one of Bengal's own. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: In 1954 the United Front of Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, A. K. Fazlul Huq and Hussein Shuhrwardi won the elections. Huq became the Prime Minister. In 1957 Shuhwrardi was the Prime Minister (instead of Bhashani who was the main popular force in the grand electoral victory of '54.) 
Bhashani wanted total autonomy for East Bengal (Bangladesh) at the historic Kagmari conference, '57,  but Prime Minister Shuhrwardi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman went the opposite way thus forcing Bhashani out of the party he created -- The Awami League. (This paved the way for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to come to the centre of Bengali politics later in the 60s.) This event shows the betrayal of East Bengal by (at least) Shuhrwardi (even if we let Mujib off the hook since he was not the Prime Minister).
So IS Shuhrwardi really one of Bengal's own...
(Source: 1 Shadhinata Sangramey Bangalee (Liberation Struggle of The Bangalees) An Album of Photographs by Aftab Ahmed. Third Edition 2nd Poush 1405 (16th December 1998); Published by Aftab Ahmed Barna -Sagar Prokashani, 63 West Rampura, Dhaka 1219. Translated by Mofidul Hoque.
2 Lest We Forget: Moulana Bhasani -- the leader of the oppressed by Engr. M. Inamul Haque. Published by the Daily Star, Dhaka, Monday, November 18, 2002) 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: "Close ties existed between East Pakistan and West Bengal, one of the Indian states bordering Bangladesh," Quoted from the article.
Well Duh! For millennia it was the same country (Banga, Gongahridoy, etc)... the same people... relatives on both sides of the dividing border... SO OBVIOUSLY they will have close ties. They are one people... separated by a line drawn on the map by the British and drawn in hearts by religious bigots. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second

message: "He urged "his people" to turn every house into a fort of resistance. He closed his speech saying, "The struggle this time is for our freedom. The struggle this time is for our independence." This speech is considered the main event that inspired the nation to fight for their independence." Quoted from the article.
A. This speech is considered the main event inspiring the nation to fight by Awami League adherents and may be, the Communist Party of Bangladesh adherents which at that time was allied to Awami League. I do not consider any one event as the main event that inspired the nation. The notion is rather simplistic. There were people who wanted to fight for independence as early as 1962... (Taherer Osomapto Biplob) and yes they were organised. There was an army called the BLF (Shahjahan Siraj) and there were other Maoist guerrilla armies that were preparing for a Pakistani onslaught well before the speech. The students were also far ahead of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.(Swadhinota Juddhe Bamponthider Bhumika) 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third

message: "They failed to secure permission from higher authorities to broadcast the message. They crossed Kalurghat Bridge into an area controlled by East Bengal Regiment under Major Ziaur Rahman." Quoted from the article.
I urge you to verify the fact. Was that the area controlled by Ziaur Rahman? I would refer you Belal Mohammed, the person who is the hero who organized the rebel radio. If Zia was in command... well and good but do verify... for this could only be BNP's "TRUTH". 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth

message: "At 19:45 on 26 March 1971, Major Ziaur Rahman broadcast another announcement of the declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur which is as follows." Quoted from the article.
This is misinformation. The declaration was made on the 27th March not 26th. Ask Belal Mohammad for verification since he convinced and brought Zia to the radio station to make the declaration.  202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fifth

message: "Though smaller maoist style paramilitary bands started emerging, the Mukti Bahini were becoming increasingly visible. Headed by Colonel Muhammad Ataul Gani Osmani," Quoted from the article.
Well actually they were small only according to Awami League and pro Awami League sources. According to Col. Osmani own statements, he commanded only about 80 thousand muktis (men)... (From Osmani's interview) I do not remember the exact figure, but Siraj Sikdar's force (a Maoist style paramilitary as you call it) was larger (please verify). (Refer to, "Role of the Leftists in the Liberation War of Bangladesh) There were other such forces around the country. From what I have found out...  202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sixth

message: Conclusion (sort of)
Awami League accuses the BNP of manipulating history and itself is probably guilty of the same crime. Please write a balanced history without exaggerations or deletions AND without misinformation. Verify everything... If I am wrong, I will accept correction... if you are wrong... Please make necessary corrections.
The history in this article does not mention Maulana Bhashani, the creator of Awami League and the person who has pushed the country towards independence. The article does not talk about Sirajul Alam Khan, Siraj Shikdar, Huq, Toaha, Rashed Khan Menon, Colonel Taher, Belal Mohammad, Abul Bashar, Shahjahan Siraj, Abdur Rab, Makhan, Siddiqui, Abdul Matin (the main Language Movement leader) and others. I do not care what party they belong to or support but their roles are undeniable and must be mentioned.  
Many of these leaders are alive ... why not interview them.... interview the closest associates of those who have died. Get a thorough picture of the war.
Also refer to Col. Osmani's interviews and you will find out many things. For one Osmani claims that he was not told that the Pakistanis were surrendering (refering to the 16th December). He says it was a deliberate act and he was distracted and kept out of the way by an Indian officer. There was also an attempt on his life ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 1971. (Also from his interview.)  202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seventh

message: I've removed the suggestions for merging it with Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the reasons of which are as follows:
* See Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971
* Bangladesh Liberation War was not fought between India and Pakistan, it was fought by Bangladeshi rebels and Pakistan
**Between 26th march-16 december
**India did not even recognize Bangladesh as a nation until Dec 3, 1971
**Though India provided arms and tranining, it never officially joined the war. No Indian army units ever participated in fighting in Bangladeshi soil before Dec 3.
* Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 began on December 3, 1971.
* Both wars' last portions overlapped, but the wars were totally different.
Thanks --Ragib 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they so unrelated? Esentially, they were the same war. India came in to help Bangladesh, not just to fight Pakistan, and I think it's under the guise of two different wars. I'm not an expert in this topic, so let's see how others think about this. Stallions2010 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge suggestion 

message: The section on casualties as written now seems to indicate that the number 300,000 is more accurate than 3 million. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but way too much is written in favour of the 300,000 figure included a vast number of so-called scholarly citations. Am I the only one who feels that the article seems to conclude that 300,000 is the actual figure instead of doing its (the article's) job of illucidating that it is just one more estimate - one provided by the accused? I personally would want to go ahead and rewrite some of this to make it more balanced, but I would like to hear others' comments. Thanks -- urnonav 00:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figure POV 

message: Can someone verify the sentence regarding Mr. Hannan being the first person to broadcast the declaration of independence. Also, the "Political climax" section ought to be expanded, is it not the crux of the whole article? Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hannan's claims are controversial, and so is attempts to say Zia declared the message on the 26th. My parents were in Chittagong the whole time, and almost no one heard Hannan's broadcast, but almost everyone heard Zia's, but on the 27th. References are available either way. So, Hannan's being the first is most likely true, but isn't without controversy.  --Ragib 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify

message: I'm removing the following from the main page because by a perusal it is not clear whether this is according to the Dawn or some other source. Also, it seems to hint that the 3 million figure is clearly wrong. Although I can't find it now, I seem to remember reading somewhere that this attribution was actually warped during printing.
Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake and suggested Pakistan and Bangladesh should form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. "Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India."
U.S Department of State South Asia in Crisis: United States Policy, 1961-1972 June 28-29, 2005, Loy Henderson Auditorium, Tentative ProgramAnwar Iqbal Sheikh Mujib wanted a confederation: US papers, The Dawn, July 7, 2005
If anyone feels the need to reinstate it, please discuss here and do so. Thanks,
urnonav 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamsher Chowdhury quote 

message: I think  Agartala Conspiracy Case should be mentioned briefly in this article since it is considered as an important event that led to the eventual seperation.Bharatveer 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be briefly in the history/background section ... --Ragib 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Agartala Conspiracy Case]]

message: I propose that some of the important quotes from the main characters in the war be moved to a subsection titled "Quotes" to ensure that the article reflects the war as with other Wikipedia articles on war and ends with quotes. Speeches and quotes by Sheikh Mujibur, Yahya Khan, Niazi, Indira Gandhi, Nixon et al can be included there. Idleguy 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: :I removed the Yayha Khan quote again: the point is not the veracity of it, which seems in little doubt, but its appropriateness in a section on casualties.  According it such status in this section, in an effort to align it with the 3 million dead figure is an apparent attempt to create both cause and effect and give justification to the latter - he said kill 3 million so they did, which is of course preposterous as war does not work that way.  I actully think that the article would benefit from being expanded with a specific section on genocide, in which such issues could be teased out aside from the casualty figures.  That way the first half of Rummel's quote could be moved to there as well, leaving the section on casualty figures to deal with just that, and another section to discuss their origin. Cripipper 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current text says According to the journalist Robert Payne on February 22, 1971 Yahya Khan told a group of generals, "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands". This would suggest that although brutal the intention was "only" to kill 3 million. 3 million out of the total available population would probably not fulfil the genocide requirement of the substantiality requirement of the phrase "in part" (see above for a more details).
For that reason the quote should stay in--Philip Baird Shearer 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Alas I dissent.  I fail to see the connection.  The quote is out of place and in appropriate, unless the section is expanded to explain why it is relevant.  As it stands it is out of place and adds nothing to the paragraph; if you wish to expand the quote to give it context and relevance, that would be fine, but as it currently stands it appears to me that it was inserted by someone (?) to make a point about whether it was genocide or not, and the contextual qualifications have subsequently been lost.  By all means turn the quote into something useful; at the moment, however, it is completely out of context and actually detracts from the sense of the section, rather than adding anything to it. Cripipper 22:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *The question is not whether it is verifiable, it is whether it is relevant or useful.  I have explained why I think it shouldn't be there, you have yet to offer a justification of why you think it should (other than the fact you put it there and it has been there for a while). Cripipper 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The quote is definitely relevant. This provides insight into the mindset of the Generals who pressed on with the bloody war. Yahya wasn't just another guy, he was the head of the military junta that planned the whole operation, and continued the 9 month long war despite huge number of civilian deaths. So, the quote must stay, as Philip mentioned above. --Ragib 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *There is certainly a place for the quote, just not in the section on casualty figures, which should deal just with casualty figures.  Your rationale for keeping it is is different from that of Mr. Shearer, who appears to want to keep it to prove that it was not genocide.  The section on casualty figures is not the place to demonstrate "the mindset of the Generals who pressed on with the bloody war..."  In its current positioning it reeks of very sloppy history. Cripipper 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well-written history should not leave the reader to infer anything.  Was it well known at the time?  If so then state this fact and state that it could be a reason why the three million fact gained currency. The idea that there was a plan with amry units keeping tally charts to fill their quota of three million is ridiculous.  At the moment there is no visible justification to a lay reader why that quote belongs in that paragraph. Cripipper 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yayha Khan quote

message: The two sources that are given in this for Mujib repeatedly using the three million figure are not acceptable sources.  They are unsourced and uncited repetitions of second-hand information.  These are not verifiable sources and are in breach of WP:V.  They are not acceptable sources.  The problem with much of this article, and which I addressed in the foreign intervention sections in which I have a certain degree of expertise, is that most of this article has been written by people primarily trawling google for info and citing anything they can find to back up their argument.  Very few of these conform to the standards of verifiability for Wikipedia, which requests that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed."  Badly-written and poorly cited history articles in wikipedia are one of its weakspots and damage its credibility; the content of the individual articles outside of my expertise (except for howlers and general bad-writing) is not my issue.  However, I fully intend to flag up weak citations or no citations at all, and unfortunately this article is full of them.  I have left the weak ones (newspapers etc, but you really should start getting out some academic works on this as reference: there is only one single peer-reviewed academic work or publication referenced in this entire article), but fully intend to remove non-credible ones, such as Mr. Hossain's website and correspondance with the GBWR.Cripipper 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mujib and 3 million

message: "...the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province." Is this right? Wouldn't this make West Pakistan less powerful? Clarityfiend 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because individual provinces in WP had low populations, by combining them together into one unit, the combined unit had more population and more represenation in the federal assembly. There might be better explanations of this too. --Ragib 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree more detail would help.  I think this was a bloc voting system where a single party won all the seats for WP, but EP was divided into little districts.  Mujib had to carry about 90% of the EP seats to win the election.-- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huuh?

message: I flagged the Prelude to War section for several reasons:
* that other imaginative constitutional innovation, the "one unit scheme."
* These so-called "Government Passengers"
* The overall tone of the article puts Pakistan in the light of being an evil aggressor
I don't know much about this conflict at all; please don't think I have a pro-Bangladesh or anti-Pakistan agenda here.  For all I know, my third objection could be completely problem-free.  Nyttend 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To address your concerns, I have copyedited the first two comments (removed "that. imaginative", "so-called"). The third point, as you said, is really not a problem here. So, I have removed the POV tag. Thanks. --Ragib 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV for Prelude to War 

message: Please stop reinserting these crap sources - they in no way show that Rahman made the 3 million claim.  They do show that there is a widespread belief that he made the claim, but they do nothing to verify the fact that he did.  One is some loon's personal correspondance with the GBWR, and the other is an unverified assertion in a thesis.  You would hardly see them referenced in the Encyclopedia Britannica, would you...? Cripipper 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have already shown newspaper references from the time period, showing that the 3 million claim was made by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (unless you have deleted that reference too). As for calling another person names, please remember that it is akin to libel to do so, so stop "sharing" your personal attitudes like this. Thanks. --Ragib 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cripipper, the first source is a "Doctoral Dissertation topic" (which was accepted) so what is the problem with using that as a reliable source? The second on it's own I would agree would not be acceptable on its own but in addition to the other two it does no harm and is informative. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I am afraid they do do harm as they seem to indicate that the article is written by people whose knowledge of the subject extends little beyond doing a google search. If it's not verifiable or credible, leave it out. Cripipper 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean? Philip has correctly mentioned that the first reference is fine. Yet you reverted this. Please don't do this on a whim. Thank you. --Ragib 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a whim. The first reference is not fine, in that the claim is not verifiable, i.e. there is no source given for it in the footnote. I have read plenty of accepted doctoral dissertations that have mistakes. There is already one acceptable and verifiable reference, it does not need inferior quality ones obtained through google.  There is already an acceptable reference there, why do you need to include inferior material that detracts from the quality of the article. These references contribute nothing - why insist on putting them in? Cripipper 14:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just for added clarity - here is the relevant section from WP:V (emphasis added):
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
SO, just to clarify: personal websites are not acceptable sources, ruling out the second of the two. The thesis is unpublished, and is not written by a historian, but by someone who works in the field of education - not a relevant field. Cripipper 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources on Rahman 3 million claim

message: The Office of the Historian of the United States State Department held a two-day conference in late June 2005 on U.S. policy in South Asia between 1961 and 1972. The State Department invited international scholars to express their views on declassified documents recently published in the Foreign Relations of the United States series. Acording to a newspaper report published in both Pakistani and Bangladeshi newspapers, Bangladeshi speakers at the conference stated that the official Bangladeshi figure of civilian deaths was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million. Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake and suggested Pakistan and Bangladesh should form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. "Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India." [27][28][29]
I have two questions here:
* Which Bangladeshi newspaper? Could we get some citations or names? Otherwise, I am going to remove the bolded part a week from now.
* The second bolded part is wrong grammatically. Between has to have a structure like "Between x and y". However, in this case, there's no y. Does anyone know what he actually said?
In general, I have an issue with this section. Most of this is US justification to not intervening in the war. As far as Bangladeshi sources are concerned, from what I recall, the papers seem to treat the speakers as being selectively picked for some ulterior motives. There are numerous conferences held everyday with speakers. Why quote numbers from them? It's not really a reputed academic source, is it, especially given USSD's involvement in the War?
urnonav 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty section quote from USSD conference 

message: I haven't read the whole article, but I have to say, I feel there may be just a tad bit of bias here...
"The Pakistani Army was in a dreadful condition and gradually lost the will to fight because most of their major fortresses had fallen to the allied Bengali-Indian forces. It was a matter of shame for the Pakistani High Command that a well-trained army was losing the war to the common Bengali civilians, who were barely trained and had outdated weapons. To conceal this shameful matter they launched an air attack near the Indian border on December 3 so that the real facts would remain unknown to the common people and people would say that Pakistani Army did not lose to the Mukti Bahini but to more powerful Indian armies. This led India to announce war against Pakistan officially and they started attacking near the Pakistan-India border from the 6th of December. All-out war between Bangladesh-India and Pakistan began. The agility and strategy of the Mukti Bahini, aided by Indian forces, overwhelmed the Pakistani forces and within 10 days of India's joiníng the war, the Pakistani Army was compelled to an unconditional surrender on December 16, 1971."
The phrasing is pretty slanted. The "shameful act?" "So that the real facts would remain unknown to the common people." This needs to be cleaned up.
Agreed. How about this?
:The Pakistani Army was in a dreadful condition and gradually lost the will to fight because most of their major fortresses had fallen to the allied Bengali-Indian forces. It launched an air attack near the Indian border on December 3. This led India to announce war against Pakistan officially  and they started attacking near the Pakistan-India border from the 6th of December. All-out war between Bangladesh-India and Pakistan began. The Pakistani Army was soon defeated at many fronts and was compelled to an unconditional surrender to Mitra Bahini on December 16, 1971.
--Ragib 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Four Phases 

message: This needs to be reverted at once. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.193.169.229 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM