Talk:Pakistani Instrument of Surrender

message: There is a picture on the  Jagjit Singh Aurora page of the Instrument being signed ... I think that it should be included in this article ... any objections ???
--Saggod 11:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The image :File:1971 surrender.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:1971 surrender.jpg

message: Were they repatriated? --AW (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, according to Simla Treaty. --Ragib (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened the people who surrendered? 

message: The "surrender of East Pakistan" sounds like the Surrender of Japan or Surrender of Germany. The people of East Pakistan declared independence on March 26 and became Bangladesh. According the Instrument of Surrender, the Pakistan Eastern Command surrendered in Bangladesh. There was no such thing as East Pakistan on December 16!--ArmanJ (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That IP was yours? Feel free to edit through your username! :p Faizan (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Pakistan surrender is NPOV 

message: Good Day 
  
1.   I am Major Shameem Ibne Moin, currently posted as a General Staff Officer Grade 2 in Armed Forces Division, Prime Minister’s Office, Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. I would like to put forward an observation regarding an article published in Wikipedia named ‘Instrument of Surrender (1971)’.
  
2.   The Instrument of Surrender 1971 was a written agreement that enabled the surrender of the Pakistan Armed Forces in the Bangladesh Liberation War 1971. Lieutenant-General A A K Niazi, joint commander of the Pakistan Armed Forces of East Pakistan contingent, and Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, joint commander of the Bangladesh-India Allied Forces, signed the instrument. The ceremony was witnessed by Air Commodore A. K. Khandker (the then Group Captain), Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Bangladesh Armed Forces, who was the lone representative of Bangladesh Government amongst the attendees of the ceremony.
 
3.   Number of still photographs was taken to record this historical moment and was subsequently published in various newspapers, websites, journals, war museums, ceremonial brochures etc. One of these photographs is published in your website as well (under Surrender ceremony sub-head).  Under this subheading it is mentioned, ``On behalf of Bangladesh, Air Commodore A.K Khandker acted as witness to the surrender.” However this particular picture does not include Air Commodore A. K. Khandker, who was standing (in civil dress) at the left of Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora as seen in the picture. Certain portion might have been cut from the picture to accommodate it within the webpage. As a result, the picture does not contain the only representative of Bangladesh Government present in the ceremony. It is to be further mentioned that the picture on surrender ceremony preserved in the Bangladesh Liberation War Museum also include the image of Air Commodore A.K  Khandker.
4.    In this context as the surrender picture is partially published, we think the visual depiction of the historical moment may not be comprehensive to the readers. Therefore, we recommend the publication of the picture in full including Air Commodore A. K. Khandker, who was the lone representative of Bangladesh Government as mentioned above. We would like to inform you that we possess the photograph and can be e-mailed to you if necessary.
5.     Your response in this regard will be highly appreciated. Regards.
                                                                               Major Shameem Ibne Moin
                                                                               General Staff Officer Grade 2
                                                                               Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh 
                                                                               Prime Ministers Officer
                                                                               Civil and Military Relations Directorate
                                                                               Armed Forces Division
                                                                               Email Address- shameem7068@yahoo.com
                                                                               Cell Info 01769014378  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.142.118 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: by Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Instrument of Surrender  

message: You are very well aware of the discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Civilians being part of POWs were discussed there. You reverted me saying that word "officials" cover family members of military personnel. I disagree with you on that. I am not sure if this should be even a discussion point and I am not sure which English do you use but the English I use does not describe kids of a military personnel as "officials". You were also notified about WP:ARBIPA which says that you are supposed to assume good faith towards other editors when you are working on Pakistan/India topics and calling other people POV pusher is opposite of assuming good faith. You need to cut down on the habit of calling others as POV pushers. Also, Please explain, why do you think that Bangladesh Liberation War is more relevant compared to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 when describing instrument of surrender? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'm willing to go for a self-revert but you cannot just use word "civilian" since majority of them were razakars beside members of pakistan soldiers family, perhaps. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text: because the Pakistan forces surrendered in the east pakistan which ultimately led to the creation of independent Bangladesh as as a new country, thus Bangladesh Liberation War is more relevant! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, I think they surrendered as a result of direct Indian intervention. It was combined affect of Indian and Provisional Bangladeshi forces but I think we should go with the sources. However sources describe it, we should describe it the same way. Also, you seem to be adopting two different point of views on two different pages. Your recent reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 show that you are not letting people include Provisional Bangladeshi forces as a victorious party of that war but here you are adopting completely opposite point of view. If the surrender ended Bangladesh Liberation War then what ended Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Obviously they surrendered because of the Indian troops. And, no different point of view, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 covers all areas of wars including the western sector  while Bangladesh Liberation War includes only eastern sector and that's why i added it but its OK, I'm restoring "Indo-Pak article" And, It was not Bangladeshi victory according to every sources that have been listed in the Indo-Pak article. They don't have any victory with them. Indo-Pak war was between India and Pakistan so winner will be India or Pakistan, that's what the sources mentioned in the article say, they all cite Indian Victory. Name of Mukti Bahini or Bangladesh/or Allies along with India is the thing to write in result section of Bangladesh liberation war (already written tho). Moreover, the IP who is adding Bangladesh again and again in the result section is an apparent sockpuppet of Xtremdood who started this all first. You can see the discussion at talk page, -RFC section and below, consensus was reached long ago. And, the reason I'm not reverting the IP because I don't wanted to get block for violating 3RR. I have left that for the other users, they will certainly revert him in accordance with the talk page consensus, you can do that too. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that RFC's result was to include the information. Exact words of the result are "The consensus is that the information should be included." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  How about you care to look little below the RFC section (Revisions by Human3015), as i mentioned "RFC-and below? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: POW civilians

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure)  TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Instrument of Surrender (1971) →  – Disambiguating the title with year is Absurd and misleading. Who!? surrendered here!? for what!? The official name of the document is "Instrument of Surrender"- YA YA THE Japanese and German documen was also named simple as "Instrument of Surrender". If we have Japanese Instrument of Surrender & German Instrument of Surrender; Why we can´t have a Pakistani Instrument of Surrender! Just because of some Pakistani editor said Wikipedia:I just don't like it!! 87.79.176.237 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
* I'm going to have to object to the move, as this clearly should've had broader input. "Instrument of Surrender (1971)" is the longstanding title of the page and it is clearly disambiguated by the year in brackets. The term "Instrument of Surrender" is the name of the document itself, a terminology on its own, and is used in academic works written on the war . There clearly isn't any confusion which Instrument the article is referring to (as claimed by nom.), as there is only one Instrument of Surrender from 1971. The current title adds a descriptor that isn't the real name of the document to begin with, and also does not meet WP:COMMONNAME. Lastly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't even grounds for a move. Given this was a non-admin move, and knowing that broader consensus wasn't formed for the reasons presented, I'm going to have to restore the title to the status quo. It would be highly appreciated if the issue is discussed through WP:RFC or a medium facilitating a larger number of editors, and if third party editors are preferably involved in the consensus. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Start RFC first and don't move the article unilaterally as it controversial now. Take a look at Japanese Instrument of Surrender & German Instrument of Surrender first. the name of the both documents on original picture "Instrument of Surrender". longstanding title doesn't mean eternal unchangeable —Gaurh (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 March 2017