Talk:Operation Searchlight

message: As far as I know, the Operation Searchlight was the crackdown initiated on March 25, 1971. It did not cover the whole war. For references, see Major Siddiq Salique's book "Witness to surrender". --Ragib 15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: The main article on Bangladesh states: 'Rough estimates of those massacred range from several hundred thousand to 3 million', whereas only the figure 3 million is given here.  I am not personally familiar with attempts to arrive at a definitive figure, so I'll leave it unchanged, but if someone with better knowledge could attend to it, that would be much appreciated.  --Benwilson528 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. There is no definitive number, but most estimates agree on a number between 1 million and 1.5 million. The 3 million number is an upper limit. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the conservative figure of 1 to 1.5 million has been supported by multiple independent sources (e.g., R.J. Rummel). Please refer to the references. As for your other claims, feel free to come up with references from reliable sources rather than handwaving. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Death toll

message: To state that it was a Genocide in the first sentence is not a WP:NPOV.
This article does not cite its sources. Further as there have not been any trials (but see Raymond Faisal Solaiman v People's Republic of Bangladesh & Ors)it can only be an alleged genocide if a genocide at all. Please see the article Genocide, it is not at all clear that even if the top figure of three million were killed that it would qualify as a Genocide as the "in part" would not be reached. The only way that this could be considered a genocide is if those targeted were "emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival", but that Bangladesh was created and has survived it would suggest that the group killed were not. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So a death cannot be a murder until someone is prosecuted for it? Or the genocide in Serbia didnt exist because a large enough part of the various communities werent killed? Removing Neutrality tag, have fun and please post with something more than sophistry next time. Also see  --89.100.1.161 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet again you ignore the point, no where does it mention that anyone was convicted of genocide or that people were indicted on it, Genocide as a word and genocide as a crime are different, just as murder and many other terms that have both legal and common-use definitions are. Stop with the pointless sophistry and straw mans. --89.100.1.161 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Article is riddled with WP:POV and WP:OR violations. Hardly any sources are provided and those statements that do cite sources, it seems the entire article is largely based on two books. Needs to be improved.Aaron Pris (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The Razakar, Al Badr groups were activated much after the launching of the operation (around June 1971), by which time Operation Searchlight ended. Their information should not be in the Operation Searchlight info box but in the Bangladesh Liberation War section.Maglorbd (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Searchlight and Razakars

message: This article was recent removed from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 26 due to claims that this article is currently "heavily sourced to involved parties, not independent sources, and is unwikified in heaps of places" As such, I have tagged this article with  for now until such issues on this article itself have been resolved. Please see Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 26#Removal of Bangladesh Liberation war entry by YellowMonkey for more details on the objections. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: Mukti Bahini was created long before operation search light took place. 119.154.9.79 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Errors

message: Darkness Shines, you know as well as I do that The British Medical Journal and The Guardian are WP:RS, and you have failed to even achieve consensus that Bose is fringe. Please stop your unjustified edit warring and mass deletions of content you disagree with.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a letter to the editor is not RS, Which this is] And certainly not for historical facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darkness Shines POV-pushing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Operation Searchlight. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/in-paper-magazine/books-and-authors/how-the-east-was-lost
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 Link rot had set in before url was archived.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That item is online here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is meant by independent research? Does it mean commentary that contradicts well established historical facts? Then what is an non-independent research? Where did Hiro Dilip run his "research"? 
The first ref provided was an empty ref. The second one could not be verified. Both invalid. If your book-cite cannot be verified by clicking on the link, please, provide a direct quote in the ref. Use "quote" parameter. The "fact" you provide is divergent from established facts, and needs to handled with more care than the sloppiness I had to remove. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another article that mentions it link.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another. And, another. It all seems to stem from this. BBC keeps attributing its numbers to "independent researchers" without ever naming the research. May be this one could have helped, but the source requires subscription. So far I have been able to find only the British Medical Journal to cite a research, and not just vague attributions. I guess the particular place for this BBC viewpoint may be better dealt in the article on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. May a section on disputed numbers or something. That would be able to handle the divergent numbers with adhering to any particular bias. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying the fact that independent researches have claimed is not true? Another point: If you look at this article Kargil War, along with many others, it shows claims from both side. No need to make a separate paragraph on 1 sentence or 3 words. Saadkhan12345 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Wikipedia is not about the truth. It is about verifiable facts. If BBC claims a number, then do write "BBC claims...". If the Bangladesh mainstream claims a number than you may write "In Bangladesh it is believed..." or something. And, so on. If someone says there is "independent research" and then does not cite the research, then do not write "independent research" as if you know what that means. You don't know, BBC does. And, if there are 2/3 different numbers to deal with then present none as facts, apart from the the one that has been more established, and write the rest of the numbers in a comprehensive manner, preferably in a section for the disputes. The 3 words you mention probably does not cover the "fact". There is no fact here, just different claims. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Aditya you do reliaze that one of the source for this statement "as the death of up to 3,000,000 civilians" is from bbc and the second is from aljazeera. So its ok if I add bbc claim to it? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Up to..." should be able to cover it. Alternatively "a death toll assumed to be something between ... and ..." may also cover both views. Alternatively we can replace the BBC source for the first claim. Should not be difficult. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry. Are you trying to say we can give range that can cover both views? Like estimate range of 300k-3m? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that. Yes. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent research reverted 

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (Aditya Kabir):Link
There are two different death tolls for Bangladesh Liberation War, one claimed by Bangladesh government, and another by BBC, who mentions "independent researchers" as their source. It is prudent, and meets WP:N and WP:V if we write something like - "Bangladesh government and majority of Bangladesh sources claim ... died. However, BBC claims, citing unnamed independent researchers, that it was ...". Thank you.
; Viewpoint by (Saadkhan12345):I believe the lead becomes biased and non-neutral with one sided claim and therefore we should add independent figure claim.
Aditya mentions on Talk:Operation Searchlight
*1. If BBC claims a number, then do write "BBC claims..."
I believe this is wrong here and we shouldn't write BBC claims here because BBC doesn't claim the figure 300,000 dead but Independent researchers do.
*2. If someone says there is "independent research" and then does not cite the research, then do not write "independent research".
I believe we don't have to cite the research and check whether the claim is true because we don't do this for reliable sources.
; Third opinion by Kautilya3:
* Aditya Kabir's proposed version seems fair, and I don't understand the objection to it. If you have reliable sources that have done an analysis of the death toll, please feel free to cite them. News sources are not particularly authoritative for these matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Aditya you do reliaze that one of the source for this statement "as the death of up to 3,000,000 civilians" is from bbc and the second is from aljazeera. So its ok if I add bbc claim to it? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Up to..." should be able to cover it. Alternatively "a death toll assumed to be something between ... and ..." may also cover both views. Alternatively we can replace the BBC source for the first claim. Should not be difficult. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry. Are you trying to say we can give range that can cover both views? Like estimate range of 300k-3m? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that. Yes. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: This is the original text from the new citation 
The crackdown code-named 'Operation Searchlight' which sealed the fate of national unity was launched at midnight on 25 March. Yahya later justified it by citing the threats to non-Bengali Muslims, the murders committed by the Awami League and its insults to the army.
in Ian Talbot, India and Pakistan: Inventing the Nation (2000) Oxford University Press pp. 258
It is reasonably reflective of the sentence in the article which reads
  
Likewise,
Perhaps you may like some modification to pull the existing sentence closer to the Talbot citation? TurboCop (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talbot citation 

message: 8 EBR units under Major Zia made a surprise attack on the barracks of the 20 Baluch regiment and killed 250 West Pakistani soldiers. This event would have been a major Bangladesh victory but it is not mentioned in sources from Bangladesh, including Bengali officers who had served with 8 EBR in Chittagong in March, (then) Captain S. Ali Bhuyan (Author  Muktijuddhay Noi Mash.ISBN 984-11-0326-5), (then) Captain Oli Ahmed, (author of Rastrobiplob Samorik Bahinir Sadashsbindu Abong Bangladesher Muktizuddah), and (then) Major Mir Shawkat Ali or (then)Lt. Shamsher Mubin or then (Captain) Haroon, and by Major Rafiqu Islam ( author of A Tale of Millions ISBN 984-412-033-0) who could not get Major Zia to come to the city. Maj. Gen. K.M Safiullah ( Bangladesh at War, ISBN 984-401-322-4) also makes no no mention of any such incident.Maglorbd (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing this sentence regarding 8 EBR