Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Sources which are being removed

by TripWire/PakSol, Faizan and assorted suspicious IPs:

• Genocide in Bangladesh by R. Jahan in the volume "Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts" edit by Samuel Totten and published by Routledge in 2013. This is a high quality academic source. Page 265 specifically talks about the atrocities and massacres on Dhaka University Campus, followed by several pages of eyewitness testimony.

• "Unconventional Warfare in South Asia: Shadow Warriors and Counterinsurgency" by Kaushik Roy and Scott Gates. Published in Ashgate, an academic publisher, in 2014. The relevant chapter is "Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies in Pakistan". The specific role of the Pakistani army in the organization of the radical militias is on page 117.

Of course it's quite easy to find other sources related to the atrocities committed in Dhaka and at the University in particular ([1] [2] [3] [4] just to throw out a few). Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from a mostly uninvolved editor: I went to the Bangladesh section of a university research library to see what the books here say about atrocities in Dhaka. The available sources were surprisingly few, but those which discuss this time period seem to somewhat confirm the statements which are being removed. In other words, the sources which addressed this time period suggested that some extreme and one-sided violence did take place. For example, Hasan Zaheer (of the Pakistani civil service, now in academics) writes in The Separation of East Pakistan (1994), p. 167:

The Dhaka University campus, which was regarded as the centre of Bengali resistance, was attacked at 2 a.m. According to army circles, after stiff resistance with rifles and shotguns, the hostel, which was the hotbed of 'rebellion', was finally 'secured' at 5 a.m. Curfew was imposed on the entire city and the army attacked the previously-marked strongholds all over the city.
Major-General Farman Ali was the executor of the Dhaka part of 'Searchlight'. He succeeded in 'shock action' by concentrated and indiscriminate firing on target areas, but failed to arrest the maximum number of students or political activists, particularly the sixteen leaders listed in the plan. [...]
In the ferocity of the army action and indiscriminate killings and arrests, even the moderate elements did not feel safe.

In the electronic databases, I see Wardatul Akman writing in "Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh: A case of genocide" (Journal of Genocide Research, 2010):

On the night of March 25, 1971, the West Pakistani Armed Battalion engaged in indiscriminate mass killing in different parts of Dhaka. This was called "Operation Searchlight," the objective of which was to "neutralize" the Awami League of its political power. In order to achieve this objective, the Army had to (1) capture the leadership of the Awami League, (2) neutralize the student leaders and cultural organizations, which mobilized the renaissance of Bengali nationalism, and (3) disarm the Bengali armed men (Sission and Rose, 1990, pp 157–158). From the huge Hotel Intercontinental, reporters saw the city in flames. They were made to stay inside by heavily armed soldiers (Payne, 1973, p 21). Over 15,000 people were killed "between March 25 and 26" in the city of Dhaka alone (Chaudhury, 1972, p 21; before 1982 "Dhaka" was spelled "Dacca").

An article called "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971" by Sarmila Bose (Economic and Political Weekly, 2005), suggests that what happened in Dhaka is disputed and confusing. Bose is considered by some an apologist for the Pakistani army. But even she seems to confirm the notion that the army roamed through the city, and especially within the university, killing suspected dissidents.

A vivid description of the attack on Jagannath Hall given tome by an eyewitness, Rabindra MohanDas, who lived in the staff quarters on the grounds, corroborates the massive use of force by the army, and also the killing of unarmed staff. According to Lieutenant General (Lt Gen) Kamal Matinuddin's account, the officer in overall command of this attack - then Brigadier Jehanzeb Arbab - admitted "over-reaction and over-kill by the troops under his command".

All that being said, it seems possible that 'atrocities' is a loaded term and better wording for the contested section could be found. Perhaps those who disagree with this wording could propose an alternate statement which acknowledges that violence did take place in Dacca. Or, if anyone feels that this is contentious, I think this discussion would benefit from a more clear statement of alternative perspectives that people might have. If there are significant opposing views these would also warrant some revision of the section called "Atrocities". I hope we can advance this discussion in a respectful and productive way. peace & blessings, groupuscule (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank for checking this. It just confirms the fact that this is how reliable sources treat the matter. "Atrocities" is not a loaded term. This happened in the context of a genocide. The above sources make that clear and they use the word "atrocity". It is no more "loaded" to call these "atrocities" than to discuss Nazi Germany's actions in the territories it occupied as "atrocities".

At the end of the day we follow sources. If reliable sources talk about "atrocities" then we also use that word. If they don't we don't. But they do. So we do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, Marek, we don't do that. We just say that particular sources use the term "atrocities." Because it is a value-laden label, we don't use it in Wikipedia voice. Please see 2002 Gujarat riots for an example of how such terminology is treated. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, although in some cases it depends. In cases where there is lots of controversy over whether "atrocities" were committed or not, then we attribute. But in cases where there is no controversy - and here there isn't, these killings occurred in midst of what is generally considered a genocide, and virtually ALL reliable sources talk about "atrocities", not some euphemism for these - we simply follow the usage in sources.

For example, the article about the Amritsar massacre has the word "massacre" in the title (there's a separate issue that it's actually under "Jallianwala Bagh" for some reason but I don't even want to open that can of worms). It uses the word massacre more than 50 times in the article itself, without attribution or any other WP:WEASELING. Because quite simply that's how sources refer to it. Same thing here. Reliable sources talk about "atrocities". There's nothing "POV" about referring to things by their name. Quite the opposite actually. Removing what sources and how sources refer to this even violates NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Massacre" is a perfectly fine word to use. It means mass killing of unarmed people. But "atrocity" is a value-laden WP:LABEL. It should not be used in Wikipedia voice. Please understand the difference. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bangladesh Liberation War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bangladesh Liberation War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Al Jazeera":

• From 1971 Bangladesh genocide: "Bangladesh sets up war crimes court – Central & South Asia". Al Jazeera. 25 March 2010. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Bangladesh: Bangladesh troops lead global peacekeeping. Retrieved 29 May 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop the POV Pushing

Volunteer Marek, if you are so fond of writing about the one sided 'atrocities' without any mention of the atrocities committed by the likes of Mukti Bahini against Non-Bengals, please take it to 1971 Bangladesh genocide and/or 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals. This article has no place for one sided POVs, especially when they never belonged here at the first place and were pushed in by an IP who turned out to be a sockmaster (with atleast 6 x socks and still counting).—TripWire ^talk 01:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow really? An article on which leads to a genocide needs no mention a all of atrocities 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comment Mar4d (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Says who? A sock?—TripWire ^talk 17:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You could look at the sources I suppose? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comment Mar4d (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army during this war should NOT be mentioned at all in the article? DESPITE the fact that these atrocities, including the Dhaka University Massacre get extensive coverage in any half-serious source on the topic? Who's POV pushing? Seriously.

And let me say this right now. I don't care ONE BIT who put what text into this article when and how. All I care about is whether the text is supported by sources and whether it is relevant to the article and whether it follows NPOV. Please stop trying to use the fact that it may have been some sock puppet which improved the article at one point to remove text which you don't like in contravention of policy.

Discuss sources and content. Not about editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I never said that there should be no mention of atrocities in the article, especially when we have an entire sub0section on atrocities. All I am saying is that there is no need to make this article into an extension of 1971 Bangladesh genocide or 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals. And also let me say this right now, the POV which now you are trying to push was added by a sock and was being reverted and debated even when the sock was not blocked. Now that it is, and you want to add the same info, dude, just open up the RfC afresh so that we can discuss it out without any sock infestation. Simple. Actions/comments by that sock are null and void now, and hold no locus standi here anymore. You want it, you had to work for it, convince other editors and you may add it once again.—TripWire ^talk 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone tried reporting him yet? There's WP:ANI, for instance. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Try this - WP:DRN. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"I am saying is that there is no need to make this article into an extension of 1971 Bangladesh genocide or 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals" - and HOW exactly is putting in the word "atrocities" ONCE into the lede turning this article into an extension of either one of these other two?

Let's be clear here. The dispute is over whether in the lede we should use the sources-backed word "atrocities" to refer to things like the Dhaka University Massacre or this bullshit euphemism "military operations". As if somehow the term "military operation" was the proper term to describe the murder of students and professors as well as the rape of the female students. No. THAT is exactly what "POV pushing" is, quite disgusting POV pushing at that. And this is all about a single word in a single sentence.

Using the proper word, the one that is supported by high quality academic sources (which have been provided numerous times) is how you follow NPOV and it is NOT "making this article into an extension of" something else. It is summarizing the content of THIS article, since as you note, the text of the article does discuss the atrocities (as it should).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please instead of advising others to 'get clear', get yourself clear. The discussion here is not only on the word 'atrocities' but the entire edits made by a sock which were his POV and for which he never sought consensus before adding it. Now you are also trying to do the same.—TripWire ^talk 10:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the edit under dispute: [5]. All it involves is you removing the text:

The capital Dacca was the scene of many atrocities, particularly in its university area and police barracks. The junta formed radical religious militias - the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the Pakistan Army during raids on the local populace

to just

"The junta formed militias- the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams- to assist the army during military operations."

In other words you are removing the sentence about Dacca being the scene of atrocities - which is supported by MULTIPLE, academic, high quality sources AND it summarizes the content of the article, and changing the word "atrocities" to "military operations".

So please, stop lying. It's easy enough to check that you're fibbing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More Pictures for WP:NPOV

How about some pictures like some of the ones here are added to the page?—TripWire ^talk 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the same what your edits of atrocities has to do with this page. Stop the POV pushing already!—TripWire ^talk 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you're trying to say. Are you saying that the atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War should not be covered in this article? Really? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop acting like a kid, I never said that, I only oppose your POV pushing whereby you want to make this page into an extension of 3 other pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals and Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War) which elaborately expands upon the atrocities. This page already has a dedicated sub-section on atrocities, now if you will add it in every paragraph of this page, it is POV-pushing, nothing else and it does no justice with WP:NPOV either.

Same is the case with pictures, I am going to add few of them which shows the other side of the story to make the article unbiased.—TripWire ^talk 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Stop acting like a kid" - right, obviously constructive discussion with you is impossible. But let me keep trying:

I am NOT trying to turn this page into an extension of 3 other pages. All I'm doing is changing language in the lede to accurately reflect sources and summarize the article. In a single sentence. YOU are trying to POV the text and remove sourced info. Now you've come up with some other POV pushing strategy of putting in some photos to bias the article. Who's acting like a kid? Who's POV pushing? Who's engaging in WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior? Who's behaving WP:TENDENTIOUSly? Whose entire editing history evidences the fact that they are a single purpose account with an agenda? Maybe the account that until recently was named "User:PakSol" but changed their account name to TripWire when they realized that being named "Pakistani Soldier" sort of gave away the whole WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior shtick.

If you want to discuss content then please address the - numerous - sources that have been provided. You never responded to this, despite repeated previous requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, none of these photos can actually be used on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes sir, you are not acting like a good editor. Here's why:

• It has been over a month that the username was changed but you still ae unable to get over it.
• Adding SOURCED images to ensure WPNPOV is POV pushing? That's exactly how KIDS discuss things at Wiki.
• I could have very easily added the sourced images, but didnt do it, instead opened it up for debate, that's how good editors do, unlike a kid who, even though the query is mentioned in a separate section, is still discussing and linking the addition of SOURCED images to a totally unrelated discussion above.
• You are pushing POV by linking the adding of images which are sourced and present the other side of the story in an unbiased way to the edits by a sock which are being debated elsewhere.
• I will urge you to keep this sub-section for the discussion on the "Images" as the heading says, and not detrack and disrupt it by bringing a totally unlinked discussion into it.—TripWire ^talk 18:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason I bring up your old username is because it was such an obvious admission of bias and intent to pursue WP:ADVOCACY. But I guess you fixed that naive mistake. And like I said, those images have nothing to do with the topic under dispute, nor can you actually use them on Wikipedia (there's nothing to debate here - they're not free).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

First, you need to get over with the past. My username has been discussed ad-nauseam, have been reported with no result and most importantly, I have never tried to hide anything. Lastly, a sock was already reported for WP:NPA. I suggest, you stop it too or else the option of taking you too to the admins lies open. Second, the images are in the public domain, getty images allow for the images to be used after attribution. —TripWire ^talk 18:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not done any NPA - I have exclusively focused on your editing of this article. You on the other hand have made repeated personal attacks. Like, quote, "Stop acting like a kid". Wasn't that a personal attack? Yes? Then stop lecturing others.

You want to go to an admin board? Please. But you should probably read WP:BOOMERANG first.

As to the images, "Open Content" is not the same "Free Content". The restriction that they need to be attributed and may not be modified eliminates them from being free WP:NFC. Second, not all Getty images are even Open Content. In particular I don't think these are. But anyway, all this can be checked. However, even if these images *could* be used, does not mean that they *have to* be used. You've obviously went outhere with the expressed purpose of finding images which will skew the coverage of this article. That's about a textbook definition of WP:NPOV as one can find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you should stop thinking on my behalf. The article is about a war b/w Pakistan, India and its product, Mukti Bahini. There is not a single image that tells the Pakistan's or for that matter Non-Bangali side of the story. This enough is a reason to add these images. You challanging this simple edit is what is a the text book definition of WP:NPOV. Why would you oppose the addition of images which presents neutral info and balance this highly one sided article? What I understand from you comments is that anyone opposing your POV or adding info which is otherwise neutral, sourced,, authentic and provides WP:NPOV is considered POV-pushing by you? Strange.

The article does not contain a single image which shows actions by Mukti Bahini as regards to Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. There's isnt a single image which shows that there were indeed few POW on the Indian side too. The article shows as if Mukti Bahini were some sort of angles who did not commit any wrong and the Indian Army were aliens who won the war without any casualty or reversals. You call this being neutral?? The only reason any outsider will get from your undue opposition to the addition of such images is that you are a one hell of a POV-pusher who totally disregard wiki [WP:NPOV]] policy. —TripWire ^talk 19:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your perception of the article is telling. The article is based on reliable scholarly sources. There's only one photograph of murdered Bangladeshis - a lot more could be added if one wanted. It does mention the persecution of Biharis. The article roughly reflects academic consensus - your comments about MB being a "product of India" merely shows that you have a problem with reliable sources. Your desire to add in a bunch of images... of what exactly? The fact that Indian forces participated in the conflict? ...which aren't even free and cannot be used on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, and WP:UNDUE is just another example of the fact that you're WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This debate is going nowhere. You cannot challenge sourced content. Let the admins decide if the images are free or not. You have been amply explained why there is a need to add these images, you just chose to ignore that and like to run in circles and waste other editors time with your rhetoric. I have no problem with reliable sources, it is just your conjecture. What you want to push as your POV is that during the war there were no killing of non-banglis by MB, is that what you want to say? You also want to push that you Indian troops gave up arms at any point in the war? You want to push that Indian Army was successful in EVERY battle it fought in East Pakistan? This my dear is the CLASSIEST example of POV PUSHING!—TripWire ^talk 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I can most certainly challenge the *misuse* of sources to push a POV in violation of WP:UNDUE. But you're right, this is going nowhere. Verify that the images are free then we'll discuss the POV issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(and of course I said NONE of these things nor does this have ANYTHING to do with the dispute. You are, once again, pulling things out of your thin air. You're projecting. See classic strawman fallacy) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So if you agree that MB were not angles and that Indian Army did face a few reversal, there's then a need to show this in the page in the interest of WP:NPOV. (Authentic)Images will do it for now.—TripWire ^talk 07:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

still misrepresenting sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In edits like these [6], by User:PakSol.

The sources DO NOT support the contention that "The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active, primarily because India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini". Yes, India did support MB. But nowhere in these sources is the *fact* that this was the primary reason for MB activity supported.

The sources DO NOT support the contention that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini". The reason they don't is because that's a nonsense assertion. Look. I'm gonna spell it out. The idea that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is stupid. It's idiotic. It's something that just cannot be true (was it the "desire" of every 10 month old Indian child? Did somebody take a freakin' poll and got 100% results? Was there a divine revelation and it was written in stone by an invisible hand?) Only a dedicated WP:POV-pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior could insert something that ridiculous into the article. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).Please don't put this crap into the article again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop acting like a child. Go through WP:NOTTRUTH. This discussion regarding the edits you have mentioned above have already taken place here. An RfC was raised, discussion caried out and edited. So there is no need to moan and complain here. But as you have brought it up, I would like to point out your and your supporters' hypocrisy that when almost a dozen reliable sources very clearly say:

Modi said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. Modi also admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.

Still, you accuse me of misinterpretation of sources, even though the sources ( Modi saying it live, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12] ) clearly mention and support each and every word as quoted above.

But,

When someone from your gang quotes a source which only contains a word which matches the info you are trying to push, they become reliable. Despite that there is no context to the info in the source being quoted in your case. The actual thing is that the entire world now knows that Mr Modi's jingoistics have cause India a great embarrassment and is likely to face repercussion (Pakistan is planning to take India to the Court for its open intervention in Bangladesh and violation of UN Charter), so you simply cant digest this FACT being added to Wikipedia.

Tell me, how the edit here where i have quoted 10 sources is not acceptable even in WP:good-faith although my sources exactly says and support the edits, but the edit here by 114.134.89.21 when the sources he quoted does support the text it in the article are acceptable and not being considered as POV Pushing?—PakSol ^talk 08:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Modi hasn't said anything new. Not sure about what parallel universe you live in, but humanitarian interventions are always on the right side of history. Obviously there are strategic ambitions involved, but a genocide makes a compelling ground. The NATO intervention in Yugoslavia didn't have UN Security Council backing.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Before jumping to conclusions, I would suggest you go through the discussion on this topic here. And just to clarify, Wikipedia does not judge the facts, but just state verifiable facts, which in this case is Modi's statements. I and neither does the text in all the related articles, doesnt give any thought to whether India's intervention was correct or otherwise. Only that it's a new development and gives new dimension to the articles related to Bangladesh (Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War etc) which must be included at Wikipedia. Just because you say that it is a known fact does not overshadow the fresher version of events which are of considerable significance. What Modi said has never been acknowledged by India in public, and in the interest of showing the correct version of events and making Wikipedia credible and updated, these ought to be included here. BTW, the actual discussion here is regarding the unverifiable sources that you have added here, and if you are so fond of discussing the other dispute, please comment about it in the correct talk page —PakSol ^talk 12:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can verify that Indian government has never acknowledged its involvement in Bangladesh liberation through WP:HISTRS sources then there would be grounds for including Modi's statements. Without such verification, Modi's statements do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. As mentioned over and over again, Modi is not a WP:HISTRS source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can verify that a sitting Indian PM has said this thing to the entire world, I will retract my claim. Till then, this new development absolutely belong here on Wikipedia. —PakSol ^talk 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not current affairs. You need a lesson in history.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It sure is at times, depending upon the articles or else timelines would not have been made at Wikipedia. But then you argument is in itself flawed, because Modi's statement is not being added as a current affairs info, but to set the historical track correct. Tomorrow if Obama comes up and says, the Raid to Kill OBL was a joint operation by Pakistan and the US, surely this info will be added to the connected article. So, yes you need a lesson in commonsense. —PakSol ^talk 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha. You still don't get it? Get help, these conspiracy theories won't get you anywhere. You asked if a sitting Indian PM ever admitted to helping the MB in 1971, I gave you an an interview of Indira Gandhi doing just that. If you still don't get it, then seriously, get help.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol, you are naive then I have initially thought. No, unlike Modi, Indra Gandhi in her interview which you people like to quote did not say:

• That the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.
• That she actually participated and volunteered garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.
• That she alongwith others in the Indian Govt of that time infact conspired to divide Pakistan and that all this hoax of 'humanitarian assistance' for a cover story.

Now if you are unable to read english, I suggest you go through the dozens of SECONDARY sources which have quoted the above points. Seriously, you cannot omit this new development on the pretext of stupidity. —PakSol ^talk 14:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Get help.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot use one man's opinion to say all indians conspired to divide Pakistan I oppose that 82.11.33.86 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Modi is not some IP 82.11.33.86, but the (current) popular and elected leader of One Billion people. Indians voted him to power, now why mind his statements? If you ask me, I would give more weight to a guy who have participated in the 1971 War and is now the PM of a country than what a possible sock says —PakSol ^talk 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources DO NOT support the contention that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini". The reason they don't is because that's a nonsense assertion. The idea that "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian" is stupid. It's idiotic. It's something that just cannot be true. Only a dedicated WP:POV-pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior could insert something that ridiculous into the article. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).Please don't put this crap into the article again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

One word: WP:NOTTRUTH—PakSol ^talk 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What the hey does that even mean? (And it's actually two words). Please explain how the essay you are quoting at me is in any way relevant to my comment. I say "The sources DO NOT support your text". You come back with "One word: NOTTRUTH". Huh? It's pretty obvious that at this point you are merely engaging in obscurantist tactic. Pointing out that you're trying to bullshit with sources in no way goes against the idea of Verifiability. Indeed, it is the essence of it. So unless you're addressing yourself, please stop being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC

User:PakSol uses the following piece of newspaper text:

Modi said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing Mukti Bahini in former East Pakistan as he accepted a ‘liberation war’ honour on behalf of former Indian premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Modi also said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. Modi also admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan.

as the citation for the following claims:

• "Establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that was why Indian forces were fighting along with the Mukti Bahini"
• "The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active, primarily because India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini (between March and June)."

User:Volunteer Marek thinks, the reference does not support the claim. User:Kautilya3 thinks, (even if it does) the source, i.e. Narendra Modi quoted by the cite (without quote marks), is not acceptable.

Over this issue PakSol has done quite a bit of edit warring and name calling. He also keeps repeating WP:NOTTRUTH, which looks slightly counter productive to me, as it warns - Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." ("If it's written in a book, it must be true!").

The article is now protected, but the editor PakSol has still not received a consensus or sanction or any other community intevention. That may be required if we consider his warring attitude, ignorance of arguments, and, if I may say so, extreme hard-headedness in pushing his POV, which looks a bit like coming from Pakistani Army POV to me. But, that is just my conjecture, yet to be established.

How real are the claims? Need some advise before I do anything about them. I do have a little CoI here (you see, I come from Bangladesh). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Comments

• Fake - As everybody knows, there is already an RfC asking whether Modi's comments should be included in the Mukti Bahini page. I opposed it there with the statement: The 1971 Bangladesh War is history. Reliable sources for history are historians, as specified in WP:HISTRS. Modi isn't a historian. It doesn't matter what he says. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Modi. Neither is it a mouthpiece for Pakistani politicians. Since this RfC is asking how real are the claims, we have to know what the "claim" is in the first place. The version of the statement mentioned in the above quote, especially the bit "that was why Indian forces fought..." is clearly synthesis by Sartaz Aziz, because it doesn't appear in the version of Modi's speech published on the 7 June by ABP Live and others. Aziz seems to imply that the Indian forces were fighting alongside Mukti Bahini before the declaration of war by India on 3 December 1971. That is the sense in which User:TripWire (formerly called "PakSol") inserted the statement in this article. I haven't seen support for such a claim in any RS. Reliable sources such as the Raghavan's book and Gary Bass's book argue that there was a robust debate in India about what role India should play. There were hawks as well as doves. It is clear that Vajpayee and the Jana Sangh were among the hawks. Nobody remembers any of that. What is remembered, on the other hand, is Vajpayee's praise of Indira Gandhi as the "Goddess Durga" after India's victory, which presumably went to her head. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to 2015. Now allow me to once again quote Indian Express to the exact word: During his official visit to Bangladesh, Modi last Sunday in Dhaka said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. Now where does Aziz figure out in this statement?

And we have been around this many times already, but then as you fail to understand a very simple thing, that Modi's statement is a new development where he HIMSELF admits primarily 4 x things:

• establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen.
• that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini.
• Modi recalled his participation in the Jana Sangh campaign backing the rebels in former East Pakistan.
• Modi said he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the satyagraha launched by the Jana Sangh to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members.

Now guess what, I didnt even change a word from what has been published in the New Indian Express (the source quoted by Aditiya). Please tell me, what's here to misinterpret or what is that which I have changed and more precisely what is there that I have claimed ? —TripWire ^talk 04:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Modi's statement is a new development where he HIMSELF admits primarily 4 x things". WHO. CARES. We CANNOT put "establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen" into the article as if it was a fact just because a politician said that. We CANNOT put that into the article as it's a ridiculous claim. You - and PakSol - are deliberately misrepresenting a rhetorical statement by a politician for a factual claim and acting like Modi is some kind of reliable source for these facts. If Barrack Obama says "Americans are the greatest people on earth", we don't go running to the article on China and write "China's ok, but Americans are the greatest people on earth [citation: newspaper which quotes Obama]. This really isn't that hard to understand, so it's hard to escape the conclusion that the feigned incomprehension of this basic point is just that - a bad faith attempt to WP:GAME the rules and POV an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the source of the citation is New Indian Express, which is not the Indian Express. It is an offshoot of the latter and is not of the same quality. Secondly, the author of the news story is mentioned as "ANS" which is some unknown news service. India's leading newspapers like The Times of India and The Hindu didn't bother reporting Sartaz Aziz statements. The fact that the news story was reporting Aziz's twisted version of Modi speech is clear from other sources, e.g., ANI News. The actual speech of Modi was published on the 7th June. The so-called "fighting" that the "Indian citizens" were doing, in Modi's remarks, was that of showing support for Mukti Bahini by doing a satyagraha. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

References

I am sure you must have heard Mr Modi saying it itself on TV? If not, see it [Video Link to Mr Modi's Speech: here. Now please dont say that the recording is fake :). Moreover, the argument here is about Modi's words, not what Aziz has said. All the sources quote Mr Modi saying what he said. For the sake of the discussion and RfC, it is Modi and his words that say things about the 'desire of every Indian to divide Pakistan' and 'the reason why Indian Army fought along with Mukti Bahini' which are to be included, not how Aziz responded to it. But then you already know it, and are just trying to shift the focus of the discussion.—TripWire ^talk 12:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The video says nothing of the kind. In fact, Modi was saying that when the Indian Army was fighting along side Mukti Bahini, every Indian was wishing for the liberation of Bangladesh. A perfectly fine sentiment. Once again, it is Sartaj Aziz's twisting of Modi speech that has been bandied about over here. I have no idea what world this Aziz has been living in when Gen. Niazi was surrendering to the Indian Army in Dhaka or when Prime Minister Bhutto was negotiating with Indira Gandhi in Simla for the release of 93,000 POWs. But apprently he has now woken up to "revelations." Well, better late than never! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Text from Wikipedia Article quoting Direct Quotes as a justification for the ongoing discussion

When the following can be included to Wikipedia: According to the Pakistani high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan had prior knowledge that an operation would happen. Pakistan was "in the know of certain things" and "what happened, happened with our consent. Americans got to know him—where he was first—and that's why they struck it and struck it precisely." Husain Haqqani, Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., had said that Pakistan would have pursued bin Laden had the intelligence of his location existed with them and Pakistan was "very glad that our American partners did. They had superior intelligence, superior technology, and we are grateful to them."[270] Another Pakistani official stated that Pakistan "assisted only in terms of authorization of the helicopter flights in our airspace" and the operation was conducted by the United States. He also said that "in any event, we did not want anything to do with such an operation in case something went wrong."[270]<ref>{{cite web|title=Death of Osama bin Laden|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Pakistani_response}}</ref> Surely the statement by a portfolio like an Indian Prime Minister can always be added too. —TripWire talk 11:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@Aditya,

• Thanks for giving a wholesome view of the problem/dispute. Now, whereas you did mention the editors opposing the RfC, but I dont know if deliberately or mistakenly, you forgot to mention that Faizan, Mar4d and Human3015 have supported a similar RfC here
• It is also unfortunate that whereas you accused me of edit-warring, buy again failed to mention Volunteer Marek and 114.134.89.21 who were equally responsible for the edit war due to which 114.134.89.21 was reported here for committing 3RR on Bangladesh Liberation War and resultantly this page was protected.
• Whereas, you have shown your concerns now, but you failed to mention that it was me who had already opened up the discussion on the IP edits/edit-war on the topic right here.
• You accused me of "ignorance of arguments":

• Can you please elaborate this point? It was me who raised an RfC first at Mukti Bahni talk page to have an argument so that we could formally reach a consensus. Even before I put up the RfC, Volunteer Marek and I were talking about it here and no edit pertaining to the discussion was made. How do you call this "ignorance of arguments"?

• It was me who put up the page for protection when an IP was involved in an edit war with another editor whil the discussion was ongoing and you accuse me of "ignorance of arguments"?!
• You have accused me of Pushing Pakistani Army POV

• How does quoting from Indian Express and including the text and info mentioned in Indian Express (and a dozen other sources) make me push Pakistan Army's POV? —PakSol ^talk 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Because you are not quoting Indian Express you are putting in a sentence which is very obviously biased and misinterpreting sources. This has been explained to you numerous times now. Can you please stop playing games, and wasting people's time by engaging in tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand English? I think not. Allow me to copy/paste the exact text from Indian Express, the same source that Aditya has quoted: During his official visit to Bangladesh, Modi last Sunday in Dhaka said the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.

Now what is there to misinterpret and how am I "putting in a sentence which is very obviously biased and misinterpreting sources"—TripWire ^talk 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to editors - the above user is the same as User:PakSol above, under a changed username. Please do not mistake the above comment for support from multiple users

"Do you understand English? I think not." - quit it with the personal attacks. No one's disputing that Modi said that. That does not mean - nor do the sources say - that what he said is literally true. This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and you are refusing to get it. Or pretending not to get it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to editors - First, can you please ask Mr Marek and Kautilya3 to stop raising 'suspicion' and creating a drama over the username change? Anyone with two eye can see that. I have nothing to hide, so you guys should stop acting and propagating as if by changing the username I have tried to become someone else. I have just exercised my right to change it, and you need to get over it, fast! Moreover, you yourself had also used words like 'idiotic' and 'nonsense' in replies to me, so you also need to quit that.

Second, it is heartening to know that you now agree that "No one's disputing that Modi said that". Thankyou! Now let's move forward towards the actual issue. As already mentioned over and again (I dont need to get down to your level, so once should suffice), Wikipedia supports WP:NOTTRUTH, what Modi said is etched in the stone, clear as a day and quoted by numerous secondary sources. So, there is nothing to misinterpret (as the words are very simple English) and hence there is no need to judge whether it is the truth. It's a statement by a PM which reflects upon the events of 1971 and thus need to be added here. Had these words been said by let's say an ex-PM, a political leader who is not in office etc, in private capacity or while giving a random interview, I wouldnt have cared much. But then these were said at the world stage!

I have asked this question before and would repeat it again for you easy comprehension; What if tomorrow President Obama, while still being the POTUS during his visit to lets say UK or France on the eve of OBL's death anniversary tells the world in his speech that the Raid to Kill OBL was indeed a joint operation by the US and Pak Military, would you or would you not reflect this info in the connected article here at Wikipedia??—TripWire ^talk 05:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I called the contention that the statement "every Indian desired to break up Pakistan" and conspired to that effect should be included in the article as a factual claim idiotic. Because it is. I did not insult you personally, tried to act condescendingly or accused you of "not being able to speak English".

Second, you are still playing games when you say "it is heartening to know that you now agree ...". You are pretending that somewhere this was disputed or that at some point I disagreed with this. I didn't. I disagreed with you misrepresenting sources. That's a different thing.

You are also either failing to understand what WP:NOTTRUTH says (btw, it's an essay), or you are again, playing games.

And also, for the FREAKIN' millionth time. The fact that India supported Bangladesh is well known and already in the article. But that does NOT mean that you get to put "every Indian desired the break up of Pakistan" and "conspired to break up Pakistan" in the article. Please tell me you understand that part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please also allow me to tell you 'for the FREAKIN millionth time' that Modi's statement cannot be equated to the fact that 'India's support to Bangladesh is already known'. The sentence India's support to Bangladesh is already known is quite different than the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian citizen and that was why Indian forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country.—TripWire ^talk 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

List of policies/guidelines breached or potentially breached by PakSol/TripWire

1. WP:NOTTRUTH
2. WP:CHERRY
3. WP:RSCONTEXT
4. WP:RELIABLE
5. WP:OR
6. WP:SYNTH
7. WP:INDEPTH
8. WP:NOTNEWS
9. WP:COI
10. WP:ADVOCACY
11. WP:WAR
12. WP:CIVIL
13. WP:NPA
14. (essay) WP:Coatrack
15. (essay) WP:DUCK

LOL. India did fight alongside Mukti Bahini. It is called Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. No secret to admit to. ROFL. There is a whole section in the article on Indian involvement.

If you are so bent on making Modi's supposed quotation the sole reference for a very radical and slightly irrelevant information then, please, provide one. You have not furnished a proper "quotation" yet, not in verbatim, and all there is a newspaper's interpretation of the actual quote. Why? Because, it is policy. Check WP:NOTTRUTH:

• Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts. It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
• It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
• In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.

Well, in short, to be Wikipedia compliant you need to phrase it like - "N. Modi said in 2015 that ...". If Modi has said so then you can include it, but as Modi's opinion only. I am sure that you understand that what Modi as a very young man doing some rallies somewhere in India does not make his eyewitness a work of scholarship, documentation or reporting. Please check WP:RELIABLE, especially WP:RSCONTEXT if you are in doubt or confusion, or if you need to know more about the policies and guidelines.

But, you still cannot include things he did not say as far as the newspaper reports go. Example, he did not say that Indian Army helped Mukti Bahini before the Indo-Pak war (it may have happened, but the point is - he didn't say it). Putting that statement in the subsection for March-June alone with the statement that Mukti Bahini grew stronger in that time, and putting words into Modi's mouth is a clear breach of policies. If you don't know why you can't do it please check WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

And, finally, remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. What Modi said in an event in Dhaka, which got reported here and there (not enough to meet WP:INDEPTH), is goes slightly against WP:NOTNEWS. Editorializing facts while applying a strong bias of recentism to a well recorded historic event is not encyclopedic. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you guys don't need to repeat your points, you have done that many times already. It is not helping. I hope that I have managed shed some new light here. May be you would like to take a look at the long list of policies and guidelines you are breaching. If you are still unconvinced, then it is time to get opinions of un-involved editors of repute.

Please, understand that the more you shout and scream around here the less welcoming it becomes for new editors to comment. Please let others take a look at it (hopefully not by people you invited to comment personally, because that violates WP:CANVASS).

There is an interesting essay for you guys here - WP:Coatrack. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is about. We may not agree how the text should be added here, but then we agree that it has to be here because of its significance. You want to put that here in form of a quote, go ahead, we can discuss that too and come to some agreement. Some editor says that it should be paraphrased, it too can be discussed and a conclusion reached. But some here who are saying that Modi's statement does not have any significance and should just be forgotten are wrong.—TripWire ^talk 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(inserted) No. Sorry. Per WP:BURDEN you are supposed to work on the improvement, and if they fall short of encyclopedic standards, I am supposed to remove them. Unfortunate for you, that's how Wikipedia works. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from un-involved user(s)

Summoned by bot. I am starting a new section here because everything above is a bit of a mess and I have no idea where to put my comment. For starters, this RFC is incredibly malformed. It is not neutrally worded, and makes personal attacks/cast aspersions on other involved editors. The discussion above suggests that many of the people involved in this debate are either editing from a very biased POV or do not understand basic wikipedia guidelines like WP:RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The source can only be used as a reference for Modi's personal opinion, and if the language used in the quote appears in the article, it should be attributed to Modi and be in quotation marks. Even then, I am very skeptical why this source would be used at all, or why Modi's opinion about this historical event would be considered noteworthy. This article should be written based on what historians write about it, not what modern day politicians (clearly non-experts) have said about it in passing. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I posted the RfC, and I totally admit that it is exactly what an RfC should not be. For my defense all I can say that too many things where happening, one on top of another, while I was very short on time. So, very stupidly I tried to pack way more into an RfC than its scope, it was about an edit and an editor at the same time. My bad. I found the right platform (WP:DRN) which can handle an edit and an edit at the same time. But, before anyone went there, the editor in concern was already topic banned by some other process.

The edit remained. Because, there was no attempt at forming a consensus when the editor in question vanished from the argument. Very sad. Thanks again for commenting, on the edit only, which is all that is that is needed, and what should have been the content of the RfC. This can be close, per nomination of requesting party, i.e. poor impatient me. I need to start a new consensus forming process now. Apologies and thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Break

• Comment - Tripwire is paksol and he in in the pak army, this is why he removing infos on army atrocities in balochistat and is pov pusher. I oppose these contents one mans opinion is not all of India 78.146.43.52 (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Can you prove that? I say you were a member of Mukti Bahini and therefore are against the edits which tells the truth about them. —TripWire ^talk 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes I can prove. I took screencap of you user page before you deleted 78.146.43.52 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Lol...I am also the current Army Chief just because I say so in my user page. —TripWire ^talk 11:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Should I add link to you blog and upload image? Or are you saying you are liar? 78.146.43.52 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Lol..go ahead. Like someone said On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, who cares. Going by your understanding, everyone on twitter, facebook, wiki, discussion forums etc is what he says on his profile. Really? However, you using an IP and making your first 'edit' directly here definitely tells alot about who you are :) —TripWire ^talk 11:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@ 78.146.43.52, Sir, dont you now owe me an apology after you have failed to prove what you accused me of at the COI Board here? Or should I just assume that you are a troll. Thanks—TripWire ^talk 12:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So you admitted to being in Pakistani army, and deleted info on pak army atrocities so you do have A COI 78.146.43.52 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Declaring yourself to be a part of the Pakistani Army, writing blogs and stuff using the same identity, and then pushing a POV that the Pakistani Army upholds is not good news. Even if you can evade WP:COI, you can't avoid WP:ADVOCACY. Remember, Wikipedia is not an investigation agency like ISI or something. It is an academic project run by a community. Here is another important essay for you - WP:DUCK. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Some wise man once said and I quote: Repeating something or saying it louder, does not make it true. —TripWire ^talk 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are not guided by wise men here, we are guided by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And, if you decide to follow wise men, instead of Wikipedia policies and guidelines then I strongly recommend that you take your opinions and "facts" somewhere else. May be you have noticed that my ONLY point is adherence to Wikipedia principles. Not interetsed in what you find to be true, relevant, important or documented. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So now you deny you said you were in Pakistan army? You cannot change the facts like you want. 78.146.43.52 (talk) 13

52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

[13] you blog, you posted on user page and here [14] Quote fom you blog. "this blog is an humble effort by a Siachen veteran who has also seen action in the Tribal Areas and LoC on how he sees the Army he serves," And on wayback so you cannot delete[15] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lolzz.. What's there to delete? The blog is still up and the guy running it is doing a commendable job. Just because we two shared a few slides among each other made me an accomplice? Did you read that the slides were from Foreign Office? Just because it was uploaded on a blog having a military tinge and that I further linked info from those slides here made me a 'criminal'? I researched about the Karachi Agreement, I by virtue of my interest in military history (like 1000s of users here) had seen those slides and just because they were further uploaded at a blog which probably is giving you guys heart burns is the sole reason that you are stupidly trying to accuse me. You did not prove anything, less making a mockery out of yourself. It's funny that going by your stupid definition, everyone and anyone interested in a military related topic MUST be a soldier in its respective military, right? Welcome to the Internet, dude! And quite the Wikihounding and grow up! —TripWire ^talk 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You own words "can be seen at my blog where I have uploaded a couple of slides which Pakistan Foreign Office uses to explain our stance of Siachen." [16] Stop telling lies 82.11.33.86 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha...I was waiting for this. You are making a good case for WP:WIKIHOUNDING and will be reported soon. Anywaz, what I meant was 'my friend's blog', missed a word as I usually do, editing at Wiki is cumbersome. I never said the slides or the edits I made basing on those slides. I dont have a blog so the slides were uploaded elsewhere, what's so 'dangerous' about that? Those slides are open source now and anybody who is interested can carry further study basing on the info of those slides. Going by your understanding anyone in future who would refer anything from that blog has to be from Pakistani Military? No! I also visit Bharat Rakshat, Pakistan Defence, India Defence forums etc, so that should also make me a soldier in the Indian, Pakistani and then Indian Army again respectively? Then every Indian member posting at Indian military forums or Pakistani members posting at Pakistani military forums or Facebook Pages should all be soldiers?—TripWire ^talk 05:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lie, on you user page you also said it was you blog. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the main discussion

• Comment - I'm seeing on my watchlist since days that whole lot of discussion is going on here, don't wanted to part of this discussion as it needs lots of research before commenting which consumes time and mud throwing on each other is very common in such nationalist discussions but still I lastly decided to comment here. I didn't read all discussion but I know what point Paksol/Trimwire want to make, I think there is no harm in adding Modi's statement in this article, India's role in Bangladesh liberation is quite obvious. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  But what exactly was the Modi's statement? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You know the statement Kautilya, if Modi said it was dream of "every Indian" then let it be in that way, we are quoting Modi, so its his thoughts, we are mentioning that "its Modi's statement" and not any "historians statement". Quoting any Prime Minister or President of nation is not avoidable thing, Any Prime Minister's statement on foreign visit deserves place in Wikipedia article. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen how the statement appears in the article at present? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If source is quoting Modi then text should also say that its Modi's statement. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The source is quoting Sartaj Aziz. You need to go through my comment for the RfC above. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Smells like WP:SYNTH. 8 newspapers said that Satraj Aziz said that Narendra Modia said that all Indians wanted Bangladesh (and also that Indians fought together with Mukti Bahini, which they did anyways, in December as Indo-Pak War of 71). Can someone tell me what makes such a long train of eventual evidence encyclopedic in any way? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, while we all know that Indians fought together with Mukti Bahini, I am wondering if Pakistani population did. Perhaps they were being fed some make-believe propaganda by the Army and the power blocks and, now that Modi has stated the facts on the TV, it came as a revelation to them. Apparently, it took a whole 48 hours for Aziz and his team to come up with a "response." - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment You guys are just trying to find a bone where it does not exist. Where in the newslinks does it say that Aziz is repeating and interjecting his own words and thoughts in Modi's statement? No one except you guys talked anything about Aziz, but just what Modi has said. The focus since the very start is on Modi's precise words. You guys must understand Hindi, so why dont just listen to what Modi had actually said? I have posted this before and doing it again here: http://www.zemtv.com/2015/06/08/narendra-modi-accepted-of-spreading-terrorism-in-bangladesh-but-our-foreign-ministry-is-silent-on-this/ There's no mistake here, you are just trying manipulate the issue. Even the New Indian Express link from where Aditya (talk) quoted the news DOES NOT say that it was Aziz that said what Modi has said! The newspaper is paraphrasing Modis' statement itself, whereas what Aziz said is mentioned as a direct quote in the news link. Stop pretending that you dont know. —TripWire ^talk 09:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  That is because "we guys" bothered to read the sources rather than take your word for them. The ANI News had a 3-sentence release where the first sentence said Aziz referred to Modi's statement and the second sentence stated the purported Modi statement. This purported Modi statement only appeared on the 10th June and only in connection with Aziz. The better newspapers like the Times of India and The Hindu that have a reputation for fact-checking didn't bother to publish these releases. To tell you the truth, the purported statement always looked fishy. When the Pakistani establishment begins to call the well-known Indo-Pak War of 1971 a "revelation" and "confession", their intelligence looks highly suspect. Or they must have got caught up in their own make-believe propaganda until they suddenly got a reality check from Modi's speech. You mean you really didn't know that you fought a war with India in 1971? What planet were you living on? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:: 'You guys' really dont get it, do you. None of the sources that I had quoted, nor did the source Aditiya hai quoted says anything about Aziz and the purported statement. It is only you who is bringing Aziz into the mix even when no one cares what he has said as that has never been the focus of this discussion of the discussion that took place here. A few sources are:
• http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/international/2015/June/international_June247.xml&section=international
• http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/pakistan-slams-modi-s-statement-in-dhaka-115060900533_1.html
• http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/08-Jun-2015/indian-forces-fought-along-mukti-bahini
• http://www.theweekendleader.com/Headlines/4568/pakistan-slams-modi%27s-statement-in-dhaka.html

But then why believe what Aziz has said or purported or even what I have said?? I never quoted Aziz's version of events, just what Modi himself have uttered. If you are so doubtful about what Modi has said, and that Aziz or I have been purporting his statements, why dont you just see the video of Modi saying what he said and compare it with the secondary sources which have quoted Modi? hings that match will added here and rest which you think are 'purported' will not be, what's so difficult in it? I know that you would consider and say that this is a 'very difficult' task and will require 'enormous resources' to undertake, hence instead just read what the links say! None of them is quoting Aziz purporting Modi's words. I am surprise as how did even Aziz figured out in this discussion when I neither Aditiya quoted Aziz! Asking a stupid question like 'but what have Modi said' after having a 10 page long discussion is not well taken, sir, not does it commensurate with your experience here on Wikipedia as an editor. Instead, it reinforces my perception that you are trying to push your POV by not accepting and opposing the inclusion of Modi's words as said by him and quoted by numerous mediums.—TripWire ^talk 11:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you can't take the word of any politician or government spokesman as the eternal truth, at least here you can't. You scrutinize and fact check. In this case we have a ridiculous war of words between the Indian PM and the Pakistan Foreign Office. "Every" Indian could not have possibly supported Bangladesh. And Pakistan certainly didn't discover India's involvement in 1971 in 2015.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? When any Tom, Dick or Hamesh says that his relative whose full name is probably not known to him was allegedlly taken away by some FC or Police guy in Balochistan and this news is quoted in The Guardian the next day or when Geo News alleges that Hamid Mir was shot by ISI or when a jingiotic Indian Channel 'breaks news' that ISI is involved in a terror attack which began just 2 minutes eralier and next day that makes news in a newspaper, this can be included here, but when a PM says something and is quoted verbatim, it needs to be 'scrutinized'? This is the crudest example of cherryicking and POV-pushing that I have ever seen.—TripWire ^talk 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Even though I am no great fan of Modi, in this particular instance, what he said was perfectly fine. If you watch the video link that TripWire posted, even though he has no clue what it says, he is saying that when the Indian Army was fighting along side Mukti Bahini, every Indian hoped for the liberation of Bangladesh, which is almost tautologous. Who wouldn't wish for the victory of one's Army when it is fighting a war? The Pakistani twisting of the statement is quite absurd. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw the whole speech in Dhaka. I was actually very impressed. But Mr Modi does have a habit of slip-ups. What I meant here was the usual Indo-Pak war of words.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Classical and blatant example of POV-pushing. Misrepresenting others words to suit ones POV! What Modi said was: At the time of Bangladesh War, alogwith Mukti Bahini, the rights that the Indian Army performed AND every Indian citizen, at that time, desired that Bangladesh's dreams should come true. So you see now, every Indian was not "wishing for ones Army's victory when it is fighting a war," as you claimed by you above, but for the independence of Bangladesh (something which was unjustified on the pretext refugee 'problem'). In any case, you or I are not the experts to interpret what Modi said, but the secondary sources quoting him what he said is what should be focused upon, including the New Indian Express. —TripWire ^talk 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your translation isn't even grammatical English. LOL. But doesn't matter. It is still nowhere near the pseudo-translation done by your hero Sartaj Aziz. You know that he was pulling a fast one. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No one gives a tosh about Aziz'z statement, it's rather naive of you to keep talking about something which has never been the subject of discussion here. Just wasting your own and others time.—TripWire ^talk 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You may or may not care about Aziz's statement. But you clearly love his twisted translation of Modi's statement. You have been pushing it everywhere for the whole week! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religious reaction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The section has been deleted

---

@TalhaZubairButt:, Regarding these edits, I am not sure why this section is needed. There is nothing religious about the Bangladesh Liberation War. So, why are you highlighting a "religious" reaction? Also, why is 90% of this section devoted to the views of one religious cleric?

The source you have used, Naim (1999), is quite excellent and covers the reactions in the Muslim Press in both India and Pakistan. An accurate and comprehensive summary of all the content in the Naim article, as well as other related sources that cover the Muslim reactions in the subcontinent such as this, would be welcome. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt:, @Kautilya3:Whereas I agree that there's no need for a whole section on this topic, but we all know that it was religion alone that kept the two wings (East and West Pakistan) together. So, I dont think there's any harm in adding some info on this, albeit with brevity. —TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't know what kept the two wings together. The views documented here were those of an Indian Muslim cleric, who doesn't have anything to do with the conflict as far as I can see. We are not going to have a Mullah Raj on Wikipedia. On the other hand, please feel free to document the Muslim reactions all over the subcontinent, which is what the Naim (1999) article is about. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely. You have enough edits under you belt to understand this, I am sure. Thanks—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 20:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, it's probably not a good idea to jump right back into a topic area you were banned from just as that ban has expired and make controversial edits/remarks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, VM. Just so that you know, the edit you might be referring to was not mine, but you already know that, don't you?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 21:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV again

[17] - Come on, this edit pretends that Operation Searchlight was launched because of "persecution of Bihari minority" rather than because Bangladesh wished to secede. This is POV nonsense obtained from a peculiar interpretation of sources.

And User:TripWire, like I said elsewhere, you just got off a topic ban on this subject like two days ago, so you should really avoid starting edit wars or making highly POV edits. We can discuss it if you want though unless the text is seriously modified I don't see it making into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

First, I did not 'just got off a topic ban on this subject like two days ago.' As you seem quite fond of keeping a track on others, you must be knowing that that ban ended 3 months back and since then I am active on many other projects. So please stop it. Second, the edits were made by TalhaZubairButt, not me. And I reverted you because it was sourced info that you removed. If you had noted or had cared to note, I did not revert this edit of yours as I agree that it was WP:OR. However, the info which you claim to be 'peculiar interpretation of sources' is actually not and the source says it clearly. That's the only argument here.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 02:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the phrasing tries to make it seem like Operation Searchlight was launched because of violence against Biharis, rather than in order to suppress the Bangladeshi independence movement and aspirations. The source most certainly does not say that.

Also, TalhaZubairButt, I find your edit summary here peculiar [18]. You say you brought this up on talk but I don't see your name here anywhere. Are you sure you're not confusing yourself with someone else? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I couldnt rumage through the entire info added by TZB, but as regards his following addition:

"The war began after the Pakistani military junta based in West Pakistan launched Operation Searchlight against the people of East Pakistan, ....on the basis of violence against the Bihari ethnic minority by Bengali mobs."

I did find that the source 'most certainly' say the following:

"...however, the Biharis, who had been the Urdu-speaking community of East Pakistan, faced mass Bengali outrage. After Yahya Khan postponed the promised National Assembly on 1 March 1971, the Biharis began to be targeted as symbols of Pakistani domination. Early in March 1970, 300 Biharris were killled by mob attacks in Chittagong, following which the Pakistani government used the 'Bihari massacre' to justify deploying its military on 25 March - eventually, ofcourse, leading to the 1971 conflict."

So I feel that the info by TZB is not entirely incorrect, may be a rewording would do?

Also, as it seems nothing can be added/removed (including sourced content as seen from the above discussion) from the article without discussion on this talk page, I'd suggest @Vinegarymass911: if you too can discuss your additions ([19], [20]) here before hand. Thanks—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 06:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is with the phrase "on the basis of". Yes, there was violence against Biharis prior to OpSL. Yes, OpSL was launched after this happened and Pakistani military used it as a pretext. But it's POV and original research to say that OpSL happened *because of* it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire:Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted. Are you against my additions, if yes why? Cheers.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly against your edits in particular, sir. But what I wanted to point out by asking you here is already happening: A stray Indian IP is already pinging Indian editors ([21], [22]} against the already reverted edits of @TalhaZubairButt:. That's what I and other builders of WP should be against.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 10:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)