Jump to content

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

See also

 Not done: All of the requested "see also" entries are already linked in the article: in section "main articles" hatnotes, section "see also" hatnotes, the infobox "partof" parameter, navboxes, and/or the article text. In general, the "see also" section should not repeat links that appear elsewhere in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

@Za-ari-masen: In your edit summary you said "Reinstating earlier version of the intro that was decided through talkpage discussions".[1] Which discussion you are referring? Rzvas (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please check out the archives. All the edits in this article have been discussed. And lead is supposed to have the summary of the article not details. Even the new sources being added need to be evaluated if reliable or not as it's a controversial topic. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I went through archives. There was no discussion to modify "Indo-Bangladeshi victory" and it is showing like that for years on main page. You can link the discussion if you think I have missed it. Rzvas (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh you're talking about the result in the infobox specifically. Please refer to this section. It was in accordance with other articles on independence wars like the American Revolutionary War. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There is more than just results parameter but even if you talk only about results then still there was no consensus to modify it.[2] An IP made the modification which was quickly reverted. You need WP:CONSENSUS before making such edits. Rzvas (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but there was no response by the opponent after the final text by the proponent in that section, which can be implied to be a consensus given that he doesn't have anything to counter that. Besides, the edit makes sense since it is according to the convention as other similar articles are written. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
How American Revolutionary War can set precedent for this article? The IP was asked to provide sources for "Decisive Bangladeshi-allied victory". Do you have any? Rzvas (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
American Revolutionary War and Bangladesh Liberation War are both independence wars, in other words similar topics. Source was asked to prove whether India was allied with Bangladesh in the war or not. Do really have any doubt India wasn't allied with Bangladesh? Then please take a look at the article itself. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
What is problem with term "Indo-Bangladeshi victory" per other sources?[3] See this version, that said "Decisive Indo-Bangladeshi victory" and wikilinked "Indo-Bangla relations" under "Indo-Bangladeshi". Rzvas (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Za-ari-masen: Are there any other issues which needs a discussion before I restore the earlier version? Rzvas (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
No bro, I'm still not convinced to go against the conventional format. The link you shared is from the Indian media who would obviously try to glorify the Indian military here. I think the current version fits it perfect as it goes with the manual of style of other similar articles like American Revolutionary War or the Turkish War of Independence. What you are suggesting might be applicable to 1971 Indo-Pak War. Za-ari-masen (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Restored earlier version as no WP:CONCENSUS was there to modify that particular version. WP:RS (and not Indian media) cited in article clarify that war was just not an indigenous agitation but part of two long endurance conflicts:

Indo-Bangladeshi victory as there was no other country that could directly militarily involve in conflict. (We don't have a very long list allies that can't be given as one liner in result). As Bangladesh wasn't an existing state at that particular time. But the state it was a part of (Republic of Pakistan) and the state which backed its statehood (Republic of India) did so.Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, Information on infobox (actually anywhere) should be exactly supported by the source. You have been asked above already to produce source but until now you haven't. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 07:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This is following the convention. I have already asserted that the infobox here is following the convention present in similar articles on independence/liberation wars i.e. American Revolutionary War. There are few fundamental facts that are being ignored by your suggestion.
  • The war started on 26th March 1971, India joined the war on 3rd December 1971. As such, the war cannot be termed as part of Indo-Pakistani conflicts since for most part of the war India was absent.
  • India mostly acted as an ally to the Mukti Bahini and as such they were referred to as Mukti Bahini (allies)
  • It was not only India but also Soviet Union who were allied with Bangladesh and supplied the arms and ammunition to the Mukti Bahini
  • Bangladesh came into being on 26th March with the declaration of independence, similar to how United States came into being in the second continental congress.

Again, what you are suggesting might be fit for the article 1971 Indo-Pakistani war. There is a reason why we have two different articles for these topics. Regarding source, I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find any source that states the exact phrase of "Indian-Bangladesh victory". Regardless, please refer to Muldhara 71 for the requested source. Cheers. Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources say "Indian victory". You grossly misrepresenting facts by putting India into secondary or less important role than Bangladesh in this liberation. No one needs your unauthentic review of the result for deciding the result, but WP:RS. I am also sure that no one other than you relate this war with irrelevant American Revolutionary War. How about United States war in Haiti? It is considered as "American victory" not "Haiti-allied victory". If you don't have multiple sources for supporting "India Bangladesh victory" or "Bangladesh allied victory" then you must forget the parameter all together. Orientls (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"Academic sources" also term it as Bangladeshi victory as I have referred to one such above. Comparison to US occupation of Haiti is irrelevant here since it is not an independence/liberation war. As I have stated before, there are two separate articles on this war for very good reasons. If you want represent the Indian role in the war, 1971 Indo-Pakistani War is the most suitable place to do that. The war went for almost nine months and India was engaged for only two weeks. The facts are sufficient enough to point out who played the primary or most important role. Za-ari-masen (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Bring that "one such above" source here now. Haiti war was American victory because Haiti government was incapable to defeat opposing forces just like Mukti Bahini (not 'bangladesh') forces were. This is why academics seem to be viewing war as "Indian victory". Orientls (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Please refer to Muldhara 71 by Moidul Hasan. Again, another irrelevant analogy. Before India's intervention, several districts were already freed from Pakistani forces by Mukti Bahini. What your not understanding or reluctant to understand that United States occupation of Haiti only covers the US occupation of Haiti. This article is about the entire course of the war of independence of Bangladesh which went through for nine months and of which India was part of for about two weeks. This is not a fork article of 1971 India-Pakistan War. Za-ari-masen (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. You have provided no quotation. See the quotations from the attached sources in my recent edit. Reliable sources are clear that this was an Indian victory. Where are your sources? Orientls (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Your sources state that the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in Indian victory, not Bangladesh liberation war. Muldhara 71 is one of the most detailed reliable sources on this war. Please refer to the pages 77, 112, and 207, the source clearly states the Bangladesh Liberation War resulted into Bangladeshi victory. Za-ari-masen (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"Liberation war" is clearly mentioned in the sources. You seem to be the one bringing up Indo-Pakistan war for no reason here. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 07:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you point out which source state 'Bangladesh liberation war resulted in Indian victory?' Can you provide any quotation? Za-ari-masen (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
They are all available on infobox, next to "Indian victory" per this edit. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 07:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The source states, "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image". Doesn't claim the liberation war of Bangladesh resulted in Indian victory. That is why I said this is better suited at 1971 Indo-Pakistani war. You will be doing WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR if you push such claim with that source in this article. On the other hand, the source I presented clearly states that Bangladesh liberation war (Bangladesher Shwadhinota Shongram) resulted in Bangladeshi victory (Bangladesher bijoy). Za-ari-masen (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It says "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image". "Liberation of Bangladesh" is this war, and is being referred as "Indian victory". Your source isn't reliable nor able to surpass reliability of these multiple sources. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 07:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This is called WP:SYNTHESIS. Liberation of Bangladesh is not being interpreted as a war rather an event happening simultaneously as India-Pakistan war of 1971. In any case, a direct quotation should be favored over a vague interpretation what you are trying to present. As I said before, Muldhara 71 is one of the most detailed academic sources on Bangladesh Liberation War with extensive coverage right from the beginning in March till the end in December and has been cited by numerous academics in their research, as well as on Wikipedia. If you want to challenge that, start a separate thread in a suitable platform. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
And just going through the details of your sources, they don't even look reliable, come from obscure publishers, authors with hardly any credentials as academics. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you are capable to link WP:SYNTHESIS, you have made it easier to make a case for me that you need to find reliable sources which would support your preferred result. Source says "India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh", it puts these 2 events separately enough. Until you find enough sources, "Indian victory" will remain on result. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 08:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
If you do consider yourself competent enough about Wikipedia policies, you should rather revert to the version I stored. You are clearly basing your claim on a vague interpretation and unreliable sources while discarding a clear citation. If you fail to provide any clear citation or a valid reason, the article will be reverted to the last best version. Cheers. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You are still not WP:VERIFYING your source and now adopting deceptive tactics of ignoring multiple reliable sources clearly stating that result was Indian victory. Who is Moidul Hasan? A politician? In any case, "university press" of Bangladesh is not a reliable source here. Orientls (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Also read:
Orientls (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2020

Please change 

|quote=|isbn=9788175412187|quote="Though Indian victory

to 

|isbn=9788175412187|quote="Though Indian victory

which will not change the article appearance, but will remove this page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done When you running, Frietjes? :) Izno (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Please change Sam Manekshaw Designation from General to Field Marshal. 103.195.203.183 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aasim 06:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Believing that just such an Indian attack was imminent, Nixon encouraged China to mobilise its armed forces along its border with India to discourage it."

@Aman.kumar.goel, Boing! said Zebedee, Tibet Nation, MarkH21, and Voidvector: In the absence of a source for this claim, I feel that it ought to be removed from the page. Let me know if there is any source that would show that this statement is factually accurate. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Stop WP:CANVASSING and see this and this. Orientls (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Orientls: Thanks for your response. These sources do get closer to the mark, but I need to see specific, clear evidence from notes or documents on what steps the Nixon White House took in respect to their encouragement. Please give me the quotations. Did they call up Mao and say "hey new buddies, send some troops over there" or what specifically? The sources you give don't say what Nixon the man did in respect to encouraging China in this respect. Once the sources are really, really there, then I can remove the citation needed span. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the two books you give are discussing the crisis. But what I'd like to see now is which quotes you propose to be justifying the statement "Nixon encouraged China". I need to see exactly what wording in the secondary source justifies the words "Nixon encouraged China" being used on Wikipedia mainspace. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative:The Berlatsky source added by Orientls has this quote, which should be sufficient:

According to the State Department historian, 'When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration tilted toward Pakistan [...] It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India
— East Pakistan, p. 52-53

Minor modifications might be needed to be made to the paragraph, but this looks like it's supported by the source. — MarkH21talk 22:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: What I find interesting is that the Berlatsky source is only quoting an anonymous source and not making reference to sources proving the matter. Is a solitary quote of the State Department historian really sufficient to show that "Nixon encouraged China"? Is there any other secondary source beside this quotation from one person to show this event occurred? The quote doesn't go into the ways in which Nixon encouraged China and the manner in which China refused. "Encouragement" implies that there was some kind of communication or action taken on the part of Richard Nixon. What was that action? What if this historian was just speaking off the cuff? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)
I'm not saying these events (whatever they are proposed to be) didn't happen. I'm saying we have not yet reached the threshold to include it on Wikipedia. It's not sourced yet. Also, the crucial sentence in the quote above is grammatically malformed: "It also involved encouraging". This is not even a direct double quotation mark reliable quotation- it's a one-quotation mark paraphrase, and poorly written at that. At best, you've got a grammatically malformed paraphrase from an anonymous source in which "it" (= Nixon administration) may have done something, not Nixon. This is on the level of New Testament apocrypha level evidence for the actions of Jesus, not reliable history- "one guy told me something like this happened". Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The State department historian office is a highly reliable source. They have a very strong team of scholars and access to all the documents, and they are not beholden in any way to Nixon. Reviews of their books in the scholarly literature are VERY strong. The published text is online at https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rjensen: From the source you added: "Nixon's prediction was borne out when it developed that China had no intention of threatening military action against India." What I'm looking for is a quotation that says that Nixon or the Nixon administration encouraged China to do something. The above quotation is said to be from a from a State Department historian, but it is an anonymous ungrammatical paraphrase. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
the quote is "When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration "tilted" toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian Government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union." that is pretty clear to me and is from a highly reliable scholarly source (the State Dept History office) that scholars cite. 00:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I have replaced the sentence with new content based on the State Department source. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's a statement from a scholarly journal in 2012: "In 1971, the United States threatened India with the use of military force as West and East Pakistan disintegrated into Pakistan and Bangladesh....The Nixon administration eventually sent the USS Enterprise carrier battle group to the Bay of Bengal in an effort to deter India from what Nixon and national security advisor Henry Kissinger believed was its ultimate goal: the destruction of Pakistan. Although the United States and India never used military force, the threat was present—making the confrontation a militarized interstate dispute." [Jarrod Hayes, "Securitization, social identity, and democratic security: Nixon, India, and the ties that bind." International Organization 66.1 (2012): 63-93. [full text online free on pp 63-64 Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Let me know what you think of the new wording. I used the State Department source to create the new sentence. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good re China. I recommend Add more on carrier "Enterprise" and cite Hayes article. 00:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Rjensen (talk)

Geographyinitiative thinks it is an "amazing and significant fact". I am not so sure it is. Applying pressure on India directly as well as indirectly via China was certainly on the cards. That is all our article is saying. But the State Department historian is saying something much stronger. They are saying Nixon encouraged China to "menace India". Does "menacing" mean just moving troops to the border? Even for Nixon lingo, that would have been too strong an expression. They are saying that Nixon was essentially trying to start a world war. There is an "amazing and significant fact". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: When we first started the discussion, I don't think there was enough evidence for the original sentence. Now there seems to be credible information that gets more specific about what happened. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
re footnote 152 citing Noah Berlatsky --we can do better. the author "Noah Berlatsky edits the online comics-and-culture website The Hooded Utilitarian and is the author of the book Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism" -- this topic has been worked over by a number of established scholars. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Fronts of war

Bangladesh war included conflict with Pakistani state on both fronts by Indian armed forces. Indo Pakistan part of war is related to then border standoff and bombing Indian air bases and can't be seen in separation in anyway except its causes. As reliable sources either don't see both in separation, these edits by @DdBbCc22: are only misrepresentative and WP:POINTY. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The immediate question is whether the strength of the Pakistan Armed Forces involved in the Bangladesh Liberation War was "~365,000 regular troops (~97,000+ in East Pakistan)" or simply "~97,000" [regular troops being implied by militiamen being listed separately].
Both points of view in the dispute cite [5] to support their position. The source contains the number 365,000, but I see no evidence that it is a reliable source for history (or WP:RS for anything, for that matter). Does website ACIG.org (Air Combat Information Group) have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? The first source the authors list is "discussions on ACIG.org forum", which would not be a reliable source.
It would be helpful if both sides gave full citations to between one and three specific reliable sources that support their position rather than simply asserting that reliable sources are on their side. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Along with issue of more reliable sources, my point of view is that the "Bangladesh Liberation War" was fought in between Eastern commands of Pakistan armed forces and Indian armed forces (along with Mukhti Bahni). So only the number of troops of Eastern commands should be added. Because this article is solely about independence war of Bangladesh as the war in between Pakistan and India on western front has separate article.

But if my this point of view is wrong, then the number of Indian troops of western command should be added just like as for Pakistan because how it is possible that both commands of Pakistan armed forces were involved on both fronts but in case of India only Indian eastern command was involved on one front.DdBbCc22 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yours is a reasonable opinion, but Wikipedia's content is determined not by the beliefs of its editors, but by all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Unless you cite reliable sources that support your view, the discussion is unlikely to reach a consensus that favours it. On the basis of the sources presented so far, the policy-based thing to do would be to remove all strength numbers on both sides except the ~25,000 militiamen. But that isn't what either side in the dispute wants, and we should be able to serve our readers better than that. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hope so there will be consensus about my opinion. @Worldbruce:. I want to discuss some sources as mentioned below either they can be considered or not

1) The Betryal of Pakistan 1 - published by Oxford University Press.

2) Pakistan's War Machine: An Encyclopedia of its Weapons, Strategy.... - book published by UK based publisher

3) Sharmila Bose Indian Bangali writer

4) 4 - clearing the confusion about troops present in East Pakistan of both armies, Mukhti Bahni, soldiers ratio and POW's

5) 5 - troops of Pakistan and POW's

6) 6 - timeline from Operation searchlight to Fall of Dhaka, number of troops of Pakistan and Indian forces as well as Mukhti Bahni. DdBbCc22 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering your six:
  1. Datta, Antara (2012). Refugees and Borders in South Asia: The Great Exodus of 1971. Routledge. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-25036-1. By November 1971, they [the Mukti Bahini] had an estimated 45,000 soldiers. - This is a reliable source for history. The cited page has no information about the strength of Pakistani forces, which is the immediate question, but might be useful for the strength of the Mukti Bahini. It would be interesting to know what source Datta is citing for that figure.
  2. Iqbal, Saghir (2018). Pakistan's War Machine: An Encyclopedia of its Weapons, Strategy and Military Security. CreateSpace. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-25036-1. - This is self-published, not a reliable source.
  3. Bose, Sarmila (2011). Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-70164-8.[page needed] - This is a reliable source for a significant viewpoint, but no one will consider it seriously without a page number.
  4. Jabbar, Javed (22 December 2012). "Pakistani PoWs: correct figure". Dawn (Letter to Editor). - A letter to the editor in a newspaper is not a reliable source for history.
  5. Khan, Masud Ahmed (17 December 2019). "Myths and realities of 1971 war". Daily Times (Commentary). - An opinion column in a newspaper is not a reliable source for history.
  6. Ahmad, Junaid (1 April 2017). "93,000 Pakistani soldiers did not surrender in 1971 because….?". Global Village Space. - A posting by a management consultant on a random website is not a reliable source for history.
--Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@DdBbCc22: Amendment of long established version without support of any reliable source is very problematic. The article doesn't cover only the battle happened on eastern front of Pakistan with Indian forces. But battles with de facto Pakistani in west, and all the diplomatic aspects along which together make up Bangladesh Liberation War. Until you gain concensus that Bangladesh liberation war was strictly only around battle in eastern Pakistani front and not related any Pakistani commands or diplomatic campaigns (which is highly unlikely), your version will be reverted right away. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple fallacies in this article and seems more like a propaganda and biased article

1-In the introductory info box, whole Pakistani strength is written, while only that indian strength is written which was deployed on East Pakistan sector, which is not correct.

2-There is no reliable conformation that civilian casualities were upto 3 million, that is just a propaganda and a hoax.

3-There is no mention about the massacre of Biharis, Punjabis and Pathans which was carried out by Mukti Bahini and Indian BSF.

4-Here it is written that Pakistani troops deployed in East Pakistan numbered 76000 which is never verified as per reliable sources while it is confirmed as per pakistani authorities that there were no more than 45000 to 50000 soldiers ever deployed there.

5-There are sources supporting my claims as Some reputable books but you people already have refuted them above while you people have accepted Indian and Bangladeshi versions whole heartedly. Alizain6534 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you just read the infobox. The article adequately covers point 2 and 3. For 1, the numbers were taken from a reputed sources. For 5, you may remember that 73,000 POWs returned to Pakistan. That would be strange if we believe in that 45,000 soldier theory. Anyways, you are most welcome to provide an alternative number, but do not miss to back it up with reliable sources. Even a Pakistani source need to reliable. You are also most welcome to point out which of sources used are unreliable and why. Being Indian or Bangladeshi doesn't make a source automatically unreliable. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

result = Decisive Indian & Bangladeshi victory Reference = instrument of surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Instrument_of_Surrender, https://archive.thedailystar.net/suppliments/2009/december/victorydayspecial/page01.htm, https://www.indiatimes.com/lifestyle/self/the-pakistan-instrument-of-surrender-in-1971-was-signed-by-my-grandfather-s-pen-248456.html 103.126.149.16 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC) video reference: Replug : A 2012 interview with Lt. Gen (Retd) J.F.R. Jacob on India's historic victory in 1971 war : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq1Hq5bH9pQ

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Result: Decisive Allied Victory or Indian-Bangladeshi Victory Source: Pakistani Instrument of Surrender , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Instrument_of_Surrender) (Various book including) 'JamanK' (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Result = Decisive India and Bangladeshi Alliance Victory (Reference: https://archive.thedailystar.net/suppliments/2009/december/victorydayspecial/page01.htm) 'JamanK' (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The word "decisive" does not appear in the source or in the current version of this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

AjmainFaieq (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangldesh Liberation war is the biggest achievement in the history of Bangladesh

Right AjmainFaieq (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

To update a information

Liberation war of Bangladesh took place in 1971 from 26th of March till 16th December.This war happened under the leadership of Bangladesh Government in exile. India joined the war on 3rd December and took part in the war as a part of India Bangladesh joint forces. The victory of Liberation war is of both Bangladesh and India. But it is written in the result info box that it is an Indian victory. It should be India Bangladesh joint forces victory. So,I would request the concerned editor to update the information. Yamin Chowdhury (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Most importantly, according to the instrument of surrender, Pakistan surrendered to the joint Bangladeshi and Indian forces, so officially it's a Bangladeshi-Indian joint victory. There are some cherrypicked sources added to cite the claim of Indian victory, but I'm not sure if they really pass WP:HISTRS. For instance, author of one of the sources, V. K. Nayar, is an ex-Indian Army officer. The stable version of this article always showed Bangladeshi-Indian victory as the result in infobox, and it seems it has been changed without any consensus. I'm reverting it back to this stable version. --Zayeem (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
You can't push "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" without provided that both official and unofficial sources call it so. The last "stable" version you are talking about was once interrupted by someone and both bothered by others for long. The existing concensus is that all available sources mention it as "Indian victory" what led to liberation of Bangladesh. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not "pushing" Bangladeshi-Indian victory, this is what stated by the official instrument of surrender which was incidentally formulated by an Indian general himself. The document can be accessed in the wikipedia article and I did provide a note with references (carrying the surrender document) when I edited this article. I don't see any WP:CONSENSUS in the discussion you linked. You can't put forth your own statement as "the existing consensus" since you were involved in the dispute as I can see in the article history. The only third opinion in that discussion seems to be Rzvas who's comments are also aligned with my interpretation of joint victory. And as I said, the sources cited here don't even pass WP:HISTRS, books published by obscure agencies, memoirs written by ex-Indian officers or authors without any credentials are not reliable. Even if you show a reliable source, that won't necessarily prove it was an exclusively Indian victory, overriding the official document. There are many sources that state that World War II resulted in American victory but the most commonly accepted interpretation is that it was Allied victory. --Zayeem (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Aman, I believe you are getting carried away by the WP:TRUTH. But, as things are, Wikipedia is about published information from WP:RELIABLE sources, not the truth. And, at that, nothing is more reliable than an "official" instrument of surrender, signed by Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi military commands. A document that is publicly available from both official and unofficial channels. I don't think you will ever be able to hold up the "Indian victory" hearsay at the Wikipedia. If needed we can take this to bigger forum for discussion, and seek opinion from uninvolved editors. If you really want an Indian victory, you may have it at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, though the same Instrument also covers that war, and hence "officially" is an Indo-Bangladeshi victory. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: Falsifying statements of other editors is not going to help you with your erroneous WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. What Aman Kumar Goel added back is completely supported by WP:RS. Since you have failed to understand such a simple fact, I would recommend you to take a look at WP:CIR.
@Kmzayeem: I find it rather surprising that you talk about WP:HISTRS yet you stick to unreliable web news sources such as the ones you added on this edit. You are also misrepresenting the reliability of sources by ignoring Scarecrow Press source which is of high quality and you are cobbling it up with some "memoirs written by ex-Indian officers". How about you find a source as credible or more credible than Scarecrow Press supporting your unsourced claim that the result was "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" instead of throwing your false analysis of consensus? Orientls (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The source is the instrument of surrender itself. The links from The Daily Star and others are added as a medium to access the text of the document, not as a source. And how those cherrypicked books even support the claim that Bangladesh liberation war resulted in Indian victory? And why would these books be considered more authoritative than the official document itself? As Aditya Kabir stated, Indian victory can be claimed at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, not at this article. It is even absurd to claim Indian victory in a liberation war against Pakistan since India was not fighting for its independence from Pakistan. --Zayeem (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
No, dear Orientls, you may be wrong, and I am refraining from asides about your rather strange and WP:INCIVIL comment about "falsifying statements of other editors". Please note that the "official" instrument of surrender says that the Pakistani forces, led by Gneral Niazi, surrendered to the Indian and Bangladeshi forces, both led by General Aurora. None of the sourcces used to establish an "Indian victory" doesn't contradict with it. They just say that India won. India did win, and so did Bangladesh. As a Joint Command. Easy enough?
As for RS, have the following:
All of them has the text of the Instrument. Ignoring the official "fact" and using WP:SYNTH to read more than what is written in the sources is not helping. Thanks. I hope both of us will be more CIVIL to each other the next time. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me make it very simple for you by asking this question: Which source say "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" or "Indian-Bangladeshi victory" contrary to my sourced edits which clearly support "Indian victory"? You are clearly misrepresenting the policies you are quoting, i.e. there is no WP:SYNTH if the parameter has been appropriately supported by the sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
AdityaKabir, then you are just proving my point further. What WP:SYNTH? While Kmzayeem is refusing to even read the sources.
You need to quote the sources, like this:-
  • "S R. Chakravarty and Virendara Narain, Foreign Policy of Bangladesh : Trends and Issues". South Asian Studies, Vol. XIII, Nos. 1-2, January-June and July-December, 1977. p. 80. -dividing Pakistan. They viewed the liberation of Bangladesh as the victory of India and defeat of Bangladesh".[6] P. 41.
  • "Indira Gandhi was re-elected after India's victory over Pakistan in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971", p. 137.
  • "Indian victory over Pakistan in the war of Bangladesh liberation, p. 408.
  • Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780810865020. "A rapid and complete Indian victory brought about the liberation of Bangladesh in December"[7]
  • Handbook of ASEAN and Regional Cooperation, Prabhas Chandra Sinha, Pentagon Press, "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image"[8]
  • Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher, p.51, "key aspect for the Indian Army with its successful liberation of Bangladesh.... Indian victory in 1971, was in the words of M. J. Akbar" [9]
These sources make it clear "liberation of Bangladesh" was an "Indian victory". Orientls (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me provide a quote from a source brought by Aditya Kabir,
  • Ruys, Tom; Corten, Olivier; Hofer, Alexandra (2018). The use of force in international law : a case-based approach (First ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780198784357. At the last of these meetings, on 21 December 1971, the council adopted resolution 307 in which it acknowledged, 'Pakistan's agreement to the cease fire in the western theatre,'... This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan
This is what the instrument of surrender reads,
"The PAKISTAN Eastern Command agree to surrender all PAKISTAN Armed Forces in BANGLA DESH to Lieutenant-General JAGJIT SINGH AURORA, General Officer Commanding in Chief of Indian and BANGLA DESH forces in the Eastern Theatre"[10]
When someone states Pakistan Armed Forces surrendered to the Commander-in Chief of Indian and Bangladesh Forces in a war, it patently implies that the war ended in a joint Indian-Bangladeshi/Bangladeshi-Indian victory. Now which source should we follow from these contested claims? The natural answer would be, the official document which has been agreed by all three parties — Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. The proposition also fits with WP:NPOV. --Zayeem (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV isn't about burying common view shared by scholarly sources but giving equal weight to both sides. Where are the section of scholars who say the war ended in "India-Bangladeshi victory"? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. You did not get the point. That's okay. @Kmzayeem: @Aman.kumar.goel: @Orientls: Let's take this to a bigger forum - WP:MILHIST. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, this one makes it even more redundant and misleading that there was a dispute in results. Seems that Aditya is not going to understand the problem what I'm trying to imply. By adding his own research he is breaching WP:OR further. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Why are you warring here when we can get more people to discuss? Are you interested to get to WP:MILHIST or are you afraid of uninvolved (and non-Indian) editors taking a look at this? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with any involved/uninvolved editors regardless of their nationality. Only what I see that fellow editors don't have sources to support their version and hence want to push issue elsewhere to get support. Those editors frequently involved with (regardless of nationality) Afghanistan, India and Pakistan related articles will anyway do better here than WP:MILHIST in general. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Further, WP:TRUTH what you are trying to apply here is actually out of context given verifiability with WP:RS actually lies with Indian victory than Bangladeshi Indian victory. Why I immediately reverted your version, just have a look. What would one interpret reading it? Verifiability with your sources is just another issue I let off. But Indian (although foreign third party sources state same) commentators claim Indian victory versus Indian government claiming Indo Bangladeshi victory. You are risking making lead of a high quality articles a mess just for a trivia official word what barely has been mentioned anywhere else in scholastic/news articles even for decades after war. I'm not definitely wrong when I say Bangladeshi-Indian victory is just being pushed. Not for any good reason but just for the sake keeping it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Even after being warned earlier, you are being totally disruptive by your continuous edit warring and WP:Gaming the system and this is not even limited to this article only. The sources are already shown above. I suggest you self-revert and seek a dispute resolution as suggested by Aditya Kabir to achieve a consensus. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for readbility and accessibility 1

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As confirmed on this edit, scholarly sources say "Indian victory" while not a single source say "India-Bangladesh victory" or anything similar. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The highest RS here is the Instrument of Surrender, the document signed by Pakistani and Joint Commands. This supreme RS says it's a Indian-Bangladeshi Joint Command victory. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources are preferably third party scholarly sources and not official press releases (and even there you have only single trivia so far) are used on contentious topics. Official surrender document is ultimately most reliable, something I wasn't expecting from an experienced editor like you at least. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
That would be a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The text of the instrument of surrender is a primary source and we should ignore that. But, that said, are we sure we're not ascribing sources for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with sources for the Bangladesh Liberation War? It does seem odd that a war that was also conducted by Bangladeshi forces that resulted in their independence doesn't include them in the victor list. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
But are they separate wars, or is this just a fork anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
As pointed out by Aman Kumar Goel above, the six academic sources I laid out in my above message are clearly talking about "Indian victory" in "liberation war". Note that "Liberation war" (this subject) refers to independence of Bangladesh, while Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 also covers the battles that took place at present day India–Pakistan border and Indian Ocean. Orientls (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Bangladesh Liberation War began on 26th March 1971 following the Operation Searchlight and the subsequent Proclamation of Bangladeshi Independence, eventually ending on 16th December 1971. Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 refers to the last 13 days of the conflict which began with India's intervention on 3rd December 1971. In that sense, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 is basically a part of Bangladesh liberation war. Coming back to the discussion on sources, in principle I'm with Aditya Kabir's suggestion of using the document of instrument of surrender as the most authoritative source to determine the result simply because it is the official stance of all three parties in the conflict rather than subjective opinions of different authors. It also addresses the peculiarity mentioned by RegentsPark. If a secondary source needs to be considered, most of the sources cited in this discussion are of dubious credibility, the most unequivocal WP:RS among them would be the one from Oxford University Press,

  • Ruys, Tom; Corten, Olivier; Hofer, Alexandra (2018). The use of force in international law : a case-based approach (First ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780198784357.

which states, At the last of these meetings, on 21 December 1971, the council adopted resolution 307 in which it acknowledged, 'Pakistan's agreement to the cease fire in the western theatre,'... This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan

If we are to strictly follow the reliable secondary sources without any WP:SYNTH, the result would be,

Eastern theatre
  • Surrender of Pakistan Armed Forces to joint Indian and Bangladesh forces
  • Establishment of the sovereignty of Bangladesh
Western theatre:
  • Agreement on Ceasefire

--Zayeem (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Indo Pakistani war was subsequent results of tensions between India and Pakistan on both eastern & western fronts, skirmishes at west and illegal immigrants from east Pakistan and war itself started after Pakistani bombing of Indian air bases in Kashmir. Indo Pakistani war of 1971 can't be called entirely a part of Bangladesh liberation war. In same sense, Bangladesh war was just in form of a civil war before Indian intervention. Both overlap with each other here. That said, you are just msrepresenting reliablity of sources and throwing a source that does not even support your claim of "India-Bangladeshi victory". Do you have sources to prove how it was not an "Indian victory"? You are doing only WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by doing your personal analysis. Orientls (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources are fine as long "all analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources" are "referenced to a secondary or tertiary source" is not "an original analysis" (per WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research" (per WP:RSPRIMARY). An editor should "not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source" but "instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" (WP:PRIMARY, also WP:RSPRIMARY) I believe the policy has been followed here not just by spirit, but also by its letters.
Also, context matters and it's ok to use our brains.
None of sources Aaman is proposing have said that it's exclusively an Indian victory. Reading that into those sources is clearly a WP:SYNTH. Like I said already, India did win. And so did Bangladesh. As a joint command. Much like WWII which was an "Allied victory", not an "American victory".
It doesn't make Indian achievements small. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
All of the sources provided here have said that it was an Indian victory. Quit misrepresenting sources. How about United States war in Haiti? It is considered as "American victory" not "Haiti-allied victory" because the Haiti government was incapable to defeat opposing forces just like Mukti Bahini (not 'Bangladesh') forces were. This is why academics seem to be viewing war as "Indian victory". You are not allowed to engage in WP:OR, nor you are allowed to use primary sources. Orientls (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I would have to be deeeply immersed into Indian POV to accept "Devika Publishers" or self-published sources like "Indian Foreign Policy: Annual Survey" as more credible than a secondary scholarly source by Oxford University Press, my regrets. Following content from a C-class unrelated article to advance the POV doesn't look like a good idea either.
Aditya Kabir has made a good point, as the text of instrument of surrender is restated by the secondary sources, that clears the conundrum of WP:PRIMARY. Now it boils down to either Bangladeshi-Indian victory or the one I suggested to follow the source almost verbatim. Both of them should work. --Zayeem (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Devika Publisher is not a self-published source. Being "restated by the secondary sources" doesn't make you less WP:PRIMARY unless the similar claims have been repeated by reliable sources independent of the primary source. Orientls (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for readbility and accessibility 2

I'm responding to the ping at WT:MILHIST. As this war has been extensively covered in secondary sources, there is no need at all to consult primary sources, which Wikipedia editors should generally avoid doing anyway. My reading of the discussion above is that secondary sources typically describe this as being an Indian victory, with Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs) not identifying any secondary sources which support their preferred wording that it was equally a Bangladeshi victory. The wording of peace treaties, etc, should be treated with great care as they're diplomatic documents which use complex and political language and do not necessarily reflect how the outcome actually came about (for instance, Canada and France were signatories to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender despite having played a very small role in the war against Japan during World War II - historians do not describe the surrender of Japan as being a French or Canadian victory!). Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D.
P.S. @Orientls: Please, do not remove the section break subheaders. A superlong block of text is difficult to read, and it is common tradition in Wikipedia to break them up at intervals. Removing them them serves only one purpose - making it more difficult for peopele to follow the disucussion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many sources that describe this being Bangladeshi victory. For example,
  • Maidul Hasan, Muldhara '71, page 207, University Press Limited. ISBN 978 984 8815 63 2. "পাকিস্তানি কমান্ডের মনোবল সম্পূর্ণ ভেঙ্গে পড়ায় বাংলাদেশের বিজয় সম্পন্ন হয়" (Translation: The complete collapse of Pakistani command's morale led to Bangladesh's victory)
In fact, according to Indian General K. K. Singh's assessment, due to India's limitation in troop mobilization in East Pakistan, it was mainly Bangladesh force's contribution that made it possible to achieve victory in the war.
General J. F. R. Jacob states, Freedom fighters won the war, not otherwise.
Describing it as Indian victory is like describing American Revolutionary War as French victory. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, you have made a valid point on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. However, in Bangladesh Liberation War, the Mukti Bahini did play a major role and the war was basically fought between Pakistan and Mukti Bahini for its most part. And there seem to be proponents of "Bangladeshi victory" as well, as pointed above. The point Aditya Kabir made was since the content of instrument of surrender was restated by the secondary sources, the fact of Bangladeshi-Indian victory is no more relied on a primary source only. We also need to examine the quality of the sources as many of them are of dubious reliability as I mentioned earlier. If there is a problem with the term victory we can simply keep "Pakistan's surrender to Bangladesh and Indian forces" as the result. --Zayeem (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
One more little thing - France or Canada didn't fight in Japan, the US did. In this case Bangladesh forces, aided by India, was the primary fighting force. By the way, the Indian editors here seem to lose interest in discussion because their version is live. I believe they will rejoin the discussion the moment their version is changed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So everyone who has opposed your WP:OR is ultimately an "Indian"? See WP:BATTLE. If you believe that people would be willing to repeat themselves all the time and entertain discussion involving "American Revolutionary War as French victory", "France or Canada didn't fight in Japan, the US did", "Japanese Instrument of Surrender", or any other violations of WP:NOTAFORUM then you are indeed driving editors away from the talk page. You will also benefit from reading WP:STICK. Orientls (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed as per Za-ari-masen. Most of the sources referring to Indian victory in this conflict are actually referring to Indian victory in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which started with Indian intervention in the conflict in December 1971. It was originally a civil conflict between the two wings of Pakistan over election results. It turned hostile after the start of Operation Search Light which was aimed at Mukti Bahini forces which were believed to be supported by India. Though it's true that India fully supported the Fall of Dhaka for it's personal grudges with Pakistan out of its enmity but direct intervention by India in the conflict came in December 1971 and before that East Pakistani people had fought their war for an year. So there should be a credit to them. It's also true that Indian intervention was an important point in the conflict and turned the result against Pakistani forces but Bangladeshi people can't be robbed off the credit of their struggle. Instrument of surrender itself heavily favours India and giving no credit to Bangladesh except a passing mention but overlooking the conflict, Bangladeshi people deserve a credit for their struggle. USaamo (t@lk) 12:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Note: Topic ban violation
@Orientls: Meta:Don't be a jerk. Everyone can quote essays. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion started on 1 August and the opposing side didn't respond till 7 August, only after I made that change in infobox, so Aditya Kabir's suggestion on the lack of interest in discussion by some editors as long as their version is live is not really unfounded. Anyway let's return to the content, I don't think there is any doubt anymore that it's not exclusively an Indian victory especially after seeing the sources brought by Za-ari-masen (rather it now tilts towards "Bangladeshi victory"). Have we reached a consensus? If not, then let's open an RfC.

And Orientls, I would request you to follow the sequence of the discussion and keep your each reply at one place. Breaking the sequence and leaving replies at different places hurts the readability of the discussion. If you want to reply to specific comments of editors, pinging them or even quoting the specific comment would suffice. --Zayeem (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you bring exact snippet or verifiable quote from sources brought by Za-ari-masen? I haven't seen any yet. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for readbility and accessibility 3

Two Indian editors pushing for a certain version and five Bangladeshi editors not agreeing to that version is not concensus. One side of the debate refraining from discussion and constantly being WP:UNCIVIL is not consensus building. Since there is no consensus and no effort to build consensus is in sight, I think I am going to revert this back to the only WP:NPOV version (i.e. this version) we had. Until a consensus is reached we need to have a both-sided verion live. Restore that version and start an WP:RFC. May be we can use what is thare at WP:MILHIST as the case for RfC. If the incivilities continue, then there's WP:ANB. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears though that several editors have opposed inclusion of your proposed results citing lack of reliable sources as a reason. You shouldn't be discounting them. Headcounts don't really matter though when it comes to building WP:CON. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Totally agreed. It's not headcount that builds consensus, rather POV pushing and incivility, and a slight lack of competence builds consensus. As is evident here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:PSTS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." If the academic discussion says India won, and that is the scholarly consensus, that is what should be in the article. The text of treaties can be biased for all kinds of reasons, first among them because they can be dictated by the winners. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources actually say it's a Bangladeshi victory, I'm re-posting an earlier comment,

  • Maidul Hasan, Muldhara '71, page 207, University Press Limited. ISBN 978 984 8815 63 2. "পাকিস্তানি কমান্ডের মনোবল সম্পূর্ণ ভেঙ্গে পড়ায় বাংলাদেশের বিজয় সম্পন্ন হয়" (Translation: The complete collapse of Pakistani command's morale led to Bangladesh's victory)
  • In fact, according to Indian General K. K. Singh's assessment, due to India's limitation in troop mobilization in East Pakistan, it was mainly Bangladesh force's contribution that made it possible to achieve victory in the war.
  • General J. F. R. Jacob states, Freedom fighters won the war, not otherwise.

Unlike the other sources shown here, Muldhara '71 is a highly reliable academic source. Regarding Muldhara '71's reliability, below are some of the scholarly sources where the book is cited,

Extended content

Considering the reliable secondary sources shown above and when Indian generals themselves state that Bangladesh forces played the most prominent role in achieving victory, it is very safe to conclude that the result of Bangladesh Liberation War is Bangladeshi victory or Bangladeshi-Allied victory, following the content style of American Revolutionary War. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War/Archive_8&oldid=1000103930"