Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

On reference style

Since the article uses some books repeatedly, and many are book sources, you can consider using sfn style for references. It is not a requirement, and may take a good few hours to do the conversion. The end result, is, usually aesthetically pleasing. But no need as such.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sfn style? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For example of use of sfn style, please see Sholay. Again, this is not a requirement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Other discussion

Dear User:Darkness Shines, I didn't notice that the source was a forum. But I think info about the research of Sarmila bose is necessary for NPOV while also stating her study has been criticized by various historians and academics. You can use the ISBN/name of that controversial Book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War as reference if you want. Here you can find some other References.

- Rahat | ✉ 16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Her work and methodology has been severely criticised, I see no place for Dead Reckoning here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I just searched her book and she does not seem to discuss the mass rapes at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you please tell me what else is necessary to take this article to featured article grade? - Rahat | ✉ 16:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I think it is pretty close to being good enough for FA now, Dwaipayan has done a fair bit of work on improvements, I hope to nominate it soon. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

"Davis also compared the extant of the atrocities to the Nazi Lebensborn program"

I felt that Tikka Khan's programme (ordering his soldiers to violate Bengali women indiscriminately) was an obscenity, comparable to Heinrich Himmler's Lebensborn Ministry in Nazi Germany. It gave me some satisfaction to know that I was contributing to the destruction of the policies of West Pakistan.

A dispute has arisen over the inclusion of this quote from Dr. Geoffrey Davis in the artilce, so community input is required. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Once more: Davis isn't a reliable source about anything except the area he is an expert witness for, i.e. the medical conditions in the post-war abortion programs. He was not an historian or a politologist or any other kind of expert. Nor was he himself notable as a figure in these events. What this quote does is presenting Mr Davis' views on two issues: his opinions about an overall historical assessment of the events (comparing them to some Nazi stuff), and the personal feelings he had during the situation (feeling "satisfaction" working there, etc.) Both issues are irrelevant for the article: about the first issue, he is not a reliable source; the second is of no encyclopedic interest at all.

What makes this additionally annoying is the fact that Davis inadvertently introduces an historical error of fact in his argument: he is evidently presupposing that the "Lebensborn" was a place of Nazi atrocities, according to the wide-spread myth that it was a program of forced breeding. As our article explains in some length, this is a myth; the "Lebensborn" was nothing of the sort. Having his quotation here has the effect of quite unnecessarily perpetuating this historical falsehood towards our readers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Looking over what reliable sources on Google say, he seems notable, but I agree with some of what Fut Perf says, too. In particular, the second half of the quotation seems a bit irrelevant. Maybe it could be trimmed down to just the Nazi part. I'm not sure what to say about the historical accuracy of the quotation, except that it does not have to be a direct quotation. Instead, one could easily summarize and reword the quotation: Davis compared Tikka Khan's programme of rape to Nazi war crimes, invoking the popular misconception of the SS Lebensborn. Or whatever. I'm sure someone can come up a better summary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RS tag?

[1] How is this supplement from a national newspaper not RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is an op-ed opinion piece quoting Davis second-hand. If at all, we ought to be citing the original interview itself. However, Davis himself isn't a reliable source either, at least not for the things he is being quoted about. He may be a reliable (though "primary") source about the medical conditions in the abortion programs he worked in, but he is not a reliable source about what other historical events the Bangladesh rapes are comparable with (be it the "Lebensborn" or whatever else). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're saying Davis is not reliable for his own words? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

He is a reliable source for his own opinions, but his opinions are not notable and as such irrelevant for our article. What he isn't a reliable source for is the things he is expressing these opinions about, i.e. what the Bangladesh rapes were comparable with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If his views are so not notable then explain why Bina D'Costa tracked him down to interview him? And mentions his views in her work? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for Fuck's sake. Not everybody who gets interviewed by a PhD student as an historical witness about a war automatically gets notable in the sense that we write Wikipedia articles about their personal feelings and opinons about that war. Don't be ridiculous. Are you drunk again? This is below your usual intellectual level when sober. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Now, that is a matter of debate. This is Fut.Perf's opinion, and he is entitled to have one (or, many). I feel, as long as the quotation/comment is appropriately attributed, and it is made clear in what capacity did the person made the opinion (whether he was a journalist, or, historian, or, common man), the comment is transparent enough to be here. Whether the comment has weightage enough to be here, depends on the commentator's designation/position. I feel he was in a position important enough to include this. Of course, he might not have seen what the German program looked like, but he had its perception common in that era expected for a person of his education/qualification.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

D'Costa is not a student.[2] And she is well published in this field, my drinking habits are not really any of your concern. You say his views are not notable, a well published academic obviously feels otherwise, I will go with D'Costa over you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction needed

Ref # 32 sourcing this text "The Pakistani army also raped Bengali males, to erode their masculinity and categorise them as homosexual. The army would stop men at checkpoints to see if they were circumcised, and this is where the rapes usually happened." probably needs to be corrected, as currently it points to page 73-74 of the book Rape in Wartime, but I can't find it there. --SMS ^Talk 20:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Must be a typo on my part, I know it is in the source, give me a minute. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just checked via Gbooks and amazon, not near my library at the mo, and they both say this on the pages given, what are you looking on? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad. Gbooks doesn't show page number of this book, so found it by trying random page number. But I found it at page 56. --SMS ^Talk 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Ref # 60 (Ball, 2011) doesn't emphasize the military intervention as probably done in this text "...Critics of the United Nations have used the 1971 atrocities to argue that military intervention was the only thing to stop the mass murder." by the use of "only". --SMS ^Talk 15:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not have access to my library currently, however if I recall correctly that source went along the lines of, critics of the UN have argued that military intervention is necessary in cases of genocide and then lists various wars as examples were military intervention was what stopped the atrocities, this war being one example given. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgot I had an e-book version of this, "They point out that, on a number of occasions in the post-Nuremberg world, genocide was stopped by military intervention (see, for example, Jones 2006, 395–396 ). In 1971, India intervened in East Pakistan to end the mass murders that were taking place, and the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia ended when Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979." I think that covers the content? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Saikia, Yasmin

Yasmin Saikia has two books in the bibliography, both with the same year. They need to be distinguished, as right now it's impossible to tell which content is sourced to which book. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have given the chapter title and page range in the bibliography, will that do? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You want to use "a", "b" after the year. See Template:Harvard citation documentation#More than one work in a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent thanks, I shall go do it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article has many neutrality flaws. It should describe the rape committed on all communities. But I regret, the current form of the article blames "Pakistani military" everywhere. Or more simply, the article is only for "Rapes of Bengalis during the Bangladesh Liberation War". The rapes and atrocities on Biharis, the Stranded Pakistanis need to be described too. The lead should also mention it, and the article needs serious fixing over neutrality issues. There is only one section of "Mukti Bahini actions" attribued to atrocities on Biharis, whereas the rest of the whole article is for the Bengalis. The lead can be restructured. >: "During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, hundreds of thousands of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them and the Bengali militants." Both of the major communities of Biharis and Bengalis were equally affected." I am going to make improvements shortly. I hope that the article of Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh will help me out. Faizan 07:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not going to happen, you must bear due weight in mind. See previous discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Faizan, did you just copy over these new additions [3] from some other article? They sound tacked on and poorly integrated in the context in this article. Very poor writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

due weight does not provide you a cover over the neutrality flaws, Mr. DS! And @Fut.Perf., I will amend it where it needs it. I will look forward to your further suggestions or aid. Faizan 08:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 I have made most of the work, now concentrating on copy-editing and references. After that, the article is good to go for FA, if it is stable(no edit-warring please). Faizan 08:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the edits of Faizan. As pointed out by FPaS, they are really poor writing and poorly integrated to the article. There was also some blatant POV edits like inserting the figures of Bihari deaths as "200,000-3,000,000" and mentioning the actions of Mukti Bahini twice in the lead. I would suggest Faizan to propose the edits here and wait for others' comment.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

How can the estimate for Bihari deaths be the same as the high end total for all killed in the conflict? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems he first copied some texts from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and pasted here, then replaced the phrase "number of people killed" with "number of Biharis killed".--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Even 200000 is impossible, there were but 600000 in the country at the time, see Historical Dictionary of Bangladesh p 52. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Kmzayeem for pointing this out. This [4] edit alone is grounds enough to ask for a topic ban for Faizan. It's blatant source falsification. He must have known from the previous version (which he indeed copied from 1971 Bangladesh genocide that these were total figures across all ethnic groups, and he knowingly changed it to make it claim explicitly that it was Biharis alone. Who wants to file this at WP:AE? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

DS should file this, Faizan's edits have irritated DS the most by obstructing the FAC process.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Be a waste of time, anything from before the notification will be ignored. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Faizan. You are duplicating content in the lede and making a complete hash of it, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

DS, Please man, read the diff. I fucking removed the duplication in lead. The figure of "3 million" was copied from Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, I did not do this deliberately. Alas. Faizan 08:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is crap for gods sake, you cannot equate the rapes of up to 400000 woman with the few thousand against the Biharis and west Pakistanis. I am reverting you, do not restore those edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

YEah I agree, even if it is in thousands, is it not worth mentioning? I am reverting you, do not restore those edits. is not the correct behaviour expected from an experienced Wikipedian. Faizan 08:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The MB atrocities are already in the lede, you have no consensus for this junk to be added, so it is going. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And dear the figure of 400000 is also not the last one. There are varying estimates. Anyway, we need to mention both communities, as per WP:NPOV Faizan 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If we have grudge over mentioning in lead, then we can refer it to Fut.Perf. for neutral assessment. Faizan 08:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Restore that tripe again and I will report you for editwarring, you are on 3RR as it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have referred it to Fut.Perf. for reassessment over duplication issues. Wait for his reply. Faizan 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why my edit is not acceptable

Lets talk about the diff. Dear Darkness Shines, as you stated that your concerns were over-exaggeration of facts related to Mukti Bahini, and that of duplication of lead. Any thoughts on how we can solve them? Faizan 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Chapter titles

I was able to get some of the chapter titles from WorldCat. These four I was not able to get:

• Islam in the World Today: A Handbook of Politics, Religion, Culture, and Society - no Hans Harder is listed
• Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law – 2010: 13 - WorldCat does not list the chapter titles
• Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History - WorldCat does not list the chapter titles
• Statelessness and citizenship : a comparative study on the benefits of nationality - WorldCat does not list the chapter titles -- Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Per Google Books:

• Hans Harder, "Bangladesh", p.350–358
• M. Zahurul Haq, "Case against Delwar Hossain Sayeedi", p.462f.
• Dina M. Siddiqi, "Bangladesh", Vol. I, p.201f.
• Katherine Southwick, "The Urdu-speakers of Bangladesh: an unfinished story of enforcing citizenship rights". p.115–141

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Super, we can add this when the in-use template comes down. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Am adding these now. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. I am stopping now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I never got an edit conflict? Ot at least I did not get the usual notice. But I am done editing it for a bit, found something interesting about the adoptions and am going to look for sources to try and expand on that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible trim of the background section

While I was content with the background section as it stood in Sept 2013, it is quite long, goes quite a long way back in time, and I note it has been criticised by at least one editor in the FAC process. I thought I would suggest a trimmed version of the first two paragraphs. I think they could read:

The Bengali people of East Pakistan were primarily Muslims, with a large Hindu minority. They did not speak Urdu, which had in 1948 been declared the national language of the newly formed state, and official resistance to the use of Bengali was one of several issues that led to disenchantment and calls for East Pakistan to secede. The people of the East were looked upon as second-class citizens by the West, and Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, who served as head of the Pakistani Forces in East Pakistan in 1971, referred to the region as a "low-lying land of low, lying people".

In December 1970, the East Pakistan-based Awami League, headed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a national majority in the first democratic general election since the creation of Pakistan. The West Pakistani establishment prevented them from forming a government. Former president Yahya Khan banned the Awami League and declared martial law.

On 25 March 1971, the Pakistan Army launched Operation Searchlight to maintain the rule of the West Pakistan-dominated military over East Pakistan and to curb a nascent Bengali nationalism. According to Eric Heinze the Pakistani forces attempted to exterminate the local Hindu population and killed Bengali civilians. In the resultant civil conflict the Pakistan Army employed systematic violence against civilians, resulting in the deaths of up to 3 million, and creating up to 10 million refuges who fled to India, and displacing a further 30 million. Historian Ian Talbot has compared the methodical planning behind the genocide with the Nazi Holocaust.

Does anyone have concerns with this shorter version? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This needs to remain "The refusal by successive governments to recognise Bengali as the second national language led to the formation of the Bengali language movement and strengthened support for the newly formed Awami League which was founded in the East as an alternative to the ruling Muslim League." I thin the foundation of the Awami League and the Bengali language movement are needed, fine with the rest. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Pictures

OK, now that you have belatedly got me interested in the article, may I ask why there are so few pictures? May I add some that will pique reader interest? You are welcome to undo my edit if you don't like them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There are so few pictures due to copyright laws, there are one I think will pass now given the discussion on the actual image, but still expect it to be deleted, if you actually have some then by all means add them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Short citations are useful when citing to multiple pages in the same reference. There's more reasons for using them at Help:Shortened footnotes. To me, they convey that newspaper articles, such as bdnews24.com[5] and The Daily Star[6] cited in the article, have the same weight as the books cited in the article since Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#References and Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Bibliography treat all sources the same. Wikipedia:Inline citation#References.2FNotes section discusses using reference and bibliography, but does not seem to raise this issue. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria refers to "high-quality reliable sources" and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Some types of sources also conveys that not all sources are the same. Perhaps Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Bibliography should only be for books. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the details of upcoming movie were removed?

Some editors are uncomfortable when factual details are added. Mr. Editor, go and read the details of the movie before exercising your editorial rights. If you revert again, I'll report it at appropriate level in Wiki community. J J Parikh 21:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)

I am the appropriate level, but then again, so are you. The film is not notable, once it is it can be added, read WP:V and WP:NOTE. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you are okay with adding the movie details after it has been released? Be clear in your comments. J J Parikh 23:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • :contribs)

No, I am saying it may be added if the film becomes notable, hence WP:NOTE, and is covered extensively in reliable sources, this article is for the most part written using academic sources, I have done my best to avoid the use of anything to new, cannot get away with that due to the trials, but for a movie, well, I would like to see extensive coverage before adding it here. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, in regards to your first comment here, "Some editors are uncomfortable when factual details are added" I wrote this article. 554 edits in total to it in fact, I researched it, wrote it, got drunk a fair few times over the stuff I read and saw while doing it, and one day this will make featured article, so please do not think I would be "uncomfortable when factual details are added" Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

merge

This can easily fit in the Bangladesh Liberation war article. Why the heck do these subtopics have separate articles of their own? it's not encyclopedic to make articles out of subtopics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. These events easily pass WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also per WP:TOOLONG Articles ought to be around the 50kb size, Bangladesh Liberation War is already well over that at 88,791. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Support- other article missed out on huge part of contemporaneous consequences and antecedents of conflict. And it is crucial and directly related to the matter. Look at articles on controversial or religious topics easily supersede the informal 50 kb norm. We can try merging and if it doesn't flow smoothly we can partition it once again. Go for it OP I'll provide assistance to my capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders88 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — Raiders88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose - <This is a huge article on an important topic and merging it to a paragraph size would in essence destroy it. Since this is a valid and significant topic, not to mention that it's a Wikipedia featured article candidate, the POV motives behind this peculiar anonymous request to merge, must be taken into account as well.> Meishern (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It meets GNG criteria. It is the subject of focused scholarly literature, ie. literature about the mass rape carried out before and during the 1971 war in Bangladesh, not generally about the war. The reliable sources have decided it is an independent topic. Our hands are tied. In any case, it is too late in the day to attempt such a move. The article has already been to WP:FAC, where it received the attention of more editors than this page move will elicit. Besides, there is precedent on Wikipedia: see Rape during the occupation of Germany, Rape during the occupation of Japan, Rape during the liberation of Poland, Rape during the Rwandan Genocide. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fowler and Darkness Shines.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

200,000 is the commonly cited number, a simple search of the literature shows that. Accusations of falsifying quotations are as usual, pure bullshit, there are no quotations there. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Will you ever learn? This was explained to you back in 2012, at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 1#Source problem. You even conceded the point back then. 200,000 may well be a (not "the") commonly cited figure, but we simply don't know whether it was the figure he was thinking of when he said certain figures were likely to be too low. He could have been thinking of any other of the many figures that had been cited. What you're doing by combining this is a classic case of WP:SYNTH; stop doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The official figure is 200,000, the most commonly cited figure is 200k, and you as usual are just trolling me to cause shite. I have nothing at all to say to you ever again. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Re this "source": this op-ed from December 2013, whose poor level of English alone should make it clear it lacks any type of editorial oversight and quality control, and hence not a reliable source, is evidently itself based on this Wikipedia article – a typical case of circular sourcing (or "citogenesis" [7]). There are very clear indicators the writer was taking a whole bunch of assertions from here, mirroring their exact phrasing, selection and arrangement. As before, there is only a single useable source for what Davis said and meant, and that is his own original interview, as published here: [8]. In that text he doesn't state exactly which figure of set of figures he considers "likely to be very conservative", so there is no way we can fill that information in for him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher." Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120 Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How many Dhaka doctors are we citing here?

The "aftermath" section is a mess of garbled citations, with a serious problem about distinguishing how many separate witness reports we are actually dealing with. There were three separate sentences all attributed to some abortion doctors in Dhaka. How many of these are actually different people, or are they all in reality the same person, Geoffrey Davis?

The D'Costa and Mukherjee sources explicitly identify their informant as Dr Davis, so that's fine. Then there is the Brownmiller 1975 source, which speaks of an unnamed "Australian physician" working for the international Planned Parenthood organization, as quoted in an unnamed New York Times report. Apparently Brownmiller didn't bother to actually cite the New York Times piece, a bad sign for her own reliability. Given her sloppy sourcing, we probably have no chance to track down the New York Times article to see if that doctor was also Davis, but it at least seems quite likely. How many Australian doctors were there in Dhaka at the time? From Davis' interviews, it sounds as if his job was very much a unique individual thing, not a team effort involving multiple Australians. Plus, the statement attributed to that unnamed physician, about the victims having venereal diseases, very much mirrors something Davis himself also said in his interviews.

Finally, there is the Mohsin source, which is currently paraphrased in the article as "A doctor at the rehabilitation centre in Dhaka reported 170,000 abortions of pregnancies caused by the rapes, and the births of 30,000 war babies." First, Mohsin too fails to cite her own source (it's apparently second-hand, via a report by another witness called Maleka Khan, but whether Mohsin got it from a published statement of Khan's, or via personal communication from her, we don't know.) Second, our sentence is misrepresenting the source – what Mohsin is actually quoting is that doctor estimating these figures "during the first three months of 1972" alone. With this additional information, it becomes virtually the same statement as the one attributed to Davis by D'Costa, where he reportedly said that 150,000–170,000 had abortions "before the state-mandated programme had even started". Davis' work began in March 1972, so the time period of the "first three months" is pretty much that, the time before the programme started. So, was Maleka Khan's anonymous colleague also Mr Davis? How many other doctors were there at that Dhaka rehabilitation centre?

It of course makes a difference for our article – we are currently suggesting these are at least three different testimonies by three independent observers, effectively backing each other up with their observations. This implies a much higher level of reliability than would be warranted if we were dealing with basically just a single observer's opinions (valuable as they may be, as such). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to check Future Perf's check of the references but, if Future's description is accurate, then I would agree that our article should at least be drafted to be consistent with the probability that all these sources may be based on a single informant. However, provided they are reliable sources, the claims therein should still be treated as reliable rather than contested.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Editions to article

1. Yasmin Saikia is a researcher who has researched and written a book about the xperiences of both Bihari and Bengali women in this war, and rape is a strong topic in her book. I will be adding information from her book. I want @MBlaze Lightning to be informed, so that we may not have a dispute over the new added content.

The reference for her book is: Saikia, Yasmin (2011) Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971, Durham: Duke University Press. 311 pages, ISBN: 9780822350385

A description of her book can also be found here: https://www.dukeupress.edu/women-war-and-the-making-of-bangladesh

Description Fought between India and what was then East and West Pakistan, the war of 1971 led to the creation of Bangladesh, where it is remembered as the War of Liberation. For India, the war represents a triumphant settling of scores with Pakistan. If the war is acknowledged in Pakistan, it is cast as an act of betrayal by the Bengalis. None of these nationalist histories convey the human cost of the war. Pakistani and Indian soldiers and Bengali militiamen raped and tortured women on a mass scale. In Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh, survivors tell their stories, revealing the power of speaking that deemed unspeakable. They talk of victimization—of rape, loss of status and citizenship, and the “war babies” born after 1971. The women also speak as agents of change, as social workers, caregivers, and wartime fighters. In the conclusion, men who terrorized women during the war recollect their wartime brutality and their postwar efforts to achieve a sense of humanity. Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh sheds new light on the relationship among nation, history, and gender in postcolonial South Asia.

About The Author(s) Yasmin Saikia is the Hardt-Nickachos Chair in Peace Studies and Professor of History at Arizona State University. She is the author of Fragmented Memories: Struggling to Be Tai-Ahom in India, also published by Duke University Press.

2. There isn't much information in this article about the rape of Bihari women. I will be adding this information. There is a lot on the topic of the rape of women by Pakistan Army and Bengali/Bihari razakar millitias. The Bihari suffering during the conflict also needs to be included. Remember, this was a human tragedy. Wikipedia should not be anyone's nationalist platform, rather it should give all details objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Before inserting the additional information, I had made the above post on Talk page. MBlaze Lightning has instead of replying to this, has undone my edit and asked for me to discuss on the Talk page,when this post is already here.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the WP:Primary allegation. Okay so what I have written is not my original research. I have taken info from a reliable academic book and added it into this article (in the inrto).

In the section on Biharis all info is from neutral sources, page numbers are given as reference..

Also Niazi's statements are from a Bangladeshi source.

There is no newspaper cropping. No image was posted. As for Anthony's quote, his criticism of Pak millitary action was also mentioned before his quote of anti-Bihari violence was mentioned.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown

I ask you to go through the sources and see if you think I am wrong for adding these additions. I feel like @MBlaze Lightning wants to have his own way on Wikipedia. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the latest additions to this page. You are correct that Saikia states that all parties (Pakistan, India, Mukti Bahini, Razakars) were culpable but there are several issues that need to be sorted out before material based on her work can be added to the article. We need to work out what significance we should give to the work of one scholar (have other scholars supported her work, for example? Is the work peer reviewed?) and we need to work out the degree to which culpability is assigned. If, for example, rapes were largely carried out by Pakistani soldiers as the current version of the article suggests then we do need to separate that out from the article. The entire section that talks based on General Niazi's comments should be discussed separately. It seems undue to me and appears to be an attempt to explain away the rapes. I suggest, instead, assuming that the source is reliable, adding a single sentence in the paragraph that says that not all Pakistani sources supported the violence. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you, but a simple question; was the criterion that you have laid down for Saika now was also followed for all other sources from which this article had been build up to its current version?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 18:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Best to raise other discussions separately otherwise we'll get bogged down in generalities.--regentspark (comment) 19:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@regentspark

Thank you very much for replying. I was awaiting a reply here from the user who undid my edits but he has not responded.

Anyways, Yasmin Saikia, is a renowned academic, and this book of hers which I am using for adding information in this article is Women, War and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971 (2011). And this book of hers actually won the Oral History Association Biennial Book Award (2013). See: https://webapp4.asu.edu/directory/person/1614088

Her book is academically reliable. To over-examine it, would open floodgates. We would have to analyse each and every source from which information has already been gathered on this article (as TripWire has said), and many of these sources may need to be checked and re-checked and there could be too many disputes.

The name of this article is Rape during Bangladesh Liberation War, so its a general article about rape which occurred during the conflict and not just about the rapes of women from certain political and ethnic affiliations.

If you see, the introduction of the article already has a great deal of information on the rape of Bengali women by Pakistanis and Razakars. And I don't propose to change that. What I have done is to merely add a general introductory sentence, which not only includes Pakistani perpetrators and Bengali victims, but also includes victims and perpetrators from across all the parties in the conflict. It is sourced and it is only one added sentence which generally covers all rape, without subtracting from the main emphasis in the introduction about the rape of Bengali women by Pakistani soldiers, although ideally this page should be devoted entirely to rape from and of all parties to the conflict.

The removal of the Bihari Victims section, where all the information I had added so far was sourced, is completely unwarranted. There are two sections already on Bengali victims, surely just one section on Bihari victims of rape deserves to be included in the article.

The quotes of Niazi, which I found on a Bangladeshi source, do not absolve the Pakistani army. Rather it is significant for 3 things

1) It mentions that the extent of rape was such that on occasions even West Pakistani women were not being spared by Pakistani soldiers.

2) It is an admission of a section of the army's guilt from the General himself, and that too within the time frame of the conflict.

3) It also adds information that sort of neutralises the views on the Pakistani Army, by showing that not all supported rape. You say there can be a sentence added, I say a quote from the General himself (and that too during the conflict) is a very significant way of showing it. There is no reason to censor it, it is relevant and sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC) TalhaZubairButt (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi TalhaZubairButt. I think it is ok to add General Niazi's quote in the paragraph that starts with 'Not all Pakistani military personnel supported the violence'. You could add this sentence "General Niazi, the commander in chief of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, expressed concern over the rapes and said that officers found guilty of these acts would receive "deterrent and exemplary punishment". The extended quote is unnecessary and undue. If there was follow up material on how effectively officers and soldiers were prosecuted, then more on Niazi's views would be includable. About Saikia. I'm looking through her book. From what I can see, her research is based mostly on interviews conducted 30+ years after the war and I think we would need to see secondary sources for validation. Her Indian focus is largely on the activities of India in inciting and supporting the rebels and less on crimes committed by Indian soldiers but there is a lot to wade through yet so let's wait and see.--regentspark (comment) 14:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@regentspark

Yes I accept your proposition for Niazi's statements as a compromise. However I believe there is no reason to exclude the Bihari Victims section. All the information in that section was quoted from neutral and reliable sources. In the meantime you can go through Saikia's book, but one thing I believe we may agree on is that Bihari victims and Bengali perpetrators of rape should also be mentioned in the article's introduction (after all there is plenty of information from other sources on Bengali perpetration of rape and Bihari victims of rape), and for now the reference to Indian soldiers can be excluded till you have completed research on Saikia's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The current text works. I'm not against including war crimes conducted by Indian soldiers as long as there are reliable sources and as long as the relative degree to which sources identify culpability of Pakistani, Indian, or Bangladeshi soldiers is maintained in the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading the article, it does seem like the focus is on the use of rape as a tool of repression by the Pakistani Army. Adding in the odd, apparently rare and well after the fact, mentions of rape by Indian soldiers defocuses the article. Perhaps a sentence at the end of the 'Bihari victims' section along the lines of There are also reports of women raped by Indian soldiers would be ok but I'm not even sure about. The reports are based on stories collected by one scholar many years later. (Ideally, of course, this article should not exist. Rapes should be contextualized in the Bangladesh liberation war article rather than brought out as a separate topic of their own. But this is Wikipedia :))--regentspark (comment) 18:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek I added a new section for the Bihari rape victims in this war but you claim they have already been covered. But I do not see so. I also cannot find the previous discussion here on the talkpage. I also need you to explain UNDUE when the rape of Biharis was a very important aspect of this war rapes and is amply covered in the scholarship. If a satisfactory explanation is not given I will re-add the section. Thank you. LatersFlazes (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Type "Bihari" into the Archive Search box above. Volunteer Marek  03:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I will need a clearer direction. LatersFlazes (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Where it says "Search archives". White box. Right above. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I still cannot find it. Perhaps it would be better for you to explain why you think its UNDUE over here?? LatersFlazes (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well seeing the latest edit, in my mind a good edit, my take here will be that given the quality of the sources cited, the recurrence of Bihari victimhood in the scholarly literature and so on I think it satisfies WP:DUE. In fact I think it is even required to meet WP:NPOV which means representing scholarly commentary in proportion to their size, . Bina D'Costa, Yasmin Saikia are already cited in this article (see bibliography). They have devoted small parts of their works to the Bihari sufferings. So given that size in this case there should be a small section on this article too for the Biharis, but not large enough to be compared with the larger scale of atrocities against the Bengalis.

But if the section on Bihari victims and Bengali perpetrators is excluded, then I think we have on a similar article, Rape during the Kashmir Conflict#Rape by militants (post-1988), a similarly 'undue' section called 'Rape by militants' which could also be worthy of a wipeout because reliable scholarly sources note that rapes by the militants are in no way comparable to rapes by the Indian forces in Kashmir. Just my two cents.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I re-add what I added? LatersFlazes (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No you should not, and present convincing argument other than what has been already repeated a lot of times in archives, but I don't think that it is needed for a good article like this. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• IMO, at some point, the article needs to have a section covering such atrocities otherwise the article (in its current form) is WP:POV. This is a war where atrocities were committed by the opposition forces too. Simply put, you cannot have an article on the Bangladesh Liberation War which doesn't adequately cover the conflict. Mar4d (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, you participated in previous discussions (for example [9]) so you know what the consensus is. Volunteer Marek  08:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're alluding to? The 2012 archive is on the sources being used. I certainly see no "consensus" for anything else. So masking the reverts under the guise of that would be misleading. Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Nuff said. Perhaps Volunteer Marek should now stop his revert warring spree. Muhammad Mughal (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No. His reverts have consensus, read what has been said above and drop the stick. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So far you're the only one supporting his position here, amrite? What kind of 'consensus' is that? Muhammad Mughal (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not unsure that you are WP:GAMING, still I would assume good faith and link the consensus[10] about which I am talking about. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverts

I don't know who is in charge of this article but users are reverting my edits unnecessarily. A line in the lead section says "Imams and Muslim religious leaders publicly declared that the Bengali women were gonimoter maal (war booty) and thus they openly supported the rape of Bengali women by the Pakistani Army." Gonimoter maal is a Bengali phrase for war booty which means the Imams and Muslim leaders were Bengalis themselves, so according this article those Imams and Muslim leaders were supporting rape of their own women? What kind of absurd logic is that? What the source actually states is that they declared Bengali Hindu women as gonimoter maal because they thought the freedom fighters were Hindus or Indian agents so their Hindu women could be taken as war booty. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.48.111.213 (talk • contribs)

Well, here is a sample of edit summaries:

• edited according to what the source says [11]
• please read the sources before reverting, I just edited according to what the sources state [12]
• Why are you misleading the sources? Have you even read the books cited here? [13]

For all this bravado, it turns out that you are not wearing any pants. The cited source {{sfn|D'Costa|2011|p=108}} does say:

Imams and mullahs (Muslim religious leaders) publicly declared Bengali women to be gonimoter maal (public property), thereby making it ostensibly acceptable for the men of the Pakistan Army and their collaborators to rape Bengali women (Mamun, 1999).

During the national struggle for liberation, the collaborators and Islamic parties had allegedly supported the Pakistani government's oppressive policies towards women.

And the content you are trying to whitewash has been here around since 2013. It has been through a good article review. Now you show up brandishing all guns acting like you are the wisest man on earth. I ask, what "source" did you actually read? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yasmin Saikia information

How did the author found the facts which was not found previously since 1971. Was she eye-witness? Wikipedia has become nice place to insert conspiracy theory, by verifiability not truth argument.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=904002077&oldid=904001948

Read the book, and you might get to know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Click on Page-51 This seems like her personal biased opinion without any solid evidence. Published in 2011, after 40 years. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YdQaz1ddI-wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Women,+War,+and+the+Making+of+Bangladesh:+Remembering+1971.+Duke+University+Press&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2gK_a05HjAhXHbX0KHbYECH8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=Indian%20army%20rape&f=false 42.110.246.194 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In the entire book, the author fails to give any reliable neutral source, that Indian Army were engaged in rape. The article quotes page no-3, where the author doesn't give any source of events of 1971. There are some source mentioning Pakistani Urdu newspapers which reported rape by Indian Army, she also mentions that Pakistani Urdu newspapers were biased against Bengalis, so this can't be a neutral source, unless someone supports fake propaganda. This type of claims require more sources. As this event occured in 1971, and this book was published in 2011, find more reliable sources before 2011. 42.110.207.26 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

{{GAR/link|08:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)|page=2|GARpage=1|status= }}

Review at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/GA2 has been closed as failed; article is delisted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fhuda91 (article contribs).

Evaluation

Although there is plethora of sources which recount the horrific instances during the Bangladesh Liberation War, the language feels very biased and one-sided in the sense that it attributes religion as the main motivation behind this atrocity in the opening paragraphs. The article includes heavy quotations from sources, instead of justified paraphrasing where necessary which leads to the article reading as a recount from memory of individuals instead of evidence. Most of the ‘facts’ represented are direct quotations from recounts of individuals who have studied or experienced the situation, and the writing style makes the article read more like an opinion piece rather than a source of knowledge. Fhuda91 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Organized vandalism by far-rights from India

Here's a detailed comparison of all the disrupted edits made to this page by some users throughout this article. I have been removing their edits throughout other articles. Here's another example from the page Bangladesh Genocide. I have put out a report on the noticeboard for the page 'Bangladesh Genocide' and included their names here. I will open another report for this page if they continue to do this.

For now, I have reverted the changes made to this page back to the first edit made by A.Musketeer where they removed the article as part of a Wikipedia series on Rape, and turned it into a series on Bengali Hindu Rape. Arfaz (chat) | 10:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You have not even given a single reason behind removing the well-sourced contents, other than just ad hominem attacks. False accusation of "vandalism by far-rights from India" is not a valid reason. Point out your concerns with the contents here. Why are these disruptive edits? You can only remove if anything is unsourced but the contents you are removing are all cited with reliable sources. You clearly have no idea how wikipedia works. A.Musketeer (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea, thank you for your attention!

@A.MusketeerCan you please stop reverting back? This is not your country history, this is ours. So please respect us. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See block log – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, give a valid reason behind removing the contents. Talking through anonymous IP doesn't change the rules for you. A.Musketeer (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

So What? You are an Indian, why you feel entitled enough to change with whatever, that is not related to your country? Is Pakistanis doing this? No, Then Why you do? 64.229.49.146 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See block log – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time to reply to this sort of nonsense but still what proof do you have that I'm an Indian? And even if someone is from India, why do you think they cannot edit articles about Bangladesh? Your personal identity doesn't get any weight while evaluating your edit. Read WP:PILLARS to understand. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then we will edit your all Indian wiki pages, history. And Pakistanis will join us. will you be okay with this?

If not, then why we would be okay?

Just stop being hypothetical, and try bringing up those policies.

Your Indian and Pakistani Pages are protected from just actions. We will get this, so people like you cannot do this.

We know, you are Indian, by looking at what you added. "Just hindus were killed." Would any Bangladeshi or Non Indians would say this? Not General Indian Population either?

You are just a group of people from Right Wing India, adn their talking point is same as what you are including here. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See block log – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You can edit whichever page you want, be that Indian, Pakistani, Jewish, Arab, Martian, you don't need my permission, as long as you follow Wikipedia's policies. Also, see WP:NPA to learn what is a personal attack. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This article keeps getting vandalized by far-right Indians who keep writing that it was only the Hindus who got raped. The sheer number of biased and unreliable sources used is noticeable. Reliable sourced materials were removed and replaced with books and page numbers that can't be found in any libraries in Dhaka. The article is protected so can't even revert it. Requesting Wikipedia mods to take action against this vandalism. 103.197.153.207 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is also not a new phenomenon. Far rights from India have been vandalizing Bangladesh Liberation War-related articles for a while now.

Source: Talk:Bangladesh genocide#Organized vandalism by far-rights from India 103.197.153.207 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

---

FYI, the statement in this article that Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women. is based on a misreading of the source. Here's the paragraph that the statement cites, which comes from a short blurb about Bangladesh in the appendix (!) of the book:

What followed was a major outbreak of violence. It is estimated that during the short, nine-month conflict Pakistani and allied forces murdered 990 teachers, 49 physicians, 42 attorneys, 16 writers and artists, and 13 journalists. Some estimates suggest that as many as 200,000 women were raped. Hindus were targeted the most. On April 23 at Jathibhanga, anywhere from 3,000–5,000 Hindus were murdered in their village or while attempting to escape, but the worst atrocity of the entire war occurred on May 20, during the Chuknagar Massacre, in which some 8,000–10,000 Hindus were murdered en masse. The dead included men, women, children, and the elderly. Although it is impossible to pinpoint how many Hindus died during the entirety of the war, their fatality rate was certainly much higher than any other group.
— Paul G. Pierpaoli Jr., Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection (2014)

In this paragraph, Hindus were targeted the most is a statement that introduces the following sentence On April 23 at Jathibhanga, … about mass killings of Hindus; it's not meant to describe the statement that Some estimates suggest that as many as 200,000 women were raped.

This is also explicitly contradicted by Christian Gerlach:

Often gang rapes happened in public. Sometimes this involved the murder of male relatives, or of small children who disturbed the soldiers during their deed. Complaints to the Martial Law Authorities could lead to more rape and destruction. Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. The claim that 80 percent were Muslim has no clear basis. After the war, Hindu activists accused the Bangladesh government of not helping Hindus to find their abducted and forcibly converted women.
— Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

Two Smoking Barrel brought up a similar point at Talk:Bangladesh genocide. Malerisch (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The exact same statement appears in Bangladesh genocide § Rape of Bengali women and is cited to 5 sources, yet none of the sources back up this statement. And it should be noted that this statement was mentioned by Future Perfect at Sunrise as a justification for delisting this article as GA in Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/GA2. Malerisch (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that even if Hindus were targeted the most described the previous sentence (which it doesn't), that's simply not logically the same thing as saying that "most of the victims were Hindus" (given that Hindus were only a minority among the overall population that was subject to atrocities.), to quote Future Perfect at Sunrise in the GA reassessment. Malerisch (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the disputes

"See Archived Talk Pages" to read previous discussion.

Some of the users have raised serious allegation that this article has been vandalized by far right groups, so many users have started editing war. I would urge users to be polite and note the problems you found on the article and crosscheck with the given source. I will include relevant Wikipedia policies how to engage in conversion and relevant archived discussion link about dispute in this section.

About Archiving Talk page: There's no definite duration on when thread should be archived. It states "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Notices are placed at the beginning of the talk page to inform all editors of an archive." and relevant quote "If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion." So Archiving the talk page isn't some kind of law that some users claim to be. And discussion that's still relevant to current work shouldn't be archived. Refer "Help:Archive"[14]

Talk Page guideline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

Gaming the system: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system

How to engage:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view : This is important for this article. read this before engaging!

Template:POV section , Wikipedia:Neutral point of view , Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution , Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement List of templates https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index

Inline templates :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inline_citation_and_verifiability_dispute_templates— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salekin.sami36 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Before engaging and using any sort of template please read these carefully Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Salekin.sami36 stepping in here as an uninvolved admin, the last stable archival period was 20 days. 20 days is too short in most circumstances. While 90 days is actually sufficient long enough for discussions to be carried out. The current archival setting is to leave up to latest 3 topics on the page (regardless of when the last comment was left on the topic), and to archive the older topics, as long as the last comment was made less than 90 days ago. These settings gives more than enough time to individual editors to respond to the discussions. It is possible to have more than 3 topics under these settings as long as the discussions are active (i.e. last comment in the topic is less than 90 days old). These settings are also typical of other pages of similar discussion velocities. – robertsky (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as these settings don't obstruct the ongoing discussion, I'm okay with it. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• First of all, you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel and Susan Brownmiller is giving her primary accounts. Primary sources are not used in history-related articles, let alone using in the lead. Secondly, several scholars has disputed the figures, including Christian Gerlach who said The claim that 80 percent were Muslim has no clear basis. However, there is no disagreement over the fact that "Hindus were targeted the most". A.Musketeer (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Before Using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY please read it first yourself what is considered primary source. For your convenience a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

  In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.[1] Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary

  It is clear you're trying to game the system. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol, this is not gaming. Government sources and first hand journalisms are always considered WP:PRIMARY, you can ask anyone and they will say the same. And we only use scholarly publications as sources in history-related articles per WP:HISTRS. Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician. Her book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape has also faced criticisms for its factual inaccuracies and the author's own personal bias. Besides, as I said earlier, there are contradicting views as well by other authors. Your edits are also adding WP:MOS problems, we don't add quotations of individuals in the lead. Most importantly, you need to reach a consensus before mass changing the longstanding version (more than two years old) of this article. I think I have now explained the issues with your edits in detail but if you are still unable to understand anything, I'd be happy to explain again, but please do not restore the problematic edits. Since you have cited different policies and guidelines in your post above, I imagine you are already aware of WP:BRD and WP:IDHT. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

==== Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer: ====

You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.

• On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed" You've removed 5 Quoted sources^{(none original or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209)} which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
• On your 2nd edit ^{edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed"} :You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
• On your 3rd edit ^{edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" :} You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims." with "The Pakistani elite believed that Hindus were behind the revolt and that as soon as there was a solution to the "Hindu problem" the conflict would resolve." And you edit description was NPOV balancing. You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
• On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega(description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
• On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim ""Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." but the source says "Hindus were targeted the most" It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women. Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation, which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead worked on them. You've reverted my edit saying "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician." But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel" so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
• ...

==== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ====

It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."

You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.

The source statement was,

Hindus were targeted the most

Your claim back by source is,

Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.

You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions.

In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,

“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80

In The Daily Star archive

Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'.

Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.

Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43⁽¹⁾ in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314^{(About 7,370,000 results)}, Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.^{(About 2,060,000 results)}

=== Others ===

You're misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.

You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.

• In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
• Your misinterpreted source is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Malerisch here as well 88.239.17.21 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Salekin.sami36: I'm not gonna discuss past edits of mine going back to 2021 because A. I don't remember in which context they were, some of them were even reverts of obvious vandalisms. B. Instead of discussing the current dispute, your bringing up all the past edits to write such a long response appears to be WP:BLUDGEON.
  I have already explained that Susan Brownmiller and her book Against Our Will is not a scholarly source and has its own factual inaccuracies. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is also cited by a lot of authors but still we don't consider it a scholarly source. Please read WP:RS to understand what I am saying. And again, statements/reports of government personnel are considered WP:PRIMARY. We don't use neither Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian government sources for the same reason.
  Taking a closer look at your edit, you have added self-published sources like academia.edu and opinion pieces from Bdnews24.com and New York Times. As I said earlier, we only rely on scholarly sources per WP:HISTRS. Please try to understand the problems with your edits. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please defend your edit "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." and

  Reliability of your only source you've used and deleted 5 sources when you added your claim. The source statement was "Hindus were targeted the most" Why your edit isn't misinterpretion of source?Why we should should trust your source not the 6+ sources you deleted claiming every one of the. primary? among the 6+ sources there was 2 books, 2 newspaper article, and 2 journal. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer

The following is documentation of disruptive edits by A.Musketeer which I originally replied him in a comment in talk section. You can find the original Conversation in the section "Regarding the Disputes". Here 'you' is referring A.Musketeer.

You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.

• On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed" You've removed 5 Quoted sources^{(none original or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209)} which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
• On your 2nd edit ^{edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed"} :You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
• On your 3rd edit ^{edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" :} You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims." with "The Pakistani elite believed that Hindus were behind the revolt and that as soon as there was a solution to the "Hindu problem" the conflict would resolve." And you edit description was NPOV balancing. You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
• On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega(description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
• On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim ""Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." but the source says "Hindus were targeted the most" It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women. Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation, which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead worked on them. You've reverted my edit saying "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician." But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel" so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
• ...

==== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ====

It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."

You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.

The source statement was,

Hindus were targeted the most

Your claim back by source is,

Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.

You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions.

In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,

“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80

In The Daily Star archive

Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'.

Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.

Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43⁽¹⁾ in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314^{(About 7,370,000 results)}, Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.^{(About 2,060,000 results)}

=== Others ===

You're misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.

You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.

• In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
• Your misinterpreted source is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)