This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In this [1] edit SheriffIsInTown added this text "Academic Christian Gerlach has argued that the majority of the deaths in the 1971 period were due to hunger and disease and not due to direct army killings." [1] Is miksrepresented by the user Sheriffisintown, the cited source says the famine followed the 1975 coup, this was four years after the genocide and Gerlach says nothing of the sort which Sheriff has written, I shall check the rest of his edits to this article. @ Volunteer Marek and Kautilya3: to take a look. 45.125.128.130 ( talk) 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Some scholars also consider the number of women raped to be seriously inflated. [2] was shown some months ago as to be wrong, only Bose writes such nonsense, see /info/en/?search=Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_women in sections above 45.125.128.130 ( talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
More misrepresentation "There is no consensus among independent researchers on number of people killed. Some put that number between 300,000-500,000, [3] and describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated. [4]" The first source given does not say "There is no consensus among independent researchers" The second source is seriously misrepresented again, Hiro clearly says Bose gives a figure of 50-100 thousand dead, not "some" has Sheriff has written, and nowhere in the source is the term "describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated" even remotely hinted at. 45.125.128.130 ( talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Volunteer Marek: and @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Guys, I made very small edits so they are easy to compare so let's discuss each change separately one by one and resolve before moving to the next change.
I changed the wording from "local islamist militias of Jamaat-e-Islami" to "local Bengali collaborators" in this edit because that is what page 40 of Margaret Alston's book says which is referenced. If one of you can add a reference which says otherwise then I will go with your version otherwise accept mine and move forward to next item. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
When i remove the word controversial in this edit, i am merely reverting this edit which was made without achieving any consensus on talk page. So, when something unsourced can be added without consensus then it can be removed as well. If someone can add a reliable source which describe this book as controversial then i am fine with keeping that word. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the source is not reliable and so the simplest solution is to just remove it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."
Your revision after over 250 edits is not without dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Ref edits by Messiaindarain, I couldnt find any news that says the law criminalizing propaganda regarding 1971 war has been passed. All it says is that it is likely to be passed. So, for now I have reverted the edits, they can be put back when the law actually gets through. Moreover, when it gets through and we add the info here, it would also need to added in a NPOV way so as to include the fact that this new Bangladeshi Law is infact controversial, that people have been against it and that it have been criticized.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop trying to sneak "Mukti Bahini" into the "perpetrators" list in the infobox. It's inaccurate and highly POV. It's trying to establish a false equivalence. It's also been discussed to death, here and on related articles. THIS article is NOT about violence against Biharis during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Who defined that this article is just about genocide committed by Pakistan Army? This article should cover all aspects of the genocide which happened in 1971 in East Pakistan and genocide against Biharis was one aspect of that conflict. Biharis are a significant population of Bangladesh and they are Bangladeshis as well. This article will cover genocide perpetrated by Pakistan Army and Mukti Bahini both and that would make it neutral. @ Vinegarymass911: Violence against Biharis must be covered in this article and if the sources say that it was the cause of start of genocide against the other folks then that needs to be covered too. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Justification for this edit
This
edit request to
1971 Bangladesh genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Hamoodur Rahman Commission set up by the Pakistani government following the war noted various atrocities committed by the Pakistani military, including widespread arson and killings in the countryside, killing of intellectuals and professionals, killing of Bengali military officers and soldiers on the pretence of mutiny, killing Bengali civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists, raping numerous Bengali women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture, deliberate killing of members of the Bengali Hindu minority and the creation of mass graves.[198]"
The above mentioned information, written in the article, contradicts the report itself. Other than the excessive use of force by the Pakistani Army which, according to the report, resulted in the killing of 26,000 individuals (Para 33), the commission never conceded any of above alleged crimes, in the manner that the current article is trying to project. With regards to the rape, the commission challenged the figures of Bangladeshi authorities of 200,000 by citing a hundred or more termination of pregnancies (Para 34) that were carried out by the abortion teams sanctioned by the Britain, in the early 1972. With regards to the killing of intellectuals, professionals, civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists, the commission acknowledged the fact that there do existed a preemptive plan to 'arrest' not to 'kill' the the above mentioned individuals, but that plan was never executed because of the inability of the army to secure their safety such individuals (Para 24, 25, 26, 27). 39.42.123.189 ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for the move as the current title fits the common term. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
1971 Bangladesh genocide →
Bengali genocide –
oppose Bengalis are present in two countries but this massacre was only against Bengalis in Bangladesh. Even in Bangla this event is called 1971 Bangladeshi massacre. Not every Bangladeshi is a Bengali, there are Biharis and hill tribes also. Kiwigravity ( talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Strong Support the genocide victims were Bengalis, not Indian Bengalis! look at Infobox: Bangladesh Genocide in East Pakistan sounds like something Pakistan Genocide in India!? —
78.34.205.197 (
talk) 09:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Removed duplicate !vote - nom counts as support. --
Dane
talk 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The words gonimoter maal do not mean "public property". It is Bengali for the "wealth of Ghanima" - Ghanima is an Arabic word used in the Hadith to mean "booty or spoils of war" from battles won by Muslims against unbelievers. Wrong translation is wrong translation, irregardless of the academic. Wrong translations tend to be partial. Ash wki ( talk) 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead of the article cites and quotes an article from Donald Beachler to support the claim that: "However, some scholars deny it was a genocide." Here is the complete quote from Beachler, "Some scholars and other writers have denied that what took place in Bangladesh was a genocide. Journalists’ reports, expatriate testimony, refugee reports and an investigation by the International Commission of Jurists in 1972 all indicate, however, that the Pakistani army did commit genocide in Bangladesh in 1971." So the Beachler reference is not supporting the claim made in the lead, in fact it is doing the very opposite. Either this claim should be removed, or a reference that actually supports it should be added. Here is the complete article by Beachler: http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beachler_-_politics_of_genocide_scholarship_crp.pdf I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 15:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
RaviC you are mass reverting my addition of references with very vague edit summaries like this. [7] [8] [9] Can you point out a specific problem with them? There is hardly any new content being added. I am trying to add better references for the content which is already on the articles. TurboCop ( talk) 09:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @ Worldbruce: for this constructive expansion. [10]
I have undertaken a project to sync all the Bangladeshi articles with the academic mainstream represented by Schendel, Baxter and the like. For this, some parts of our article text require modification. So we can pull them into sync with those passages from the top sources which discuss their theme.
For starters we should alter this sentence in the article It is alleged that Awami League-aligned militias carried out large scale massacres of Biharis and other ethnic groups.
so it aligns with Willem van Schendel, A History of Bangladesh, (2009) Cambridge University Press pp.173
now that the war was over, Biharis were collectively branded as Pakistani collaborators. Severe retribution followed, leading to a counter genocide of thousands of non-Bengalis and forcing more than a million to leave their homes and seek refuge in overcrowded slum-like settlements all over the country.
We should also modify these texts of the article.
After the convening of the National Assembly was postponed by Yahya Khan on 1 March 1971, the dissidents in East Pakistan began targeting the ethnic Bihari community which had supported West Pakistan. In early March 1971, 300 Biharis were slaughtered in rioting by Bengali mobs in Chittagong alone.
Bose asserts that during this 25-day period of lawlessness, attacks by Bengalis on non-Bengalis were common
and sync it with Schendel on p.173
In the period leading up to the Liberation War, nationalist mobs had killed Biharis
Do you have any suggestions, Worldbruce, for some new wordings?
@ Adamgerber80: The citation I added in this edit [11] reads thus
Estimates of the number of war dead vary enormously, from the official Bangladeshi figure of 3,000,000 to the official Pakistani figure of 26,000...In the absence of any reliable assessment after the war, however, the actual number will never be known.
in Willem van Schendel, A History of Bangladesh, (2009) Cambridge University Press pp.173
I believe can reasonably agree that the above reference is reflective of this present text.
Bangladeshi authorities claim that as many as 3 million people were killed, although the
Hamoodur Rahman Commission, the official Pakistani government investigation, claimed the figure was only 26,000 civilian casualties.
TurboCop (
talk) 12:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this published article (link below) provides some reason to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the "kill 3 million" quote from Yahya. Is it possible to add after the quote a line that says something to effect: "The reliability of this quote is, however, questioned by some." And footnote the article link below.
https://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110902&page=20
Below is the relevant section from the article.
When the uprising began, General Yahya Khan is quoted (and highlighted) on the Wikipedia page of the Bangladesh Liberation War as saying: "Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." I suspected this quote not to be true because it does not fit Yahya's character as I have understood it through the events that took place. Look at all Yahya did prior to the uprising. First, he decided to hand over power to the civilians by holding the country's first free and fair elections. Then he chased after Mujib (whom he publically called the next Prime Minister of Pakistan) and Bhutto for months to try to get them to form the government. Then, once the uprising started, he told his men to show restraint and remain in their barracks over the month of March before Operation Searchlight began, even as Mujib's direct rule resulted in anarchy and the army's food and ammunition supplies were disrupted. Does this sound like a premeditative murderer of vast proportions of his own people?
Strangely enough, the three million figure also conveniently coincides with exactly how many Bangladeshis are alleged to have been killed later. Hitting a target of three million would imply a level of competence that I doubt the military possessed. This is the same army that lost the war in 1971 in the record-breaking time of two weeks.
Suspicious for all these reasons, I tracked down the citation for Yahya's quote. It leads to a book by Robert Payne called Massacre (1972). In the introduction, Payne essentially acknowledges that his entire account is biased. He says, "This account is based largely on interviews with many of the people who helped bring the new nation to birth. I visited India and Bangladesh in March and April of 1972..." He did not visit Pakistan nor claims to have interviewed any one from there in the course of the two months of interviews that are the backbone of his book. Reading the book removes any doubt as to Payne's bias. It reads more as a comic book prone to hyperbole (Payne is a novelist and not a historian) than a history book.
According to Payne, Yahya is purported to have said the quote at a military conference in February of '71. Obviously it was not something Yahya would have said publically, so it must have come from someone who had reported this to Payne who had attended the conference. This must have been someone within the Bangladeshi Army as Payne admits to not having interviewed in Pakistan. But other than knowing that the quote possibly came from a biased source, we cannot say much else. The entire book is without a single footnote or reference other than a sparse one-page bibliography. Without evidence to uphold his assertion one must dismiss Payne's quote.
Payne's common-sense-defying quote about Yahya has been used in over 3000 entries on the web. Fiction has fed on itself and become fact, much like the three million figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimura ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed two links from opinion page of newspaper and COI article on a newspaper from Pakistan.
User:FDW777 Many estimates of the deaths of bengalis in the 1971 war have been done and we would surely rely on the independent figures. The people should be able to differentiate on the independent figures and the awami league figures. Its better if 200,000 is quotes with the CIA refrence. Truthwins018 ( talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
By independent i refer to anyone who is neutral. Nor does bangladeshi, indian or Bangladeshi claims have anything neutral to them, but it is fine to quote them. It would also be better if 200,000 could be quoted with CIA or something like US claim to differenciate on the neutral opinion. Truthwins018 ( talk) 17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit on my behalf and nor should anyone do so. I had quoted CIA figures from a leaked intelligence report which you reverted. Many researches done by institutes show even lesser casualties. Sarmila Bose even quotes of 50,000. My talk here is to edit the infobox as such, 200,000(CIA)-3,000,000 Truthwins018 ( talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I had quoted CIA figures from a leaked intelligence report which you revertedis simply incorrect. There is the footnote you added to "Looking Away From Genocide" in The New Yorker. In the current version, clicking on footnote 1 next to the 200,000 figure takes you here, which is the exact same article including the exact same CIA/State Dept estimate of 200,000. FDW777 ( talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Worldbruce recently reverted my edit on the 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though they were well sourced with reputable books and just provided a profound estimate range. The reason was termed my ongoing talk with Kautilya3, which was on another topic of whether quoting Sarmila Bose was acceptable. My edit only transferred the already written phrase on biharis in another paragraph and further added to the range. Kindly better explain your revert and rather edit it further than reverting as i find my edit nothing of sorts to be termed in the "BOLD" category Truthwins018 ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
and 163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistanto the lead. Since this claim doesn't appear in the article it's a violation of WP:LEAD, and I note the reference provided says
Almost 100 people on either side of the conflict were killed and following the incident, several thousands of Biharis were arrested and imprisoned on allegations of collaboration. By 1974, the Pakistani government had transferred 108,000 Biharis to Pakistan. By 1981, the number rose to 163,000which is different thing entirely. FDW777 ( talk) 08:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"and 163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistan"to the end of the paragraph that starts "During the war, ..." is misleading and off topic. No Biharis were transferred to Pakistan during the war. Pakistan did accept some Biharis in the decade after the war, and that is appropriately covered in Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. It doesn't appear directly relevant to genocide.
Having gone through your explanation, I agree on some points but I have a feeling of you not accepting Bihari's as part of Bangladesh. When we refer to Bangladesh genocide 1971, we refer to every community residing in Bangladesh that might have been subjected to war crimes. Having the claim of 3 million deaths in the lead, which is clearly overstretched to unimaginable limits almost allows for all the independent claims to be mentioned and sourced in the lead. The 3 million Bengali death claim was clearly rejected by the then Indian high commissioner Apa Bhai Panth, who was the first person to offer an estimate to Sheikh Mujib on the Bengali casualties and terms the figures as something of a shock and associates them with misunderstanding, as written by Ian Jack [1].
Aziz's claims might be fanciful for some, but mentioning them in estimates leads to no harm. The mere reason for estimates is that of no reliable figure and a produce of a range in which might or might not be placed the actual figure.
You mentioned of Bihari transfer source not being of credibility when the same source was used to quote the lower bound of bihari casualties. Truthwins018 ( talk) 23:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Truthwins018, please search the archives for previous discussion on Sarmila Bose. There is no consensus to include her here as a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Sarmila Bose seems to be a very reliable source as she has researched by herself speaking to war effectives and interviewed military personnel. I see no problem in atleast quoting the lower end figures of 50,000 proposed by her. Plus bihari persecution is very less written about and article is clearly messed. I didn't break WP:NPOV with my edit but most of my edits were inclusion of bihari rape and killing figures. Didn't remove anything so didn't find the reason for revert convincing Truthwins018 ( talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 An estimate defines a range of uncertain figures proposed by various individuals and is a result of uncertainty in an exact figure which could be accepted as a fixed point of reference. Estimates deserve the right of inclusion of any reputable journalist and research work and no one is deemed to be excluded due to critics. Many in the range have also been criticized but thats what estimates are for and I strongly believe sarmila bose should be referred to in the estimate. I also suggest the addition of the a phrase referring to the official CIA figures in the lead to bring out the most valid figure of the range of figures cited which would be 200,000. Any one objecting to this should then also be objecting to the refer of gonimoter maal (Bengali for "public property") and other irrelevant stuff in the lead which leads to no sense of their inclusion Truthwins018 ( talk) 00:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Done In the infobox, the death toll is given as "estimated between 200,000 to 3,000,000". While these estimates have indeed been mentioned, the grammatically correct way to say this is "between 200,000 and 3,000,000". I should have submitted an edit request, of course. At any rate, a correction would be beneficial. Regards, ~~~~ 2A02:AB04:236:E600:C015:11A8:9F1B:1E8F ( talk) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ JeffUK: per WP:OLDSOURCES, I think your edit definitely has potential. The New Yorker article is at pains to point out the 200,000 was a conservative estimate by the C.I.A. and State Department while the killing was underway. It stands to reason we should be using more recent figures, not hanging our hat on that 200,000 figure. FDW777 ( talk) 20:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@ FDW777: There are other sources in a similar ball-park to the 200,000 (i.e. hundreds of thousands) But I really don't like just leaving it with a range of 200,000 to 3 Million people' without explaining why it's such a wide range. With such a wide range of estimates it's practically useless as a factual statement. I don't think any individual primary source does estimate that the deaths are in this range, except those which are referring to the 'range of estimates provided by other sources', the truth is that many estimates cluster around 300,0000-500,000 and many use the 'official' 3 million figure with very little in between. Considering a 'table of estimates' in the Estimate of Deaths figure, but how do we identify which sources to include and exclude. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM does a great job of explaining the complexity of the situation JeffUK ( talk) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The party was not known by this name until it found itself in fear of being deregistered by the Election Commission of Bangladesh. In 1971 it was known as the Jamaat-e-Islami. Thus this entry requires a correction in line with the facts existing at the time in question. Abul Bakhtiar ( talk) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but the statement that between 1000 and 150000 people were killed is completely ridiculous.
This is not even a guess, these are simply imaginary figures. It must be possible to determine halfway reasonable numbers based on the reports of missing persons from relatives or on the basis of registration data, unless, of course, the whole story is a lie from beginning to end. -- 2A02:908:895:5EA0:D28F:9ABD:640F:9FE6 ( talk) 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In this [1] edit SheriffIsInTown added this text "Academic Christian Gerlach has argued that the majority of the deaths in the 1971 period were due to hunger and disease and not due to direct army killings." [1] Is miksrepresented by the user Sheriffisintown, the cited source says the famine followed the 1975 coup, this was four years after the genocide and Gerlach says nothing of the sort which Sheriff has written, I shall check the rest of his edits to this article. @ Volunteer Marek and Kautilya3: to take a look. 45.125.128.130 ( talk) 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Some scholars also consider the number of women raped to be seriously inflated. [2] was shown some months ago as to be wrong, only Bose writes such nonsense, see /info/en/?search=Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_women in sections above 45.125.128.130 ( talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
More misrepresentation "There is no consensus among independent researchers on number of people killed. Some put that number between 300,000-500,000, [3] and describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated. [4]" The first source given does not say "There is no consensus among independent researchers" The second source is seriously misrepresented again, Hiro clearly says Bose gives a figure of 50-100 thousand dead, not "some" has Sheriff has written, and nowhere in the source is the term "describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated" even remotely hinted at. 45.125.128.130 ( talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Volunteer Marek: and @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Guys, I made very small edits so they are easy to compare so let's discuss each change separately one by one and resolve before moving to the next change.
I changed the wording from "local islamist militias of Jamaat-e-Islami" to "local Bengali collaborators" in this edit because that is what page 40 of Margaret Alston's book says which is referenced. If one of you can add a reference which says otherwise then I will go with your version otherwise accept mine and move forward to next item. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
When i remove the word controversial in this edit, i am merely reverting this edit which was made without achieving any consensus on talk page. So, when something unsourced can be added without consensus then it can be removed as well. If someone can add a reliable source which describe this book as controversial then i am fine with keeping that word. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the source is not reliable and so the simplest solution is to just remove it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."
Your revision after over 250 edits is not without dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Ref edits by Messiaindarain, I couldnt find any news that says the law criminalizing propaganda regarding 1971 war has been passed. All it says is that it is likely to be passed. So, for now I have reverted the edits, they can be put back when the law actually gets through. Moreover, when it gets through and we add the info here, it would also need to added in a NPOV way so as to include the fact that this new Bangladeshi Law is infact controversial, that people have been against it and that it have been criticized.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop trying to sneak "Mukti Bahini" into the "perpetrators" list in the infobox. It's inaccurate and highly POV. It's trying to establish a false equivalence. It's also been discussed to death, here and on related articles. THIS article is NOT about violence against Biharis during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Who defined that this article is just about genocide committed by Pakistan Army? This article should cover all aspects of the genocide which happened in 1971 in East Pakistan and genocide against Biharis was one aspect of that conflict. Biharis are a significant population of Bangladesh and they are Bangladeshis as well. This article will cover genocide perpetrated by Pakistan Army and Mukti Bahini both and that would make it neutral. @ Vinegarymass911: Violence against Biharis must be covered in this article and if the sources say that it was the cause of start of genocide against the other folks then that needs to be covered too. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Justification for this edit
This
edit request to
1971 Bangladesh genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Hamoodur Rahman Commission set up by the Pakistani government following the war noted various atrocities committed by the Pakistani military, including widespread arson and killings in the countryside, killing of intellectuals and professionals, killing of Bengali military officers and soldiers on the pretence of mutiny, killing Bengali civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists, raping numerous Bengali women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture, deliberate killing of members of the Bengali Hindu minority and the creation of mass graves.[198]"
The above mentioned information, written in the article, contradicts the report itself. Other than the excessive use of force by the Pakistani Army which, according to the report, resulted in the killing of 26,000 individuals (Para 33), the commission never conceded any of above alleged crimes, in the manner that the current article is trying to project. With regards to the rape, the commission challenged the figures of Bangladeshi authorities of 200,000 by citing a hundred or more termination of pregnancies (Para 34) that were carried out by the abortion teams sanctioned by the Britain, in the early 1972. With regards to the killing of intellectuals, professionals, civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists, the commission acknowledged the fact that there do existed a preemptive plan to 'arrest' not to 'kill' the the above mentioned individuals, but that plan was never executed because of the inability of the army to secure their safety such individuals (Para 24, 25, 26, 27). 39.42.123.189 ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for the move as the current title fits the common term. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
1971 Bangladesh genocide →
Bengali genocide –
oppose Bengalis are present in two countries but this massacre was only against Bengalis in Bangladesh. Even in Bangla this event is called 1971 Bangladeshi massacre. Not every Bangladeshi is a Bengali, there are Biharis and hill tribes also. Kiwigravity ( talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Strong Support the genocide victims were Bengalis, not Indian Bengalis! look at Infobox: Bangladesh Genocide in East Pakistan sounds like something Pakistan Genocide in India!? —
78.34.205.197 (
talk) 09:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Removed duplicate !vote - nom counts as support. --
Dane
talk 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The words gonimoter maal do not mean "public property". It is Bengali for the "wealth of Ghanima" - Ghanima is an Arabic word used in the Hadith to mean "booty or spoils of war" from battles won by Muslims against unbelievers. Wrong translation is wrong translation, irregardless of the academic. Wrong translations tend to be partial. Ash wki ( talk) 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead of the article cites and quotes an article from Donald Beachler to support the claim that: "However, some scholars deny it was a genocide." Here is the complete quote from Beachler, "Some scholars and other writers have denied that what took place in Bangladesh was a genocide. Journalists’ reports, expatriate testimony, refugee reports and an investigation by the International Commission of Jurists in 1972 all indicate, however, that the Pakistani army did commit genocide in Bangladesh in 1971." So the Beachler reference is not supporting the claim made in the lead, in fact it is doing the very opposite. Either this claim should be removed, or a reference that actually supports it should be added. Here is the complete article by Beachler: http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beachler_-_politics_of_genocide_scholarship_crp.pdf I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 15:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
RaviC you are mass reverting my addition of references with very vague edit summaries like this. [7] [8] [9] Can you point out a specific problem with them? There is hardly any new content being added. I am trying to add better references for the content which is already on the articles. TurboCop ( talk) 09:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @ Worldbruce: for this constructive expansion. [10]
I have undertaken a project to sync all the Bangladeshi articles with the academic mainstream represented by Schendel, Baxter and the like. For this, some parts of our article text require modification. So we can pull them into sync with those passages from the top sources which discuss their theme.
For starters we should alter this sentence in the article It is alleged that Awami League-aligned militias carried out large scale massacres of Biharis and other ethnic groups.
so it aligns with Willem van Schendel, A History of Bangladesh, (2009) Cambridge University Press pp.173
now that the war was over, Biharis were collectively branded as Pakistani collaborators. Severe retribution followed, leading to a counter genocide of thousands of non-Bengalis and forcing more than a million to leave their homes and seek refuge in overcrowded slum-like settlements all over the country.
We should also modify these texts of the article.
After the convening of the National Assembly was postponed by Yahya Khan on 1 March 1971, the dissidents in East Pakistan began targeting the ethnic Bihari community which had supported West Pakistan. In early March 1971, 300 Biharis were slaughtered in rioting by Bengali mobs in Chittagong alone.
Bose asserts that during this 25-day period of lawlessness, attacks by Bengalis on non-Bengalis were common
and sync it with Schendel on p.173
In the period leading up to the Liberation War, nationalist mobs had killed Biharis
Do you have any suggestions, Worldbruce, for some new wordings?
@ Adamgerber80: The citation I added in this edit [11] reads thus
Estimates of the number of war dead vary enormously, from the official Bangladeshi figure of 3,000,000 to the official Pakistani figure of 26,000...In the absence of any reliable assessment after the war, however, the actual number will never be known.
in Willem van Schendel, A History of Bangladesh, (2009) Cambridge University Press pp.173
I believe can reasonably agree that the above reference is reflective of this present text.
Bangladeshi authorities claim that as many as 3 million people were killed, although the
Hamoodur Rahman Commission, the official Pakistani government investigation, claimed the figure was only 26,000 civilian casualties.
TurboCop (
talk) 12:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this published article (link below) provides some reason to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the "kill 3 million" quote from Yahya. Is it possible to add after the quote a line that says something to effect: "The reliability of this quote is, however, questioned by some." And footnote the article link below.
https://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110902&page=20
Below is the relevant section from the article.
When the uprising began, General Yahya Khan is quoted (and highlighted) on the Wikipedia page of the Bangladesh Liberation War as saying: "Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." I suspected this quote not to be true because it does not fit Yahya's character as I have understood it through the events that took place. Look at all Yahya did prior to the uprising. First, he decided to hand over power to the civilians by holding the country's first free and fair elections. Then he chased after Mujib (whom he publically called the next Prime Minister of Pakistan) and Bhutto for months to try to get them to form the government. Then, once the uprising started, he told his men to show restraint and remain in their barracks over the month of March before Operation Searchlight began, even as Mujib's direct rule resulted in anarchy and the army's food and ammunition supplies were disrupted. Does this sound like a premeditative murderer of vast proportions of his own people?
Strangely enough, the three million figure also conveniently coincides with exactly how many Bangladeshis are alleged to have been killed later. Hitting a target of three million would imply a level of competence that I doubt the military possessed. This is the same army that lost the war in 1971 in the record-breaking time of two weeks.
Suspicious for all these reasons, I tracked down the citation for Yahya's quote. It leads to a book by Robert Payne called Massacre (1972). In the introduction, Payne essentially acknowledges that his entire account is biased. He says, "This account is based largely on interviews with many of the people who helped bring the new nation to birth. I visited India and Bangladesh in March and April of 1972..." He did not visit Pakistan nor claims to have interviewed any one from there in the course of the two months of interviews that are the backbone of his book. Reading the book removes any doubt as to Payne's bias. It reads more as a comic book prone to hyperbole (Payne is a novelist and not a historian) than a history book.
According to Payne, Yahya is purported to have said the quote at a military conference in February of '71. Obviously it was not something Yahya would have said publically, so it must have come from someone who had reported this to Payne who had attended the conference. This must have been someone within the Bangladeshi Army as Payne admits to not having interviewed in Pakistan. But other than knowing that the quote possibly came from a biased source, we cannot say much else. The entire book is without a single footnote or reference other than a sparse one-page bibliography. Without evidence to uphold his assertion one must dismiss Payne's quote.
Payne's common-sense-defying quote about Yahya has been used in over 3000 entries on the web. Fiction has fed on itself and become fact, much like the three million figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimura ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed two links from opinion page of newspaper and COI article on a newspaper from Pakistan.
User:FDW777 Many estimates of the deaths of bengalis in the 1971 war have been done and we would surely rely on the independent figures. The people should be able to differentiate on the independent figures and the awami league figures. Its better if 200,000 is quotes with the CIA refrence. Truthwins018 ( talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
By independent i refer to anyone who is neutral. Nor does bangladeshi, indian or Bangladeshi claims have anything neutral to them, but it is fine to quote them. It would also be better if 200,000 could be quoted with CIA or something like US claim to differenciate on the neutral opinion. Truthwins018 ( talk) 17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit on my behalf and nor should anyone do so. I had quoted CIA figures from a leaked intelligence report which you reverted. Many researches done by institutes show even lesser casualties. Sarmila Bose even quotes of 50,000. My talk here is to edit the infobox as such, 200,000(CIA)-3,000,000 Truthwins018 ( talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I had quoted CIA figures from a leaked intelligence report which you revertedis simply incorrect. There is the footnote you added to "Looking Away From Genocide" in The New Yorker. In the current version, clicking on footnote 1 next to the 200,000 figure takes you here, which is the exact same article including the exact same CIA/State Dept estimate of 200,000. FDW777 ( talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Worldbruce recently reverted my edit on the 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though they were well sourced with reputable books and just provided a profound estimate range. The reason was termed my ongoing talk with Kautilya3, which was on another topic of whether quoting Sarmila Bose was acceptable. My edit only transferred the already written phrase on biharis in another paragraph and further added to the range. Kindly better explain your revert and rather edit it further than reverting as i find my edit nothing of sorts to be termed in the "BOLD" category Truthwins018 ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
and 163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistanto the lead. Since this claim doesn't appear in the article it's a violation of WP:LEAD, and I note the reference provided says
Almost 100 people on either side of the conflict were killed and following the incident, several thousands of Biharis were arrested and imprisoned on allegations of collaboration. By 1974, the Pakistani government had transferred 108,000 Biharis to Pakistan. By 1981, the number rose to 163,000which is different thing entirely. FDW777 ( talk) 08:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"and 163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistan"to the end of the paragraph that starts "During the war, ..." is misleading and off topic. No Biharis were transferred to Pakistan during the war. Pakistan did accept some Biharis in the decade after the war, and that is appropriately covered in Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. It doesn't appear directly relevant to genocide.
Having gone through your explanation, I agree on some points but I have a feeling of you not accepting Bihari's as part of Bangladesh. When we refer to Bangladesh genocide 1971, we refer to every community residing in Bangladesh that might have been subjected to war crimes. Having the claim of 3 million deaths in the lead, which is clearly overstretched to unimaginable limits almost allows for all the independent claims to be mentioned and sourced in the lead. The 3 million Bengali death claim was clearly rejected by the then Indian high commissioner Apa Bhai Panth, who was the first person to offer an estimate to Sheikh Mujib on the Bengali casualties and terms the figures as something of a shock and associates them with misunderstanding, as written by Ian Jack [1].
Aziz's claims might be fanciful for some, but mentioning them in estimates leads to no harm. The mere reason for estimates is that of no reliable figure and a produce of a range in which might or might not be placed the actual figure.
You mentioned of Bihari transfer source not being of credibility when the same source was used to quote the lower bound of bihari casualties. Truthwins018 ( talk) 23:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Truthwins018, please search the archives for previous discussion on Sarmila Bose. There is no consensus to include her here as a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Sarmila Bose seems to be a very reliable source as she has researched by herself speaking to war effectives and interviewed military personnel. I see no problem in atleast quoting the lower end figures of 50,000 proposed by her. Plus bihari persecution is very less written about and article is clearly messed. I didn't break WP:NPOV with my edit but most of my edits were inclusion of bihari rape and killing figures. Didn't remove anything so didn't find the reason for revert convincing Truthwins018 ( talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 An estimate defines a range of uncertain figures proposed by various individuals and is a result of uncertainty in an exact figure which could be accepted as a fixed point of reference. Estimates deserve the right of inclusion of any reputable journalist and research work and no one is deemed to be excluded due to critics. Many in the range have also been criticized but thats what estimates are for and I strongly believe sarmila bose should be referred to in the estimate. I also suggest the addition of the a phrase referring to the official CIA figures in the lead to bring out the most valid figure of the range of figures cited which would be 200,000. Any one objecting to this should then also be objecting to the refer of gonimoter maal (Bengali for "public property") and other irrelevant stuff in the lead which leads to no sense of their inclusion Truthwins018 ( talk) 00:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Done In the infobox, the death toll is given as "estimated between 200,000 to 3,000,000". While these estimates have indeed been mentioned, the grammatically correct way to say this is "between 200,000 and 3,000,000". I should have submitted an edit request, of course. At any rate, a correction would be beneficial. Regards, ~~~~ 2A02:AB04:236:E600:C015:11A8:9F1B:1E8F ( talk) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ JeffUK: per WP:OLDSOURCES, I think your edit definitely has potential. The New Yorker article is at pains to point out the 200,000 was a conservative estimate by the C.I.A. and State Department while the killing was underway. It stands to reason we should be using more recent figures, not hanging our hat on that 200,000 figure. FDW777 ( talk) 20:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@ FDW777: There are other sources in a similar ball-park to the 200,000 (i.e. hundreds of thousands) But I really don't like just leaving it with a range of 200,000 to 3 Million people' without explaining why it's such a wide range. With such a wide range of estimates it's practically useless as a factual statement. I don't think any individual primary source does estimate that the deaths are in this range, except those which are referring to the 'range of estimates provided by other sources', the truth is that many estimates cluster around 300,0000-500,000 and many use the 'official' 3 million figure with very little in between. Considering a 'table of estimates' in the Estimate of Deaths figure, but how do we identify which sources to include and exclude. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM does a great job of explaining the complexity of the situation JeffUK ( talk) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The party was not known by this name until it found itself in fear of being deregistered by the Election Commission of Bangladesh. In 1971 it was known as the Jamaat-e-Islami. Thus this entry requires a correction in line with the facts existing at the time in question. Abul Bakhtiar ( talk) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but the statement that between 1000 and 150000 people were killed is completely ridiculous.
This is not even a guess, these are simply imaginary figures. It must be possible to determine halfway reasonable numbers based on the reports of missing persons from relatives or on the basis of registration data, unless, of course, the whole story is a lie from beginning to end. -- 2A02:908:895:5EA0:D28F:9ABD:640F:9FE6 ( talk) 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)