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 2 |
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)
[1]
[2]
[3]
-
Rahat |
✉
16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
References
"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)
[1] How is this supplement from a national newspaper not RS? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh will help me out. Fai zan 07:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I am going to make improvements shortly. I hope that the article ofFaizan, 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)
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)
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)
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? Fai zan 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was able to get some of the chapter titles from WorldCat. These four I was not able to get:
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, [1] and official resistance to the use of Bengali was one of several issues that led to disenchantment and calls for East Pakistan to secede. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 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". [7]
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. [8] Former president Yahya Khan banned the Awami League and declared martial law. [9]
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. [10] According to Eric Heinze the Pakistani forces attempted to exterminate the local Hindu population and killed Bengali civilians. [11] 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. [12] Historian Ian Talbot has compared the methodical planning behind the genocide with the Nazi Holocaust. [13]
Does anyone have concerns with this shorter version? hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
{{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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hindus were targeted the mostdescribed 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)
"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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
Hindus were targeted the most
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.
“… 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
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'.
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 2 |
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)
[1]
[2]
[3]
-
Rahat |
✉
16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
References
"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)
[1] How is this supplement from a national newspaper not RS? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh will help me out. Fai zan 07:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I am going to make improvements shortly. I hope that the article ofFaizan, 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)
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)
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)
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? Fai zan 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was able to get some of the chapter titles from WorldCat. These four I was not able to get:
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, [1] and official resistance to the use of Bengali was one of several issues that led to disenchantment and calls for East Pakistan to secede. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 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". [7]
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. [8] Former president Yahya Khan banned the Awami League and declared martial law. [9]
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. [10] According to Eric Heinze the Pakistani forces attempted to exterminate the local Hindu population and killed Bengali civilians. [11] 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. [12] Historian Ian Talbot has compared the methodical planning behind the genocide with the Nazi Holocaust. [13]
Does anyone have concerns with this shorter version? hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
{{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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hindus were targeted the mostdescribed 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)
"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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
Hindus were targeted the most
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.
“… 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
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'.