Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs

1. The Agartala Conspiracy Case cannot be excluded from the background section. It was a fundamental part of the mistrust between the West Pakistani establishment and Awami League. Furthermore nearly all sources pertaining to that section are either Bengali or neutral sources.

2. My edit of the following sentence needs to be restored:

Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army

I added the clause 'and civilians' You have removed this too. Even though on the 'Bangladesh Liberation War' page it mentions 24,000 civilians as part of the POWs taken (and that statistic are sourced)

3.In the Aftermath-Pakistan section there's a great deal of emphasis on Pakistan's 'humiliating' losses and failures. This section does not take into account the extreme circumstances Pakistan's Army found itself fighting in.

So that statement in praise of Pakistan's millitary performance from the Indian Chief of Army Staff in 1971, Sam Manekshaw (who was a pivotal member of the conflict from the Indian side), should be included to provide a fair assessment of Pakistan's millitary performance in the conflict.

Furthermore the info I added in this regard was sourced, a Youtube clip of Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw's interview was provided.

4. I added a neutral source to backup the paragraph (in the 'Background' section) which said that the Pakistani state claimed that the Pakistani millitary deployment and Operation Searchlight was in response to anti-Bihari mob violence and rioting. You have excluded this pivotal info.

The source for this info is D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 103.

You can search the source yourself.

5. BBC says that most Independent researchers say that the number of civilians was killed was between 300,000-500,000. It also says that 3 million is the Bangladeshi government's figure.

That too should be restored. It is a sourced sentence I had added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first, the sheer size of these additions just raises lots of red flags [1]. Second the edit (purposefully?) mixes possibly legitimate changes with highly POV ones. As examples of the latter we have: adding "and civilians" to the sentence "Between 90,000 and 93,000...". Does this appear in the source? Doesn't look like it. Or the addition of "Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 civilians died during this period ..." The text already says between 300,000 and 3 million - the "independent researchers" part is original research combined with the repeated use of the heavily criticized Bose book. It's textbook POV. The paragraph on the postponement of the National Assembly and the violence against Biharis is also POV for reasons already explained elsewhere. To reiterate, there's POV original research here which tries to establish a *causal* connection, which is not supported by sources. Furthermore, there's misrepresentation of sources which do not say anything about "Bengali mobs" or "the dissidents" (it's actually self-contradictory original research). The use of this language is obviously intended to push a view. And then the Manekshaw quote is repeated several times for some reason, again with the purpose of POV pushing.

Now, then there's the whole Agartala Case addition. First, you need to separate that out from all the other POV edits. Second, as already mentioned, that is way too much attention devoted to it. So before we even begin consider it, it needs to be condensed to a manageable size. How about making a proposal here on talk how that should be handled? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek

1. The source for 'and civilians' is also on the page of Bangladesh Liberation War. Here is one of them. It gives a figure of 24,114 Civilians who were part of the 90-93,000 POWs.

Figures from The Fall of Dacca by Jagjit Singh Aurora in The Illustrated Weekly of India dated 23 December 1973 quoted in Indian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 [ISBN 81-7062-014-7]

Another source for this figure is:

Figure from Pakistani Prisoners of War in India by Col S.P. Salunke p.10 quoted in Indian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 (ISBN 81-7062-014-7)

2. There are a number of BBC articles, with no link to Sarmila Bose's views, which repeat the 300,000-500,000 figure of civilian deaths by independent researchers.

Eg; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16207201

In fact there's even an Indian newspaper article which talks about this in detail with reference to original research and interviews of high ranking officials. See: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/questioning-an-iconic-number/article5941870.ece

3. I would like to see the reasons, for which the text on atrocities against Biharis being the justification that the Pakistani state used as justification for its millitary deployment in East Pakistan, are POV. I cannot find them. It would be appreciable if you post them here. Also this article gives extremely limited references to the atrocities committed on Biharis.The fact that their is a lack of information on Bihari sufferings is itself POV.

4. I will leave it mostly up to you to summarise the Agartala Case, however that entire text is referenced with Bengali sources. BUT, that bit on Agartala Case should be included. It was a key event in the relationship between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, too important to ignore from the background of 1971.

5. The positive statement from Indian Army Chief of 1971, Sam Manekshaw, needs to be included in the section of 'Aftermath-Pakistan' so it can balance the entire text which seems exceedingly pessimistic and negative. To exclude it is to un-balance it. I think I can reasonably claim that the section on the aftermath on Pakistan is extremely POV.

You have already BEEN WARNED by the ADMINISTRATOR, so thus I suggest you to stop pushing POV on Indo-Pakistani related articles.

1. "Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army.[29][30]" the references mentioned here does not include CIVILIAN here.

2. You are quoting figures from Bangladesh Liberation War and FYI, the two sources mentioned there are actually same (ISBN 81-7062-014-7) and doesn't say anything about "24,114 Civilians", they are WP:FICTREF and I have just added refrence and genuine figures there in the article.

3. You just wanted to add your POV in the lead, this can be understand by your this addition Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 civilians died during this period while the Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million.[31][32][33]" It doesn't make any SENSE AT ALL. It is clearly mentioned in the same paragraph that "It is estimated that between 300,000 and 3,000,000 civilians were killed in Bangladesh."

4. "violence against Biharis" is also obvious POV. the problem is with the language that depicts it's your POV and WP:OR. Yes, there was violence against Biharis prior to Operation Searchlight and Op. Searchlight was launched after this happened and pakistani military used it as a fictitious reason. And, It's an obvious POV and WP:OR to say that operation searchlight was happened *because of* it.

5. Now, you wanted to add a YouTube link to justify the circumstances faced by pakistan military and that they are not cowards at all? Obviously this is your biasness and jingoism. Wikipedia is not a place for jingoistic editors. You are just pushing your point of view, and this will be not added at all. Nevertheless, It is important to answer you. By that YouTube video (Knowing the fact that Wikipedia don't allows YouTube as a refrence), what actually do you wanted to say? There were more extreme circumstances faced by the Mukti Bahini and the Pakistan was initially aggressor in the war. You are too bias and jingoistic to understand a Gentlemen's code of conduct. Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw is very widely respected in India and it is his high morale that dictates he give credit to pakistan military who could not defend their east side nor the west and lost half of the military and country in just 10 days! By the way, there are YouTube videos of Nazam Sethi, Pakistan intellectuals, and pakistan's politician (including Bhutto) saying that the pakistan army should wear bangles. Should I add them too? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

I am amazed to see the way you people use the term POV here. There is a widespread misuse of this term especially whenever someone does not like other's edits, they blame them for POV-pushing. If i was a decision maker here, i would request that the term POV should be banned on Wikipedia or at least added to "Words to Watch" list. Here in this conversation as well, i am seeing a group of editors ganging up on one editor (User:TalhaZubairButt) and calling his perfectly sourced edits as POV and i see this is going on several pages. If you guys are in majority on Wikipedia, that does not mean that you should harass and troll others. Sure, make your point but do not call others POV-pushers just because you do not like their edits. Despite, all the shenanigans above, i do not see a single proof that the conflicting edits were POV, i see that he tried to change a POV article and tried to make it more neutral. So, let me start with my analysis of all of the content which was being added/changed and how sources support that:

1. "Pakistani civilians as prisoners of war" by Indian forces supported by Husain Haqqani's book "Between Mosque and Military" source. Page 87 of that book reads

79,700 of Pakistan's regular soldiers and paramilitary troops were prisoners of war in Indian hands, along with 12,500 civilians.

You can clearly see that 12,500 civilians were among the prisoners. If you are not allowing that to be added then you are misconstruing the encyclopedia based on your POV. TalhahZubairButt's addition of word "civilians" makes the article neutral and supported by the very first source which you are using. I see several editors using Haqqani's book to source anything which is viewed as anti-Pakistan but you are not allowing the same source being used to support this content. By the way, if you add 12,500 to 79,700, the total comes to be 92,200, roundabout the number being mentioned in the article. If you do not agree with the source then call the source, POV source, not the editor but if you are using the source for everything else but not for this then call yourself POV-pusher and not that poor guy who is correcting the information based on a reliable source.

2. Next text that he added which is sourced to two reliable sources BBC and Al Jazeera is this text:

Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 civilians died during this period while the Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million."

Not sure how do you see this text as POV while it's supported by World's two top-notch press organizations and i see this sentence perfectly balanced, it tells what is the figure by "independent researchers" and what is the figure by "Bangladesh Government". He is not excluding Bangladesh Government figures here. So why are you not allowing that? Do you think BBC and Al Jazeera are POV sources? His text is based on sources so you cannot call him POV pusher but you can call the sources as POV sources. By not allowing this perfectly sourced text, you are POV pushing and not him.

3. We move on to next "conflicting piece of text" in this edit here.

After the convening of the National Assembly was postponed by Yahya Khan on the 1st of March, 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. The Government of Pakistan used the 'Bihari massacre' to justify its deployment of the military in East Pakistan on March 25, when it initiated its infamous Operation Searchlight.

Here is what analysis of Page 103 of Bina D'Costa's book "Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia" which is published by a highly regarded publisher "Routledge" reveals: Exact text from page 103:

After Yahya Khan post-poned the promised National Assembly on 1 March 1971, the Biharis began to be targetted as symbols of Pakistani domination. Early in March 1971, 300 Biharis were killed by mob attacks in Chitagong following which the Pakistani government used the "Bihari massacre" to justify deploying its military on 25 March -eventually, offcourse, leading to the 1971 conflict.

Not sure why you are calling the editor POV-pusher while he added nothing more over what was in the source. If you think this is POV then you should call the source as POV source and not the editor.

4. The section on "Agartala Conspiracy Case", just look at the sources being used in that section, all Bangladeshi and Indian sources, how can you call it a POV while he is not using Pakistani sources but using Bangladeshi and Indian sources to support the text. First source BDNews24, second source, a book by Asoka Raina, an Indian author, third source Banglapedia which our Bangladeshi friends claim that it is accepted as a reliable source, fourth source The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper.

5. Sam Manekshaw praising Pakistan Army in a YouTube video, i see an editor claiming that "YouTube video cannot be used as a source and he is an upright man or whatever and that is why he praised Pakistan Army". Well, you know what that is what we are claiming here that he is an upright man and cannot lie about what he was saying and for the other claim about YouTube not a WP:RS, i will tend to disagree with that as well. YouTube is a published source, call it a carrier of sources or what ever, same as Google Books, you use Google Books to display a reliable source, in this same manner you can use YouTube to display a video from reliable source, you need to just see if the actual source the TV channel from which the original video is, reliable or not. You cannot discard all videos from YouTube.

So as i explained above, i don't see any POV on User:TalhaZubairButt's part but rather i am seeing that a bunch of Indian editors are ganging up on him and not allowing a perfectly sourced edit and want to keep the article in their preferred POV state and as a matter of fact i would like to see some policy based conversation instead of empty blames of POV-pushing and using an RFC to threaten editors with minority point of view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just quoting a reply I made elsewhere on a similar edit by User:TalhaZubairButt:

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

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

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

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

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

And now that we have given a similar reply/reason in support of a similar edit, in addition to be being called POV-pushers and unreliable sourcers, be ready to face an SPI soon :). Lastly, I do agree with you that Indian editors are trying to make WP a democracy - sheer numbers, no weight.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lighnting. WOW. I have kept myself restrained and polite. But you... Anyone can read and see the hatred coming from you. As far as your point is concerned about Najam Sethi, Bhutto etc saying that the Pak Army should wear bangles, then you are conveniently ignoring that none of these people were fighting on the ground in 1971, whereas Indian Army Chief Sam Manekshaw ACTUALLY fought on the ground in 1971 and would have more knowledge about millitary detals and performane than distant politicians and analysts. Indians have been accusing me of POV here. But nearly every single article I have found on Wiki, whether it be Partition of India, Kashmir Conflict, Indo-Pak wars....they are ALL POV and non-neutral. One Ed Johnston has even threatened me with a permanent ban. I don't know about that user, but there is certainly a strong illegitimate use of numerical dominance being employed here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate from the sidelines for the last few days. I would like to chime in with a couple of points:

• I support Talha Zubair Butt's proposal to separate the Bangladesh Government's figure of 3 million. The Bergman article in The Hindu clarifies things for me.
• I also believe that Sarmila Bose's views should be stated as a significant minority opinion. She is after all an Oxford University researcher. DUE WEIGHT should be respected and all her views should be attributed in-line. But I don't think they should be censored. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 03:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit war over recent edits is unwanted, I don't agree with the content that was being added because it was highly POV and not supported by major sources. Capitals00 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00: While i gave a detailed reply above but this warrants a separate reply, please enlighten us what you view as major sources and which one of the sources mentioned above are not major? Don't just use the term POV liberally when you have nothing else to say! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to copy paste the arguments above that have been already made against the POV content. Starting with the claim that India took civilians as POW is false. Whole Agartala conspiracy is also UNDUE. Unless you find everyone agree with the content which is impossible, just don't revert. Capitals00 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here i have time to copy/paste the information from first source and type the information from second source for you and this time i do it in your language: "PAKISTANI CIVILIANS AS PRISONERS OF WAR" BY INDIAN FORCES SUPPORTED BY HUSAIN HAQQANI'S BOOK "BETWEEN MOSQUE AND MILITARY" SOURCE. PAGE 87 OF THAT BOOK READS

79,700 OF PAKISTAN'S REGULAR SOLDIERS AND PARAMILITARY TROOPS WERE PRISONERS OF WAR IN INDIAN HANDS, ALONG WITH 12,500 CIVILIANS.

YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT 12,500 CIVILIANS WERE AMONG THE PRISONERS. IF YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THAT TO BE ADDED THEN YOU ARE MISCONSTRUING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BASED ON YOUR POV. TALHAHZUBAIRBUTT'S ADDITION OF WORD "CIVILIANS" MAKES THE ARTICLE NEUTRAL AND SUPPORTED BY THE VERY FIRST SOURCE WHICH YOU ARE USING. I SEE SEVERAL EDITORS USING HAQQANI'S BOOK TO SOURCE ANYTHING WHICH IS VIEWED AS ANTI-PAKISTAN BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THE SAME SOURCE BEING USED TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENT. BY THE WAY, IF YOU ADD 12,500 TO 79,700, THE TOTAL COMES TO BE 92,200, ROUNDABOUT THE NUMBER BEING MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SOURCE THEN CALL THE SOURCE, POV SOURCE, NOT THE EDITOR BUT IF YOU ARE USING THE SOURCE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE BUT NOT FOR THIS THEN CALL YOURSELF POV-PUSHER AND NOT THAT POOR GUY WHO IS CORRECTING THE INFORMATION BASED ON A RELIABLE SOURCE.

THE SECOND SOURCE FOR THAT INFORMATION IS A BOOK TITLED "MAINSPRINGS OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI FOREIGN POLICIES" AUTHORED BY SAMUEL MARTIN BURKE AND PUBLICHED BY UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, PAGE 216 OF THAT BOOK READS

INITIALLY, THE SIMLA AGREEMENT WAS WELL RECEIVED IN BOTH COUNTRIES BUT, BY, THE END OF 1972, MUCH OF THE OPTIMISM THAT IT MIGHT BE THE HARBINGER OF A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN HAD EVAPORATED. THE CHANGE FOR THE WORSE WAS PARTLY DUE TO THE DELAY IN THE WITHDRAWAL OF FORCES BUT MAINLY IT RESULTED FROM THE CONTINUING DEADLOCK OVER THE RELEASE OF SOME 93,000 PAKISTANI PRISONERS OF WAR, INCLUDING 15,000 CIVILIAN MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, CAPTURED IN EAST PAKISTAN.

FINALLY, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME TO ARGUMENTATIVELY AND SUBSTANTIVELY DISCUSS THE CHANGES, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING YOUR QUICK ONE CLICK REVERTS EITHER. IT'S JUST MORALLY WRONG FOR AN EDITOR TO DO SO WHILE OTHERS ENGAGE IN LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ON THE TALK PAGE BUT ONE COMES AND REVERTS WITH ONE CLICK BY JUST YELLING EMPTY SLOGANS SUCH AS POV AND CONSENSUS. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 The civilians prisoners are mentioned in the sources. And the Agartala Case being included is definitely not undue. It was part and parcel of the mistrust between the Western Pak establishment and Awami League. By the same standards it can be argued that the rest of the info about Awami League's being unjustly denied its right to form government on the basis of electoral victory and Yahya Khan launching a millitary crackdown to massacre East Pakistanis (which is the current stance in the article) are something which not all editors agree to and therefore should not be included.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Since, I was busy yesterday, so I couldn't get much time to reply to the ongoing conversation here. However, I just saw recent reverts and counter reverts on the article, therefore, I would like to counter-reply to @SheriffIsInTown: and @TalhaZubairButt: since they are the one who wanted to add their point of view edits on the article.

@SheriffIsInTown: You seems to be in too much hurry to restore this obvious POV edit. You must be very well aware of WP:ARBIPA, I guess. So i suggest you, do not make a revert on any of these disputed articles, without first getting consensus on the article's talk page. though, you are already involve in slow edit wars.

This splitting of Indian and pakistani editors and blah blah majority-minority is your own creation, but no one cares actually!

You need to make yourself familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE again, I guess. His jingoism and POV pushing is clearly visible for us to see and i've already explain in my above comment. I do not need to say anything more, his POV edits clearly depicts, he push his views, gives undue weight in lead and so on. Example: this and even on other articles

The editor (TalhaZubairButt) who has been involve in pushing POV and edit warring on Indo-Pak articles right from the first edit and has been recently warned by the administrator, he doesn't look to me a newbie wikipedian. He does advanced things like can fix references of books properly since his first edit. Perhaps an old user? Who knows.

Coming to your anylasis.

• I'm in favour of the current version It is estimated that between 300,000 and 3,000,000 civilians were killed in Bangladesh. these are back by neutral references only. More neutral sources stating 3 million deaths are as follows: ""

• However, perhaps, TBZ other additions needs a re-wording.

• Amongst 93000+ POWs there were 12000 civilians (members of pak military family) including razakars

Additional references will be needed to complete this paragraph. Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel and 12000 civilians including razakars were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army.

• I am not against this addition, "violence against Biharis" but the problem is with the language that depicts it's POV and WP:OR. Yes, there was violence against Biharis prior to Operation Searchlight and Op. Searchlight was launched after this happened and pakistani military used it as a fictitious reason. And, it's your own original research, if you say that operation searchlight was happened *because of* it. Your own refrence says

"Pakistani government used the Bihari massacre to justify deploying its military on 25 March."

• Thus, if consensus is in favour of adding this then re-wording is a must.

• Now, If anyone wants to add Agartala Case in the article, then consensus is necessary since its WP:UNDUE, let other editors to reply on this. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, so have patience! First, you need to separate that out from all the other POV edits. And there's much attention devoted to it. So before we even begin consider it, it needs to be shortened to a manageable size.

Now, coming to the last point.

@TalhaZubairButt: edit summary: "Rather than giving a one sided account on Pakistan's defeat, it is fair to include the 1971 Indian Field Marshal's opinion on the performance of the Pakistani Army. A youtube link to Sam Manekshaw's interview has been provided as reference."

• One sided seriously? You wanted to say all the neutral references mentioned are one sided and bias? And according to @SheriffIsInTown:, this is not POV pushing? right? Going by your logic, the entire war was one sided, pakistan lost half it's military, half it's country and population in mere 10 days. Well, if I go by history, high ranking Indian soldiers had always praised enemies after wars were over. This doesn't mean you will start adding CROPPED and POV VIDEOS to push your own POV and WP:OR in articles, just to show how does pakistan army performed in the war? You need to understand Manekshaw Gentlemen's code of conduct. It is his high morale only that dictates he give credit to pakistan military who could not defend their east side nor the west and lost half of the military and country in just 10 days. Going by the same logic, there are YouTube videos available of pakistan's former prime minister respected Benazir Bhutto saying pakistan army should wear bangles! Likewise there are videos available of journalists like Najam Sethi, Former defence minster of pakistan, and many war historians giving negative comments on pakistan military performance in 1971 War; this is Wikipedia, not pakistanpedia, where we need to add distorted facts and history to counter the result of the war if it is in favour of your adversary. Got it?

In your recent edit, where you revert the version by @Capitals00: by stating "you should have a valid reason to keep the information out otherwise if we take your argument, encyclopedia will never improve" Frankly saying your intentions were not to improve the article but to add your point of view version".

If you still dispute, then pls go ahead, start an RFC! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

@MBlaze Lightning. The source does not say that the Pak Millitary used it as a 'fictitious' reason to start Operation Searchlight. What it says is that the Pak millitary used it as 'justification' to start Operation Searchlight. The very term 'fictitious' is a POV term on your part. There is a difference between the term 'fictitious' which you are using and the words which the source used 'that Pakistan's state used Bihari massacre as justification to deploy Pak military'. Clearly it is best to include words most similar to the one in the text of the original source. That will be the most fair thing to do.

As far as Benazir's statement is concerned abt Pak army, that was abt Zia ul Haq in Siachen not 1971. And yes do go ahead and include war historians and najam sethi's opinion abut pak army performance and also on indian army performance. But also include Sam Manekshaw's opinion on Pak millitary performance. That is my proposition to you as a compromise (even though I believe his statement is more informative than people who were not on the ground, fighting, in 1971). Though the way the text will be structured then will have to be reviewed by other editors to ensure fairness. After all, the very way you are talking here is POV and there is no guarantee that you will structure the text fairly. As far as this statement of yours goes:

You need to understand Manekshaw Gentlemen's code of conduct. It is his high morale only that dictates he give credit to pakistan military who could not defend their east side nor the west and lost half of the military and country in just 10 days.

Well the I say that you have brought no source to reference the notion that Manekshaw said this due to his high morals. This was an interview on BBC after all and his word should be taken for what he literally said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Let me first answer you about your continuous POV allegations and what WP:ARBIPA's decisions say about that behavior. WP:ARBIPA's decision number 1 relates to Wikipedia:Assume good faith which you are in direct violation of when you accuse people of POV pushing. Decision number 1 has been violated by many editors here including yourself when they reverted edits summarizing them as POV edits and when they accused and slanted people as POV-pushers at this talk page and you have been at forefront of all this. You were warned about WP:ARBIPA but you still formatted your last message in a way which was in direct violation of decision number 1.

• You said "other additions needs a re-wording", well i ask you, how about you provide a neutral re-wording here for all of the other additions, it's possible that we might agree to it, provided that it carries the essence of the text in the sources.
• You said "Amongst 93000+ POWs there were 12000 civilians (members of pak military family) including razakars" but you see sources do not say that, sources do not mention "(members of pak military family) including razakars". I quoted the direct text from sources above and i do it again for you here. 1.

  79,700 of Pakistan's regular soldiers and paramilitary troops were prisoners of war in Indian hands, along with 12,500 civilians.-- Haqqani, 2.

  Initially, the Simla Agreement was well received in both countries but, by, the end of 1972, much of the optimism that it might be the harbinger of a new relationship between India and Pakistan had evaporated. The change for the worse was partly due to the delay in the withdrawal of forces but mainly it resulted from the continuing deadlock over the release of some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children, captured in East Pakistan. -- Burke

So, as you can see from both quoted sources, there is no mention of your additional suggestion of "(members of pak military family) including razakars".

• The source "http://www.bharat-rakshak.com" you provided for "(members of pak military family) including razakars" is a broken link to begin-with, you just posted it yesterday so it cannot be a broken link if you verified it but since it is a broken link from it's onset that means you did not verify it. Moreover, it's in no way a WP:RS.
• Lastly, Sam Manekshaw's positive acknowledgement of Pakistan Army's involvement in 1971 War should be included since there is a lot of negative content about Pakistan Army in this article. There should not be a problem adding something positive as well especially if it is coming from a top-notch General of opponent's military. The video is sourced to BBC which is considered a reliable source, YouTube is a carrier of videos as Google Books is carrier of books. Here is another source for Sam Manekshaw's acknowledgement. You also mentioned in one of your messages that it's normal for a General to praise their enemy. How about you post one such example from recent military history of a leader of an Army praising the army of their enemy against whom they fought a war but it's not mentioned in Wikipedia article. If you post one such case here then i will accept your logic and not insist on this addition. It should be from recent history though, i will accept examples from Second World War and afterwards since that is the point when recent country boundaries started shaping up. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown. @MBlaze Lightning has stated that they accept that anti-Bihari violence occured before and after Operation Searchlight and MBlaze Lightning also accepts that the Pakistani state used anti-Bihari violence as a justification to start Operation Searchlight. However MBlaze Lightning differs on the terminology as according to MBlaze Lightning Pakistan used it as a 'fictitious' reason though that term is not used anywhere in the original Routledge source.I think the anti-Bihari violence in the pre-Operation Searchlight period (and the Pakistani state employing that as a justification to start Op Searchlight) should be re-inserted since its fully backed up by a credible neutral source and the words that should be used should be synonymous with the words used in the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There are too many issues being discussed here at once. Can you start a separate section on this particular topic? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown:

• First of all, BharatRakshak is an reliable source and it is widely used to cite claims in Indo-Pak related articles. It's OK if the link is broken, there are many references available to back my claims.

• Now, coming to that *civilian point*. They were not common peoples as one might believe. 12,000 civilians here includes member of pak military family and razakars! Let me quote from a reliable refrence that will clear your all doubts regarding rajakars.

Present Jamaat chief Motiur Rahman Nizami was the chief of Al-Badr, one of the two wings of the Army of Razakars that worked for the Pakistan armed forces to eliminate freedom fighters.

The then Pakistan government formed the Army of Razakars as a civil armed force dominated by Jamaat men.

According to the historic document of surrender, the Razakars also conceded defeat in the country's Liberation War along with the Pakistan armed forces.

This surrender includes all Pakistan land, air, and naval forces as also all paramilitary forces and civil armed forces says the instrument of surrender signed between the chiefs of the Pakistan occupation forces and the Indian and Bangladesh liberation forces.

Other civil armed forces that worked against the Liberation War include the Mujhids and the West and East Pakistan police, according to the account of events chronicled by Lt Gen AAK Niazi, who led the Pakistan occupation forces as the chief of Eastern Command of the Pakistan Army in 1971.

• EXCERPTS FROM THE INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER,

The instrument of surrender signed in Dhaka on December 16, 1971 says, "The Pakistan Eastern Command agree to surrender all Pakistan Armed Forces in Bangladesh to Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora, General Officer Commanding in Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in the Eastern Theatre. This surrender includes all Pakistan land, air, and naval forces as also all para-military forces and civil armed forces. The forces will lay down their arms and surrender at the places where they are currently located to the nearest regular troops under the Command of Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora."

• Here, I'm quoting from another reliable refrence.

• In the book Can Pakistan Survive? Pakistan based author Tariq, Ali writes: "Pakistan lost half it's navy, a quarter of it's air force and a third of its army."

India took approximately 90,000 prisoners of war, including Pakistani soldiers and their East Pakistani civilian supporters. 79,676 prisoners were uniformed personnel, of which 55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF. The remaining prisoners were civilians-either family members of the military personnel or collaborators (razakars).

• Beside, this refrence also makes it clear about the number of civilians (members of pakistan military family and rajakars): Approximately, 90,000 POWs-79,676 uniformed personnel = 10,324 remaining POWs. Got it? And, as i said earlier, if you still wanna dispute, then pls go ahead and open an RFC!

• Coming to your last point, I will say, you shouldn't insist on adding this either since its highly POV and WP:UNDUE and as @Capitals00: said, Unless you find everyone agree with the content, which is impossible, just don't revert.

• While, you challenge me to prove any one case regarding army leaders praising their enemy in the aftermaths of the war they fought and which is not mentioned in the Wikipedia. So, here are they,

• Extract from 1967 Indo-Sino Cho La incident: The Chinese Officer who accompanied the remains to the Indian Army, praised the performance of the Indian troops, stating that "they fought like tigers

Note: point to be noted, the Chinese lost the Cho La incident

• Another, Ukrainian president Poroshenko praises Nazi soldiers, awards them with medals for bravery

• Another, Aussie PM Tony praising Japan's Imperial soldiers of Navy And, if you don't know, them FYKI, Japan Imperial Navy attacked Sydney Harbour. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

@MBlaze Lightning: As regards to Gen Manekshaw's statement, which part of "In the interest of WP:BALANCE this needs to be here. WP:PRIMARY states that info can be included if attributed to the source (Gen Manekshaw) as such" you did not understand?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 11:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: I asked for an example of a head of an army praising their opponents's army. Someone at the level of Manekshaw. A lower rank Chinese commander praising a group of Indian soldiers involved in a small battle, Ukrainian president who do not know anything about war praising Nazi soldiers, Aussie PM praising Japanese soldiers is not the same thing as Mankeshaw, head of world's 6th largest army praising his opponent's army as an institution against whom he fought a major war such as this one mentioning the conditions under which they fought and how they were outnumbered gives a whole lot of different credibility. I think considering these points, statements by Manekshaw, a very notable character of 1971 War, are very notable and encyclopedic and they should be mentioned and quoted as-is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire: Learn to gain consensus on article's talk page, first! You just restored the entire version, to which no one here agreed upon. Just, a day before yesterday, you violated 3RR, despite been warned. You should try to work out the dispute through discussion and not across multiple edit summaries. Beside, this is POV and UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE You need to gain consensus first before adding this to *suit your own point of view.* This is considered disruptive.

@SheriffIsInTown: Is it written somewhere that only a general should praise the soldier? Isn't it enough for you that I gave you links of enemy praising enemy. You think I am a walking library of history? Anyways! This should be enough for you! Indian general praises Pakistani Troops MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

@MBlaze Lightning-Barring your discussion with @SheriffIsInTown I fail to see how the exclusion of Sam Manekshaw's statement is just. His statement is significant because it recognises the extreme circumstances the Pakistani Army found itself fighting in. I doubt there are many countries who have ever been in Pakistan's situation where they had to fight a war a 1000 miles from their bases, over the enemy territory, in a territory which was virtually surrounded by the enemy country's territory. And so if the article wants to mention how poor Pakistan performed in the war, it should also be given due notice to the fact that the Pakistani Army found itself fighting in an extremely difficult circumstance. As General Sam Manekshaw said they were caught unprepared, unlike the Indian Army which had 9 months of Army Operation, and were cut off from their supplies. They just had no chance, as Manekshaw says.

His statement is necessary to put Pakistan's military defeat in perspective. Otherwise its not a very fair depiction of the war.

And personally, I also fail to see why there is no mention of the Chinese general's praise of the Indian Army's performance n 1962 on the Indo-China 1962 War article. Facts need to be put into perspective with the context of very event.

Also the forum reference you have given is unwarranted. I did not know that Forums are accepted as Wiki sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt: keep aside jingoism, this is not a forum, it's an talk page of the article, if you have any other edit to add apart from that, discuss it here. There's no point of debating on an POV and cropped video. And please that's called "gentlemen's code of conduct", he should have said something negative too but he didn't rather he gave credit because as its an tradition amongst soldiers especially in Indian Army to praise each other for their bravery in the aftermath if they deserve! That doesn't mean you will start taking it seriously and start chanting that it was this and that and we lost because not because we were weak but the other guys were strong.... etc...etc Circumstances were faced more by the Mukti Bahini. Pakistan was the aggressor. You say, you doubt but it only shows that you have no idea about the indo-pak war/how it started/who was the aggressor/and so on itself let alone the military history around the globe! pakistan was not fighting away from their home at all. East Pakistan was an integral part of pakistan, It's pakistan military who started Operation Searchlight in the east pakistan and killed 3 million east pakistan citizens (now you may call them rebels, but certainly they were not, they were common peoples whom pakistan military brutally killed/raped/etc). About 10 million bangladeshis have to seek refuge in India. Do you know? General Tikka Khan was nicknamed 'Butcher of Bengal' because of the atrocities he had committed. His orders to his troops were: 'I want the land not the people...' Major General Farman had written in his table diary, "Green land of East Pakistan will be painted red". It was painted red by Bengali blood. Pakistan Military raped as many as 400,000 womens in east pakistan. And, please don't tell that pakistan military was not prepared and etc. You believe in fallacy, not the world! It was pakistan who started the war by launching Operation Chengiz Khan, when pakistan attacked Indian airbases on 3 December 1971 which ultimately led to India's direct entry into the war! It's pakistan who opened western front and attacked initially defensive Indian Army (You may like to read Battle of Longewala and related battles on western front) and then Indian soldiers started their advance into west pakistan. Indian Naval successful operations like Operation Trident (1971), Operation Python was in West pakistan only where Indian Navy inforced naval blockade on west pakistan and set Karachi aka economic hub of pakistan ablaze and it continued burning till for couple of weeks. Pakistan lost 15,010km² land on it's western front (which India gifted back to pakistan in Shimla Agreement of 1972 as a gesture of goodwill, though retained few strategic areas most notably in Kargil). In the own words of a pakistan based historian Tariq, Ali: "Pakistan lost half it's navy, a quarter of it's air force and a third of its army." You also questioned the reliability of the 1971 war article but let me make you aware of the facts. There is no negativity in the article. The article is well sourced. Each and every line written is based on the reliable references and facts. Understood?

And, I have not given this to add in any wikipedia article, it was in reply to sherrif! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

@MBlaze Lightning

From the tone of your reply here it sounds like you are only interested in pushing through your POV.

1. Is there any solid source to show that what Manekshaw said is a part of gentleman's conduct that is part of Indian Armmy's tradition? If not, then its just a claim on your part which is unsourced. And his words said on a BBC should be taken literally as he said.And he actually gave reasons for Pakistan's defeat, he didn't just praise them. He gave reasons for why Pakistan just had no chance. Those reasons are credible. Even more credible coming from someone of his position.

2. As Manekshaw said Pakistan Army was fighting a 1000 miles away from its base, which was West Pakistan. East Pakistan was already known to be militarily indefensible. It is after all a territory surrounded by India with a small border with Burma and sea access which Pakistan would have to circumvent to reach via Sri Lanka, seeing as its air access to East Pakistan over India was cut off in 1971.

3. We can argue a lot about who started the war, whether it be Pakistan's pre-emptive strikes which Pakistan claims to have been in response to India's support for the Mukti Bahini isurgency (this support would include training and arming. In Pakistan's perspective this rebel organisation was a terrorist organisation which had civilian as well as military blood on its hands).

But Sam Manekshaw does say it straight forwardly, that he had 9 months of preparation for war. And if you are talking about the video being a cropped POV video, then I can share the full uncropped video here too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-tgRl_VK_Q

The fact is he was an Indian Army Chief at the time, so who could know the conflict better than him? The undisputed fact is that he has stated that he had 9 months of preparations for war, so even if we believe Pakistan started the war with India, according to the Indian Army Chief he was already prepared since 9 months.

4. If we want to talk about what General Tikka said we might as well talk about what General Niazi said in April (and there are documents of such statements) about the rapes and how he condemned them and talked about disciplining soldiers.

5. The 3 million figure is a claim of the Bangladeshi government and when that figure is mentioned it should be recognised as being a Bangladeshi government figure

I would recommend you to read this article:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/questioning-an-iconic-number/article5940833.ece

I also went through the sources you listed earlier to support keeping the 3 million figure unseparated, when you said you want to keep the 300,00-3,000,000 figure. The last 2 sources were inaccessible. One of them didn't even mention any figures, and the other one which mentioned the 3 million figure itself cited back to a Bangladeshi/Indian source.

6. I am afraid most of your statements are highly emotional and you would lack the neutrality required to be a Wiki editor. What I am trying to do is neutralise an already POV article. Yes the article is well sourced but it could be improved by adding more sourced information as the article you are trying to put forward has only parts of the information. Giving partial information has similar effects to giving someone falsified information.

For example in the background section, the justification used for the initiation of Operation Searchlight (ie: massacres of Bharis) was not previously included. I included this with reference to neutral, respected sources. So the the information could be balanced out. Of course you may choose to believe the Pakistan Army used 'Bihari massacre' as a fictitious reason for Operation Searchlight, that is up to you, but information from the neutral sources which say they used it as a reason nonetheless, should be included.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt: Oh, how i'm pushing pov? Please care to explain because any educated person with good knowledge on Indo-Pakistani Wars will understand whatever, i have written is based on HISTORY/FACTS and it cannot be changed by the whims of one individual! General Tikka Khan, Yahya Khan, Farman, these generals and many more, their statements are available all around the internet. Go Google it! Or why don't you take time and read Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 the article itself? Obviously, It's his (Sam Manekshaw) Gentlemen's code of conduct which you perhaps, won't understand! You just copy/pasted your comment again which i have already replied so it's worthless repying you again! And, I said it's a kind of tradition, i presented enough proof to back it, Like, Chinese generals praising Indians in 1967 Cho La incident and even in Sino-Indian War, Ukrainian president Poroshenko praising Nazi soldiers and even awards them with medals for bravery.... Aussie PM Tony praising Japan's Imperial soldiers of Navy who attacked their Sydney Harbour. Even pakistan sher khan was praised by Indian generals and our soldier handed his body to pakistan (Who refused to accept thousands dead bodies of pakistan own soldier stating them mujahedins - and they were later buried by Indian soldiers atop icy heights of Kargil) and then only pakistan awarded sher khan (Posthumously) their highest military gallantry award. India even handed 10 pakistani POWs (of Kargil) to pakistan after the War, in spite of knowing what they did with Capt. Saurabh Kalia. So, how more examples you want to understand someone's code of conduct? Or, you don't wanted to accept it anyway! Then, you said my statements are highly emotional? Seriously? Lol Why don't you go and educate yourself regarding Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, and 1971 Bangladesh genocide. You don't need to be afraid tho. And, It's not just me, Your this addition have been reverted by atleast 4 editors and they all disagree with you because this is POV, UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I always accept when anyone tries to add reliable info's with WP:RS and similarly, i accepted Sheriff addition of Agartala case in Bangladesh Liberation War, and Bihari Massacre in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. And, your sources about Bihari Massacre were WP:RS that is why i didn't oppose them, but you see they only states what pakistan said to justify their Op searchlight, not the independent researchers, and everyone knows what happened in pakistan's Operation Searchlight. Beside, these are WP:RS, Or in your tone, all are neutral references stating 3 million deaths. And, the excuse you gave is very poor excuse, I wouldn't have cite them if they don't back my claim. SEE WP:SOURCEACCESS MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

@MBlaze Lightning You misunderstood my point. Sam Manekshaw's statement is not significant because of his praise, rather it is significant because he acknowledges the factors and odds which Pakistan Army was up against. These factors put India's victory and Pakistan's defeat into perspective. I don't know why an acknowledgement of such obvious factors (eg numbers, distance, supplies, preparation etc) from the Indian Army Chief (who played a pivotal role in the conflict) is stirring up so much passion from you.

And what does rape and other atrocities during the 1971 conflict have to do with the main point of our discussion on whether Manekshaw's statement should be included or not. And so far you have failed to give a valid reason for exclusion. Why are you afraid of including his statement?

The only argument you are using for censoring his statement is an unsourced (and nationalist) argument that this is part of Indian military tradition. I differ. India denied Sepoy Maqbool Hussain, from the 1965 war, POW status and handed him back to Pakistan after decades of torture which physically and mentally impaired him. So your point about Indian army's code of conduct is moot.

And yes Niazi's statements from the conflict are well known (since you raised that point. I will show some):

“Of late there have been reports of rape and even West Pakistanis are not being spared; on April 12 two West Pakistani women were raped, and an attempt was made on two others”. This is from a Bangladeshi source: http://www.jonmojuddho.com/books/vanquished_generals.pdf

In his confidential directive to senior officers, general Niazi issued a stern warning: “It is not uncommon in history, when a battle has been lost because troops were over indulgent in loot and rape. I, therefore, direct that the troops must be got hold of and the incidence of indiscipline, misbehaviour and indecency must be stamped out ruthlessly. Those, including officers, found guilty of such acts must be given deterrent and exemplary punishment. I will not have soldiers turn into vagabonds and robbers.” Niazi continued, “I would like every soldier in this Theatre to be an embodiment and an example of discipline”, reminding officers of their “code of honour” and that as “gentlemen and officers” they should abide by it [Niazi 2002, pp 282-83].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC) TalhaZubairButt (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As for Sam Manekshaw's statement, I am personally swayed by Talha Zubair Butt's arguments. However, since the issue is contentious, we have to go by policy, which says that we should not interpret WP:PRIMARY sources. (And all interviews are PRIMARY sources.) So, unless there are secondary sources that repeat the words or the substance of Manekshaw's statements, I think we shouldn't use it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: We are not interpreting Manekshaw's statements, we are quoting them as-is, attributing them to himself and there is a secondary source which is also being removed. I usually tend not to include primary sources when someone is praising himself or someone to whom they have close relationship but when someone is giving a positive point of view of his opponent then i am in favor of inclusion with proper attribution and coming from a top General, an analysis of a major War which he fought is a big thing to me and warrants inclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Picking a statement out of an interview itself is a form of interpretation. The discussion above tried to interpret his statement with a fine tooth comb. I don't see how consensus can be formed in this situation. I suggest that we give up and look for secondary sources. If there are secondary sources that say the same thing, then there is no problem adding Manekshaw's statement for additional support. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is one more source.

Try this one: Manekshaw had the highest respect for the fighting prowess of the Pakistan Army and refused to accept the theory that they did not fight the Bangladesh war vigorously enough. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

Yes I accept the rephrasing idea you have offered. Your wording is perfect. However I also believe that the full quote would be useful, not because of the praise, but because of the acknowledgement of the factors which Pakistan Army was up against. And there is also a link to the full BBC interview I provided which can be used as a source instead of the earlier cropped youtube clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it is not my rephrasing. It is a quote from the book. You would need to rephrase it for the article. But the book is a decent secondary source, and you can add the primary source for additional detail. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

*REPLY Since, kautilya presented a reliable source, it is acceptable to me. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

• Acceptable to me as well, as it provides extra credibility to the video source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am proposing following edit with rewording:

"The Indian Army Chief of the 1971 war, Sam Manekshaw had the highest respect for the fighting capability of the Pakistan Army. He was not willing to accept the theory that they did not fight the Bangladesh war with enough vigor and zeal.

In a BBC interview, he stated that the Pakistani army fought very bravely and gallantly in the 1971 war. He said,

The Pakistani troops were thousands of kilometers away from their land. They couldn't get ammunition, goods and medical aid. Our Mukti Bahini was attacking them from all sides. Their politicians and media were against them. We were preparing for this fight since one year. Even then they fought for one long year. If anyone says that they were cowards then this is completely wrong. In 1971 Pakistani army fought very bravely.

He further added

He had an overwhelming superior strength of 16:1 and the Pakistan Army was fighting under adverse conditions.

"

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur - adding in the direct quote will prevent any misinterpretation of General's words.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the proposed wordings.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the so called appraisal for Pakistan's performance, because it gives false hope about pakistan's performance in this war. This is not a fansite or page to sympathize with the position. Videos are copyright infringement as long as they are not true publisher, see WP:Linkvio. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What you call "false hope about pakistan's performance" is infact known as WP:BALANCE in Wikipedia's language.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of those lost sport matches where winning team 'has to say that losing team still did well. In any case it is not informative or encyclopediac. If it was some thirty characters, I wouldn't mind, but it is just more than that, almost a section, thus undue, and linking to a unoriginal copyright violating video is not allowed. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

And you thought it appropriate to push your WP:POV by removing even the sourced info from a website and a book in the garb of removing what you considered a CopyVio videolink and ignore the entire discussion which took place above?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I just stated why I wouldn't be including it, if you want to keep it, then "Manekshaw praised the performance of Pakistan." Small mention would be enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree with D4iNa4. This indeed gives a false representation on pakistan defeat. Adding an entire section on mere a statement taken from an interview based on an random YouTube link that too in bold and in blockquotes is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Beside, as you said linking to unoriginal copyright violating video. There was no consensus for what sheriff added in the article. Most of the Editors here agreed only upto Kautilya's proposal, not an inch beyond that. And, I disagree with sheriff version. It is POV AND UNDUE. Beside, DailyTime.pk is also no WP:RS. Find WP:BESTSOURCES instead. You are adding too much bytes and clearly violating WP:UNDUE. Your wordings reminds me of the mind set of a defeated Army General who will tell his troops that we lost the war, not because we were weak, But the other guys were strong and conspired, above all its their Fault that we LOST! I think, in fact, for wikipedia and encyclopaedia purposes, this should not be included at all, it has no encyclopaedic value and does nothing to improve the article. If at all, just a mention that it is Manekshaw praised the performance of Pakistan Army is enough. We should avoid WP:UNDUE of course. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

I have removed the youtube link for now, and replaced with http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99aug02/head1.htm D4iNa4 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: It seems that you have ignored the above discussion. In any case we can't use a video that hasn't been uploaded by the original source and it is a pirated video, you need to see WP:LINKVIO. We can easily believe on a WP:RS but not a video that is possibly dubbed by the infringing uploader to different wording. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So now you think the "video" (not just an audio) of Gen Mankeshaw with a renounced Indian journalist published by BBC was possibly dubbed when the General himself is uttering the words?? I mean really? BTW, you probably missed this source—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

where is the proof? (15:1)

Hey, can anyone provide me any proof of 15:1 superiority on the ground? What were the logistics , ammunition and number of personnel? How was it 15:1? Is there any secondary source or only primary sources? Is it a case of pure boasting or can the statement be matched with reality? Ghatus (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• First, this does not give you the excuse to call a registered editor an "idiot" as did you did here.
• Second, had you read the source provided with the edit before knee-jerking a revert, you'd known the 'proof'. BTW, the source says a superiority of 50:1 not 15:1.
• Third and the most important point: We all know that this ratio was said as a direct quote from Gen Manekshaw and hence it was agreed right here on this talk page that this info will not be added as a fact BUT as a quote dully attributed to Gen Manekshaw to avoid any misinterpretation. Just go through the discussion at the talk page for the love of God before initiating an edit-war over and already settled issue. Please, I don't have the appetite to re-do a discussion that has been done ad-nauseam. I am sorry if I didn't send you a memo when this was being discussed here —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the Tribe India source added by D4iNa4 says 50:1, which is wrong. I have heard the video twice afterwards to make sure that I didn't mishear it. He said 15:1. Did he say it right? I don't know. You guys can go and investigate. I promised to resolve the dispute about the video, which I did. And, D4, the video I linked to is the full interview, uploaded by Kiran Thapar himself (or somebody on his behalf.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If secondary sources contradict General's statement, there are grounds to think over the appropriateness of the reference and certainly of the quote in the article. If no other secondary sources support it, it is then a case of wp:fringe and as far as I know Wiki does not quote from a fringe primary source (even if it's true) as it alters the balance and neutrality of the article. All right, it will be clear within a few days.Ghatus (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Two Nation Theory

Notwithstanding the unreliability of the quote, I think a discussion of the "two-nation theory" in the light of the Bangladesh liberation needs discussion. My impressions are as follows:

• The Indian state made no effort to address the "two-nation theory" at all. If it did indeed address it, it would have annexed Bangladesh. Rather, the Indian state made its intentions clear that it had no interest in changing its own national boundaries.
• The Indian public and intellectuals, however, regard the break-up of Pakistan as a destruction of the two-nation theory in the sense that Muslimness is seen as an inadequate basis for a nationality. This has been the Indian National Congress position from the beginning, and the break-up of Pakistan is seen as vindication of the belief.
• The careful scholars however warn that the argument should not be stretched too far, because Bangladesh stands as an independent country rather than merging with West Bengal on the basis of ethnic identity. It appears that the Bangladeshi scholars agree.

Subtle arguments there! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

"1000 years" statement

Every speech of Indira Gandhi in the Parliament is well documented - both off line and online. There is no such speech. The Pakistani sources claimed it be said by Mrs. Gandhi just after the B'desh war in the Indian parliament. But that is a complete lie as no such archived statement is available either online or off- line. Hardly any historian even cared to react to this "source less" statement. Even the only book you are referring to is just quoting Pak sources and even the authors are using the phrase "repoted to have said" while referring to Pak sources.

BTW, as a student of History, I know it very well that the claim of the statement to be true is not new. It actually started vociferously during Mrs. Bhutto's regime. Indian historians and foreign historians especially in the background of Kashmir militancy & Ram Temple- Babri Masjid dispute made a great effort to find out if any such speech record or transcript existed, but they found NOTHING. And, finally, It is highly improbable that Mrs Gandhi who inherited the sense of history from his father Nehru (actually Glimpses of World History was written by Nehru in the form of letters to "Little Indu" to educate her about history) did not know the History of India and could make such an absurd claim.Ghatus (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for noticing. The source for this statement is mentioned in the book as a website, "http://www.inewsit.com/articles/entry/VarunGandhi", which was supposedly found on 26-3-2009. The web site doesn't exist any more. Any article that uses such poor quality sourcing can't be reliable.

TalhaZubairButt, when you cite articles from edited collections, you need to also specify the author and the chapter that is used as the source. The reliability of the source depends on who the author is! In this case, the author is "Aslam Syed" and the chapter is Dynamics of religion and politics in South Asia. I couldn't find information about him (which is apparently on page 221, not viewable to me). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

1000 years

Indira Gandhi's 1000 years quote also appears in the reputable paper Khaleej Times. Albeit in a different wording.

1. REDIRECT [[2]]

Here is the excerpt from Khaleej Times

Yet, on a cautiously optimistic note, at present where the two countries stand is a far cry from the relationship defining assertions by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. After Pakistan’s failed Operation Gibraltor, Foreign Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto said in September 1965, "Pakistan would wage a war of a thousand years, a war of defence." After having mid-wifed the birth of Bangladesh, the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi triumphantly yelled, "We have avenged 1,000 years of history." At that point, on December 18, 1971, Pakistan was only 24 years old. She was referring to the thousand years of minority Muslim rule over Hindu majority India.

The writer is Nasim Zehra and the following is a bit of information about her credential at the bottom of the news article.

'Nasim Zehra is a fellow of Harvard University Asia Center, Cambridge, Mass. and Adjunct professor at SAIS Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC'

Keep in mind that you have also told me that writers' nationalities and backgrounds are not a bar to the inclusion of info from them (on the Kashmir Conflict talk page you used this argument in defending an Indian lawyer/judge's book where he claims that Jinnah refused a plebiscite in Kashmir. Also on the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page there is a quote attributed to Yahya Khan where he said Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat of our hands. That quote was sourced by a newspaper article and there is no other source on the web for it).

Secondly, India's notable military analyst Bharat Verma also repeats this 1000 years slavery statement. So its entirely conceivable that the Indian PM also said something similar.

Here is the citation of his statement: Verma, Bharat (2013). Indian Defence Review. Oct-Dec Vol. 28.4. Lancer Publishers LLC. pp. 4–5. ISBN 9788170621348.

Bharat Verma's quote is also available on the Indian Defence Review page:

1. REDIRECT [[3]]

His precise quote is: 'We should have stationed military governors and troops till we, as a victorious nation had achieved our aim of ensuring permanent peace; the bloodshed by the military is too expensive to be overlooked. Tradition? Our tradition of enslavement for almost 1,200 years hardly endears anyway!'

Now its anyone's guess what he was referring to when he said 'our tradition of enslavement for 1200 years'.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nasim Zehra is a journalist, not a historian. If the claim appears in a peer-reviewed article then we can look at it. An op-ed is no good. What Bharat Verma says is irrelevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I will look further for this quote. But I have found one Journal article where Indira Gandhi's quote is mentioned.

Franco-German and India-Pakistan Reconciliation: A Comparative Study, the Journal of Management and Social Sciences Vol 9 No 2(2013) 44

http://biztek.edu.pk/ibt/qec/jbs/9.2/5%20-%20Franco-German%20and%20India-Pakistan%20Reconciliation%20A%20Comparative%20Study.pdf

And you are right. Bharat Verma counts for nothing here. His relevance was to the Simla Agreement section which discussed between him and JN Dixit why india returned occupied West Pakistani territory. There is no proof that it was returned as a 'gesture of goodwill' as the article otherwise claims.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

1) Bharat Varma= Irrelevant. He is not Gandhi as you are quoting Gandhi.

2)The authors of the journal given are all Pakistanis from Karachi who is qouting from one JH Gill(???) who have quoted from Pak newspapers who are claiming from nothing. Man, do you have any idea of war propaganda and how stories are planted in news media as a part of Psycho-ops? So, bring reliable sources.

3)Every Indira Gandhi's speech in Parliament is available off line and online. There is no such speech. The different versions of a single quote appearing in some newspapers of Pak and allies of Pak during 1970s clearly prove the falsity of the quote. A quote is a quote fixed. There can not be multiple versions of a single quote given at a fix point in time. BTW, you just mention the date of the speech and it will be available in the archive of Indian Parliament. As I said, some foreigners have quoted the line from Pak sources claiming the speech made in the parliament but nothing is available in the record . And, it's not a new claim. Had she said that, Indian press must have reported it. But, no such reporting is available. It's an absurd claim and probably a part of war propaganda. And finally being from Congress and be famous as Indira Amma, she could never use the word "Muslim" as far as my reading of History goes. It could have been accepted if it was attributed to RSS or Sangh.Ghatus (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bharat Verma quote

Kautilya3, I get the impression that the main aim of the Pakistani editors here is to put any quote of so called "Hindu slavery of 1000 yeras or 1200 years" fantasy. Hence they first started by inserting a false Indira Gandhi quote and then bringing an out of context statement of one B. Varma. Their main target is not to give a perspective on Simla Agreement, but to put "1000 years or 1200 years "quote of anyone in this article, possibly to get rid of 1971 "psychological" humiliation which they probably see as a kind of humiliation of Islam before Hinduism. Probably schooled in concocted communal history, it is not something new. But, they are in wrong place. Now, i understand why they are interested in Indian "Muslims' '" reaction. Ha..ha.. Any statement of Tom-Dick-Harry may have value to them, but in wiki those statements are out of context, fringe and unrelated to the article. It amuses me to think that how much communally sick one can get to relate such bogus and unhistorical fringe statement with 1971 war. BTW, I have inserted a statement in that section which represents both the PoVs on Siml yesterday. Hope, matter ends here. Ghatus (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Secondly on technical grounds, forget quoting as Wiki Policy is very clear on [quotations] that "a quotation that does not directly relate to the topic of the article or directly support the information as it is presented should not be used" and "The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed" . Actually the mention of One B. Varma also violates the norms. The point here is about the positive and negative reaction that Simla Agreement got in India from two sections, each section representing a multitude of personalities. Now to single out one person from one section of them and then also singling out one of his out of context, fringe and historically incorrect statement and then putting it in the the 1971 war article violate at least a dozen of wiki rules. Finally. not to forget that Simla Agreement itself falls in the peripheral section of 1971 war as it is more related to what happened "after the war". Ghatus (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As I have said in my edit summary, Bharat Verma's notability needs to be established first. Second, an argument needs to be made as to why his viewpoint needs to be mentioned as opposed to hundreds of other scholars. Military analysts don't have the same kind of influence in India as they do in some other countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Homodur Rahman Commission commentary

@TripWire and FreeatlastChitchat: you have repeatedly deleted the IP's contribution, which is clearly needed to contest the Homodur Rahman Commission findings as per WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. You can either delete all mention of the atrocities in that section or have the balancing commentary. You can't have one-sided claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 you are wrong, as per WP:NPOV we only include on-topic information. The IP has added offtopic information. You are welcome to add any information which is connected to the commission, but creating a link where there isn't one is WP:OR. You can have the rape figures where they belong i.e. with other rape figures, when mentioning the findings of this commission, we mention findings and any other information that is directly connected to the "commission". Also :@Kautilya3 I am waiting for your reply about your comments and your changing stances on the Kashmir conflict page, I thought you were offline, but it seems you are editing wikipedia routinely, so please comment on that TP as well and explain your position and your changing views. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to delete all mention of numbers of atrocities committed. If the Commission's version of the numbers is included, the reports that contest the data should also be included. Your claim of "off-topic" holds for all of them. (Thanks for waiting about the Kashmir conflict page. I haven't made up my mind what to do about it yet.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Apart from being 0ff-topic and WP:UNDUE, the edits being made the IP need other validations too before they can be added. For instance, who is this Samir Kumar Das? His credibility, expertise? Is he RS? All I see for now is that he is quoting unknown people who further quote unknown people to support his claims. That's too much trust the IP is putting in this guy which obviously is not taken well when it comes to controversial topics as Indo-Pak War of 1971. Also, the source "The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History" does not support the text it is cited with and so on and so forth. I really doubt that these edits, apart from the observation rasied by Freeatlast can stay here, unless proved otherwise.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how exactly is this information "off topic"? It's about the same topic and it balances the (partisan) source that is already in the article. How in the world is it "undue"? "Undue" does not mean "WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT so I get to remove it".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

POV

Kautilya3, isn't (only) mentioning the portion of Hamoodur Rahman Commission report that says atrocities were committed but removing the portion of the same report that further clarify to what extent were those atrocities committed by saying that it is off-topic pushing ones POV? You really don't like it, do you?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You yourself said this was "off-topic." The commission is not the topic of this article. The war is. So whatever the commission says about the war belongs here, including the debauchery of the army. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not say that the commission report was off-topic! Quit the snowballing. Mentioning unreliable info not related to the commission inside the sub-section dedicated to the commission report is off-topic, but you know that already dont you?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is on-topic and what is off-topic? Ergo, what is the "topic" you are talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

other nation\states' involvement in the conflict

I tried to add Sri Lanka's involvement in favor of Pakistan. And also the SFF (ethnic Tibetans') involvement in favor of India. But the article being semi-protected, could not do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkul (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090501082102/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1971War/Appendix3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Appendix3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926174134/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/44-Attacks-On-Karachi.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/44-Attacks-On-Karachi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823045047/http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980203/03450744.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980203/03450744.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081029150607/http://www.ndu.edu/nesa/docs/Gill%20Atlas%20Final%20Version.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/nesa/docs/Gill%20atlas%20final%20version.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050630230828/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/ to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel's Support for India and Bangladesh

I was hoping to add a few lines under "Foreign reaction and involvement" related to Israel's support for India during the war in the form of mortars and ammunition even though Israel and India did not have diplomatic relations at the time, and also how Israel was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Bangladesh as an independent state (February 1972).

Sources:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-jewish-general-who-beat-pakistan-1.133918

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Israel-secretly-provided-arms-to-India-in-1971-Book/articleshow/25068719.cms

http://www.jta.org/1972/02/07/archive/israel-recognizes-bangladesh

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Time-for-a-quiet-revolution-in-Bangladesh-Israeli-relations

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emet781 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. All the sources are good except for the last one. Pages 182-183 of this book would be a good source, except that Google Books is not showing me page 183. Perhaps you will have better luck. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it can be added, but I would suggest if you propose your edits here so that we can discuss them precisely.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 10:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Manekshaw view

After my edit [4], TripWire tried to reinstate the Manekshaw's view [5]. Srinath Raghavan, a highly acclaimed historian, says this:

Field Marshal Manekshaw’s account is certainly embellished.... The 1971 crisis, in this narrative, was the counter-point to 1962. The army chief had actually “stood up” to the political leadership, held his ground, and got his way. The accuracy of thenarrative is another matter. The evidence now available shows that the Prime Minister was fully alive to the dangers of any hasty military action. She had spoken about this even to the leaders of the opposition. In fact, she summoned Manekshaw to the meeting knowing his likely response and primarily to let her more hawkish colleagues hear the military’s views.

I doubt if any "Defence Review" can stand up to the authenticity of this analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I didnot "reinstate Manekshaw's views", rather made a partial revert. Second, what exactly are you trying to discuss here, I reinstated Indra Gandhi's quote, not Manekshaw's (views)? I think you got confused. BTW, I have added two more books sources which support Indra Gandhi's quote. The text is quite simple and understandable, what are you trying to disprove by saying "I doubt if any "Defence Review" can stand up to the authenticity of this analysis", when two books (1-Indian Army After Independence By Major K.C. Praval and 2-The Blood Telegram By Gary J Bass) are saying the same thing what any "Defence Review" says?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. We don't rely on quotes. An encyclopedia states what the reliable sources (typically scholarly sources) say, after having looked at all the evidence. All your sources are merely reproducing what Manekshaw said. All stacked up, they amount to nothing. Scholarly analysis is what I have presented. This is an WP:NPOV issue, not an WP:RS issue. Nobody is denying that Manekshaw said what he did. But this is not a biography of Manekshaw here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And also, this is what Indira Gandhi said according to Manekshaw. None of your sources was present in the meeting to know what was actually said. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

I am sorry too, but yes we do rely on quotes. Here's what WP:QUOTE says Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. Now, what you are trying to do is trying to explain them in your own words thereby raising a controversy which can esily be removed by giving a small, direct quote. Moreover, the article at its present form has numerous quotes, precisely to deal with the controversy issue. Lastly, it is strange of you to say that none of my (the sources are personally not mine) sources were present in the meeting when atleast three independent, unrelated and reliable sources, two of which are books quotes the exact similar quotation attributing it to Manekshaw. So, in the interest of clarity, the quote ought to stay as it provides a WP:NPOV angle to the issue by removing an controversy and not letting the readers deduce their own views. Instead, your edit makes it a POV because it does not commensurate with the essence of the conversation at the meeting and oversimplify the issue.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am not getting through to you. Let me request RegentsPark and Mar4d to perhaps explain it better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is another quote from Raghavan's book:

The received wisdom is that Prime Minister Gandhi actually wanted to undertake a military intervention in April 1971 and that she was dissuaded by the army chief, General S. H. F. J. “Sam” Manekshaw. This is perhaps the most tenacious of all myths about the 1971 crisis. Manekshaw’s own version was embellished with each telling... These claims hardly comport with reality. Contrary to the assertions of Manekshaw and his military colleagues, the prime minister did not contemplate such an intervention in the early stages of the crisis....

This makes me wonder if we should include any of Manekshaw's quotes in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, input from other experienced editors and admins is surely welcomed as you are unable to understand the essay/policy on WP:QUOTE/MOS:QUOTE, both of which says: quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia...Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.....When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas.. If you dont want the quote to be present, your reasoning as to why it should be removed is weak, especially when I see no harm in having the quote which per policy of Quotes and NPOV very-well fits the context of the article as it avoids any misinterpretation of the info it provides. Whereas, your edit (Indian Cabinet explored military options) leaves much for the readers' imagination and thus to controversy.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 00:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Three independent, unrelated, reliable book sources against one author whose credibility needs inquiry. sure. This is what the sources say:

The INDIAN cabinet met on 28 April 1971. General Manekshaw was told to attend the meeting as he was Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Without much ado, he was told to take charge of the situation. When he asked what was actually required, he was told: “Go into East Pakistan”. He pointed out that this would mean war. ‘We don’t mind it,’ was the reply.

Another source says:

In April, as the refugees flooded in, Gandhi angrily waved a telegram from the chief minister of one of the border states and, in front of her cabinet, asked him, “Can’t you do something?” Manekshaw replied, “What do you want me to do?” “Go into East Pakistan,” she said. “This would mean war,” he replied. “I know,” Gandhi reportedly said. “We don’t mind a war.” But the general balked. “In the Bible,” he claims to have said, “it is written that God said, ‘Let there be light, and there was light.’ You think that by saying ‘Let there be war,’ there can be a war? Are you ready for a war? I am not.”

A third one says, (an account from Lieutenant General Jacob Farj Rafael Jacob)

The crackdown (by West Pakistan on East Pakistan) took place from the 3rd to 26th of March. The Indian government was very concerned over the large number of refugees that kept coming in. In the beginning of April, General (S H F J) Manekshaw, the army chief, called up to say that the government required the army to move into East Pakistan immediately. I told him that was not possible because we had mountain divisions and no bridges, and there were a large number of rivers between us and Dhaka, very wide and unbridged. The monsoon was about to break, our divisions were not trained in riverine warfare, we had no transport (mountains divisions have very little) and it was not possible for us to move in. So he said he would come back to me. When he came back the next day, he said they were accusing him and the army of being cowards. So I told him, "You tell them that it's not you, it's the Eastern Command that's not moving." "When the bloody hell can you move by?" he asked. "If you give me the bridges and other stores required, and the time for training, not before 15th of November," I replied. Why? I said because by the 15th of November the ground would have dried up, and we should be able to move. So that was that. After that Manekshaw went to Mrs Gandhi and the Cabinet and briefed them.

Now, from above we can see that three sources are independently verifying the samething, and that atleast two people (one of them Lt Gen Jacob) says that the meeting and that the conversation did take place. So, I also find it hard to believe that when three different sources/authors are precisely saying that same thing that the Indian govt indeed wanted to move in as early as April 1971, how can you simply overrule it? Also, your source does not quantify the phrase early stages of the crises when it says "prime minister did not contemplate such an intervention in the early stages of the crisis". How can we be sure that it is talking about April 1971 or even earlier?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 01:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• The policy of WP:NPOV exists precisely for this reason. When multiple sources contradict, we are supposed to represent what the consensus is. The previous consensus is knocked down by Srinath Raghavan, an acclaimed academic historian, in a book published by Harvard University Press. You cannot ignore it. (I would rank Harvard publication even higher than Oxford/Cambridge because the latter publish loads of South Asia books whereas Harvard is much more selective about South Asia topics.) So no matter whether you believe it or not, whether you have read it or not, the previous consensus does not exist any more, because Raghavan says quite explicitly that it is a "tenacious myth". That is the strongest form of academic criticism I have ever seen.
• You ask, how can we know what he is talking about. The answer is, by reading the book. The quotation I have given above is quite clear.
• As for your sources (I mean the sources you are using to support your stance), two of them are military sources. They only know the military side of the story, which is presumably from Manekshaw himself. It is best to ignore them because they are not scholarly sources.
• Gary Bass is clearly narrating Manekshaw's account. The footnotes 24 and 25 of Gary Bass give his sources, most of them military. The footnote 25 mentions P. N. Dhar's memoirs, which gives the other information about Indira Gandhi's Cabinet unavailable to Manekshaw, but Bass has clearly chosen to side with Manekshaw. Raghavan on the other hand examined all other evidence and has decided that Manekshaw was inaccurate. So, scholarly consensus does not exist to present Manekshaw's account as fact. We can attribute it to Manekshaw, which is what I did in my edit.
• (Slightly off-topic, Manekshaw has also claimed that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir signed the accession in Srinagar, on 25 October 1947, the day before the generally accepted date. This is not accepted by scholars, and I have removed that claim from the Kashmir conflict article. Raghavan, by the way, says that it was likely signed on 27 October, the day after the generally accepted date.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. We cannot base inclusion of info at WP on your personal opinion of a certain source. It is rather strange that you consider a single source heavier than Six others (adding three more below) which say exactly the same thing (that IManekshaw's account ot the meeting held in April 1971 is true and accurate).

You are also wrong when you say 'multiple source contradict each other', no sir, the sources provided by me are not contradicting each , rather they are complimenting each other very clearly.

Here's another book source: "Rivers of Silence: Disaster on River Nam Ka Chu, 1962 and the Dash to Dhaka Across River Meghna During 1971" by Ashok Kalyan Verma who says:

After the initial flurry of activity during March, April, extending into May, the pattern slowly started taking shape that would lead to the eventual war in the winter months. Mercifully, the Indian top military leadership had remained cool and had not plunged blindly into the turmoil in East Pakistan. In fact it is now known that the Chief. General Manekshaw,. on 28 April 1971, resisted the suggestion of an immediate military response by the Indian Cabinet to react to the grave security threat posed by the refugee influx. His reasoning as to why it would not be prudent to rush into things spoke of a clear understanding in his mind as to what was involved. It is now well known that it led to systematic preparation and planning of many months in which almost all aspects of civil-military coordination and time-consuming build-up of troops and resources was carried out.

Subir Bhaumik in his "Insurgent Crossfire: North-East India" writes:

It is now known that the Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, realizing the opportunity provided by the developments in East Pakistan and disturbed by the massive refugee burden, consulted the three defense service chiefs in late April 1971 about the viability of an immediate Indian military intervention in East Pakistan. The military chiefs, notably General Sam Manekshaw, turned it down on three grounds...(the three reasons can be seen in the given source).

Another source says:

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had called an urgent cabinet meeting. Those present were Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram, Agriculture Minister Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Finance Minister Y B Chauhan, External Affairs Minister Sardar Swaran Singh, and a special invitee, army chief Gen. Sam Manekshaw."What are you doing?" a fuming Mrs Gandhi asked the general, throwing reports of refugee influx from East Pakistan send by the West Bengal Chief Minister, Siddartha Shankar Ray, on the table, Manekshaw recalled. "I want you to walk into East Pakistan," Mrs Gandhi told her army chief. "That means war," the general said. "I don't mind if it is war," was Mrs Gandhi's characteristic reply.

So it is clear from the above that (atleast) six independent and reliable sources are vouching for Manekshaw against your lone source. You also know that at WP we dont include just factual info, rather info which can be verified by multiple reliable sources.

Just to talk about one of my sources i.e. The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide by Gary J. Bass. The book was:

• Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in General Nonfiction
• Winner of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Arthur Ross Book Award
• Winner of the Lionel Gelber Prize for Best Foreign Affairs Book
• Winner of the Asia Society’s Bernard Schwartz Book Award
• Winner of the Cundill Prize for Historical Literature
• Winner of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations’ Robert H. Ferrell Book Prize
• Winner of the Ramnath Goenka Award in India
• It was also a New York Times and Washington Post notable book of the year
• and best book of the year in The Economist, Financial Times, The New Republic, and Kirkus Reviews

I'll be clarifying the reliability of other sources too shortly. Now, this make me wonder if we should pay any heed to Raghavan.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, so I was able to get my hand on Raghavan's book. Now, when Raghavan writes rather claim in his book that The received wisdom is that Prime Minister Gandhi actually wanted to undertake a military intervention in April 1971 and that she was dissuaded by the army chief, General S. H. F. J. “Sam” Manekshaw. This is perhaps the most tenacious of all myths about the 1971 crisis, he sourced this claim to two sources namely Pupul Jayakar who (surprisingly) was not a scholar/historian, but rather a cultural activist, who worked for the revival of traditional and village arts, handlooms, and handicrafts in India, and organised Indian arts festivals! She had served with Indira Gandhi as her Cultural Adviser, and then happen to write Indira Gandhi's biography; "Indira Gandhi: A Biography (New Delhi: Penguin, 1995)" which Raghavan quotes in his book! Now, I seriously fail to find anything scholarly about this author who has been taken as a source by Raghavan to claim that Indira Gandhi's desire for a military intervention in April 1971 was a myth! Seriously, a cultural artist writing about history will likely be the least wanted on the scholarly-list, no?

The second source which Raghavan quotes to support his claim is Depinder Singh [and his book; "Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw: Soldiering with Dignity (Dehradun: Natraj, 2002)"] who was the military assistant to Sam Manekshaw from 1969-73 during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Now, keeping your own objection to "military sources" who per your understanding above "only know military side of the story" and thus must be unreliable, I wonder how could Raghavan or for that matter you keeping on pushing something which is so poorly and unreliably sourced as opposed to numerous rather countless sources which contradicts Raghavan's/your claim?!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, TripWire. It is not our job to decide whether the scholarly sources are right or wrong, or how they arrive at their conclusions. The Harvard University Press has already done that, and the numerous scholarly reviews have attested to its quality. Here is one, for example:

Indian scholar Srinath Raghavan’s admirable study of the events surrounding Bangladesh’s bloody birth adds a great deal to our understanding of that major milestone in post-imperialist South Asian history. Admirably researched, remarkably dispassionate, and both wide- and deep-ranging in its coverage, it is diplomatic history at its best.

If you want to critique the Raghavan book, Wikipedia is not the place for it. In any case, your analysis is wrong. The entire chapter (3. "The Neighbor") is devoted to India's internal deliberations and it has 91 citations.

As for Bass, I have never denied that he is a reliable source. So I don't see what point you are making by listing the awards his book has received. Quite a few book reviews discuss both the books, and they are equally complimentary of both of them. It seems to me that Raghavan has a considerable edge in analysing the Indian policy because he is Indian and he had access to a considerable number of documents which were unknown/inaccessible to Bass. But I am not going to push this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:"It is not our job to decide whether the scholarly sources are right or wrong". Sure, but that's what you were precisely doing when you were pushing your source by saying that it was 'right' while 'wronging' my sources. The entire focus of your discussion have been to prove that Raghavan is right where all the other books which disagree with him are wrong. Now, all I have done is to challenge your source using the same criteria you used to judge mine, why differ now? Moreover, the chapter (3. "The Neighbor") surely has 91 citations, but we are talking about the text that you have been using and quoting to put your point across, and hence I have referred to those citations in the chapter which supports the text you have quoted, and I have shown that Raghavan's research is weak as compared to the other sources which contradicts him, especially when he gets info/based his research on unreliable sources which have no credibility to write or research history. Neither do Raghavan's sources have a scholarly background. So, Raghavan is unsuitable to be considered here. Overall, he may be reliable, but the info that you want to use from his book is not based on reliable search, rather it is borrowed from individuals who lack credibility, and hence the sourced text becomes doubtful too, especially when numerous other independents and reliable sources are contradicting Raghavan's research. And when you say Raghavan had access to "considerable number of documents", I dont deny that, but then the portion of his book that you want to use is not based on these documents but rather on hearsay.

I think we need someone else's opinion on this as we might run into a circle. BTW, I have a few more book sources which counter Raghavan's info. Can add them if you want. It will bring the count to 10 independent and reliable sources against one (doubtful) source of yours.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 05:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588350_3/Indo-Pakistani_Wars.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508210258/http://orbat.com:80/site/cimh/navy/kills(1971)-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills(1971)-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609180906/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Games.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Games.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312092440/http://www.defencejournal.com:80/2000/oct/yaqub.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/oct/yaqub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, add one more movie about the war - The Ghazi Attack. --Toshishiro (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

IS:

Ground operations

Indian T-55 tanks on their way to Dhaka. Before the start of the war, the Indian Army was extremely well organized on both front and had enjoyed the significant numerical superiority over Pakistan Army.:596[124] The Indian Army extraordinary war performance at both front brought up the prestige, confidence, and dignity that it had lost during the war with China in 1962.[125]

SHOULD BE:

Ground operations

Indian T-55 tanks on their way to Dhaka. Before the start of the war, the Indian Army was extremely well organized on both fronts and had enjoyed a significant numerical superiority over the Pakistan Army.:596[124] The Indian Army's extraordinary war performance at both fronts brought up the prestige, confidence, and dignity that it had lost during the war with China in 1962.[125] 75.171.154.53 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 05:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301204938/http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/irfc/ezine/Trans2Trimph/chapters/39_transfer%20of%20ships1.htm to http://www.irfc-nausena.nic.in/irfc/ezine/Trans2Trimph/chapters/39_transfer%20of%20ships1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vif2_project/indo_pak_war_1971.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/oct/yaqub.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812211253/http://www.shaheedfoundation.org/nishanehaider.asp to http://www.shaheedfoundation.org/nishanehaider.asp

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319212243/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/navy_1971_kills.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/navy_1971_kills.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128104709/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588350_3/Indo-Pakistani_Wars.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101020717/http://www.defencejournal.com/may98/fightergap2.htm to http://defencejournal.com/may98/fightergap2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614014904/http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A109&Pg=6 to http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A109&Pg=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929182428/http://nda.nic.in/html/nda-martyrs.html to http://nda.nic.in/html/nda-martyrs.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

In the first paragraph of the section on China and Iran, the last sentence reads - "China disagreed with President Yahya Khan's sought of military option and criticized to East Pakistani Awami League's politicians ties with India that would harmed the nation's unity." It should read - "China disagreed with President Yahya Khan's consideration of military options and criticized East Pakistani Awami League politicians' ties with India that he believed, would harm the nation's unity." Gireeshgprasad (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Under the content no.11 of title name 'Dramatization' an update is required of adding another Bollywood film of name The Ghazi Attack a 2017 war film made by Sankalp Reddy. Film based on the mysterious sinking of a pakistani submarine PNS Ghazi during 1971 Indo-Pak war. Shivang Pratap Singh (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Shivang

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

Grammatical Fix

Currently:

Lasting just 13 days, it is one of the shortest wars in history.

Should be:

Lasting just 13 days, it was one of the shortest wars in history.

LPW22 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: It is still one of the shortest wars in the history. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 18:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

spelling: Dhaka or Dacca

Both spellings are being used. Is there a reason why Dacca is used in some cases? (Do different countries spell it differently?) Should it be made consistent? RJFJR (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Dhaka should be used everywhere. Dacca is colonial name. Knightplex (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the name was changed from Dacca to Dhaka in 1983, although the source cited is not the strongest. The official change may have coincided with the creation of Dhaka City Corporation in 1983. Judging from Google Ngrams it may have been proposed a three or four years earlier. In early 1983, The New York Times thought it useful to mention that the name had been changed, suggesting that the change was then recent.[6][7]

In any case, the English spelling was Dacca during the period covered by this article, so it makes sense to use Dacca in this historical context. The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which discuss when to use modern names and when not to. The right answer really depends on the dominate spelling in recent scholarship about this historical period. Either way, it should be made consistent within the article, with exceptions for titles, direct quotations, and ,depending on date of publication, place of publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588350_3/Indo-Pakistani_Wars.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://storyofpakistan.com/the-hamood-ur-rahman-commission-repor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830105254/http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/aviation-art/syed-hussaini/trauma-and-reconstruction.php to http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/aviation-art/syed-hussaini/trauma-and-reconstruction.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001074252/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/1971/Dec16/index.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/1971/Dec16/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725050939/http://www.bdsdf.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3072 to http://www.bdsdf.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213035604/http://indianarmy.nic.in/armajop.htm to http://indianarmy.nic.in/armajop.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906140622/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/1971/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/1971/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20061015201345/http://www.vidyasoft.com/interest/war/war71.html to http://www.vidyasoft.com/interest/war/war71.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020233036/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1971_kills_rev1.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1971_kills_rev1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234047/http://frontierindia.net/op-cactus-lilly-19-infantry-division-in-1971/ to http://frontierindia.net/op-cactus-lilly-19-infantry-division-in-1971/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926233932/http://frontierindia.net/all-for-a-bottle-of-scotch/ to http://frontierindia.net/all-for-a-bottle-of-scotch/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

land exchange

article doesnt have any info on land exchange .. for example village of turtuk fell into indian hands.. what were the others ? dd pakistan keep any indian land ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.128.253 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Redundant citations in lead for uncontroversial statements

Cohen and the Los Angeles Times, where cited in the lead, establish only that India supported the Bengali separatists and that war started between India and Pakistan on 3 December 1971. Neither statement is about a living person, a direct quote, or controversial or likely to be challenged. The lead summarizes the body, where the material is already cited. So I have removed from the lead the two redundant citations to Cohen and the Los Angeles Times per MOS:LEADCITE. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

US-Soviet Confrontation

The article says that the Soviet Navy dispatched a "submarine armed with nuclear missiles". But the cited reference says that the fleet had "nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles". The term "nuclear submarine" generally means a nuclear-POWERED submarine rather than one armed with nuclear missiles. I have searched the Indian Defense Review--which is the source for the cited article's information--and a variety of other sources and I can't find any original source for the claim that the sub was carrying nuclear weapons.

In fact, I can't even find a very reliable source for even the claim that the Soviet fleet had a nuclear-powered submarine. Most of the sources seemed to be based on hearsay. The one piece of direct evidence comes from an interview the Soviet commander gave to a Russian TV program, in which he describes having nuclear submarines (I believe the Russian phrase also refers to nuclear-powered submarines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2E_PpVUYw

Whether or not there was a standoff with nuclear weapons is a significant issue. I'm researching nuclear close calls, so if there is compelling evidence the submarine was armed with nuclear weapons, I would very much like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert de Neufville (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

The title of this article should be "Liberation War of Bangladesh-1971" and also in the each and every line of this article. 182.48.77.118 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Readers can find that topic at Bangladesh Liberation War. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 April 2018

The word "review" is misspelled as "reviw" reference #166. Please correct it - it can easily be found by searching the page for 'reviw'. I checked the reference, and it's spelled correctly there. (Yes, I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team, and I nitpick - apologies for that). Thanks.

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Ira Leviton (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'll start this review. I've made some minor tweaks to the "background section" please have a look at and see if they are ok! auntieruth (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Update: this has been onhold since late June. I've asked the nominator to review some suggested changes and haven't heard back. auntieruth (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've tweaked and streamlined a couple of sections. Please review.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I'm going to ask for a second opinion on reliability of sources....I've looked at them, but am not completely familiar with the literature. One in particular comes from a blog, another is self published (sometimes an issue), and a third has a dead link.

   I agree with your concerns RE some of the sourcing. I had an exchange with the nominator in relation to another article they had nominated for GA. It clearly needed a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. It transpired that they hadn't been involved in preparing it for GA and was unlikely to be able to do the work required and the article was quick-failed. I think the same should happen here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Auntieruth55: Sorry, I should have pinged you when I made the comment above (and the one below). Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I need another opinion on this.

   It is my understanding that topics relating to conflicts between India and Pakistan are contentious areas to edit in so particular care needs to be taken to ensure NPOV. I think you are right to be wary of some sources as per my comment above. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: