Talk:Bangladesh genocide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NEEDS CITATION

Immediately after the war, the topic of putting the war criminals to trial arose. Just as the war ended, Bangladeshi prime minister Tajuddin Ahmed admitted to Professor Anisuzzaman that the trial of the alleged Pakistani military personnel may not be possible because of pressures from the U.S., and that neither India nor the Soviet Union were interested in seeing a trial.

I MEAN COME ON THATS A HUGE BIT OF INFO UNVERIFIED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.180 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs a Brushup

I think many Wikipedian articles related to Bangladesh Liberation History need to be brushed up. When there are so many evidences of mass killing, rape and torture what is the point in mentioning that Pakistan denies the attrocities? There are plenty of links given at end. It seems that the links describe the whole story better than the wikipedian articles. 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)~~

Someone needs to expand on the Motivations section. There were major economic and political motivations behind the war that are not given. Only motivation for the war given is eradication of Hindu or Indian influences.Mehzabin ahmed 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

An image was added to the added to the Genocides in history article with the caption "A Pakistan Army soldier checks a Bengali man's penis for circumcision, to confirm if he is a muslim. Such racial and religious cleansing was regular during 1971 in East Pakistan." It has now been deleted Image:Genocide.JPG according to the log because it was a none free image not used for seven days.

The Rationale given for placing it on Wikipedia was

Currently there are no images in Wikipedia on the genocide images and this image is one of the 2 images used under a fair use license. It shows a Bengali being subjected to religious/racial cleansing by looking at his penis to know if he is a muslim (circumcised) or a hindu. Due to lack of any free alternatives to such an images I request that this be kept under fair use to convey the message.

Licensing: {{fairuse}} both added by user:Idleguy. It came from this source http://iweb.tntech.edu/fhossain/Genocide.html --PBS 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, fhossain's site does not own the photo either. --Ragib 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Title

Resolved

(Title stays. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

The title seems a bit strange. Technically, war crimes were committed before victory established the identity of Bangladesh. Perhaps the title "Atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War" would be better. All searches which obviously point to this topic can be redirected. Soletrane (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Bangladesh celebrates its Independence Day on 26 March, and it was recognized by a few countries weeks before the victory day (16 December). Besides, when discussing history it is fairly common to refer to a geographic entity by its current name (thus History of England would include events of an age long before the Angles were established there). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a differences Soletrane between what constitutes a crime under international law and under domestic law. If the (western) Pakistan Government did not recognise that a civil war was in progress then under domestic law some of the crimes mentioned may not have been crimes under the domestic laws of the (western) Pakistan Government. For example the execution of men who had been fighting the Government my well have been legal under Pakistan martial law regulations, but if the war was a civil war this would be a breach of the Third Geneva Convention (i.e. a war crime). This is a very tricky area of law and so the naming of the article is of some significance and is not necessarily wrong. But at a practical level it is simpler if this article carries a name similar to that of the main article which is either the Bangladesh War of Independence or the Bangladesh Liberation War --PBS (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The name is currently Bangladesh Liberation War per argument presented in Bangladesh Liberation War/nomenclature justification. But, the atrocities in the article are put in in accordance to the Geneva Convention and wide international agreement. There, of course, can be a Pakistani POV incorporated... wait a minute, which part of the name are we discussing? Soletrane seems to have problem with the mention of Bangladesh, while Philip seems to have something say about the atrocities (which, indeed, is a bit of POV, but widely accepted all over the world). Having Bangladesh in the title seems to be quite okay. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is currently under "Bangladesh Liberation War" because the last requested move did not have a consensus to do so, not because of the nomenclature justification article! --PBS (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But, Soletrane apparently wasn't discussing that, and no article can have an either/or title. Using titles that still is just a proposal as an option to the actual title may not be very desirable. Bringing up an issue with the name another article while discussing another article's title without relevance may be even less desirable. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They are the two common names that the conflict is known by and both of them involve the use of the word Bangladesh. So even if the war article is moved to a more neutral name it is still going to have the word Bangladesh in the title. --PBS (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing the nomenclature of another article here, are we? Let's use *this* talk page for things related to *this article*. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the name of this article which in my opinion is tied to the name of the War article. --PBS (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the original comment was about the use of "Bangladesh" in the title to indicate an event that happened before Bangladesh achieved victory, and the proposal was to put it in a time frame (i.e. Bangladesh Liberation War). As it is common practice to use the current name of a geographic entity to describe events of the past (i.e. before the name came into use), there is no need for that debate. And, therefore, there is no relevance of starting a debate on whether the other article be called Bangladesh War of Independence. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not starting a debate I was stating a fact, it is you who started the debate with "The name is currently Bangladesh Liberation War per argument presented in Bangladesh Liberation War/nomenclature justification". Further many wars are described by location or participants names at the time the event took place, for example the Gallic Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PBS (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"... the main article which is either the Bangladesh War of Independence or the Bangladesh Liberation War" - was that a fact? An article with two titles? And, stating the current title was starting a debate? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Much as I would like to bicker all day. I suspect we both have better things to do so lets drop it. --PBS (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thankyouverymuch. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I see there's some degree of disagreement on the title. For now, I'll simply try to think up all the potential phrases that might be searched for to find information of these atrocities, and redirect them to this one. Of all the things people would look for to find this article, I think "1971 Bangladesh Atrocities" would be less likely. Soletrane (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please not that it is "atrocities" and "Atrocities" that is because it is a descriptive page name, see WP:MOS#Article titles and the following section "First sentences". --PBS (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

War Crimes Trials

The government of Bangladesh has announced today that they will file war crimes charges against collaborators who are still in Bangladesh, including members of Jamaat Islaami. Should this information be added to the article or should we wait until the trials actually start? Inf fg (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If this news has been published in media, the you can cite those sources and mention that the BD govt. intends to try them. Shovon (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead in section

This is not the standard format, is much too long and includes material that is redundant with other sections. I corrected the format problem once, which was reverted, and haven't attempted to reduce the size, since I would like to see some consensus on the need for change. Please comment. Vontrotta (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of keeping it short and succinct. But, you version essentially removed everything but the references made to US sources. That may have been going way over the top. It read:

The 1971 Bangladesh atrocities refers to the widespread violations of human rights in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) perpetrated by the Pakistan Army with support from local political and religious militias beginning with the start of Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971 and continuing throughout the Bangladesh Liberation War. The complete chronology of events as reported to Nixon administration can be found on Department of State website.[1] Telegrams from Nixon archives released by United States Department of State detail some of the atrocities

It I'm not grossly mistaken, that was totally unacceptable. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the objection now to the prior edits - an unintentional error on my part. If that is the only problem, then I'll start to work on the format and length.Vontrotta (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

neutrality tag

I've removed it since it seems it was added without any reason whatsoever--Reahad (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Atrocities or Genocide

Hi, I would like to say that this article should be called 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, unless definitions have changed for Genocide. A number of 200,000 to 300,000 is perhaps more that any others genocides since WW II. Please do the necessary changes because it is difficult to correct title as it is in the first place. Thanks.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the atrocities that killed 200,000 or more be called a genocide?Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

well, I did it, after 9 months no one said anything on the jubject. Nizzan Cohen (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I moved it back. Please, initiate a serious discussion before you move it back again. I am sure other editors will be interested to take part in the discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My home Wikipedia is the Hebrew one, and my english ayn't so good. I'l be thenkfull to you if you will help my to open the discussion in the en wiki community.Nizzan Cohen (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I promise to do that.Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48048.pdf
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:48:09, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=10&filename=9223&filetype=html
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:48:12, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:48:46, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.newagebd.com/2005/dec/15/murdered/murdered.html
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:49:11, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:11:06, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:50:02, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://books.google.com/?id=j1YnAAAACAAJ}}
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:50:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.rayimmigration.com.au/pressrelease.htm
  • In Genocides in history on 2011-03-19 20:32:23, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:50:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://warcrimetrialwatch.org/
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-05-25 04:10:49, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1971 Bangladesh atrocities on 2011-06-06 14:51:46, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight

[1] Given to a recent book which it`s own reference to the BBC says is a controversial. WP:UNDUE is quite clear, it does not belong in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Title is one sided

I purpose that the title of this page is changed to Casualties in Bangladesh or something. No court in the whole world has ever convicted a single Pakistani soldier either in presence or in absentia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyriser10 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So what? Are you say there were no atrocities? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a civil war,both sides suffered losses 119.154.9.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

What matters is what the various Reliable Sources say. Do they describe them as atrocities? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To call it civil war is blatant Pakistani bias. Bangladesh declared independence on 26th March, hours after the Pakistan Army launched Operation Searchlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.221.0.2 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What to call this article?

A controversial move/edit was made to this article on 28 February 2013 and I can't find any discussion in WP to substantiate that there was a consensus. The previous discussion (above and old) seemed to have no consensus. I want to know what the procedure was behind this move. See difference [2]

Prior to this diff, the article was called "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" but now it's called "1971 Bangladesh genocide". Perhaps a more neutral term would be "1971 Bangladesh war crimes". Until this issue is resolved, I'm questioning the neutrality of this article.Crtew (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this question on the neutrality noticeboard at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Article_title:_Bangladesh_atrocities.2C_genocide.2C_or_war_crimes.3F Crtew (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice: Closure of this section: It was suggested that this discussion be moved to a "REQUESTED MOVE" process. Please see this thread below.Crtew (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move March 2013 (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Technical Close under WP:RM/TR: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)" I was alerted to this move by a posting on my talk page by user:Crtew. --PBS (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

---

1971 Bangladesh genocide → 1971 Bangladesh war crimes – Request per WP:NDESC and WP:POVTITLE. The article was moved yesterday to the present title without any discussion and against evidence from prior discussions about a lack of consensus. The focus on atrocities and genocide is POV, especially given the heightened emotional context of the current, ongoing Bangladeshi trials. While the current process has been misnamed as the International Crimes Tribunal when it's a domestic judicial body, it uses "crimes" and so this is the common name per WP policy. War crimes is the more descriptive term at this time. At some point in history this might change. However, the present title is inflammatory given the current context and should be moved to the more neutral "war crimes" at this point. Crtew (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME All academic sources call this a genocide. And the fact is there is a consensus among academics that this was a genocide. These academic sources all state that there is a consensus that this was a genocide. And per POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" AS the majority of academic sources call this a genocide then this title is the "a single common name" Also WP:DESC "However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)" Which also tells us that genocide is perfectly acceptable in an article title. As is also proven by Armenian GenocideGenocides in historyBosnian GenocideRwandan Genocide and a host of others. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. From reading the article, the title is accurate. There are not multiple war crimes described, but only one war crime, genocide. Apteva (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support as genocide is a debated term even among legal scholars and there has been historical disagreement of what events have - and haven't constituted genocide. Those events that have been recognised as genocide at an international level are here - and Bangladesh is not among them. There has not been a single international prosecution body against war crimes in Bangladesh - as opposed to these examples. I repeat - no international body, the United Nations or any other, at least as of yet, has legally been involved in the prosecution process at the highest jurisdictional level. We do have the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) but that is a domestic court with no affiliations with international legal bodies. Thus, calling it "genocide' when it has not been labelled and acted upon as such by international bodies would be tantamount to bias and misrepresentation. We must try to be objective. War crimes is an appropriate title and fits the context. Mar4d (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources to support your argument or just Wikipedia articles? I have given academic sources which say this is a genocide and that this is not debated. But here are a few more. Century of Genocide Routledge. Teaching About Genocide: Issues, Approaches, and Resources IAP. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction Routledge. To say it is not a genocide is ignoring all academic sources. And the UN was involved in helping to set up the ICT. Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 144 Darkness Shines (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We also have Genocide Watch Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Change to Genocide in Bangladesh Liberation War or 1971 East Pakistan genocide, perhaps including the word allegations, merging coverage of Jahir Raihan into his article and merging material about allegations of non-genocidal war crimes into Bangladesh Liberation War. During the war, wasn't the area still known as East Pakistan? The article tries to cover the disappearance of Jahir Raihan in 1972, after the end of the war. If the title is changed to mention "war crimes," it would make sense to use the name of the war.

"There has not been a single international prosecution body against war crimes in Bangladesh" isn't a reason for adding "war crimes" to the title. It's commonplace for crimes not to be prosecuted, and yet we call them crimes just the same.

The word "genocide" appears 28 times in the body of the article; the words "crime" or "criminal," 21 times—the article tries to cover both, but dwells more on genocide. Removing the word from the title seems worse than pointless because genocide is the main topic of the article.

Calling someone a war criminal may be less pejorative than saying she's committed genocide, but it's hardly the sort of non-judgmental wording that WP:NDESC recommends. If someone were to write about "War crimes of Rybec" I would be unhappy about both the title and the presumed content. Try this with your username or real name to see how it feels! —rybec 21:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(inserted) Comment. The original title of the article was 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, which I think covers the subject amply. War crime is a legal term and should be used is so flippant a manner, while genocide probably doesn't cover the scope of the article as it stands. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(duplicated from NPOV/N) Checking Questia -- "genocide" and "crime" are quite infrequently applied to the civilian deaths during the Bangladesh independence war. The article can contain the terms ascribed to those using them, but the title should be as absolutely neutral in tenor as possible. I suggest Civilian deaths during the 1971 Bangladesh independence war. Similar results for Highbeam, with "genocide" being very far down the list, and "war crime" also fairly rare. See also [3]. I suggest this Columbia University Press book is likely RS for asseeting, in fact, that "genocide" etc. are used by " ' the 'liberation literature' of Bangladesh ... in blissful disregard of the need to provide substantiation." This is a farirly strong statement in a reliable source, and suggests that Wikipedia ought not use such terms in any title. User:Collect 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - the previous move should be reverted. No change should be made to articles as contentious as this without discussion and agreement first. As stated in WP:MOVE, it should have been done by posting a request here. Imc (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not seeing a POV issue with the title. Designating this event a genocide is neither a new or even a contested designation; Genocide in Bangladesh was published in 1972, Crimes against Humanity in Bangladesh in 1973, Genocide in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh 1984, Genocide in Bangladesh by Jahan in 1997, Sharlach analysis in 2000, Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh: a case of genocide in 2002. Whether this should be classified a genocide is specifically covered in one section of Donald Beachler's 2007 The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh. To my knowledge, Wardatul Akmam is the only one to question whether this was a genocide and even then only from the position of its relation to competing concepts of the term not to dispute that there was a genocide.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Stop: This should be an automatic reversion by an administrator, as the move was clearly controversial. The correct procedure is to revert, and then a move discussion can be opened to deal with any proposed move to the new title. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop: I agree with Skinsmoke. There are two issues that I brought up in the nomination process that are confusing the vote. The first was the process by which the move took place -- which I thought was too controversial at the time and also too controversial to revert (and I am not an administrator and so it was not something I wanted to do). The second issue would be to find the most neutral title for the article under Wikipedia's policy. My proposal above, I see now, may not be the best as other options have now been proposed.Crtew (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with Crtew and Mar4d. The term "International" in "International crimes Tribunal" used for judging those crimes, which are taken as Crime all over the world (i.e. Genocide, rape, war crime.. etc.). That doesn't mean that international body is essential here. Another point is in this tribunal any foreign lawyer can't take part directly on court, as they are not permitted to do that according to Bangladesh Bar Council rule. but they can advice any one, and that's why defense team employed some advisers (i.e. Toby Cadman). Another point is, who said to sacrifice the actual incident for the sake of POV? Does the description of genocide contradicts with POV? I don't think so.--Freemesm (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose According to the Rome Statute, 1948 [4] (see Genocide), the crime of genocide can be defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: • Killing members of the group (In this case, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus [5], [6] and the selective killing of Awami League supporters, please see the video how the Pakistani military killed the students of Dhaka University: [7])• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (Do not need to put any reference for this one, the others will suffice)• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (Please see [8], and watch the CBS News video: [9])• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (Please watch the rape victims interviews taken by NBC: [10])• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Charges against Sayeedee was one of the examples - where he was charged with forcefully converting Hindu people into Islam: [11])During the war of 1971, the Pakistani army and their collaborators committed each and every one of the crimes listed above (please take some time to look at the references carefully). The international media labelled it as 'genocide' long before you and I started to argue about it (Please see report by Anthony Mascarenhas [12], Video report by NBC: [13], Video news of Massacre in villages near Dhaka by ABC: [14]). 1971 Bangladesh genocide' is the most suitable title for this article. Anything less than a 'genocide' will be a complete distortion of the truth. Period. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The Pakistani occupation army and their collaborators targeted the Hindus as a group, which aconstitute an act of genocide as per Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Hundreds of mass killing sites all over Bangladesh bear testimony to that. Contemporary observers like Mascarenhas, Rummel and Blood have already termed the killings as genocide. Removal of the word genocide would be nothing short of denial. And as we know, denial is the final stage of genocide, a sure indication of further brutalities, which is exactly what is happening in Bangladesh today. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree with the POV issue. If the word genocide is replaced any other words, it will not do justice to the atrocities. Also, by the term international it's not referring to any international trial. It actually means crimes that are internationally accepted. ICT is running the trial based on International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. It clearly states An Act to provide for the detention, prosecution and punishment of persons for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law. The word genocide is also mentioned in the act. --Shantonu.hossain (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Much of the above support for the "genocide" title seems to be based on claims about "doing justice", avoiding "denial" and saying, "Well, this is the kind of thing that happened, isn't that genocide"? Neither should count for anything, as WP is not here to right wrongs or call things what one or two people think they should be called based on their own analysis. The bottom line is this: is this the usual name for these events and does WP:COMMONNAME, for this topic, override the presumption that we do not title things with intrinsically POV judgments such as "massacre", "genocide" etc. Apologies to those with strong or invested opinions on this topic – which, I might add, appears to be several people, based on the comments above – if that comes across a little cold or semantic, but that's the way it works. As far as I am aware, the naming record is mixed and not altogether clear. And on the procedural point, it should not have been simply moved to the genocide title without discussion. It should immediately be put back to the old title, and an RM discussion opened on moving it to the current one. We are working back to front here. N-HH talk/edits 12:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with N-HH. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to have discussed any change of title before moving the page. Now, it should be moved back until the discussion is over. Also, would like to know if Crtew is proposing changing the title from "atrocities" to "war crimes", and if so, why? Applesandapples (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe thousands upon thousands books call it Bangladesh genocide or 1971 genocide or 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Why can't it be so on the Wikiepdia? Applying the principle of WP:TITLE here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The articles about the Shahbag Square protests often use the word "genocide" but I also see the terms "war crimes", "crimes against humanity", "atrocities", and one article called it a "reign of terror" with a link to a telegram from the U.S. embassy which used the phrase. —rybec 23:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How one group of people in one set of events in one corner of earth uses a certain term is no reason for an encyclopedia to change an article title, especially if the title has solid academic background. The very nomination is about that one group of people, not an encyclopedia, and therefore, is hardly relevant. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, this was the original name for this article, all I did was move it back. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, We can all look back at history DS. When this article started in 2005 there was no bold faced title and it seems to have developed quite a while like this in a confused manner. Nothing was proposed as a title at the top until this diff in 2006 and it was atrocities.[15] So what are you trying to say DS? Crtew (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It appears I made a mistake in thinking that 1971 Bangladesh genocide was the original title. The article started as 1971 Bangladesh massacres in December 2005. Was moved to 1971 Bangladesh atrocities by PBS in March 2006. It was then moved to 1971 Bangladesh genocide in early January 2012 and moved, almost immediately, back to 1971 Bangladesh atrocities (by Aditya Kabir), where it stayed till it was moved by Darkness Shines. Had I read the history correctly, I would have moved it back to 1971 Bangladesh atrocities but it's too late now unless there is general agreement that that title is ok. For the record, the stable title is 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. --regentspark (comment) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be immediately reverted back to atrocities as Skinsmoke suggested above with the STOP vote. It was an improper move.Crtew (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

RP, are you sure? Article created on 12:57, 7 December 2005 and it is titled 1971 Bangladesh genocide. And given the obvious consensus is to keep it at this name I see no reason to move it back at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The title shown in historical versions is the current one. You have to dig through the logs to see what the article title at any point of time actually was. The logs are spread out over massacres, atrocities and genocide, so its not easy but I pretty sure I'vr constructed the timeline accurately (this time). --regentspark (comment) 21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that, but as I said, the obvious consensus here is that the current title is just fine. I will also go with the academic sources, Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim. ed. Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17 "What is generally accepted to have been a genocide" D'Costa, Bina (1). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 76. "Genocide had occurred - A claim that scholars today back up" Trim, D. J. B. (12). Hew Strachan, Sibylle Scheipers. ed. The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. p. 159. "What is widely regarded as a genocide". That is good enough for me, and most certainly for Wikipedia. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's up to the discussion (I have no opinion on it). Because we have an ongoing discussion, I'm not going to move the article back now - unless there is clear consensus to do so. However, do note that an argument to move it back to the stable title will carry a lot of weight if there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a good title. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but when I informed you of what DS had done you told me that I would have to create this forum. I didn't and still don't think he should have been able to do this move.Crtew (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I messed up and I'm sorry. Anyway, I've dropped a note here since whatever I do now will probably be wrong. Let's see what happens. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I bring sources which say that this was a genocide, you bring "I do not like what an editor has done" Let us see, Dictionary of genocide: A-L "A calculated policy of genocide" Pioneers of Genocide Studies "The genocide in Bangladesh" Warning Signs of Genocide: An Anthropological Perspective Bangladesh How many do you need before you realize that the sources all say this was a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

regents, I'm not blaming you. I couldn't find the original title myself -- and still don't know how you got that -- because the article's text didn't have it. The current title is posted up top and it's easy to spot that and think that was the orginal. But I'm just saying, nobody should have expected to get away with a move this controversial.Crtew (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have closed this poll because I have reverted the page under the provisions WP:RM/TR "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." If a move is to be made from the current name then because it is (obviously) a "Requesting controversial [or] potentially controversial move" it should be done as a WP:RM.

So Crtew (or anyone else) if you still want to move the article to 1971 Bangladesh war crimes )or any other article title) please initiate a new WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I liked Collect's suggestion and some other comments about why my alternative was not such a good idea. Collect suggested: "Civilian deaths during the 1971 Bangladesh independence war" (see above). However, even though I find this more neutral, I think it reads awkwardly. How about "1971 Bangladesh civilian deaths"? Crtew (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the article covers more than just deaths of civilians. See also: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 16#Request for comment II and Talk:1971 Bangladesh atrocities/Archive 1#Title (BTW it is "atrocities" and not "Atrocities" because it is a descriptive not a proper name) -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the pointers to relevant history here, with which you are very familiar. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Crtew here. The article, as is, is not in proper shape for Wikipedia, includes allegations about living persons which require far stronger sourcing that is provided, and appears to also violate WP:NPOV. No group of editos can choose to abrogate these policies on any article. Collect (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ICT

While looking for something else on the The Crimes of War Education Project website (they have removed their original page definition of genocide page cited in a different article) I came across a web page about this topic a search of their site throws up several others. See: http://www.crimesofwar.org/?s=Bangladesh+genocide

The articles may be of use as background or for citied information as some of them that are authored by barristers involved in international law and can be considered reliable although they may well carry a specific POV.

--PBS (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A section about the 1971 war refugees

As I have stated in the 'Requested move' section that the title should be changed to '1971 Bangladesh genocide', I think it is very relevant to add a section about the refugees during the 1971 liberation war of Bangladesh. According to a number of sources, about 10 million refugees entered India as a result of the mass killing and atrocities by the Pakistani military and their collaborators in the East wing [16]. The systematic killing and extermination of the minorities and supporters of liberation movement caused these people to leave their homeland, and inflicted terrible sufferings for the refugees in the camps of India. A detailed description can be found in Smriti O Kotha 1971 by Anjali Lahiri (Memories and stories, in Bengali) (Also please see [17]). All these were a consequence of 'genocide' committed by the rulers of the West wing of Pakistan and the pro-Pakistan Bengalis (Razakars). I propose to include a section about the refugees of 1971 war, which will briefly describe how the event relates to the genocide, how many people left East Pakistan during the war (and why), how they suffered and how many died in the refugee camps. Vortex Shedding (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move March 2013 (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

1971 Bangladesh atrocities → 1971 Bangladesh genocide – There was an obvious consensus that 1971 Bangladesh genocide is the correct title in the discussion which was closed above. Also Per WP:COMMONNAME All academic sources call this a genocide. And the fact is there is a consensus among academics that this was a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per all the reasons given before, as in all the academic sources which say this was a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  As nominator your are not meant to support your own nomination (see WP:RM) so please strike out your support. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The searches DS did, do not enclose the key phrases in double quotes. If they are redone on double quotes then the numbers fall dramatically. Take for example a book search on "1971 Genocide" on the first page returned by my Google search five of the 10 books returned are by the same author "Samuel Totten". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBS (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 March 2013

• Comment it can be quite difficult to prove a negative, and so finding authoritative sources that explicitly state it was not a genocide can be difficult. It is sometimes possible to do it another way. Here is an example: In the famous paragraph 24 of the Whitaker Report (United Nations) of 1985, Bangladesh is absent while two other early 1970s events are listed. If this was a clear cut case of genocide where there was wide agreement one one expect it to be listed there. Further if someone is going to state that the events that took place in Bangladesh were a genocide, then they have to have defined what they mean by genocide, otherwise one is not comparing like with like, as the word has scores of meanings (see genocide definitions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBS (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 March 2013

• Comment' if we are going to rename this article then all the atrocities that are not part of the genocide (however that is defined) should be removed from this article. For example mass rape is a war crime and a crime against humanity it is not genocide. Is that what the proposer of this rename (Darkness Shines) wants? -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I already wrote an article on the mass rapes, so a few lines here more than suffice. There are an obvious consensus per the academic sources I presented above which say this. Perhaps you have not seen them? Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim. ed. Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17 "What is generally accepted to have been a genocide" D'Costa, Bina (1). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 76. "Genocide had occurred - A claim that scholars today back up" Trim, D. J. B. (12). Hew Strachan, Sibylle Scheipers. ed. The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. p. 159. "What is widely regarded as a genocide". Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The three sources you provided in the previous RM were there:

• Trim, D. J. B.; Simms, Brendan (2011). "Towards a history of Humanitarian Intervetion". In Simms, Brendan; Trim, D. J. B. (eds.). Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-521-19027-5.: "which ended in what is generally accepted to have been a genocide in what was then East Pakistan and is now ... Bangladesh".
• D'Costa, Bina (1). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 76. ISBN 978-0415565660. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help): "mass killings and claims from Bangladesh that genocide occured — a claim that scholars today back up (Kuper 1981, Tottan, 2004; Rummel, 1998; Kiernan, 2007)".
• Trim, D. J. B. (12). "Humanitarian Intervention". In Strachan, Hew; Scheipers, Sibylle (eds.). The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0199596737. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help): "what is widely regarded as a genocide against the people of what is now Bangladesh".

Two of these are from the same author who makes an assertion without any evidence to back it up. The other lists four academics of varying quality. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the term "genocide" was used to describe the subject by three books and two authors only. Here are a few more books:

• Andreopoulos, George J. (1997). Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812216165. "Movements for independence, for secession, are most likely to evoke an extreme response from the state to the threat of a diminution in territory and power. Notable examples are the West Pakistan genocidal assault on East Pakistan (Bangladesh)..."
• Jones, Adam (2010). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 9780203846964. "The slaughter and other atrocities were ended by one of the rare instances of sucessful outside intervention in genocide."
• Schabas, William (2000). Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521787901. - a book with a very comprehensive literature on legal matters
• Worcester, Kent (2002). Violence and Politics: Globalization's Paradox. Routledge. ISBN 9780415931113. - a whole chapter dedicated to the Bangladesh genocide with ample historical explanation
• Travis, Hannibal (2013). Ethnonationalism, Genocide, and the United Nations. Routledge. ISBN 9780415531252. "Even in less sprawling nations in terms of land area, there were countless victims of genocide and crimes against humanity, fueled by global financing and organized mass murder, in Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh..."
• Quigley, John B. (2006). Genocide Convention. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 9780754680291. - a comprehensive account on the failure of Bangladesh in trying Pakistanis for genocide
• Kiernan, Ben (2008). Blood and Soil: Modern Genocide 1500-2000. Melbourne Univ. Publishing. ISBN 9780522854770. "In some ways these mass killings of a political opposition movement pre-figured the genocide in Bangladesh five years later."
• Jacobs, Steven L. (2009). Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739135891. "The 1971 genocide is a tragic example."
• Cooper, Allan D. (2009). The Geography of Genocide. University Press of America. ISBN 9780761840978. "The weapons used in the genocide were provided by the United States..."

There are more, hundreds more, but I hope this much would be enough for now to address the requirements of WP:TITLE. especially of WP:COMMONNAME. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. It is fairly safe to assume that the nomination claim that, "All academic sources call this a genocide" is inaccurate. Some, if not many, certainly do; but as to whether most do, and hence we can override WP:TITLE's aversion to such prima facie NPOV article names, can we see some evidence please? I don't have the time to look into this in any depth so won't swing one way or the other, but anyone proposing the change has to provide some detailed, pretty un-rebuttable information on the point (which also needs to be more than a couple of cited examples of such usage). N-HH talk/edits 11:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did? BTW mass rape is a weapon of war used for ethnic cleansing, which is also genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The International court of Justice has ruled that ethnic cleansing is not genocide (although all genocide is ethnic cleansing): See the the review of the ICJ Bosnian Genocide Case by the European Court of Human Rights in their judgement Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007. So from the reply you have given above ("I already wrote an article on the mass rapes, so a few lines here more than suffice") you agree that the proposed move will change the scope of the article and that non genocide atrocities should be removed from it. Why do you want to do that? -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote my comment before your reply to PBS above but only posted it afterwards due to an edit conflict (as you can see, they were posted two minutes apart). Anyway, as per my post, I do not dispute the term is used, and quite widely; but we need more than a couple of examples of use. You're going to have to provide a pretty comprehensive dossier on use, not simply go looking for and link to sources, however respectable, that happen to chime with your preference. The problem is that issues like these are so heavily politicised, and both the facts and interpretation disputed, and we need to be very careful before, effectively, endorsing such a loaded word as genocide in the title of an encyclopedia entry. (Btw I agree with the point that there is understood to be a relationship between mass rape and usual conceptions of genocide and was going to say as much under PBS's comment). N-HH talk/edits 11:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

PJB, Simms & Trim cite sources in their book for the claims made. D'Costa also cites other academics. These are very good sources. And there are no shortage of academic sources which state as fact that this was a genocide. "The democide by the Pakistan regime was almost entirely carried out in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971" Rummel Journal of Peace Research. Genocide Ball p99 "The genocide that took place over nine months in 1971" Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam pp142-143 The Geography of Genocide p168. Really how many do you guys need? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument opposing the "genocide" title seems to depend on two issues: (1) this is sensitive, and (2) there is no universal agreement on the term. While both are true, they are hardly reason enough to oppose the title. Even the fact that the earth goes round the sun is not "universally" accepted (see the article on geocentrism), while dozens of similarly sensitive articles are very much a part of the Wikipedia (see Category:Murderers, Category:Rapists or even Category:Terrorism). The only other argument has a flavor of - "it doesn't agree to WP:COMMONNAME, because enough academic evidence has not been furnished". For that one, more academic references can definitely be furnished. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) The nomination above is false and POV. DS states that there was an "obvious consensus" in previous discussion. Not true. There were at least two different issues being discussed and so no clear trend can be assumed from the material. 2) DS's nomination is also loose with the genocide literature as mentioned by others. 3) The title chosen, above all, should be neutral as per WP policies on titles unless there is an overwhelming consensus about COMMON NAME. There is enough doubt about that consensus. 4) I'm also concerned now about the focus of the present article per PBS's above comment because the name seems to be more important in the nomination than whether the material in the article actually fits the definition. Comments about changing the content with a few lines to make it fit is again putting the cart before the horse. Crtew (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus per common name, an academic one per the sources provided. I am of the opinion that there was a consensus in the previous discussion, and not just by head counts but by policy based arguments, which you vote here is sorely lacking in. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, who says that an article on a genocide need not mention other atrocities? See Medical experiments in the article on The Holocaust. Or Rape as weapon of war section in Rwandan Genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Also 20th Century Genocides "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."[18] So there we have it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For Crtew's accusations I find:

• Terming a nomination "false" serves only one purpose and that is to violate the Wikipedia behavioral guideline of no personal attack. In instances like this, when it comes from an editor well versed in the ways of the Wikipedia, it becomes really difficult to assume good faith.
• Rather the accusation that "DS's nomination is also loose with the genocide literature" is rather false, as no mention of any literature whatsoever was made in the nomination.
• The "concern" about "the focus" of "the present article" (which "as is, is not in proper shape for Wikipedia" as per Collect, who is the only person consistently in alignment with Crtew; see [19] and [20]) looks to be quite misplaced. That argument is invalidated by both Wikipedia conventions (see the Holocaust article or the ICTR article) or the academic discussions (see my post below).

As for the "consensus", I see, in the previous discussion, a lot of arguments in favor of the "genocide" title, and three oppositions - Mar4d thinks calling it a genocide is a domestic thing (which is not the case), Collect thinks it is not termed so by international academic circles (which is not the case again), and RegentsPark who believes in a more stable title (i.e. 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, a title I helped to protect to some extent in the past). PBS and Skinsmoke had procedural objections, not clearly taking any any position. Therefore, it is entirely possible to assume that a consensus was reached. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of scope. If this is about genocide then it should only mention those aspects of the atrocities that made up the genocide, otherwise non experts are likely to think that the other atrocities make up part of the genocide. (this is linked to your sources to date that do not define what a genocide is or what were the aspects of the events of 1971 constitute genocide). In general a better way to handle this issue (as has been done in some other articles) were there is a significant divergence of opinion (not between editors but between reliable sources) is to leave the name as a descriptive neutral one -- such as it currently is -- then have sections where all the facts and then list interpretation of those facts including those who think it was or was not a genocide. The problem with genocide, as was found in the ICTY genocide trials, it is easy to prove that a crime against humanity has occurred (The majority of those accused of genocide were found to be guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes even when they were found not guilty of genocide) because physical evidence is left behind as are eye witnesses, but it is very hard to prove the "intent to destroy" and "in part" is also open to interpretation. This means that often, while agreeing that crime against humanity or war crimes took place and who were the perpetrators, experts will disagree if those perpetrators committed genocide (It is further complication occurs when academics like Tony Barta roll their own definition and then use it to label an act a genocide), because in a general article like this one ends up with different genocide definitions all being used as if there is only one universal definition. -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is possible to hold the argument of "non experts are likely to think that the other atrocities make up part of the genocide", it is important to note that the only "other atrocity" included in the scope, besides mass murder and systematic killing, is rape/violence against women. That tytpe of atrocity is already included in the definition for genocide across academic and legal bodies. Check, for instance:

• Kelly Dawn Askin, War Crimes Against Women, Prosecution in International War Crimes Tribunals, Martinus Nijhoff, 19917
• Beverley Allen, Rape, Warfere, the Hidden Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Coratia, University of Minnesota Press, 1996
• Catherine A Mackinnon, "Rape, Genocide and Women's Human Rights", Harvard Women Law Journal (1994; 17)
• Yolanda S Wu, "Genocidal Rape in Bosnia: Redress in United States Courts Under the Alien Tort Claims Act", UCLA Women's Law Journal (19913; 4)

Even ICTR a war crimes court formed by United Nations Security Council in Resolution 955 acknowledged rape as a part of genocidal activities. Therefore, I see no problem in naming the article with the term "genocide". As for the other argument of a lack of universally accepted legal definition, I can only state the total invalidity of reasoning. There is almost no universal acceptance of any legal term, including murder and rape. Therefore, it is only advisable to follow mainstream academic and journalistic approaches in naming, especially it has some amount of legal acceptability. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Considering the mass killings of 3 million people not a Genocide would be saying that the Sun rises in the west. I strongly support the title change from the current one to Genocide. Getauvi (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP naming policy does not call for articles to be titled based on what individual editors decide something ought to be called. N-HH talk/edits 10:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The Guinness Book of Records lists killings in Bangladesh in `71 as one of the top 5 genocides in the 20th century. (Guinness Book of Records 2007, pp 118-119)Genocides in history Dmshafi (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP naming policy does not call for pages to be titled simply following whatever the Guinness Book of Records says. N-HH talk/edits 10:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Guinness Book of records was not about what WP naming policy is or about, rather another example that this incident was indeed a genocide and as such cited by another media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.99.121 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: As I have voted in the previous discussion, I strongly support genocide in the title. The international media in 1971 (e.g. Sunday Times, Washington Post, New York Times) have published a number of articles on the mass killing by Pakistan army and their local collaborators in Bangladesh. I recommend the people who are not ready to accept that as genocide to read the articles. --Shantonu.hossain (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP naming policy does not call for articles to be titled based on what individual editors decide or are prepared to accept something ought to be called or how it ought to be described, or even on what a couple of newspaper articles might call something. N-HH talk/edits 10:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they are decided on what majority of reliable sources say, so genocide is the appropriate title per my previous comment 20th Century Genocides "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."[21] Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that principle you have stated, which is what I am trying to tell the contributor here and above – who have not cited any of the sources you have, or referred to your citing of them. (On the separate point of the sources you have cited, that is better responded to at that point, but here goes: WP:POVTITLE has a pretty high bar and asks for the name "Bangladesh genocide" to have become pretty much a near universally used, proper noun. I have not come down for or against the title personally, but will challenge those who make no efforts to justify it by WP policy and reference to multiple, serious sources; you are at least trying, but I'm still not convinced you've shown what is needed. Simply demonstrating that some, or even many, reputable and authoritative sources have talked about genocide, and/or claimed that it is acknowledged as a genocide, does not reach that high bar). N-HH talk/edits 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support:I think there is no doubt about a genocide was happen in then west Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Any one can search the information from old news archive. Just searching on google is not a good idea to get information of a 41 years old genocide. Aditya provided a large number of resources above about this genocide. Secondly, If this article renamed to 1971 Bangladesh genocide, then it's area should be shrink to only genocide matters, other details info of war criminal (i.e. rape, looting, torturing etc.) should be moved from here to other article. That's not a big deal, already there is an article named Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Then whats the problem to rename this article to 1971 Bangladesh genocide?--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re N-HH, I honestly do not see how the burden has not been met here, I have an academic source which says there is an academic consensus that this was a genocide, along with three other academic sources which say much the same thing. I really do not see what else I can do, POV title says "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal" So if we have an academic consensus as proven by my sources then the proposed title does not violate policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How about one of the worlds leading authorities on genocide Paul R. Bartrop, currently the director for the Center for Judaic, Holocaust, and Genocide Studies A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide p335 "the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971" Darkness Shines (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this article talks about the killing of opposition party people, both political and military in the then East Pakistan in 1971, it talks about rape of 200,000 women and murder of 3,000,000 people in cold blood for as a part of ethnic cleansing, pre-panned killing of thousands of intellectuals professors, journalists, doctors, artists, engineers, writers, targeting minority hindu people and killing male, raping female... all these fall under the definition of genocide as noted by some of previous responses. I do think that some of the sections should be reduced, like the war crimes trial attempts. Other than that, IMO genocide is the correct word for this article. About POV, I think by changing the title to 1971 Bangladesh Genocide we are merely stating the facts. Genocide is what happened in 1971 in Bangladesh, and the title should read Genocide, as simple as that. Thanks ..... Onimesh (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support According to the Rome Statute, 1948 [22] (see Genocide), the crime of genocide can be defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: • Killing members of the group (In this case, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus [23], [24] and the selective killing of Awami League supporters, please see the video how the Pakistani military killed the students of Dhaka University: [25])• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (Do not need to put any reference for this one, the others will suffice)• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (Please see [26], and watch the CBS News video: [27])• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (Please watch the rape victims interviews taken by NBC: [28])• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Charges against Sayeedee was one of the examples - where he was charged with forcefully converting Hindu people into Islam: [29]) During the war of 1971, the Pakistani army and their collaborators systematically committed each and every one of the crimes listed above to ethnically cleanse the Hindus and the supporters of a certain political party (please take some time to look at the references carefully). So, by definition, these crimes fall in the category of Genocide. The international media labelled it as 'genocide' long before you and I started to argue about it (Please see report by Anthony Mascarenhas [30], Video report by NBC: [31], Video news of Massacre in villages near Dhaka by ABC: [32]). 1971 Bangladesh genocide is the most suitable title for this article as per recognizability, naturalness and consistency of WP:Article titles (please see Rwanda genocide, Bosnian genocide and Genocides in history). Vortex Shedding (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that, "The extremely serious nature of the crime of genocide, along with the terrible reputation it creates, and potential repercussions that may come against a nation as a result of committing it, ensures that whenever genocide is charged, there will be parties that attempt to avoid or divert blame" (see Genocide denial). Therefore, there will be always some people to reduce the degree of atrocities by naming this form of crime with anything (such as 'War crimes' or 'Crimes against humanity') other than 'genocide'. And I can clearly see some of them here too. Vortex Shedding (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support There is a consensus among academics, in particular those that study this event, that this event was a genocide. The resources most cited when discussing this event do classify it as a genocide. Thse include: Genocide in Bangladesh (1972), Crimes against Humanity in Bangladesh (1973), Genocide in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh (1984), Genocide in Bangladesh (Jahan, 1997), Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh: a case of genocide (2002). To my knowledge a paper by Wardatul Akmam is the only one to question whether this was a genocide and even then only from the position of its relation to competing concepts and scope of the term, not to dispute that there was a genocide.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article coverage is better reflected by the broader term "atrocities" than by the narrower "genocide", even if the second is a more popular buzzword. Yes, both academics and journalists are drawn to buzzwords for titles. We seek to be more NPOV. Not everything atrocious needs to be ascribed to to a motivation of "deliberate and systematic destruction", even if it arguably can be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This has run long enough, the consensus is obvious, so if no actual objections can be given I will move the page in 24hrs. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Let someone impartial do the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Already asked an admin to do it. But the consensus is obvious to move. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We know this is a pretty backlogged process. Have you considered closing some of the other obvious backlogged RMs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can give it a go Darkness Shines (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We should not wait infinite time to get opinion from more people. I think you can do it DS.--FreemesM ^(talk) 10:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.