Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Soviet Union support to India was official

The top wikitable states that Soviet Union unofficially supported India. But actually, it was official that Soviets supported India because...

• India and Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation which stated that Soviet Union would take Countermeasures if India was invaded.
• Soviet Union vetoed the US bill for a ceasefire.

Therefore, I feel that the support of USSR for India must be made official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Officially and unofficially may not be good words to describe USSR's involvement in the war, if Russia's involvement is considered official support I doubt same is the case with US and China's involvement in the war. --SMS ^Talk 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

400,000 figure women raped , hindu

I have gone through the source its useless, their was no mention of such high numbers of rape, in that case, 10cr muslim in bangladesh and 50 lacs muslim in west pakistan(CAPTURED BY INDIAN ARMY) would have been cut into pieces, and their women would have been raped similar to the 1947 when over 5lac muslim women were raped.

I have to add the figures of muslim women captured by HINDU-SIKH forces and have to delete INDIAN ARMY. ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The source used does say up to 400000 women were raped, I have removed one source as it fails WP:RS the other by Bruce Riedel most certainly does support the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Link needed in the article

Can someone link the page List of massacres in Bangladesh in the article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.216 (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Do You Think War Was Necessary between India-Pak

War is never be a solution for mankind, History is evidence that every worrier must came to peaceful environment, So, It is better Not to fight, Issue can be resolved by sharing of dialog. One way always open even it seems every thing get close.

Keep Happy your self society and entire mankind

Jai Hind Jai Bharat

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilkumar25j (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Combatant and Result Change

A user has recently made a few changes to the infobox, mainly in the combatant, and results section, here. Please continue discussion here in support of your changes, and after the consensus is reached, you are welcome to restore. Faizan 15:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Faizan: The Government of East Pakistan in 1971 was a provincial martial law regime of the Pakistani state. It was the secessionist Provisional Government of Bangladesh, not the East Pakistan government, which was at war with Pakistan.--ArmanJ (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus here! It's a simple case of accuracy, the Mukti Bahini and the provisional govt were at war with Pakistan.--ArmanJ (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is needed for every disruptive change. Accuracy has to be proved. Faizan 08:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A provisional government cannot take part in a conflict itself. Actually it was the East Pakistanis who fought agsainst the West Pakistanis. Please note that "East Pakistan" was dissolved on 16th of December, by the official fall, and surrender. Faizan 08:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Faizan: It's ridiculous how you revert every legitimate edit you perceive to be hurting Pakistan's image. Not only is using the term East Pakistan is a blatant Pakistani POV, but in this particular case, it is wildly inaccurate because East Pakistan was not at war with Pakistan, but Bangladeshi secessionists.--ArmanJ (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:ArmanJ and wonder why among the commanders in the infobox General Osmani isn't listed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Faizan, primarily due to the fact that pakistan is fighting against bangaldeshi successionists, not fighting a war against East Pakistan. There were no such evidence of that. Prabash.Akmeemana 11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Who should be the combatant against Pakistan?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The combatant against West Pakistan, the modern day Pakistan in the infobox was East Pakistan, before 16 June 1971. That was altered by a user ArmanJ on 16th of June by these edits, and changed to Provisional Government of Bangladesh There have been discussion on that matter, but in vain. Therefore I have opted for an RfC. Faizan 07:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please see the section above "Combatant and Result Change", where the discussion referred to has taken place. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The question of dates seems very clear, the provisional government of Bangladesh was formed in mid April 1971, in response to the declaration of independence of East Pakistan made by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 26 March. The dates given on this page for the war are 3–16 December 1971. It follows that the combatant was the provisional government of Bangladesh. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the mention of 16th June 1971, what happened on that date that is relevant to this discussion? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your stance clearly as Support or Oppose. Or do mention which combatant it seems to you that should be in the box. The dicussion above yielded no consensus. Faizan 11:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 don't do changes without consensus. Consensus is required to "make a change", it is not that Consensus is required to "retain a change". Faizan 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) this is an RfC, Support and Oppose are not used. The "C" stands for "Comments. (2) you are abusing the RfC process by demanding that your edits must remain until the RfC process is concluded with "concensus", but consensus cannot be reached if any of the parties (apparently you in this case) are inflexible (3) I have already stated very clearly above, who I believe the combatant listed should be. Your remarks make little sense, and smack of bullying. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I cannot bully. As usual, people just "support" or "oppose". Faizan 12:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As per the comment below by an administrator, please opt for a combatant. Faizan 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To repeat myself at your insistence: "the Provisional Government of Bangladesh was formed in mid April 1971" and as stated above, I would wish to see the Provisional Government of Bangladesh listed as a combatant. M. A. G. Osmany should be listed as the commander of that combatant's army. From reading further down the comments on this page I wonder whether it is the government or the army that should be listed as combatant, which is purely a matter of Wikipedia policy. If policy dictates that the army should be listed rather than the government on whose behalf the army fights, then the Mukti Bahini would be my choice. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• East Pakistan. Since the war was part of the Bangladesh Liberation War which led to the creation of Bangladesh (in December 1971), Bangladesh, as a political entity, did not exist prior to the war's conclusion. As far as the rest of the world was concerned, until the end of the war the combatants were East Pakistan, West Pakistan and India. Whilst the declaration of independence may have been made earlier in the year, until the Instrument of Surrender was signed, Bangladesh was not a sovereign state - and therefore could not have been involved in the conflict as one. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And both of you, stop edit warring. The fact that I've commented here prevents me blocking either of you myself, but I will happily report you both to the edit warring noticeboard if this continues. Leave it alone until the RFC concludes - even if it's the wrong version for a few days, it's not the end of the world. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure Sir. My regrets. Faizan 14:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi provisional government. What matters here are the combatants, not the timing or status of Bangladesh's sovereignty. The war was between Pakistan (including the provincial East Pakistan military govt) and India allied with Bangladeshi secessionists. These secessionists can't be described as East Pakistanis, because they declared independence on March 26 not December, and should be under the banner of the Bangladesh government-in-exile and the Mukti Bahini liberation army.--ArmanJ (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable claims of this proof? --PrabashWhat? 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are combatants in the Bangladesh Liberation War and Operation Searchlight under the Bangladeshi secessionist banner then?--ArmanJ (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Mukti Bahini, which itself was under the command of the Provisional Government. It's chief, Colonel Osmani, was a member of the cabinet. --ArmanJ (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bangladesh should be the belligerent - The region used to be termed as Bangladesh/Bangla Desh, even before this war started. For example, The Concert for Bangladesh was not termed as The concert for East Pakistan. And technically, Bangladesh already had a government, a population which was supporting the liberation war and the geographical area, hence it can be implied that Bangladesh was already quite eligible to be recognized as a sovereign state.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• East Pakistan should remain the belligerent - War combatant is not dependent on the name of the region. For example, even in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, the combatants are Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India. You cannot rename a territory on the basis of a concert. East Pakistan existed until 16th of December, the Black one, after which it seceded. That's it. Faizan 07:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to stick to a Pakistani POV, you may know that East Pakistan officially existed until 1973, when Pakistan officially relinquished its claims to its former province. But Bangladesh was recognized by several countries well before December 16 1971. Using East Pakistan is a very biased Pakistani POV, not acceptable. --ArmanJ (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please bear it that a combatant should be a "sovereign state" in such Wars, Bangladesh was not a sovereign sate before 4 November 1972 , or its constitution. Faizan 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A state only needs to have a government, a population and a geographical area to be recognized as a sovereign state. Bangladesh already had all of them. Anyway, I guess Yunshui made a more valid point below, the combatants must be self-identified political groupings/nations as seen in other similar articles.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi provisional government (edit conflict) I'm changing my original position on this (original !vote above struck). My initial reading of the situation was based on the idea that the combatants should be nation-states, but on reflection, wars between political/ethnic/ideological entities are equally legitimate. In similar articles, we list the combatants as self-identified political groupings/nations, even if the nation-state that formed as a result of the conflict did not officially exist at the time: cf. American Revolutionary War, Irish War of Independence, Estonian War of Independence and in fact Bangladesh Liberation War itself. In addition, Template:Infobox military conflict (whilst it suggests that the "combatants" parameter should usually list the countries that took part) also mandates the listing of larger or smaller non-national groupings if doing so improves the reader's understanding. In this instance, I think the reader is better served by learning that the war was between Bangladesh and India on the one side and Pakistan on the other, rather than East Pakistan and India, and Pakistan. Sorry to have muddied the waters by switching positions. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually looking for this, thanks for pointing that.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• East Pakistan. I do not think this should be controversial. While calls for secession were ongoing, the facts on the ground were that the region was East Pakistan at that time in de facto and official terms. Based on this, the combatant listed should be East Pakistan. To give an example, there is a reason why the article Razakars (Pakistan) is not titled Razakars (Bangladesh). The state of Bangladesh did not exist as a sovereign country prior to the instrument of surrender and the end of the war. Mar4d (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• East Pakistan Moving to Bangaladesh Bangladesh should not be listed on the list of beligerents, bangaldesh at the time was not a sovereign country, and nor did they play a significant role. As this was was primarily India and Pakistan so in this case I have to support the idea of east Pakistan staying as beligerent. Thanks. Prabash.Akmeemana 11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually think now that Bangladesh's lack of nationhood during the war is an argument in favour of listing the Bangladeshi government-in-exile as a combatant, rather than East Pakistan. As I understand it, East Pakistan's "official" government during the war was the government of Pakistan itself (administered as a provincial state). If that's the case, then East Pakistan - as a state - would have been on the same side as Pakistan in the conflict. That's why I now think it makes more sense to list either the Mukti Bahini or the Provisional Government as the combatants. Following the precedent set by articles such as American Revolutionary War (where the Thirteen States are listed as the United States of America in the infobox, despite the fact that the USA did not exist until the end of that conflict), I would even be happy to see Bangladesh listed as a combatant, despite the fact that the state of Bangladesh didn't exist at the time. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But we have to take in consideration that the liberation of Bangladesh happened later and for the majority of the war it was East Pakistan, I completely agree with your statements but most of them occurred towards the end of the conflict so it would be wise to add them to the end result section of the info-box . Though it the statement is convincing I still am supporting the fact the East Pakistan should still be the main belligerent. Prabash.Akmeemana 13:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are going with the sovereignty status, Bangladesh was already quite eligible to be recognized as a sovereign state as it had a government, a population which was supporting the liberation war and the geographical area. Further, Bangladesh was also recognized by India as a sovereign state on 6 December. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really, they were under Pakistani control at the time, therefore not a sovereign country, throughout most of the war, East Pakistan was not bangladesh, it was liberated near the end of the war, therefore for the majority it was East Pakistan, changing it to Bangladesh would be misleading the topic, therefore best to keep East Pakistan. Prabash.Akmeemana 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a specific definition of sovereignty which quite supports the fact that Bangladesh was a sovereign state. It would be misleading if the combatant is termed as East Pakistan as the region already began to be known as Bangladesh before this war started, (The Concert for Bangladesh, Bangla Desh (song)). Moreover, as pointed out by Yunshui, you can go through other similar articles about independence wars in Wikipedia, they have kept the combatant as the self-identified political groupings/nations, which in this case is Bangladesh. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mukti Bahini. - The Indian armed forces fought the military of Pakistan, which was under the East Pakistan command, which operated out of the capital city of Dhaka. The provisional government was setup in India, and established themselves in Bangladesh after the war was won by India. It was the Mukti Bahini that was conducting regular and guerrilla warfare etc with the support of India. In any case, it shouldn't be East Pakistan, as during the war, it was under the rule of the Pakistani army, and was taking orders from West Pakistan. Just take a look at the current form of the infobox - the flag icons make it even more confusing, with the Pakistani flag on both sides of the conflict! Thanks. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anir1uph, I'd point out though that the Mukti Bahini was a unit of the provisional government and its chief was a member of the cabinet.--ArmanJ (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I completely agree that the provisional government is the best choice and is permitted by the text of Template:Infobox military conflict. That text seems somewhat unclear, however, and Mukti Bahini would also, I think, be compatible with what it says. I would consider it more logical, however, to list the government rather than the army as the combatant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sminthopsis84. But what i see as the problem is that Mukti Bahini was not the army created by the Provisional government of Bangladesh. It was created by active monetary and material support of India, both by her army and intelligence agencies. It is only later the Mukti Bahini and the govt. in exile of Bangladesh came together. One would need to cite references to show that the Mukti Bahini operated under the directives of the Provisional government. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The Mukti Bahini are sometimes referred to as civilian militias, in contrast to the Bangladesh forces which were under the command of General Osmani (who never relinquished command even when the Awami League signed an agreement with the Indian Army). However, there is a statement on the Mukti Bahini page "The armed forces as well as the paramilitary and civilian forces who fought alongside them for the liberation of Bangladesh are referred to as the Mukti Bahini". I don't see which of the citations on that page might support the statement. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ArmanJ. Col Osmany was the commander-in-chief (C-in-C) of Mukti Bahini, with the status of a cabinet minister. But was there any indication that he took orders from the Provisional government, or its head? As far as I know, he coordinated his operations with the Indian army's Eastern Command. Either ways, i am fine with either listing the Mukti Bahini force, or the Provisional government of Bangladesh. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Mukti Bahini took a formal shape in early April, when the provisional government was formed. Colonel Osmani was sworn in as C-in-C by the prov govt on 17 April. The Bangladesh Sector Commanders Conference, the main council of the Mukti Bahini, was formed in July and was headed by the prime minister, Tajuddin Ahmad. It ofcourse operated very independently in coordination with the Indians, but it was still nominally under the command of the provisional government.--ArmanJ (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As per the sources cited by Darkness Shines below, and the facts brought up by you, i will change my vote to support Provisional Government of Bangladesh. Thanks. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• East Pakistan: East Pakistan is the main belligerent in my opinion... It was a civil war (an OUP-published source says it so too) between East and West Pakistan and India intruded at the side of East Pakistan, making it a war between East Pakistan and India with West Pakistan. Bangladesh should not be involved in it, when the place, at the time was still East Pakistan.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It still is Wikipedia policy to classify combatants under their self-professed political/ideological identity. Even in the American civil war, it’s the Confederate States of America versus the United States of America, not the US versus the Southern US. Here, Bangladeshi secessionists should be under the flag of the Bangladeshi liberation movement.--ArmanJ (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bangladeshi provisional government per "arming of BanglaDesh forces began inside India, and covert official support was extended to the efforts of the BanglaDesh provisional government to organize a guerrilla war in East Pakistan" South Asian crisis: India, Pakistan, and Bangla Desh: a political and historical analysis of the 1971 war International Institute for Strategic Studies p45 "support was extended to the efforts of the BanglaDesh provisional government to organize a guerrilla war in East Pakistan" Studies in International Security Volume 17 P45 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of sources I was looking for. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anir1uph Bangladesh at this time was minuscule and the citations given in my opinion are not reliable, this statement makes me show more support for east pakistan being the belligerent, over a country that did nothing. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PBASH607, when you say "Bangldesh at this time..." you recognize its political existence during the war. Also, you are saying that International Institute for Strategic Studies (which conducts the Shangri-La Dialogue) is not a reliable source. You would surely have to give more on your reasons for that, other than just your opinion :P Also, i am unable to understand which country you are referring to when you say "over a country that did nothing". Can you explain why you lean towards keeping "East Pakistan" after reading two statements which say exactly the opposite? Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Anir1uph I am now moving to support Bangladesh, sources are significant. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes against the RfC results

There was an RfC held above a few threads on the same talk page, regarding the belligerent. The result clearly said: "This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to change the name of the combatant from East Pakistan to Provisional Government of Bangladesh." But as expected, again the combatant was altered by User:Kmzayeem, who changed it again to "Bangladesh", thus not respecting the RfC result. Faizan 14:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For serving a glance to User talk:Darkness Shines, where the discussion was held prior to this thread.

Can you have a look here? Is the RfC'sresult more important, or the "many votes"? Faizan14:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Just asked you because you recently gave a brilliant response to a conflict solving it. Faizan14:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Difficult call really, a few in the RFC were in favour of Bangladesh, others PGoB. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, what exactly do you find objectionable about the edit?Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC) The real objection of the RfC was against "Bangladesh" or "PGB" both. My preference was EP. When the result says "PGoB", is it not sufficient to get only PGoB on the spot. Is it not much compromise already? Now Will I go for another RfC to make sure it was not solely for "BG"? I cannot see more than 1 comment ins support of BG. Some have opted for MB, while most for the PGoB. Then, is it not justified? Even after having an RfC? Faizan 14:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) @Faizan: Well the results of the RFC should be honoured and this change brought to the talk page, I would recommend you start the discussion as soon as you have the chance.Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I have no chance left. Faizan 14:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) DS, is there any harm to have the belligerent like this → Bangladesh, the link is pointing towards the provisional government article but since the entity identifies themselves as Bangladesh, I have put the term.--Zayeem (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I wrote above that it seemed like a reasonable compromise, but you have to respect the outcome of the RFC. Post to the talk page and see what everyone has to say. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Well, I was not changing it totally, I kept the link of Provisional_Government_of_Bangladesh and also kept the term Bangladesh which would look like this → Bangladesh, as the entity was identifying itself as Bangladesh.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is appreciated. The RfC result gave a clear-cut obvious favour for Provisional Government of Bangladesh, that Changing of "Provisional Government of Bangladesh" to "Bangladesh", even if it redirects to it or links to "Provisional Government of Bangladesh" is then not acceptable. Faizan 14:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why you removed Saudi arabia from the combatant list and added it to "unofficial support" without making any explanation? You must know, that the navy of Saudi Arabia, United States had there full presence and contribution, in whole Naval war of this event. Read :- Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971 Capitals00 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Another violation of RfC results

The RfC results are being violated again. These edits by user Samudrakula clearly violate the RfC. Faizan 16:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, he's vandalizing, and remove the materials, just because he don't like them. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting/adding of US and Saudi Arabia as Belligerents in the infobox

This discussion has been moved from my Talkpage to here, by request. Feel free to add to it, it was the reason for the article protection mentioned above. Regards, Yintan  17:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It clearly mentions in the main article of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 that Saudi Arabia, and USA used there navy against India in the war. So it must be mentioned. Capitals00 (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it says the US sent ships to the Bay of Bengal, no more. See Task Force 74. The American Navy was never activily involved, it was just a "show of force", and the US government announced at the time that the task force may help evacuate Pakistani forces from East Pakistan following a ceasefire. And even that didn't happen. Your inclusion of the US in the opponents section suggests they were fighting alongside the Pakistani's. They weren't. See also this discussion.Yintan  13:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No one will believe on your made up theory. US's ships were involved, and they were fired by the Rajput INS(or something) which were indian ships.Capitals00 (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make this up, you capital double zero. Read the effing article. I quoted it. And "they were fired by the Rajput INS(or something)"? Or something? Sources, please. Your assumptions are not enough. Yintan  13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

PNS Ghazi <<- That page. And you just can't frequently removed the sourced stuff without making any discussion. Capitals00 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That sub hasn't got anything to do with Task Force 74, I thought this was a discussion, and you are the one who's jumping to unsourced conclusions, adding your views to articles, while ignoring previous discussions on the same subject. Nobody is denying the US Navy was in the Bay at the time, but that doesn't make them a participant in the war. Read, read, read. If anybody should be careful around here, it's you. Thanks. Yintan  13:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Indian Navy credits Ghazi's sinking to the destroyer INS Rajput; however, Pakistan's official sources state that "the submarine sank due to either an internal explosion or accidental detonation of mines being laid by the submarine off the Vishakapatnam harbour" with neutral sources confirming Rajput still in its port when the submarine sank." You read it? Capitals00 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So what? Like I wrote above, that sub has got NOTHING to do with the US Navy's Task Force 74 and is totally irrelevant to this discussion (or my "made up theory", as you call it). The US Navy was never used "against India". Plenty of sources for that. You seem to have trouble sticking to the point. I saw on your Talk page that a number of editors have already tried to explain sourcing and such to you, and you just don't (want to?) learn. I'm not going to repeat myself again, I'm sure another editor will at some point revert your edits. Again. By the way, does the fact that people keep warning and reverting you doesn't tell you anything? To be quite honest, I'm getting really bored with this. Yintan  14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Capital Ghazi was a Pakistani submarine and as Yintan said, has got nothing to do with US's involvement as a belligerent in that war. And as I already told you there is currently a consensus not to include US, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Belligerents section of the infobox at Bangladesh Liberation War article. Now the same consensus apply here per the WP:SNOW clause unless you bring a reliable source that says contrary to what already has been presented. Your repeated inability to understand the issue is more making it a disruption rather than a content dispute. If continued you can be sanctioned per WP:ARBIP. --SMS ^Talk 14:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Submarine that was given by US..

"During the 1971 conflict, Saudi Arabia loaned Pakistan naval hardware though, at the time, she herself was not well-stocked.", in book Sea power and the Indian Ocean: with special reference to India - Page 135. This one[1], As for US, well read "United States Navy Ships Transferred to the Pakistan Navy: Uss Harold J. Ellison, Uss Wiltsie, Uss Henderson, Uss Yuma, Pns Ghazi, Uss Diablo", whole 122 pages about it. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are SMS and myself talking to a wall, or something? You are so completely missing the point it's not even funny. I'm not wasting anymore time on you. Yintan  16:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess with this type of reasoning and sources to satisfy US and Saudi Arabia as "Belligerent", next would be that Pakistan listed as belligerent of Mukti Bahini, as the clothes they were wearing were made from the cotton grown in Pakistan.

Yintan can you please move this discussion to the article's talk page. Probably someone else may make him understand. --SMS ^Talk 16:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, moved it to the article's Talk. Signing off. Yintan  17:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So now that you have already given up, kindly stop reverting any of the edits, @SMS, same with you too. One more source, reads "it is known fact that the Saudi Arabia air force gave protection to Karachi Airport during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War." in the book "3 D Deceit, Duplicity and Dissimulation of U. S. Foreign Policy" ... - Page 227 Capitals00 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

None of us have reverted, so kindly stop accusing. Secondly the source you have is given is not a reliable source, being a WP:SPS. --SMS ^Talk 05:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

By which sense you are thinking that they are not reliable? Capitals00 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:SPS that I have already linked above to know more about that source's reliability. --SMS ^Talk 08:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

""the urgent need to augment patrol craft in East Pakistan was met by the transfer of two german built, Royal Saudi Arabian Navy fast patrol craft to the Pakistan Navy. These were commissioned as PNS SADAQAT and RIFAQAT." written at Page. 109 "Transition to Triumph: History of the Indian Navy, 1965-1975". Other sources are "Air & Space Power Journal fall 03" page. 66. "Indian Ocean and India's Security" page 130, reads "USA's gun boat diplomacy in Indo-Pak war(1971) through their air craft carrier "Enterprise" is now very well known fact in India." Book "War in the Indian Ocean", page 213 cites " Presence of US Admiral Elmo Zumwalt is also notable. Capitals00 (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your first source says that patrol crafts were given to Pakistan somewhere in between March - May 1971, and Pakistan commissioned those boats with some modification. Now this is again the same as PNS Ghazi. Acquiring weapons from a country doesn't make that country a belligerent in any war that is fought by the country who acquired the weapons. To add to that India had British bombers (Canberra), so will you add Britain as belligerent? same goes for many other weapon system and accessories acquired by both the countries.

Your second source merely mentions the 1971 war, US, India and Pakistan but doesn't say what you are trying to prove.

Both third and fourth sources again doesn't say that US was engaged in combat, to qualify her as a belligerent. --SMS ^Talk 09:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

First source proves the point, the presence of Saudi military is visible in the conflict, not only navy but also the airforce, they had protected the Karachi airport and transferred the military hardware to Pakistan, and so on, isn't that enough? US military presence is also documented. I don't see that why they can't be added, when it's a crucial military role, especially in whole navy war. OwnDealers (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Confirmed sock of Capitals00 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they were in the area. Nobody denies that. Read the thread. That doesn't make them active participants (belligerents) though. We've been through all this. Yintan  21:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Now time to read this source[2], highly notable Chuck Yeager, the brigadier general, his twin-engined Beechcraft liaison aircraft in this war was destroyed by India, copied from his page:-

"During the Indo-Pakistan War, Yeager reputedly provided an assessment that the Pakistani Army would be in New Delhi within a week. During the combat, Yeager's twin-engined Beechcraft liaison aircraft was destroyed in an Indian air raid on the Chaklala Airbase by then Lieutenant and later India's Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash. Yeager was reportedly incensed and demanded U.S. retaliation.", Now tell me. Isn't that enough? OwnDealers (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Confirmed sock of Capitals00 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not again please. I am not going to repeat everything, go through the discussion and you will find your answers. --SMS ^Talk 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

OwnDealers, you failed to spot the most important sentence in your source: "Chuck Yeager (...) lost his cool, and demanded retaliation against India. Mercifully, his antics were ignored by then US President Richard Nixon." Yes? Got it? Ignored. Okay, I'll give it one last shot: A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "one who wages war". Belligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war. Now please show verifiable, third party sources that show that the US and SA were in combat or at war with India during the Indo-Pakistani war. That's right, you can't. Because they weren't. They were in the area, yes, but they were not at war with India or Pakistan. Now can you guys finally learn to read? This is becoming ridiculous. Thanks. Yintan  21:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not that what you like or not. Who said that US and SA were involved in combat against Pakistan? For all time, mentioned country is India. It reads later on " For one particular American it went particularly bad. Chuck Yeager, the legendary test pilot and the first man to break the sound barrier, was dispatched by the US government to train Pakistani air force pilots but ended up as target practice for the Indian Air Force, and in the process kicked up a diplomatic storm in a war situation."

Question is, what a US air force militant is doing in pakistan, and operating the hardwares? What is US navy doing in the bay of bengal and transferring weapons, then this one[3], mentions that "The Pakistani military was being bolstered by aircraft from Jordan, Iran, Turkey and France. Moral and military support was amply provided by the US, China and the UK. Though not mentioned in the conversations here, the UAE sent in half a squadron of fighter aircraft and the Indonesians dispatched at least one naval vessel to fight alongside the Pakistani Navy. However, Russia’s entry thwarted a scenario that could have led to multiple pincer movements against India." While other 100s of sources confirm the military presence as well as military involvement of KSA and US, it becomes obvious. Capitals00 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your wrong, Yeager was in country to asses how well the US fighters that the Pakistanis had bought and were using performed against the Russian built aircraft the Indians were using. No other nation intervened nor fought in this conflict, so no other nation will be added to the infobox. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeager told on his facebook "When I was flying with Pakistan in the war with India, Pakistan had F-104s and India had MiG-21s. I told the Pakistanis: Stay away from the MiG-21s. Don’t try to turn with a MiG 21 in an F-104. They didn’t listen and sure enough when the F-104s jumped the MiG-21s and tangled with them, the F-104s got shot down." Isn't that involvement? Remembering that he's a military men of US after all. Then the presence of US navy in Bay of Bengal, even if it wasn't involved in the combat. What about the KSA's military involvement?[4]? Capitals00 (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the US Navy wasn't involved in combat. So, one more time, it's not a belligerent. And I've already answered your question about the reason for their presence at the very start of this thread and linked to the article where it's all explained. For fuck's sake, this is like arguing with an 8-year old. You ask questions, people give you answers that explain why you're wrong, and then you just ask the same questions again. And again. Yintan  11:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As it's noted already now, that US's navy involvement was indeed notable, by mutliple sources, the presence of the navy in the indian territory, transferring weapons to Pakistan, and the US brigradier telling pakistanis that what they should do, even getting the US military base in Pakistan blown. It proves enough. No matter what you like or you don't, it's not even the matter. Capitals00 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay then, I'll make it as simple as possible for you: Sending military advisers like Yeager doesn't make a country an active participant in a war, so the US is not a belligerent. That Yeager's parked plane was destroyed by an Indian bomber didn't make a difference, the US government ignored the incident and didn't retaliate, so, again, the US is not a belligerent. In short: Did the US (or SA) ever declare war during the Indo-Pakistani War? No, they didn't. They worked on the sides, yes, nobody denies that, but they didn't participate in the hostilities. So they're not belligerents. It's really very simple. Yintan  12:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Having military presence in the battle field, protecting the karachi airport like one mentioned, provoking other country(US) to send navy in bay of bengal the type of retaliation, is obviously a large contribution in war. A lot of links already site them as the military involvement, for Saudi Arabia, and US, mentioned in the given sources. Capitals00 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that my simple explanation was still too complicated for you. Unfortunately I can't dumb down any further, not without sliding down the evolutionary scale, so this is where I stop trying to communicate with you. It's obviously pointless. Cheers, Yintan  13:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there have been a lot of military conflicts, in which one would be called as "supporter" only if they have supplied/funded the campaign, for example Yom Kippur War, US is listed as "Supported by" for Israel, although US shares military presence in this war. Capitals00 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Can the references that were removed in this edit be re-added somewhere in the "Foreign reactions" section? The discussion here achieved consensus for removing the "supporters" from the info box, not from the article itself. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry on my part for completely removing those sources. I will certainly restore those once the article is unprotected and if anyone else doesn't by that time. --SMS ^Talk 05:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits by user Samudrakula

The RfC was meant for the article of Bangladesh Liberation War and even if it Applies here, is for the removal of 'United States' only. Why the Soviet Union and the Saudi Arabia are being removed? Can dare to start another RfC? Or the RfCs are for me only? I will revert the edits to the version agreed upon by the RfC, only accepting the removal of "US" from the infobox. Thanks. Faizan 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First bring a reliable source that says Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia were actively involved in combat. --SMS ^Talk 08:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Again Faizan! your so called Unofficially supported by: term has no place in current Infobox format. Saudi arabia and USA never declared war on India. Stop pushing other uninvolved nations too! Overall it was indian war against pakistan, don't try to make it global war. It seems that the RfCs are only for you, especially in this purpose. All previous RfC-results show that you were and are wrong. Samudrakula (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The infobox can have a variety of sub-headings. See the info box of these 2 featured articles: Mozambican War of Independence and Nagorno-Karabakh War. We can make the infobox however we want it. The only thing needed is consensus. There is no policy that says that the info box cannot have "Unofficial supporters", as the FAs show they can. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

SMS and Samudrakula are right, Faizan. Belligerents have declared war. The US (or SA or Russia) never declared war during this Indo-Pakistani War, so they simply can't be listed as belligerents. Unofficially or otherwise. They fail the definition, so to speak. By listing Russia and the US as opponents in the belligerents section, you're basically saying they declared war on eachother. That's, without any doubt, wrong. If you want to list them, I suggest to use another header for them, maybe "Military support" or something like that. Just a thought. Yintan  12:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

They are declared as the belligerents already, for the whole "Indo-Pakistan war of 1971".. But not "Bangladesh Liberation War". OwnDealers (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we know, that's what this whole discussion is about. What's your point? Yintan  14:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong, the short Indo-Pakistani war is part of the wider 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, which is the whole war. What applies there should apply here as well. You need a foreign reactions section, not a clogged up infobox. In the cases of Mozambique and Nagorno-Karabakh, foreign supporters overtly provided arms, training bases and finance. Neither the US or Soviet Union were engaged to such an extent here, and certainly not Saudi Arabia.--180.234.103.156 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not correct, because the location is different here, Saudi and US involvement is clear in pakistan region, arabian sea, not really in Bangladesh though. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Something like this (User:Smsarmad/Sandbox 3) would do for me. --SMS ^Talk 13:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, yes. Yintan  14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fine to me too. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If Saudi Arabia and Soviet Union were indeed not raised during that previous discussion, then I agree, it would be best to discuss before removing anything. Mar4d (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that US had no involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War at all, thus it was removed for that page, not for this page, because this page is about the whole war, thus it should be added back. Capitals00 (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

India and Pakistan went to war over Bangladesh's independence and this page is obviously part of the wider 1971 Bangladesh war.--180.234.103.156 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, 2 of these users have just messed it up with the whole page. Capitals00 (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN

There's an opinion from the DRN crew at the request Capitals00 filed there. Please read it. Yintan  22:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please add new info

Hi,

Would anyone add this new info regarding the US plans to attack the indian army if the war escalated. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-forces-had-orders-to-target-Indian-Army-in-1971/articleshow/10625404.cms?intenttarget=no

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.128.23 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nixon

A new book The Blood Telegram and Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh says that Nixon broke the law and sent weapons to Pakistan, I have the book on order, should make for some decent additions, I suggest others who edit the article get a hold of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Learn to write in complete sentences.

Most of this article is very hard to understand. Wasabi 101.170.127.240 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Paracommandos

Can a next section be added on the Paracommandos operations during the war?

Paracommandos Wikipedia says -1971 Indo-Pakistan War

Para Commandos were first deployed in combat in the 1971 Indo-Pak War where they performed gallantly. The 9 Para Cdo saw action through a daring raid on a Pakistani gun position at Mandhol. This raid resulted in the destruction of six 122mm guns belonging to the Pakistan Army's 172 Independent Battery. Apart from the destruction of guns, ammunition and other vital equipment, the Pakistanis suffered 37 killed, 41 wounded and a great loss of face. This raid, launched at a crucial time which enabled the 25th Infantry Division to progress their operations on Daruchian (a Pakistani occupied post), won the 9 Para Cdo the Battle Honour of Mandhol. In Bangla Desh 2 PARA BATTALION Group, which was a part of 50 (Independent) Parachute Brigade carried out India's first airborne assault operation to capture Poongli Bridge in Mymensingh District near Dacca. Subsequently they were the first unit to enter Dacca. For this action 2 PARA were given the Battle Honour of Poongli Bridge and Theater Honour Dacca.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.196.71 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Indian incursions in November

Following a query on the Miscellaneous Reference desk, it seems strange that there is no mention of Indian Army incursions into East Pakistan towards the end of November. We have an article; Battle of Garibpur, which was fought on 20-21 November 1971 between Indian Army units and the Pakistan Army inside East Pakistan. Even if (and it seems to me rather a big "if") this wasn't the actual start of the Indo-Pakistani War, it must at least be an important casus belli and ought to be included in the "India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War" or "India's official engagement with Pakistan" sections. Instead we have the statement: "The Indian military waited until December, when the drier ground would make for easier operations..." which is demonstrably untrue, unless I'm badly mistaken. I hesitate to alter the text without consultation, as this is obviously still an emotive subject. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The war was officially declared on 3rd Dec 1971. But we can obviously add this to the military engagements prior to the official declaration or the background. See Bangladesh Liberation War, which details military/guerrilla activities from March to November 1971. But I guess scholars consider the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 to have started in Dec 1971, and anything prior to that is part of the overall Liberation War (hence the two separate articles). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Short war?

Time and Pravda are not reliable sources for any claims about the relative duration of the war. Lots of wars were as short or shorter. 216.8.135.251 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

this article is rife with historical inaccuracies and may be edited or removed altogether 119.157.201.110 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Scorched Earth policy

The aggression on erstwhile East Pakistan, and General Tikka's orders don't constitute a scorched Earth policy do they? The orders were to eliminate the people - not of the built up infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.169 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian propaganda

HMS Eagle was nowhere near the war (Albion was en route for evacuation purposes but turned to Gan). The Brits were in Persian Gulf because of different events.

Some Russian admiral boasts about threatening the US and UK navies and this is taken as gospel. I love the bit about him threatening US battleships (WHAT?)

https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/5500010800.pdf

Somebody edit the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustek (talk • contribs) 13:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Do Watch the New Revert by a New User "Xtremedood"

@Lakun.patra:, @Myopia123:,@Chris the speller: - The sources given by "Xtremedood" has nothing to back up in it. It's just a printed data. He is giving a figure of 8000 deaths of Indian Soldiers Vs 3000 Pakistani deaths in 1971 war- a war where Pakistan was cut to two pieces and surrendered.Ghatus (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Source is a legitimate academic source. Your tone displays clear bias which should not be included in the article as it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Your aggressive language and threat to call in other editors shows a lack of intellectual impartiality.

The following source is legitimate and has been utilized by a variety of academic sources:

Small, Melvin; Singer, J. David, Resort to Arms : International and Civil Wars, Sage Publications.

On Page 94 of this book the figures are clearly as indicated in my last edit. The Standford source was a means of analyzing the initial source. The official Indian government claim is not neutral. It belongs in the Indians claims section. Xtremedood (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the printed paper you have given does NOT say where from it got its numbers or its source. Again I say, you are "giving a figure of 8000 deaths of Indian Soldiers Vs 3000 Pakistani deaths in 1971 war- a war where Pakistan was cut to two pieces and surrendered." No other sources verify this ridiculous SOURCELESS data. Tell the source of the numbers in the scanned paper you submitted or your self-declaration of "legitimate" source won't work.Ghatus (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for primary data. Similar thing may be said about the Indian government source or many other sources. The fact of the matter this is a great secondary source that is well-respected and has been utilized within a variety of academic articles. Xtremedood (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I repeat it for the third time-"Name the source" of the Number. Where is it written? From where is it collected? What is the authenticity? Where does any other source verify it? Ghatus (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus Your source is not reliable, therefore it is being reverted in favour of a more reliable source. If you have any problems take them to ANI. And stop making personal attacks in edit summaries. If you are irked by something go to an admin.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is extreme inaccuracy in this figure. The author has added no sources for his estimates, either include both or don't include any. 2nd option seems better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I did include both, however the Indian figure (3,843) was from a Government of India source and therefore should be in the Indian claims section. The (Melvin Small and Joel Singer) source is legitimate and has been utilized in a variety of more recent publications. It is a well-respected source. Sage Publications is a well-known publisher. The website is from Stanford. Wikipedia is not the place for this type of original research that you may be proposing. These figures (8,000 for India and 3,000 for Pakistan) should therefore remain. It is certainly better than the Government of India source (which is definitely not neutral). Xtremedood (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY cannot be applied on unchallenged official statistics, this statistic is supported by the independent sources as well, such as this.[5] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Modern sources like this[6] as given by another user(@OccultZone:) clearly indicate that Indian casualty was around 3800. I would wait for some time for this problem to solve, otherwise I will have to take other remedies in Wikipedia. This reverting war can not go on. The modern source also follows WP:RS. As I said, "the printed paper Xtremedood have given does NOT say where from it got its numbers or its source. Again I say, you are "giving a figure of 8000 deaths of Indian Soldiers Vs 3000 Pakistani deaths in 1971 war- a war where Pakistan was cut to two pieces and surrendered." No other sources verify this ridiculous SOURCELESS data".Ghatus (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The 3,843 figure was given by the Indian government according to the source. For the new source you have shown it is not independent. It is from the Indian Institute of Advanced Study which is affiliated with the Government of India. Therefore it may not be neutral. The 8,000 figure comes from a source that does not seem to be affiliated with the Government of India is anyway. Xtremedood (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Per clear consensus above, I have restored the previous parameter. Kindly don't change without having a reliable source for the information that you want to be added. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus above, there is only you and Ghatus. Xtremedood (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: Consensus is against you since 2 editors have disagreed. You are the only one, somehow trying to make it look like Pakistan had won the war and using an unreliable source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

2 against 1 is not a consensus, see WP:Consensus. You need to prove why you believe the source is not accurate. Simply calling it "wrong" or "outdated" is not sufficient. Also, the source provided above is associated with the gov't of India, and should be under the Indian Claims section. Also, I do not see any reference to how your Gov't of India source gets it number. Xtremedood (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood Please discuss the matter here before making any changes. The source provided by you is just an unreliable one liner. In future please gain consensus before editing any well sourced statement. Rahul^{Text me} 11:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert when there is not a consensus? Don't accuse me of something that you just did. As I have stated, the 3,843 figure comes from the Government of India and belongs on the Indian claims section. This is common sense. Otherwise why would there be that section. The only neutral and unofficial source that we have is the 8,000 and 3,000 figure that I have stated, also maybe the 9,000 figure as well (haven't checked that though). The 8,000 figure for India and the 3,000-9,000 figure for Pakistan is what adheres closest to Wikipedia's policies with the sources we have. Simply stating something is wrong and outdated does not suffice. Also, your source does not reference how it got the 3,843 figure. My source is academic and has been utilized by a variety of diverse academic sources. Xtremedood (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been over 3 weeks and none of you have been able to provide me with any reasons as to why the Indian Government number should not be in the Indian claims section. None of you have provided details as to why the third-party (non-governmental) source recommended by me is supposedly (according to you) not accurate or outdated. Clearly my source is more neutral than the Indian government source and it is academic in nature. Xtremedood (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Some useful info

may be added to the article from here: The Blood Telegram - Foreign Policy magazine Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In the article quote "Pakistan attacked at several places along India's western border with Pakistan, but the Indian army successfully held their positions". there is need of a citation. The wikipedia page: Battle of Longewala describes a conflict point where Indian forces repelled Pakistan incursions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.150.110 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Cost of war for India and Pakistan could be controlled by Biswajit Chatterjee from Amex--N2271 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit war

@Myopia123: Where does "Bangladesh" written in combatants? Its "Provisional Bangladesh Government". And you have to provide source for "Decisive Bangladesh Victory". Read WP:OR--Human  10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Xtremedood: Lets resolve this issue. At least comment once on this talk page, I know you can do it. --Human3015 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to want to give all credit to India, when in reality this is not deserved. Your recent revision shows immense bias [7]. Clearly the result stated in this edit [8] does not include "Bangladesh" but the Provisional Government of Bangladesh, which is listed as a combatant in the article. It should therefore be included. Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: I think you are confusing this article with Bangladesh liberation war, please do not confuse. This article is about war between India and Pakistan. So how you are making Bangladesh as victor in war between India-Pakistan? This is not article about liberation movement. In combatant also India is written first. --Human3015 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I am talking about the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Frankly, they are synonymous and should be combined, but nationalistic tendencies may hamper this. Also, in the Bangladesh Liberation War article it states: "Decisive Bangladeshi and Indian victory" in the results section, which includes both combatants. You have nothing to back up your claim that Bangladesh should not be included in the results section, when Bangladesh (not India) was the primary factor in the conflict in East Pakistan. This is what started the conflict. Xtremedood (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't combine both articles, there are two different articles for a reason. This article is about war between India and Pakistan as name of the article suggests, so primary winner or "main" winner will be either India or Pakistan. If you want to merge both articles then start such discussion with valid rationale. Moreover, as of now "India and its allies" has been written (which includes Provisional Bangladesh), but that too need consensus. --Human3015 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making a variety of fallacious statements and arguments. Firstly, it was not only Pakistan and India who were the combatants of the war. It was initially Pakistan and the Bengali rebels. The primary parties in this conflict are therefore Pakistan and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh. Therefore the Provisional Government of Bangladesh should be included in the results section. It is very simple. Nationalistic tendencies and your straw man statements do not justify exclusion of relevant materials. Xtremedood (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you are talking about Bangladeshi rebels against Pakistan is a starting of Bangladesh liberation war not starting of Indo-Pakistani war, I'm saying you again don't confuse the topic. Stop blaming others as nationalist when you yourself seems very nationalist. I'm just restoring NPOV version. Primary parties of conflict are Bangladesh and Pakistan in Bagladesh liberation war, not here. Please understand the topic. Read first para of this article.--Human3015 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC) --Human3015 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you make a straw man argument. I will make my statements very straight to the point, so maybe you will understand:

-The Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 was between 3–16 December 1971.

-The so called "Bangladesh Liberation War" was between 26 March – 16 December 1971.

-The Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 was a part of the so called "Bangladesh Liberation War".

-In the "Bangladesh Liberation War" article it states that it was both a Bangladesh and Indian victory.

-Since the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 was the concluding part of the so called "Bangladesh Liberation War", Bangladesh should obviously be included in the results section of the article.

It is very simple and it is logically sound that the Provisional Government of Bangladesh or simply Bangladesh should be included. Once again, nationalistic tendencies or trying to divert the issue with straw man statements are not excuses to remove this crucial piece of information. Xtremedood (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so as of now we have wrote "India and its allies". First you change/move article name from "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" to "Bangla-Pakistani War of 1971". Then your changes will be appropriate. --Human3015 (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is wiki, not Pakistaniarmipedia

• Three wiki sources say:

1. Lyon, Peter (2008). Conflict between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 166. ISBN 978-1-57607-712-2. Cite: India's decisive victory over Pakistan in the 1971 war and emergence of independent Bangladesh dramatically transformed the power balance of South Asia.
2. Kemp, Geoffrey (2010). The East Moves West India, China, and Asia's Growing Presence in the Middle East. Brookings Institution Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-8157-0388-4. Cite: However, India's decisive victory over Pakistan in 1971 led the Shah to pursue closer relations with India.
3. Byman, Daniel (2005). Deadly connections: States that Sponsor Terrorism. Cambridge University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-521-83973-0. Cite: India's decisive victory in 1971 led to the signing of the Simla Agreement in 1972.

• Provide a source or authoritative book that say that India only won a part of 71 war and the rest was draw.

• When a country is cut to half permanently, this is decisive victory.

• Were east and West Pakistan one country or two? Was it not called Pakistan till 71? Did it not only after 71 that W. Pakistan became Pakistan? Who was Yahya Khan, the man who declared "Jihad" against India ("Jihad to conquer Hindustan") just after the war started? Where were "Crush India" posters seen? What were about capturing around 5,795 square miles (15,010 km2) land and over 90000 PoW and releasing them only after 1972-Simla Agreement?

• This is an open and shut case - no confusion nor ambiguity. I know it was a humiliating war for any patriotic Pakistani, but History can not be changed. Ghatus (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is trying to change the history? You are attacking me by accusing me of turning it into a Pakistanipedia? You should give way to civil discussions instead of casting aspersions. If West and East Pakistan were the same, then there is no need of separate "Eastern and Western fronts" in the infobox. Just write "Decisive Indian victory" then! I did not use the word "draw". My point was that by definition, a "ceasefire" means "in which each side agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions". For a decisive victory on the west, you need a surrender of the Pakistan's Western Command too, which did not occur. Faizan (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Who fought the war-Pakistan Army or not? Who was the commander in chief? Is there something called "half-surrender"? What was the significance of Simla Agreement? It's all clear. This "infobox" is a Wikipedia creation. You can create hundreds of such "infoboxes". But, will that change history? Be rational and think straight. Who forced Pakistan to ceasefire? Why did Pakistan do that? Why did they not continue and capture Delhi? Everythig stopped because Pakistan had surrendered. There is nothing called "half-surrender". Ghatus (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC, Should "Decisive victory of Provisional Bangladesh Government" be written in result?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that the information should be included. Though the specific wording showed no consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

• An editor made concern that, along with Indian victory, victory of "Provisional government of Bangladesh" should also be written in result section. like this way. But in my opinion, editor is confusing "Indo-Pak" war with Bangladesh liberation war. This is a war primarily between "India and Pakistan". What is your opinion? --Human3015 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Was there any formal agreement between India and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh, such that the term; coalition, alliance, combined, joint powers, etc.. could be used as a prefix-term (unique to 1971) such as "Alliance of India and Provisional government of Bangladesh" or "1971 Mutually Cooperating India and Provisional Government of Bangladesh". 74.136.159.171 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Indo-Bangladeshi alliance was known as "Mitro Bahini". Faizan (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 

• Decisive victory for Mitro Bahini alliance of India and of Provisional Government of Bangladesh.

 

• Decisive victory for —the Indian and the Provisional Government of Bangladesh— Mitro Bahini alliance.

 

74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) & 74.136.159.171 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, suggest Mitro Bahini alliance be included. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It should be "Decisive Mitro Bahini victory" in the "Eastern front" in the infobox. Faizan (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Don't you think page should be moved to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani War of 1971? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a page on B'desh Liberation War. This page is only about the Indo-Pak confrontation of 1971, mainly that took place in December,1971. For the entire event, there is already a separate page.Ghatus (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want it to be moved to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani War of 1971. Nevertheless, on the eastern front, Mukti Bahini fought along with Indian Army forming Mitro Bahini, and it should be mentioned as such. Faizan (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Again. You want in India vs Pakistan cricket match result should show "Bangladesh won" just because you don't like to see "India won". You want to write in result section that "Decisive victory of Mitro bahini", while article name suggests war was between India and Pakistan, so either India will win or Pakistan will win. If you want to write "Decisive victory Mitro Bahini" removing "India" word then page should be renamed to Mitro Bahini-Pakistani war of 1971. (Please don't do extra-ordinary demands, there are discretionary sanctions) --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The instrument of surrender that ended the war mentions "Indian and Bangladesh forces", so there may be merit in mentioning that, although it would be be best to see how history texts deal with the issue rather than try to come up with our own language and justification. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Abecedare: As per this book of Harvard University Press Srinath Raghavan (12 November 2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. pp. 245–. ISBN 978-0-674-73127-1. instrument of surrender was signed between Pakistani general Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi and Indian general Jagjit Singh Aurora. This Indo-Pak war is part of major Bangladesh liberation war which was confrontation between India and Pakistan. No one is denying Bengalis also won, thats why it is already written in infobox of Bangladesh liberation war. One can see this pic too, there is no one even standing from "Bangladesh" while signing this surrender agreement. G. M. Hiranandani (1 January 2000). Transition to Triumph: History of the Indian Navy, 1965-1975. Lancer Publishers. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-1-897829-72-1. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, The infobox is for clear, factual, unambigous information, it is not very useful as a mere 'score-card'. It is clear that the 'decisive victory' information has a strong claim to be in the article but I think it is much more informative to put in the info-box only CONCRETE outcomes, surrenders, treaties, accords, borders moved, clear political outcomes. I recently edited a wiki-table about WWII thus, I don't know how successful I was, but the intention was to concisely and neutrally present factual information, linking to relevant article. WWII outcome:

Nazi Germany formally surrenders 8 May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.

On August 15, 1945, following the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan announces its surrender, ending World War II.

British, French, American,and Soviet troops occupy Germany until 1955, Italy and Japan lose their colonies, Europe is divided into 'Soviet' and 'Western' spheres of interest.

I do not think 'decisive victory' is very informative, even if it is justified by the sources.Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support - It seems like the majority have support of including Bangladesh in the results section. Therefore it should be changed to "Mitro Bahini Victory." Xtremedood (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Naval_hostilities Missing info?

Pointing out (what seems to me like) an omission. In the last paragraph of this section, there's a consolidated "loss" roundup for the Pakistan side, shouldn't it also include one for India as well? Unless the INS Khukri was indeed the only Naval loss for India? (Its known as the only India warship lost, but the Pakistan roundup includes lots of smaller craft like partrol crafts and minesweepers). Zhanzhao (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Revisions by Human3015

user:Human3015, it has been too long and the majority have supported inclusion of Bangladesh in the results section. Xtremedood (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Human3015, once again you choose to revert [9], [10], and are not discussing the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@user:Faizan, @user:EdJohnston, @User:Liz, @user:Sitush user Human3015 keeps on reverting, even though the majority has decided to include Bangladesh in the results section. However, he refuses to discuss this matter on the talk page. Any suggestions on how to continue further? Xtremedood (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is more discusion needed for such topics. See, inclusion of name of Bangladesh doesn't mean that removal of name of India. Name of India can't be removed as it is war between India and Pakistan. You should discuss regarding we should add "decisive victory of India and its allies" or "decisive victory of India and mukti bahini" etc. --Human3015^TALK  14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Took you long enough to respond. Simply reverting and not justifying your reverts through proper discussion does nothing to alleviate the issue. What do you think the wording should be? Xtremedood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, war was between India and Pakistan so winner will be India or Pakistan. You are completely removing name of India and writing name of third party which shows you don't want to see name of "India" in it, but anyway, things don't work like this. Name of Mukti Bahini or Bangladesh is the thing to write in result section of Bangladesh liberation war. Still if there is consensus to add name of Bangladesh then there should be vast discussion regarding that. 2-3 people can't decide it. It is one of prime article under discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBIPA. So think twice before pushing POV. Even if name of Bangladesh is to be added then it can be added as "decisive victory of India and its allies". But I know you will not accept any version having name of "India" in it. So no use of any alternative "result" for you. Moreover, writing exclusively name of Mukti Bahini is no where relevant here, Mukti Bahini does not include India, Mukti Bahini was not name of India-Bangladesh alliance. --Human3015^TALK  15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What you say is factually incorrect. The Provisional Gov't of Bangladesh is clearly listed as a combatant. Your personal attacks also do nothing to justify your claim. You are simply going back to the issue we discussed previously. You are also confusing Mukhti Bahini for Mitro Bahini. This shows your lack of insight into the matter. Mitro Bahini was an alliance between Bangladeshi rebels and India. Xtremedood (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional gov of Bangladesh is in combantant list because of our last edit war over that. Kindly read article name. You can ask move request for article name to Mitro Bahini-Pakistan war of 1971 and add "decisive victory of Mitro Bahini" in result. And merge Bangladesh Liberation War to this.--Human3015^TALK  18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong. The Provisional Gov't of Bangladesh was listed as a combatant long before we had our disagreement. This sort of nonsense about changing the name has nothing to do with the article. You should stay on topic. Major sources indicate it was a Bangladeshi victory as well. This is a historical fact that you can not deny. The name of a war does not necessarily indicate who was involved. Xtremedood (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as you said it was victory of Bangladesh also then we can add "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh". Ok?--Human3015^TALK  15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

+1 for "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh". - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but we have to pipe article Provisional Government of Bangladesh while writing Bangladesh.--Human3015^TALK  17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh did not exist back then, therefore it would not be historically accurate. The 'Provisional Government of Bangladesh' should be included or Mitro Bahini also works. As the majority have pointed out, that Mitro Bahini works. Xtremedood (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is just a quick summary, doesn't need to be fully accurate in all details. I think Human3015's solution is acceptable. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: You yourself were insisting for inclusion of word "Bangladesh" here, now some of editors are agree on it but you still have problem. I think you should clear your stand, tell me, are you debating here for inclusion of word "Bangladesh" or exclusion of word "India"? --Human3015^TALK  15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of Bengali separatists, however, I think that Wikipedia should be a place that includes information that is also historically accurate. Since Bangladesh did not exist back then (as a state), then what is your rationale for using the word "Bangladesh" instead of "Provisional Government of Bangladesh" or the "Mitro Bahini" alliance? Xtremedood (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so in this case "Decisive victory of India and allies" will be better. Or "Decisive victory of India and Mukti Bahini".--Human3015^TALK  02:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To make things easier, I think user:Kautilya3's suggestion of "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh" is probably the suitable compromise (at least for now), although I would prefer "Mitro Bahini Victory" or something that includes the Provisional Government of Bangladesh. Perhaps it could be listed as "decisive victory for India and Bangladesh", with the link associated with Bangladesh linking to the Prov. Gov't of Bangladesh page. Mukthi Bahini is too limited, because it only refers to the fighters, not the entire gov't. Xtremedood (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to you both of you for agreeing on a compromise. I made the change. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To Kautilya3 and Human3015: it was not Bangladeshi victory according to every sources that have been listed, maybe because Bangladesh forces had no victories with themselves. See what sources says,[11][12][13][14][15] they don't think of "Bangladeshi victory". Xtremedood is currently blocked for disruptive sock puppetry and his apparent disregard for Indian achievements is prevalent on other articles too. Capitals00 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood seems to be misrepresenting above discussion. A temporary compromise just to halt his edit warring is not consensus, there is no allowance for misrepresenting source. Capitals00 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The over-whelming amount of editors agree that Bangladesh should be included in the results section. You are one editor going against a previously agreed upon decision. It is your duty to get enough people to agree with you. Do not revert unless you have done so. Xtremedood (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it's Xtremedood again. The three sources given do not mention B'desh. So, wish good luck to you to find a WP:RS mentioning B'desh & your demand will be entertained only then. Ghatus (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested. I see more than two editors participating in discussion here. In view of how long this discussion has been running, I suggest formal mediation. Another RFC would also be an option. I would caution all of the editors to be civil, because this topic is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Failure to Respond to Mediation

Capitals00, you have failed to respond to the mediation request [[16]]. Rather than go against what is soundly sourced and a legitimate inclusion of a main combatant, it is important to first try and discuss why you think Bangladesh should not be included rather than engage in an edit war. Xtremedood (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been already told enough about that, User:Ghatus also disagreed with your unsourced edits. Capitals00 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is well sourced that Bangladesh was a combatant and exclusion of Bangladesh is indicative of a bias.

• "Jointly the Mitro Bahini achieved a decisive victory over Pakistan on December 16, 1971"
• "Soon after Bangladesh was liberated on December 16, 1971, violence became an indulgence of the victouious Bengalis against the Biharis."
• "Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan. It gained political independence as a result of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Soon after independence, the Bangladeshi military, basking on the euphoria of victory over Pakistani Army..." Xtremedood (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Being involved in a battle is not enough, one has to win battles for being called as "victorious", this is not "Bangladesh/Indo-Pakistani War". Only https://books.google.ca/books?id=bR0hIC0Xhb0C has half support for your wording, and it is self-published by an unknown author. Capitals00 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 there is an RFC right there on the top. You can see the consensus in that RFC. So please stop your POV edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC was already superseded by consensus and sources at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Revisions_by_Human3015. Capitals00 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Where the consensus is to include the sentence. What exactly are you aiming for here? That no content should be created until every single editor says "YES"? If this is the case, then sorry to say but you are in a delusion about how consensus works. There will always be POV pushers around and other warriors who will want their own version inserted. Consensus is usually reached without their input, rather despite their input. So when you see four editors agreeing to a basic statement, you should calmly back away and rethink your own position. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that @Kautilya3, Human3015, Ghatus, and Capitals00: have disagreed with the pseudohistory of Xtremedood. Proof is that none of them have opposed the infobox after revisiting sources that only say that the war was "Indian Victory". Freeatlastchitchat must stop disrupting the article when you have nothing to say that would make any sense. Sources[17][18] [19][20][21][22][23] disagree with you. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the result of an RfC is never grounds for violating the core Wikipedia policies of verifiability. Reliable sources are definitely needed to change the wording in the infobox. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 as far as I can see you initiated the compromise and then added the wording in the box, therefore I am reverting to your version as of now. I am also requesting gold lock so that we can get a compromise before getting someone banned. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no need of such disruption. What you meant from "compromise"? We can't misrepresent sources the way you are expecting us to. Capitals00 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitChat:, I haven't participated in the RfC and I haven't researched the issue as to how the victory should be described. My contribution was limited to finding an amicable way to implement the result of the RfC, essentially acting as a mediator. But as I said, the RfC cannot trump the core Wikipedia policy of Verifiability. So, I am afraid the proponents of the compromise wording (reflecting the RfC result) still need to produce reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for 3 days; please use the time to try and find consensus. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005055417/http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/021215/books3.htm to http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/021215/books3.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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. Link rot set in before url was archived.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:STICKTOSOURCE

@Ghatus: Ref your edit: The fact that "There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War were a genocide" is not the argument here. The article makes this quite clear and there's no conflict on this. But what you did by adding (the italic part) to "Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had concluded that instead of taking in millions of refugees, it was economical to go to war against Pakistan to stop the genocide" is outright misrepresentation of the source.

The source preciesly says: The Indian leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi quickly decided that it was cheaper to resort to war against Pakistan than to absorb millions of refugees into India’s already bloated population. which is quite self-explantory. Moreover, the word 'genocide' has not been mentioned in the the source for once. Hence, you by adding your opinion are pushing a POV and you need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. For your ease:

• WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source."
• WP:CHERRYPICKING: "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings."—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 11:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that India only participated in the war for military/financial reasons, not to stop the genocide? As you said, "The article makes this quite clear and there's no conflict on this [genocide]", so why is this Genocide denial ? Nowhere in wiki is written that you have to quote the source in toto. The word is given for clarification and it talks on the intent for India's intervention and it neither distorts the truth nor is a case of cherry picking. It's a case of synthesis to clear the air. As it's said "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source."Ghatus (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what I think, but what the source say. In this case it says that India considered going to war with Pakistan was economical than burdening its economy by sheltering milllion of refugees. You cannot simply misrepeseant the source and add your POV on source's behalf when the source does not say so. This is notwithsatnding the fact that India's intention to stop the genocide have been amply covered in the article, including the lede. There's no need to add it to the end of every sentence. As regrads to your "it neither distorts the truth", have at look at WP:NOTTRUTH.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 12:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You said: "India considered going to war with Pakistan was economical". Then you know nothing about the background - Indira Gandhi's world tours, public speeches and GoI's official stance. Enough sources are there in the article and also in linked page I added.

You said "There's no need to add it to the end of every sentence. " Only thrice the word "genocide" is there in the article including this case.

It's no PoV pushing. However, we must avoid Genocide denial.Ghatus (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"India considered going to war with Pakistan was economical", no I did not say that, the source did and so should you. If you dont, then you are not here to build WP. You need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, adhere to WP:NPOV and stop pretending as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Ghatus's restatement constitutes WP:OR. However, I also think that Microsoft Encarta is not a reliable source. Only signed articles in Encyclopedias are reliable sources as per WP:HISTRS, and even then we shouldn't be using WP:TERTIARY sources for highly delicate interpretations like this. You can take facts from there if you need to, but not interpretations. We have no idea what was the basis of those interpretations, who made them, what evidence used etc. So, in my opinion, the whole statement about Indira Gandhi should be deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Or, this "Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had concluded that instead of taking in millions of refugees, it was economical to go to war against Pakistan to stop the genocide.[51]" can be removed and instead how about adding "India intentions behind intervening East Pakistan was to stop the genocide being carried out by the Pakistan Army. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

This is better, but "intervention" does not mean waging war, and it is against policy to make it appear as if it does. (WP:SYNTHESIS) I am not confident that anybody has clearly documented that India wanted to go to war. I don't believe it is true even. There was plenty of opposition in India for going to war, especially in the Left and the Muslim communities, both of which were key constituencies for Indira Gandhi. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

But at the same time there is also no consensus that India solely intervened in East Pakistan to stop the genocide:

"....while the Indian government did express its concerns about the Bengali genocide of 1971, its intervention in the Bangladesh Liberation War was not justified on humanitarian grounds, but rather by its national interests. Under this premise, the end of the genocide was an unintended by-product of India’s intervention to the war – not a cause. The first argument of this paper looks at the Bengali refugee crisis and the economic burden it placed on India. The following two arguments look at India’s geopolitical interests of entering the war. The former illustrates that India took advantage of the war as a means to weaken Pakistan. The argument also examines the relevance India’s diplomatic alliance with the USSR had on Pakistan’s defeat. Aside from India’s aim to weaken Pakistan, the latter demonstrates that India also had both geopolitical and economic interests in aiding the Bengalis in establishing their own sovereign state. By replacing a foe with a friendly, but weaker state as its neighbour, India would rise as a regional hegemon in the South Asian region. To prove this point, this argument looks at India’s post-war behavior towards Bangladesh and other neighbouring states like Nepal and Bhutan. Collectively, India intervened in the war to pursue its national interests."

Also, the source explicitly makes mention of refugee crisis was one of the reasons behind India' intervention:

"The influx of Bengali war refugees from East Pakistan placed a burden on India’s economy – which was, at the time, dysfunctional and weak. Because of this, the then-Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, was prompted to intervene in the war to return the refugees back to their motherland. The prospect of these unwanted events prompted Gandhi to publicly threaten Pakistan."

So, by only saying that India intervened into E.Pakistan to stop genocide alone without touching India's "geopolitical, economic and national interests" is POV pushing to say the least.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 03:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that. Rather, the "genocide" point is being left out. Actually, India intervened for three reasons - 1) Humanitarian, 2) Financial, 3) Geo-strategic/Military.Ghatus (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire, It is brilliant that undergraduates at Toronto publish a journal for themselves [24]. But it is doubtful if we will ever accept them as reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, any source (including Encarta) that does not support your POV isnt reliable.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 15:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Disruptive editing by ‎Capitals00

This edit of your constitutes blanket reversion. Not only did you revert a perfectly fine edit by @Vinegarymass911:, but you also re-added the image which is already present in the article?! I mean, what do you want? Add the same image 10 times inside the same page? Also, the image was never in conflict and it was removed on the simple pretext that it is already present in the article. Pleas stop with this WP:DISRUPT. Thanks—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 08:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How about instead you explain why you are removing the image from the infobox? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No sir, why dont you explain why is there a requirement of adding the same image twice in the article especially when the page is already loaded with one-sided images? This talk section was opened a day ago. None of the editors responded to it, instead three of them (including you) are taking turns in adding the same image without any explanation.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The image is not being added in twice, at least not by me, which is also what you reverted (breaking 3RR). So again, why are you removing the image from the infobox? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"The image is not being added in twice". Care to explain that?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 07:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You reverted this edit. Your edit summary indicates that you actually knew the image was not being in added twice and reverted anyway. Again, you broke 3RR - you should self-revert. This is the second (third?) time I'm giving you a chance to do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, didnt see that you removed the second image. I am wiling to go for a self-revert, but you need to get consensus on moving the image up in the infobox. The image was lying down there for a long time for a good reason, why move it up, the burden's on you and other editors doing so.—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be in the infobox. If you have an alternative image please propose it here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, this article is most definitely not "over cluttered" with images - for an article this size, 6 images is actually under-image'd. So if you and the Sheriff can find a free image that you think would be more suitable for the infobox, I'm open to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"I don't see why it shouldn't be in the infobox" is just not enough an argument to add/move the image. You are adding the image and it is on you to provide a reason (not rehtorics) so as to why an image - which was already present in the article 'near' its relevant section for a long time - should now be moved up into the infobox?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 13:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for discussions

Unfortunately, the disputes on this page are dragging on for far too long without any indication of converging. The disputes are not organised in a structured way so that other uninvolved editors can provide their input. The edits are first made in very large chunks and reverted wholesale. Then there is a mess of argument dealing with a number of issues together. I would recommend that the edits of contentious issues (e.g., the infobox wording, Manekshaw statement, Agartala conspiracy etc.) should be performed in an isolated manner, at most one revert be made, followed by a discussion in a dedicated subsection on that issue. When a discussion gets too long, somebody should start a new subsection, summarise the discussion so far, and present the outstanding issues that need resolving. Can somebody do that now please, for all the issues that have been outstanding for several weeks? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: the dispute is going messy, not only on this talk page but on others's also. I will suggest for an RFC so that uninvolved editors too can help in solving the dispute! Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

Agree, somebody should do that, lol. As a side note, I will suggest not calling in uninvolved editors like some were called in a previous conversation but they already held a biased view and were not neutral instead the procedure to call in an uninvolved editor is through WP:DRN and WP:RFC. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I will suggest for RFC. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)This editor is a sock-puppet

For doing an RFC, you would need to first do what I suggested above, summarise the discussion from all sides, so that the participants of the RFC know the background. Otherwise, the RFC would be just a shot in the dark, and the results would be inconclusive, as it happened earlier on this page.

A DRN, on the other hand, can succeed because the mediator would draw out the necessary information from the disputants. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS & WP:WEIGHT must be maintained.Ghatus (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I don't think there is any other dispute other then that YouTube video link showing SAM Manekshaw praising pakistani soldiers (On 1971 war article). Perhaps, there are few dispute on other articles like 1971 Bangladesh Genocide,etc. And, i have no objection in starting RFC process. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

I think the dispute on Manekshaw's statement has now been resolved.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Only upto Kautilya's proposal.Ghatus (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, ONLY UPTO KAUTILYA's PROPOSAL. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

I don't know what you guys mean. There is no separate proposal from me. WP:PRIMARY sources can be used when they are supported by secondary sources. I just found a decent secondary source. So it is fine. I will now make an edit myself so that there is no further misunderstanding. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disrupting editing by TripWire

@TripWire: You should stop Disrupting Editing, reverting other users for NO REASON and initiating unnecessary and unwanted Edit War.

First you have problem with Ghatus inclusion of humanitarian grounds as one of the reason behind India's intervention and now from this too? I don't know on what basis you labelled my edit as undue.

WP:UNDUE says that the articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

You can say the entire section is WP:UNDUE, but that won't make it UNDUE. Giving a brief detail on Rape During Bangladesh liberation war/and Genocide committed is no minority view! Infact it is indeed necessary and relevant to mention this in an article related to 1971 War. I have not opposed TBZ and Sherrif addition of Bihari massacre as a reason by pakistan gov't. to justify Operation Searchlight, So don't you! Beside, I have only added this in an relevant section "India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War" and i have added enough WP:RS references to back the claims. You can disagree with the content as long as you want but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no excuse to remove reliably sourced content.

Lastly, your allegations that my edit is copy of an another article. Lol! Except the image (which is available on the Wikipedia commons tho), neither the references, nor the content is copy of any other article, go and check it! Also, please go and read the Tariq Ali refrence, he say Pakistan lost half it's navy during the war. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

There are following articles related to Bangladesh War (listing only a few):

• Operation Searchlight
• Mukti Bahini
• 1971 Bangladesh genocide
• 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals
• Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

And this article i.e Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which you are using to push your WP:POV ALREADY contains the requisite amount of details/background of the above mentioned topics i DEDICATED sections alongwith links to the main topics. These sub-sections have been built over the years after deliberate discussion. And I see no need of adding unnecessary and WP:UNDUE details to them especially when the these sub-section already cover all the topics in sufficient detail. You are just trying to make all the above articles a replica of each other with undue and duplicate info. Your attempt to make this article into a sub-section of other main articles is actually Disrupting Editing.

Each of the above mentioned article covers a distinct topic in complete detail, a portion of which is mentioned in other related articles on the topic and vice versa. So what you are doing by adding duplicate info that too in the lede (which is already present in the article) is indeed WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.

For example adding "Upto 30 million civilian became homeless and somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 women and girls raped, gang-raped and tortured by the soldiers of Pakistan Army and razakars" to the lede of an article which is dedicated to and is specifically written regarding the WAR (and not the rapes or Ope Searchlight or Genocide or Mukti Bhahini - each of these already has its own spave on Wikipedia) is needless especially when this info is already present same article, not one but atleast twice. For your easy comprehension, just copy/pasting two pieces from within the article here:

• "Other estimates place the death toll lower, at 300,000. Bangladesh government figures state that Pakistani forces aided by collaborators killed three million people, raped 200,000 women and displaced millions of others."

BTW, the info you added to the lede is ALREADY "Word-to-Word" present inside the article in the first line of India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War section:

• "It is estimated that upto 3,000,000 civilians were killed in Bangladesh. A further 30 million civilian became homeless and somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 women and girls raped, gang-raped and tortured by the soldiers of Pakistan Army and razakars."

Go, check it up, please. So duplicate info cannot be added. Savvy? So, please refrain from it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think TripWire is right here (over MBlaze Lightning).Ghatus (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I too agree with TripWire's objection. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)