Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:47, 25 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 2, 2012 Good article nominee Listed July 22, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bangladesh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 24 February 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Request for comment

{{RFC|pol|rfcid=912FF03}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It appears there is a consensus to keep the material with attribution, making it clear what the source is so that readers can evaluate for themselves how much weight to give it. I encourage everyone involved to insure that WP:SYNTH issues do not re-surface and that the article accurately reflect only what the sources say and nothing more. It is keeping with long standing policy here to present all viewpoints and allow the reader to make up their own mind about them so I am glad this was also the consensus ithis discussion Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

1. There is currently a section in this article on the Mukti Bahini rebels which is sourced to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission which is a primary source. Should this be used as it is being currently used to make statements of fact.
2. On the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, the author of the report never traveled to Bangladesh and only interviewed Pakistani officers. This makes the reporting on the rebels biased at best and outright lies at worst.
3. Should there be a section on the Mukti Bahini? Given the lack of sources on atrocities committed by the rebel forces does it give undue weight to the few sources which exist to have an entire section on them?
4. The few sources I have found say the rebels committed rapes after the war. I added this information to the aftermath section with these edits
5. I also used the Hamoodur Rahman Commission here in the Pakistani government reaction section were I accredited the allegations to the report.

• Remove section as undue Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as contributor + per Mar4d's suggestion of adding this content. Since creating an article for "Rape just after the Bangladesh liberation war" will be both undue and lack context, this content (even if the incidents happened after the war) belong to this article as it is because of this war whether during or after, though I doubt these only took place after the war. This is one of the few actual (and official / court) investigations that looked into the matter with the rest being just blames, so is completely due in this article having a separate section and is not a primary source because the commission was an independent judicial commission only requested by Pakistani government. The judiciary does not automatically become a party to the government just because it is the Pakistani court (infact it was the only legal authority over the matters related to combined east and west Pakistan). It not contains views of multiple witnesses including Pakistani officers and the testimonies aren't simply assertions but a part of inquiry which is made by a judicial body. This support to keep is regardless of related content's mention at other places per its own weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Removed already (before seeing this RFC), as the content does not meet criteria for inclusion in a project that relies on citations from reliable sources. I won't close this RFQ as I recognize others may disagree but this does not actually seem the sort of thing that needs a comment. The source says "there is reliable evidence" - without actually stating what it is. Just because a source uses the word "reliable" does not mean it can be included here. It calls a specific group of individuals "miscreants", which is generally considered a pejorative and does not bode well for this being a neutral, balanced source. (I'm not saying it isn't based solely on that.) Further, by the use of a pronoun ("miscreants") rather than specifically naming a group, the source is vague about what group is accused of the actions specified; the quote put in the article specifically named the group, which was not at all supported by the source. All of this sidesteps the issue of whether or not there is a copyright violation when the information is simply copied and pasted, but...I think copyright is only one problem among several here. Rewording to avoid copyright doesn't solve the underlying issues with the source and the conclusions drawn from that source.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

*keep because this article is one side of the story. It says things like India entered the war to save the abuses. Views from all belligerents have to be covered in this topic. I have also started discussion on Indian motives for this war. I wish to complete that discussion as well. It is neutral to have this section in this topic with this source. I request everyone to find more sources for this side of the story as well. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked for sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And as soon as you find a reliable source which says Indian intervention was not what stopped the genocide we can put that viewpoint in. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is a primary source and can only be used for a direct quote, which is already in the Pakistani government reaction section. The content was not removed it it's entirety. There are very few sources which discuss atrocities carried out by the rebels, certainly not enough for an entire section. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not changed my opinion. I will see in my library for more sources. Commission is a nice source so I will vote for including that. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

...except this is WP:NOTAVOTE; it's a discussion about inclusion based on WP:POLICY.  Frank  |  talk  15:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is not about balance in the article, nor is it about whether the atrocities were committed or not. I have no comment on either of those points. What this discussion is about is whether or not the info in the edit I removed can be kept as it was. It clearly violated WP:RS and WP:SYNTH at the very least, and probably runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY as well, although that is perhaps debatable. If you believe it somehow meets policy for inclusion, please cite the relevant policies. However, if you just want to include "the other side of the story" - that's a different matter and not for this discussion. I would say on that point to find suitable sources and add the info to the article. My objection and my removal of the content are not based on the position the edit advanced, but rather that the information does not meet guidelines for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. If material can be found which says something similar - and meets guidelines - that's a different story.  Frank  |  talk  15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

For more reliable sources, go to Google, pull down the top menu and select "Books" to search for books allowing reader viewing of content, and then search them for the terms: Mukti Bahini rape. I found some secondary sources that appear reliable: , , , , , and many others. If you can't find reliable sources on Websites using Google, you can use the Google drop-down menu to search in Books. OttawaAC (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep material (but not a devoted section) - (from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot) - The government report is important, and its contents need to be summarized in this article. So, 1 or 2 sentences on the reports about the MB are appropriate. However, any allegations/claims/facts from the report need to be clearly identified as from the report, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The sources do not appear to support an entire section devoted to the MB rebels. If several reliable secondary sources can be found (preferably scholarly sources: historians, etc) which explicitly connect the rebels with rape during the war, then perhaps a section could be justified. See WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY SOURCE. First, though, quotes from those secondary sources should be provided here on the Talk page so other editors can view and validate. Links alone (as provided above) are a good start, but on a contentious issue, per WP:BURDEN, the editors who want to include material should provide quotes from the sources, not just links. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep An article in compliance with NPOV requires all viewpoints to be presented, with attribution. Misplaced Pages does not decide what or what should not be presented, it puts across all points on a topic and attribute them to the source. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is an independent inquiry by the government of Pakistan which investigates the incident and narrates the events as per the view of the government, so as such, its inclusion is notable. There are numerous other sources howeverm that discuss rape used as a tool by the Mukti Bahini rebels, so this should not by any means be considered the only authoritative source on the issue. Mar4d (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Remove First, the source is primary. We need to see secondary sources that can view the report critically and validate its findings (there are excellent reasons why primary sources are not used on wikipedia). Second, a government commission investigating a war that went badly for that country (to put it mildly) is not really something we should be treating as the gospel truth. Pending reliable secondary sources, this material should not be in the article at all. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove. Vide regentspark above. AshLin (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would say keep with attribution. It is important to present all significant views per NPOV, and this seems like the Pakistani view. Alongside this material, it can of course be noted that the commission may not be very reliable. And yes there will probably have to be a section on this, since it can't be classified under Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Pakistani_Army_actions.VR _talk 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I think this RFC should be relisted to get an apparently more clear consensus or requested for a close since one of the opposing editors objected on my adding this with attribution. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• From what I see here is a consensus for the changes I already made, Vice regent says keep the content with attribution, this is already done as explained at the start of the RFC. Noleander also appears to be of the opinion that the changes I already made to include the content are enough. Frank is of the opinion it ought not be in the article at all, though I see he has made no objection to the edits I made to include the content, so I think I can assume he is not opposed to my edit. RegentsPark & AshLin are of the opinion the content has no place in the article, due to the source being primary. Perhaps they could comment on the edit I made to include the content? Mar4d says keep, it is of course already mentioned in the article, does he also mean keep a section which will never be more than a few lines? Highstakes00 makes no valid points at all, his view may as well be discounted. Overall I see a consensus for the content in the article as it currently stands based on the edits I did before this RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any independent sources that make the same allegations? Or, at least, is it the official position of Pakistan that the Mukti Bahini were responsible for rape? If not, I still don't agree with its inclusion. NPOV does not mean that we include every piece of information just for the sake of balance and information from a single primary source is completely meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at point 4 of the rfc you will see I added two academic sources which say the MB carried out rapes after the conflict, that was all I was able to find. I found none which discuss MB abuses during the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see those. But, the second source says "according to general Niazi" which is not really usable. One would, for example, want to know whether General Niazi is quoting the same report. I'll take a look at the first source and comment here again in a couple of days.--regentspark (comment) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the gerlach source and it is much clearer. Gerlach says that, in addition to the certainty that Pakistani forces raped Bengali women, there is evidence that Razakars raped Bengali women (though, since the razakars were pro-Pakistani Bengalis, that is probably included in the pakistani part itself) and also by Bengali men on non-Bengali women. He also says that Mukti Bahini independence fighters raped non-Bengali women in Dacca especially just after victory. (all this on page 157). It appears that non-Bengali women were systematically raped starting in March all the way till after the war ("frequent and sometimes public" according to Gerlach). All this seems well documented enough for a separate sub section. --regentspark (comment) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(out)I have no objection to a section on MB abuses providing it will be more that a few lines. Those two sources are all I have found so far. The RC report cannot be used in such a section as it belongs where I put it, it Pakistani government response section. I will try to find more sources and see what I can manage to write, is that ok with you? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is vald. your point is not valid. want it to censor. Commission say it mukti bahini was responsible so article will say this --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the opening statements of this RFC? Or look at the diffs provided? The content is not only still in the article I expanded upon it, there are no censorship here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have study it. you should not hide Pakistani commission view. --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)this account has been blocked as a sockpuppet Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just wrote? It is already in the article, how exactly is it hidded? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Remove - but the subject does warrant further exploration. I have to query the validity of the source and it's use - but not the nature of the claims made. The language in the report uses tenses and language that indicate progression over time from within the war to afterwards - indicating that the use of rape was ongoing and did not stop with a cease fire. It also links into known ethnic issues and atrocities linked to the complexity of India/E' Pakistan/Bangladesh traced back to the 1947 partition. The Mukti Bahini were acting as agents of the Indian Army and were trained by them. Due to time frames this raises certain none apparent legal issues linked to the Indian "The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958" - which allowed army and militia to act with impunity, and they even do so today - and as a result rape has been and is an issue by any groups covered. The Indian legal position allows rape to be used as a control measure in what has been described as a "Riot Culture". To none involved and immersed individuals the links would not be apparent and do warrant further exploration and consideration of more valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep material (but not a devoted section) - (from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot) per Noleander. - A government report is worth including, if only with a short summary, but its allegations/claims/facts should be clearly identified as from the report, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This appears to be what you have in the Pakistani government reaction section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Remove any material cited against primary sources as OR, remove such sources any material cited against material meeting the WP:HISTRS criteria for sourcing in historical articles should stay. The interpretation of primary sources for historical information is the work and profession of historians; the work and profession of encyclopaedists is reporting the results of historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No interpretation is being made from the source, the result is being quoted and all views are being presented as they are. If an interpretation is to be made, a secondary analysis will be quoted along side. The source is appropriate to quote just what the commission pointed out. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Garbage. Selection of quotes from a primary source is an implicit acknowledgement that that source has WEIGHT in the matter. This is a historical article, and government reports are not the source or fount of history, scholarly works are. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The usage here does not contradict WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which is an actual content guideline unlike WP:HISTRS. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• How many times is this RFC going to get relisted? This is the third one. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Pakistan in "see also"

This is not remotely related... that article does not mention military or army rather the police is being accused of incidents. Stop editwarring and read the article! --lTopGunl (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Police! They were officers of Pakistani army. If there are two human rights offences, both having same perpetrators, they are relate to each other. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 13:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "army" does not appear any where in Rape in Pakistan. Self revert now, and go read the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It also says "members of the armed forces". Ctrl+F doesn't always work, at those times one should read at least the lead of the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 13:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, that is not sourced there (not even in the body - where it relates to the Bangladesh incident and not Pakistan)! Are you serious? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am serious. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Single news incidents that you pick from the news can not be generalized to "Rape in Pakistan" topic. Exactly what WP:COATRACK means. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. read WP:SEEALSO the link is within policy and is also relevent. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO talks about related articles. They are not. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant" Both articles are about rape, both cover Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read that. But they are not even related in the general sense of the topic. One is about a war and the other one about a wide topic in a country which should cover the general issue, different perpetrators, laws etc. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this once more shall we? "enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant" If you disagree with this feel free to call an RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal... the implication it gives is wrong. I'll wait till another editor opposes it instead of starting an RFC right away. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Source problem

The following passage is problematic:

Estimates of those raped vary from two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand. However according to Dr. Geoffrey Davis who had been requested to go to the region by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood Federation the number was probably much higher.

First, Davis didn't say the real figures were "much higher"; he said the official figures were "probably very conservative", i.e. he was denying the real figures were lower. But, what is worse for our context, he didn't say which official figures he was comparing things against. The source currently cited , by one "Anushay Hossain, Contributor" at Forbes Magazine, is an unreliable op-ed which is quoting Davis second hand. The actual, direct source, which provides the full text of the interview and which ought to have been quoted instead, is this one . The context is:

• Numerous documents from Pakistan still suggest that the number of rapes had been grossly exaggerated. Do you think that’s true?
• No. Probably the numbers are very conservative compared with what they did.

Nothing in this exchange tells us exactly which set of figures either Davis or his interviewer were thinking about. Did Davis mean the 200,000 figure was very conservative? Or the 400,000 figure? Or some other figure he might have been familiar with? We don't know. It is only the author of the second-hand source, Anushay Hossain, who adds the interpretative summary that Davis was making this comparison against commonly assumed figures of "200-400,000".

It is incorrect to summarize this as Davis saying that the figures were even higher (let alone "much higher") than even the upper bound of the previously mentioned estimates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone says the figures touted are very conservative I see no issue with paraphrasing it as he believe they were much higher, which is what the opposite to very conservative would be. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't get the main point. The point is: higher than what? Davis didn't say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I get it, bit of an issue indeed. I believe 200,000 is the most commonly accepted number, with 400,000 being the highest estimate. Naturally we cannot do a lot with that as it would be OR. We can only go with what Davis said, he believed that the of the figures mentioned they were probably higher. BTW where has the little box which usually sits near the top which links sections gone? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I like your fix, except nobody knows the real numbers, should we but estimated instead? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've tried a rewording. I've also removed the following quote. Mr Davis account about how he personally felt while working there really doesn't add much to the article. Also, his comparison to the "Lebensborn" is pretty off-topic and in fact misleading (the Lebensborn programme was nothing of the kind implied here; inserting a reference to that myth in this article rather diverts from the strength of the actual facts reported here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits thus far have been pretty good, Re the "Lebensborn" thing, I had assumed he meant it in the myth way, but I agree with it being removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian intervention

Per my comment at the FAC, the true motives of Indian intervention as explained in the lead are disputed. I will quote my comment from there for convenience. I propose removing the sentence as it is factually inaccurate and plain historical revisionism.

Comment The lead of the article says that the abuses were stopped "only by the intervention of Indian armed forces". However, this is factually disputed. According to Thomas George Weiss, "at no time did India claim a right of humanitarian intervention but rather insisted that it had used military force in self-defense." So even while references were made to human rights, India's primary motive of entering the war was not to stop human rights violations, but for what it perceived as military defense. Further quotes:

In a debate that involved more than half of the UN's member states, few (essentially the Soviet Union and its allies) accepted that the circumstances actually justified India's claimed use of force in self-defense, and not a single country argued that India had a right to intervene militarily to rescue the beleagured Bengalis. Although India had not expressly invoked a right to intervene for humanitarian reasons, the countries participating in the debate were well aware of claims of mass murder, even of genocide, in East Pakistan. Except for the Soviet bloc countries, other states chose to ignore the well-founded claims concerning human rights violations. Many countries emphasised the importance of non-intervention. New Delhi portrayed itself as a bystander to events, one that used military force reluctantly and in self-defense. Most states were not prepared to accept the argument. That a weakened Pakistan was in India's strategic interest was lost on no one, nor was the fact that India's assistance to the Mukti Bahini over many months had considerably strengthened their fighting capacity against the Pakistani army. Moreover, heavy fighting actually made the refugee situation significantly worse.

— Thomas George Weiss (2005), Military-Civilian Interactions: Humanitarian Crises And The Responsibility To Protect, p. 183

Also note: When civil tensions erupted (prior to the war), India began supporting Mukti Bahini, providing them safe haven on its territory and giving them aid, as well as air cover through the Indian Air Force. Border incidents multiplied as India became more and more involved, each side accusing the other of violations. Pakistan bombed Indian air bases on 3rd December to disable the Indian Air Force. It was after this episode that India became involved. So human rights violations are not the reason for intervention.

Mar4d (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• India's intervention in the 71 war was not to provide peace but to break up Pakistan and that is very obvious. The motive stated in the lead is Indian POV and should be removed right away. The discussion of the motive belongs to the main war article and there too it should be stated as India's claim of entering the war and not as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also clear that the international community was well-aware of this. Furthermore, India has itself admitted that it did not enter the war for humanitarian plight, but for military purposes. The sentence actually bears hallmarks of WP:COATRACK. Mar4d (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be right to say that India entered the war on the pretext of humanitarian aid, but then the actual motive should also be mentioned. Better to simply remove the motive from here, the article will have no loss as it does not cover that. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article dies not say India intervened on humanitarian grounds, you are raising a straw man Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"'The abuses were only stopped by the intervention of the Indian armed forces..." << really? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the sources, yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So now you agree that India claims to have intervened on the humanitarian grounds? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with D.S. to a limited extent: the statement "X was stopped by action Y" does not logically entail that "action Y was performed with the goal of X". However, and here I partly agree with TG, it does create an implicature to that effect, and as such it may be problematic. I also question why that statement has to be in the lead in the first place. The point to be made in the lead is that the abuses stopped only when the war ended. Why the war ended at the time it did, and what the role of the Indian intervention was in that, is not directly relevant to the narrative of the abuses as such. However, on the basis of the literature already cited (e.g. the Wheeler book has a whole chapter about the India/Pakistan situation, far more substantial than whatever he is saying on the cited page 13 in the introduction; cf. also the Weiss source cited above), there would be plenty of material for a whole section further down, seriously discussing to what extent and in what ways the human rights abuses were either the true reason or the declared motive in India's intervention. (In this context I should also remind people that it remains necessary to stay focussed on the nominal topic of the article: it is supposed to be about rape, not about human rights abuses in general. Saying that India may have intervened to stop human rights abuses is one thing; discussing what part in that was played specifically by the reports about rape is another.) By the way, the third source cited currently in the article (Zaman 2007, Broken limbs...) is of much lower quality than the others and should be left out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add "it might not necessarily entail as such" to your first argument.. but the point remains that it also brings forward a suggestion about India's motive and that is a wrong implication. It shouldn't even be here... discussion of motive for war is not really for this article, not to mention lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to add "necessarily" to "entail", because "necessarily" is precisely, well, entailed by "entail". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, yeah, I'm fasting and exhausted.. forgive the poor semantics. I should have focused on "might not". Edited. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, four more hours and a half to go? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! It's a ~16 hour day, and Monsoon's some what ineffective at day. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Darkness Shines. Why the war and abuses ended per the sources is of relevance to the article. We have the same on Second World War i. e.: "The total victory of the Allies over the Axis in 1945 ended the conflict." JCAla (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ended the conflict" is something different. This one gives the implication that the intention was to stop the alleged abuses, that was not really India's motive. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Indian prime minister Indira Ghandi ("Shall we sit and watch their women get raped?") it was. But for this discussion the intention behind the intervention doesn't matter, what matters is the de facto consequence of the intervention as described by the sources. JCAla (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The intention is being implied by the wording that is not of any other use anyway and is obviously suspected as deliberate POV,,, and that's the topic of discussion. I know about the Indian prime minister's statement; that's Indian POV. Read the comments above. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read them. I don't necessarily agree with them. Saying i. e. "India's intervention ended the war, stopped the abuses and let to the secession of East Pakistan" is a de facto statement if that is what reliable sources univocally say. The specific sentence is therefore indeed of use for the reader to understand when and why those abuses (topic of the article) stopped. How they ended is just as an integral part as why and when they began. JCAla (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WE have academic sources which say the abuses were only stopped after military intervention, that is not a pov, it is a fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mine and Mar4d's concerns have not been addressed by any one other than FP who acknowledged the issue it presents. If India wanted to enter the war on the claim of stopping "abuses", fine... say that, as India's claim. If you've to say that the abuses stopped as a result of war, that is fine too... say that without implying India's motive. If you can discuss on those lines present a rephrase here. If you can not, I don't think you've cleared WP:BURDEN for this. If there's no agreement on a rephrase, start an RFC on how to include this without POV implications. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Mukti Bahini

The RFC was started on this version of the content and the consensus was to keep it with attribution. Self revert and do not revert again without getting consensus. --lTopGunl (talk)

09:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was keep with attribution, it is already in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on the version I added. And it is not already in the article. None of the city names and the facts are mentioned else where. The version on which the RFC started was the one I added. If you move it without changing the consensus again, I'll report you.--lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the rfc was based on the rfc I started it is already in the Pakistan reaction section. And I will remove it as there is no consensus for the addition Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately you specifically said "There is currently a section in this article on the Mukti Bahini rebels which is sourced to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission which is a primary source. Should this be used as it is being currently used to make statements of fact."

The RFC concluded in favour of inclusion with attribution. The section you were talking about was definitely the one I added. Reverting after RFC closure will get you a block.. and you've already done it a few times. lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No the RFC is close with attribution, which is already in the article. I have already clarified this with the closing admin, "I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage" There is no consensus for your addition and more than one editor has removed it in the past. It adds nothing to the article and is not going to stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I've re-read the RfC several times and I still have trouble understanding how it was closed with "It appears there is a consensus to keep the material with attribution". Well, actually I do understand it (it was closed by Beeblebrox who always closes/comments/adjudicates EVERY QUESTION about sources, text, info with a "keep but attribute" notion, even when this doesn't make sense or violates WP:UNDUE)). I don't really see a consensus to keep and my sense is that Darkness Shines original intuition to remove the section was the correct one. The scale of the two events (rapes by Pakistani army and pro-Pakistnai militias vs. rapes by some independence paramilitaries) was of a completely different magnitude and a lot of this is an exercise in a POV moral equivalence. And of course this very controversial and undue text is based on biased - perhaps unreliable - sources. In a way you can't have both: you can have questionable and primary sources if the topic isn't controversial or undue, or you can have a controversial and undue topic but then you use only high quality sources. So perhaps revisiting that RfC is in order.VolunteerMarek 01:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement in Background

The statement that there were no military units in East Pakistan during 1965 war is factually wrong as multiple source state the presence of troops, besides the cut off thing is also dubious. I invite editors for discussion as this issue was ignored before. --SMS 09:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to this -

But when the 1965 war against India started East Pakistan was totally cut off for 17 days from any military help from West Pakistan.

— Salahuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh: Past and Present, p.157

I hope that this clarifies all your doubts. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this does not address it. He did not contest the cutting off of the two wings... he contested the statement saying there were no units in the east. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He said,"the cut off thing is also dubious." It would be great if you can provide a source which says that there was a unit, because the article already has an offline source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 11:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some mis-confusion. The source says that "none of Pakistan's forces were assigned to defend it ". Following WP:BOLD, I have remove the tag and rephrased the line so that its matches with what is written in the source. I hope that everybody is comfortable with that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have expanded upon it and added further academic sources. hopefully this can now be put to rest. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have already linked to the previous discussion where I did provide source, take time to read it. There was more than 1 regular division force of Pakistan Army, at least 2 squadrons of air force at Dhaka and Chittagong and East Pakistan Rifles, a paramilitary force deployed at the border, (not counting Navy). Pakistan Air Force launched multiple offensive operations from the East Pakistan bases notably at Kalaikunda. (FYI it is stated by multiple historians that Pakistan never perceived a full war with India in 1965, but a limited scale fight in Kashmir. So naturally force was concentrated there. West Pakistan's western border was more unguarded than the East Pakistan.)

About the "cut off" thing, yes it is dubious as two entities thousand kilometer apart are already cut off, so it needs to be clarified how it was cut off, for an ignorant reader, who doesn't know much about the region. Besides this argument is equally vague even if clarified, as West Pakistan had no role in the "cut off". --SMS 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The troops you mention were already there. The sources say the west deployed no troops to the region during the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were already there deployed by respective headquarters which were in West Pakistan, so saying that East Pakistan was left defenseless with no units assigned is like writing the history again, with new facts. --SMS 13:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, they were stationed there, that is a bit different to troop deployment. WE have academic sources which say Pakistan assigned to extra units to the Easts defense and we use what those reliable sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• GA-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• GA-Class Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• GA-Class Bangladesh articles
• Low-importance Bangladesh articles
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• GA-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors