Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:18, 9 March 2013

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. Bangladesh High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 14, 2011.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Brushup of 'Violence against Biharis' section

The following paragraph has been omitted as I find it irrelevant --

In May 2003, a high court ruling in Bangladesh allowed 10 Biharis to obtain citizenship and voting rights. The ruling also exposed a generation gap amongst Biharis, with younger Biharis tending to be "elated" with the ruling, but with many older people feeling "despair at the enthusiasm" of the younger generation. Many Biharis now seek greater civil rights and citizenship in Bangladesh. On May 19, 2008 the Dhaka High court approved citizenship and voting rights for about 150,000 refugees who were minors at the time of Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, and those who were born after would also gain the right to vote.

What to call this article?

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

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

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

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

Requested move 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICT

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

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

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

Request move

It has been proposed in this section that Bangladesh genocide be renamed and moved to 1971 Bangladesh genocide. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

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

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

• Comment The searches DS did, do not enclose the key phrases in double quotes. If they are redone on double quotes then the numbers fall dramatically. Take for example a book search on "1971 Genocide" on the first page returned by my Google search five of the 10 books returned are by the same author "Samuel Totten".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim (ed.). Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-521-19027-5.
2. D'Costa, Bina (1). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 76. ISBN 978-0415565660. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
3. Trim, D. J. B. (12). Hew Strachan, Sibylle Scheipers (ed.). The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0199596737. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
4. "THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1973" (PDF). internationallawbureau.com. Retrieved 5 March 2013.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Bangladesh articles
• High-importance Bangladesh articles
• Help of History Workgroup of Bangladesh needed
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (December 2011)
• Requested moves