| Revision as of 18:07, 14 December 2021 editKerberous (talk | contribs)158 edits →Territorial changes← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 6 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,879 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 5) (bot |
| (128 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
| ⚫ |
{{FailedGA|date=16:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)|topic=Warfare|page=1}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
⚫ |
{{FailedGA|16:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)|topic=Warfare|page=1}} |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{On this day |date1=2005-12-16|oldid1=31623101|date2=2007-12-16|oldid2=177826599|date3=2009-12-16|oldid3=331744007|date4=2021-12-16|oldid4=1060348023|date5=2022-12-16|oldid5=1127829667}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell| |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|topic=History|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/History|anchor=Southern Asia (15 articles)}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C<!-- B-Clas |
|
{{WikiProject Military history |
|
s checklist --> |
|
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1= no |
|
|B-Class-1= no |
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
| Line 13: |
Line 11: |
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|B-Class-3= yes |
|
|B-Class-3= yes |
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4= yes |
|
|B-Class-4= yes |
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|B-Class-5= yes |
|
|B-Class-5= no |
|
⚫ |
|Indian-task-force= yes |
|
|importance=High |
|
|
|Indian-task-force=yes |
|
|Pakistani-task-force= yes |
| ⚫ |
|Pakistani-task-force=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|class=c|importance=high|assess-date=March 2019|history=yes|history-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|assess-date=March 2019|history=yes|history-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|class=C|importance=high|history=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=Top|history=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{On this day |date1=2005-12-16|oldid1=31623101 |date2=2007-12-16|oldid2=177826599 |date3=2009-12-16|oldid3=331744007 }} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
| Line 33: |
Line 28: |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Backwards copy |
|
{{Article discretionary sanctions|ipa}} |
|
|
|
| title = India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal |
|
|
|
|
|
| year = 2010 |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021 == |
|
|
|
| author = Anna Orton |
|
|
|
|
|
| display-authors = |
| ⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Bangladeshi-Pakistani War of 1971|answered=y}} |
|
|
|
| url = |
|
The war happened between Bangladesh and Pakistan. There was never a war in 1971 between India and Pakistan. I can send links if you want proof of that. Many of us(family members) fought in the war. It was a liberation war of east Pakistan Present Bangladesh. Please edit it. ] (]) 07:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| org = Epitome Books |
|
:{{not done}} Please read the article properly, this was a 13 day war which formed part of the nine month long Bangladesh Liberation War. - ] (]) 08:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| monthday = |
|
|
|
|
|
| id = 317412134 |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021 == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Israel == |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Indo-Pakistani War of 1971|answered=yes}} |
|
|
There's a spelling mistake in the infobox, which says "Chhamb" instead of "Chamb." The link is also broken, so could someone make it link to ] and correct the spelling mistake? ] (]) 08:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{partly done|Partly done:}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Broken link corrected. However, according to one of the sources (), and ], it seems the territory was indeed called "Chhamb". So I've left the name unaffected. —](]) 10:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this article fails to mention significant Israeli arms sales to India. ] (]) 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Supportive nations removal == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why editors removed supportive nations from belligerents section? ] (]) 05:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
:They didn't sell to India they sold to Pakistan ] (]) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is False Israel only sold arms to India, this has also been proven to be stated by both the Government's of India and Israel. |
|
:*{{done}} You had a point. Russia was supporting India and United States of America as well as Air Forces of Britain supporting Pakistan.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::here is one source https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/israel-and-india-ties-bind ] (]) 19:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Please help me (lol). Please other editor do this edit at earliest. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''bel·lig·er·ent''', ''noun'', "A state or other armed participant in warfare". Infoboxes are terrible places to describe things that are complex. The combatants parameter of {{tl|Infobox military conflict}} is best for listing the countries whose forces took part in the conflict. Lesser degrees of supportiveness such as any from Russia, the US, the UK, etc., are better explained in the text of the article, and should cite ]. --] (]) 11:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Worldbruce}} Umm, Russia was a armed participant in the war with have sent submarines to it. USA and Britain, as well, sent submarines and air fighters to help Pakistan win the war. I don't really see how it is complex. It is just like the Provision government of Bangladesh (at that time) was supporting India. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Not only Indo-Pakistan war == |
|
:1) it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is, all that matters is what the Reliable Sources provide, and 2) belligerents are those that do the actual fighting - suppliers of weapons and/or intelligence materials are NOT 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a major cold war between Soviet union and United States. Soviet union stopped the submarines in Indian Ocean if they have entered God knows what worse the outcome would be for india. Similarly Pakistan was not alone too it was supported by usa as it was a strategic ally of usa at that time and it usa ordered Iran too to supply Pakistan arms. In the field do write who is supported by who as this was not a war only between india and pakistan but was one of the major proxy war as a part of cold war. Our friend Israel also helped a lot by supplying both arms and intelligemce. Please mention it in the supported by column 👍 ] (]) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Territorial changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It was also not true that because of that war Bangladesh was born. The result of the war between freedom fighters of Bangladesh and the then west Pakistan army is the born of Bangladesh ] (]) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Both sides captured territory across the international border<ref>{{Cite news|last=Times|first=James P. Sterba Special to The New York|date=1972-08-25|title=Pakistan Affirms Agreement on Troop Withdrawals|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/08/25/archives/pakistan-affirms-agreement-on-troop-withdrawals.html|access-date=2021-12-05|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Sundararajan|first=Saroja|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=8xntfrAZkbsC&pg=PA396&lpg=PA396&dq=pakistan+179+square+kilometres+1971&source=bl&ots=j-DN52xiQk&sig=ACfU3U3mAww_o2ucckIeEcXhUyquxw7HCA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpvuGrkMz0AhWFYMAKHQilAHUQ6AF6BAgWEAM|title=Kashmir Crisis: Unholy Anglo-Pak Nexus|date=2010|publisher=Gyan Publishing House|isbn=978-81-7835-808-6|language=en}}</ref>, which was subsequently returned in the ]. This has been omitted for some reason, but I'm going to add it to the article. I also propose moving the specific areas captured to the casualties section of the infobox. ] ] 07:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: Existing infobox touched on that aspect with brevity, Gyan publishing house does not measure up to the standards expounded in ]. ] (]) 08:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, the existing infobox suggests only India captured territory which is POV pushing. If you object to a source, you don't undo every revision since it was added, unless you're suggesting other RS like NYT are unreliable. ] ] 09:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As a matter of fact, that news report does not state that Pakistan captured Indian territory ''across the international border''. You are risking sanctions by deliberately misrepresenting sources. ] (]) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The report states, {{tq|India is scheduled to give up 5,000 square miles of Pakistani territory in exchange for Pakistan's return of 70 square miles of Indian territory}}. The only territory returned in the Simla agreement was across the international border. ] ] 17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Still, the source will have to conclude just the way you are doing if you really want to modify the existing text. ] (]) 06:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: This falls within the domain of ]. ] ] 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Putting the areas captured under "casualties" is common sense? -- ] (]) 11:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: No, it’s common sense what NYT is referring to. ] ] 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Whether or not your inferences are correct is immaterial. We require explicit and unequivocal statement to that effect as a matter of policy. Furnish the same or simply ]. ] (]) 11:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
Here are some more sources which explicitly state the territory was returned at Simla, including NYT.<ref>{{Cite news|date=1972-08-30|title=INDIA TALKS END, PACT IS AFFIRMED|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/08/30/archives/india-talks-end-pact-is-affirmed-agreement-with-pakistan-will-be.html|access-date=2021-12-11|issn=0362-4331|quote=The Simla accord provided that India give up 5,000 square miles of Pakistani territory in the states of Sind and the Punjab in exchange for the return by Pakistan of 70 square miles of Indian territory}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Agarwalla|first=S. S.|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=-JKYMYP6Eh4C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&source=bl&ots=oT0BYfB5yT&sig=ACfU3U0ZayoXrYYie3fP9cE2d2tV33R_fw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivjcTC39v0AhWR8OAKHboeAUYQ6AF6BAgfEAM|title=Contemporary India and Its Burning Problems|date=1994|publisher=Mittal Publications|isbn=978-81-7099-575-3|pages=22|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Wynbrandt|first=James|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=xQGwgJnCPZgC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204#&source=bl&ots=5E1i8mTeWl&sig=ACfU3U1p-kqkT2FhLeRpyOpuWkZkXMR-jQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivjcTC39v0AhWR8OAKHboeAUYQ6AF6BAggEAM|title=A Brief History of Pakistan|date=2009|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=978-0-8160-6184-6|pages=204|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972 - Office of the Historian|url=https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve07/d272|access-date=2021-12-11|website=history.state.gov}}</ref> ] ] 12:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:We can now be certain that the information present in the New York Times news article is reliable for the purpose of ]. At the same time, however, its placement in the infobox would be injudicious and unjustified given the apparent lack of scholarly consideration of the trivia (vide ], ]). I do think it merits a line in the body. ] (]) 18:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It's not some minority opinion, though. It's just a fact. A glance at the presently cited sources shows that one is a book about Benazir Bhutto which refers to the 1971 war in an offhand manner. Similarly, ''Kashmir in conflict'' focuses on Kashmir and seems to be conveying how badly Pakistan was defeated. It has a number of factual errors such as claiming India captured all 5,000 square miles in Sindh, 94,000 PoWs were taken (where did the extra 1,000 come from?) and so on. Perhaps {{u|NarSakSasLee}} has access to ''Crossed swords : Pakistan, its army, and the wars within''. I could not verify its content online. |
|
|
:: Against those 3 sources, I have presented 3 sources as well (4 if you include the Office of the Historian, US govt.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 --- 17,000 Indian Soldiers Killed during 1971 War == |
|
::I am tagging {{ping|Fowler&fowler}} and {{ping|Kautilya3}} for their thoughts on this. ] ] 15:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Indo-Pakistani war of 1971|answered=yes}} |
|
::: I don't understand what is being debated. There is no problem with adding reliably sourced content to the article. Only infobox changes need a discussion. -- ] (]) 16:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
We need to include that Indian Forces lost 17,000 Soldier during the 1971 War with Pakistan. This is very important edit as India lost more soldiers than it reported to the media. https://www.news18.com/world/india-now-supposedly-an-enemy-taslima-nasreen-slams-bangladeshs-shift-towards-pakistan-9147802.html ] (]) 13:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::: By {{tq|infobox changes}}, are you referring to moving the territorial changes to the casualties or adding Pakistani gains to the existing format? ] ] 18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
I don't know. This discussion is all over the place and I am not sure what is being debated. One thing I can make out that the Indian territory returned by Pakistan is not mentioned in the infobox. I think it should be mentioned. -- ] (]) 11:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: See diff. The specific numbers were moved to the "casualties" section (similar to ]) and the overall changes were left in the "territorial changes" section. ] ] 12:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} |
|
|
*It would be more constructive if Kautilya3 explained the rationale underpinning their comment, considering that some of the opponents above have aired some well-founded and legitimate concerns concerning the OP's edits. While it is doubtless that the Indian territorial gain is a key facet of the subject matter as attested to by the magnitude of scholarly attention that it has received, the same cannot be said of the trivia at issue. A lead of which infobox is an important dimension, by its nature. recapitulates some of the ''most important'' content of an article (]), while ]'s applicability is not confined to "some minority opinion" as the OP erroneously reasons or regurgitates, but is broad enough to encompass within its purview all minor "aspects" of a subject. To juxtapose the same under the same infobox parameter is to engender discrepancy and unjustified indeed, besides patently constituting non-observance of ], a key content policy. In consequence, I would caution against proceeding with the edit until the concerns are addressed to everyone's contentment. Lastly, I would be curious to know how the two Gbooks references that the OP has cascaded to us to weigh in favor of their position are even reliable to begin with. The text by SS Agarwalla reads like a college textbook and provides no particulars about the author, his credentials and scholarship, and in any case deals with the Shimla agreement ''in passing'' (]); the text by the Saudi journalist James Wynbrandt is also likewise sketchy, superficial, and facile when it comes to its treatment of the same. These are not the sources that were demanded. ] foregrounds scholarly sources as sources to use for such topics; the trivia should find a place only in an appropriate section in the body. ] (]) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I don't see it that way. The infobox is meant for ''factual information'', not any statements of note. The territory won and returned by both sides deserves mention. If you are contesting the ''factuality'' of the Pakistani-won territory, that is a different matter. (By the way, the first source cited, Shuja Nawaz does mention the territorial holding of both the sides, but the numbers are different, because he is including J&K. Chitkara is a poor source. The fact that Schofield doesn't mention it doesn't mean much, since it is a book on the Kashmir conflict.) -- ] (]) 16:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*My comment stands. Infobox is not the place to put all sorts of trivia and obscure details; ] is clear in this regard. If scholars do not dwell on it, it does not stand to reason that Misplaced Pages should treat it as a key fact by mixing it with something far more significant in the infobox. {{tq|Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the.. prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.}} One way in which the problem may begin to penetrate, would be to draw an analogy with the Indian exchange of territory, which the scholars not only explore, but entertain its import– e.g. : {{tq|India was able to bargain territorial gains made in Punjab and Sind for a readjustment of the old UN ceasefire line towards a new LOC in Kashmir which improved India's forward positions.}} ] (]) 18:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{not done}} Not an appropriate source for this. ] (]) 23:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Rape victims during Bangladesh liberation war == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This is from reliable Indian News Agency News18.Com, are you saying Indian News Outlets are completely fake as I can point out multiple garbage resources on the following Wiki Article about 1971 War. Please confirm or I will escalate the issue. ] (]) 20:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''False claims:''' Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::It is attributed to a blog. ] (]) 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
* {{tq|It was also a means of purifying the "tainted" blood of Bengali Muslims.}} <ref>{{Cite book|last=Siddiqi|first=Dina M.|editor1-last=Bodman|editor1-first=Herbert L.|editor2-last=Tohidi|editor2-first=Nayereh|editor2-link=Nayereh Tohidi|year=1998|chapter=Taslima Nasreen and Others: The Contest over Gender in Bangladesh|title=Women in Muslim Societies: Diversity Within Unity|url=http://archive.org/details/womeninmuslimsoc0000unse|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder, Colo.|isbn=978-1-55587-558-9|page=209}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding commanders == |
|
* {{tq|… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … }}<ref>{{Cite book|last=Brownmiller|first=Susan|author-link=Susan Brownmiller|year=2013|orig-year=First published 1975|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jaWqAAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&hl=en|title=Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape|publisher=Open Road Media|isbn=978-1-4804-4195-8|page=81|language=en}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{U|Taeyab}}, you have readded ] to the infobox after being reverted because, per ], their inclusion is not supported by body of article. Per ] there is a limit of about seven commanders to be added. This is already exceeded. We should be reducing, not adding to this list. There is also an ] to establish a ] for your edit before reinstating it. ] (]) 09:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
The False sentence should be removed from lead para.'''<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><span style="color:#AC9F06">❯❯❯</span>]<sup> ]</sup></i>''' 12:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why not just harmonize the same with the sources and substitute Muslim for Hindu? Does that sound good to you ]? ] (]) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|MBlaze Lightning}} much more improvement needed at ], It seems some editors are trying to portray that most victims were Hindus and so they are trying to justify the barbarism of Pak army in a particular group's mindset.'''<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><span style="color:#AC9F06">❯❯❯</span>]<sup> ]</sup></i>''' 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
It was a major cold war between Soviet union and United States. Soviet union stopped the submarines in Indian Ocean if they have entered God knows what worse the outcome would be for india. Similarly Pakistan was not alone too it was supported by usa as it was a strategic ally of usa at that time and it usa ordered Iran too to supply Pakistan arms. In the field do write who is supported by who as this was not a war only between india and pakistan but was one of the major proxy war as a part of cold war. Our friend Israel also helped a lot by supplying both arms and intelligemce. Please mention it in the supported by column 👍 Indianigga (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done Not an appropriate source for this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)