Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:: Sloppy source use and sloppy use of logic, again. Your sentence claimed that – according to Niazi's account – thousands of men and women were killed ''and'' raped – i.e. every single individual among those thousands was both raped and killed. That is clearly not what the source says, and it would be rather odd for Niazi to claim such a thing. The source says "men and women were bayoneted ''or'' raped". Worded like this, it doesn't imply anything about how each of these two fates was distributed across the two sexes. Given the fact that all the other sources cited in the article appear to be speaking only of women as the victims of rape, it would be a stretch to suppose that Niazi meant to specifically imply that in the Chittagong events sexual violence had also been directed against men. The far more likely reading is that he meant it as a simple shorthand way of saying that men were killed, and women were either killed or raped. ] ] 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:: Sloppy source use and sloppy use of logic, again. Your sentence claimed that – according to Niazi's account – thousands of men and women were killed ''and'' raped – i.e. every single individual among those thousands was both raped and killed. That is clearly not what the source says, and it would be rather odd for Niazi to claim such a thing. The source says "men and women were bayoneted ''or'' raped". Worded like this, it doesn't imply anything about how each of these two fates was distributed across the two sexes. Given the fact that all the other sources cited in the article appear to be speaking only of women as the victims of rape, it would be a stretch to suppose that Niazi meant to specifically imply that in the Chittagong events sexual violence had also been directed against men. The far more likely reading is that he meant it as a simple shorthand way of saying that men were killed, and women were either killed or raped. ] ] 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:::I have no interest in your interpretation as that is OR. It is more than plausible than men and women were raped and then killed, it happened a lot during that conflict. ] (]) 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:::I have no interest in your interpretation as that is OR. It is more than plausible than men and women were raped and then killed, it happened a lot during that conflict. ] (]) 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Agreed with DS. Secondly the other editor is under 4RR. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 14:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am responding to the request for closure left at WP:ANRFC. I see a weak consensus to use option two, the version without the list of towns. However, due to the low level of participation compared to the previous RfC, this close shouldn't be assumed to have any more weight than normal talkpage discussion. This close is not intended to stop editors from improving the wording of the material, and further discussion is encouraged. — Mr. Stradivarius11:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
With the very ambiguous closure of the previous RFC a dispute has now sprung up over how the content should be presented. Two editors favor this edit
"The Hamoodur Rahman Commission found Mukti Bahini rebels responsible for large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistani community at Dacca, Narayanganj, Chittagong, Chandragona, Rungamati, Khulna, Dinajpur, Dhakargaoa, Kushtia, Ishuali, Noakhali, sylhet, Maulvi Bazaar, Rangpur, Saidpur, Jessore, Barisal, Mymensingh, Rajshal, Pabna, Sirojgonj, Comilla, Brahman, Baria, Bogra, Naugaon, Santapur and other smaller areas." Others support the existing edit
which is in the Pakistani government reaction section which reads "and that the Mukti Bahini rebels engaged in widespread rape and other human rights abuses"
Which edit ought be used?
with the list of towns, or
without the towns in the Pakistani government reaction section
I've removed the RFC tag until you have something that was already not discussed and closed. You may not repeatedly open an RFC on the same thing until you get the consensus of your choice. In the Previous RFC you already asked the question: "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 consensus was summarized as to keep with attribution. There's no dispute left there and as far as I remember you even objected to tagging of RFC even in the interval when it was not closed. The closure is not ambiguous. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Secondly, you also already asked your second question, "I also used the Hamoodur Rahman Commission here in the Pakistani government reaction section were I accredited the allegations to the report." in the previous RFC too and it was addressed with the same "keep (the section in dispute) with attribution". --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Never fucking do that again. I am pissed off enough with your disruption without you now reverting a valid RFC over this stupid dispute caused by you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think further discussion on this issue is definitely warranted. Note also that this RfC is asking about more specific and detailed issues. My thoughts on this are that:
I'm not seeing enough to warrant a separate section, other than the already existing "Pakistani government reaction"
Readers are not going to know what the Hamoodur Rahman Commission was, so proper attribution requires that it's clear that it was a Pakistani government commission.
The towns/districts should NOT be listed per WP:Primary and WP:UNDUE. For comparison were we to list every single place where the Pakistani army and the pro-Pakistani militias committed atrocities you'd have to more or less list almost every single place in Bangladesh. VolunteerMarek21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
About your first point, that was already asked by DS in the previous RFC (as I quoted) and it was still kept. Second, the wikilink covers your issue and now you've added "Pakistani government" to it anyway (which is redundant). As for the last, we're not here to re discuss what was already covered in the previous discussion (you might not be a part of that, but RFCs are not generally reopened after a new users enters the discussion - esp. if called by one of the involved). Just now you say the crimes by pro-Pakistan militias were all over the area, but these were specific and thus need the detail. You would obviously not detail something that is in general, where as you would give the details of something that was not done in as much extent... or do you say now that they're equals? --lTopGunl (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What was "kept" is "material with attribution", not a separate section.
There is an obvious difference between having "Pakistani government" in the HRC article (behind a wikilink), and that fact being explicitly spelled out in THIS article. So no, it's not redundant.
"Should there be a section on the Mukti Bahini?" << This is from the previous RFC too. Read that before you start on this. This is a habitual restart by DS on closed discussions to get consensus in his favour like he did elsewhere. I've asked the closer to comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to continue with how DS very specifically framed his RFC so as to not let me off on anything and got the taste of his own when the consensus was otherwise and that the section also is to be kept as a result of the discussion as material does not exclude anything out of the section including the heading, but how about saying it will seem very funny if we add the Mukti Bahini crimes under the general sections which appear to be about pro Pakistan forces. A section is meant to separate things that are different from the rest. This is what it is doing right here. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather see this discussed on the talk page rather than through an RfC. In my experience, consensus determination through community input has become a mess on Misplaced Pages and local discussions usually do a much better job. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rape against Biharis
The source only says that Bihari women were raped, not men, also the info should be only about the rapes as per the title.--Zayeem14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The source says "In Chittagong thousands of men and women were bayoneted or raped" Do you think men cannot be raped? I expect you to remove your tag as it is obvious the sentence is supported by the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sloppy source use and sloppy use of logic, again. Your sentence claimed that – according to Niazi's account – thousands of men and women were killed and raped – i.e. every single individual among those thousands was both raped and killed. That is clearly not what the source says, and it would be rather odd for Niazi to claim such a thing. The source says "men and women were bayoneted or raped". Worded like this, it doesn't imply anything about how each of these two fates was distributed across the two sexes. Given the fact that all the other sources cited in the article appear to be speaking only of women as the victims of rape, it would be a stretch to suppose that Niazi meant to specifically imply that in the Chittagong events sexual violence had also been directed against men. The far more likely reading is that he meant it as a simple shorthand way of saying that men were killed, and women were either killed or raped. Fut.Perf.☼14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no interest in your interpretation as that is OR. It is more than plausible than men and women were raped and then killed, it happened a lot during that conflict. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
