Talk:Bangladesh genocide/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Serious source misrepresentation

In this [1] edit SheriffIsInTown added this text "Academic Christian Gerlach has argued that the majority of the deaths in the 1971 period were due to hunger and disease and not due to direct army killings." Is miksrepresented by the user Sheriffisintown, the cited source says the famine followed the 1975 coup, this was four years after the genocide and Gerlach says nothing of the sort which Sheriff has written, I shall check the rest of his edits to this article. @Volunteer Marek and Kautilya3: to take a look. 45.125.128.130 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, Some scholars also consider the number of women raped to be seriously inflated. was shown some months ago as to be wrong, only Bose writes such nonsense, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_women in sections above 45.125.128.130 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

More misrepresentation "There is no consensus among independent researchers on number of people killed. Some put that number between 300,000-500,000, and describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated." The first source given does not say "There is no consensus among independent researchers" The second source is seriously misrepresented again, Hiro clearly says Bose gives a figure of 50-100 thousand dead, not "some" has Sheriff has written, and nowhere in the source is the term "describe the 3 million number as excessively inflated" even remotely hinted at. 45.125.128.130 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Jamaat-e-Islami vs. local Bengali collaborators

@Volunteer Marek: and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Guys, I made very small edits so they are easy to compare so let's discuss each change separately one by one and resolve before moving to the next change.

I changed the wording from "local islamist militias of Jamaat-e-Islami" to "local Bengali collaborators" in this edit because that is what page 40 of Margaret Alston's book says which is referenced. If one of you can add a reference which says otherwise then I will go with your version otherwise accept mine and move forward to next item. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Local Bengali collaborators" is vague. Since J-e-I was the main party responsible, why not state that explicitly? I added a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Describing Chowdhury's book as controversial

When i remove the word controversial in this edit, i am merely reverting this edit which was made without achieving any consensus on talk page. So, when something unsourced can be added without consensus then it can be removed as well. If someone can add a reliable source which describe this book as controversial then i am fine with keeping that word. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The word "controversial" may be paraphrasing: Bose, Sarmila (2011). "The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war". Journal of Genocide Research. 13 (4). doi:10.1080/14623528.2011.625750. Bose writes "Publications like the polemical Behind the Myth of Three Million by M. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury ..."

Word choice aside, it isn't clear to me why Wikipedia is citing Behind the Myth of Three Million or (later in the same paragraph) Suppression of the Muslims: US Policy and the Muslim World. Neither seems to fit the description of a reliable source or the advice of WP:HISTRS. Chowdhury is a management consultant with a degree in sociology, the publisher is not an academic one, and the book is held by precisely one worldcat library. Does anyone see any reviews of his work in scholarly journals? I can't find anything on the qualifications of Haque, Archway Publishing is a self-publisher, and no worldcat libraries hold the book. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The article contains quite a few citations which doesn't fit the requirement of WP:HISTRS, if we want to strictly follow this policy, I would suggest that we should also discuss those sources too. Some of them are from BBC, Banglapedia, DhakaTribune etc to name a few.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the source is not reliable and so the simplest solution is to just remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The whole paragraph which you removed after dropping this line here enjoyed consensus for months. This section was about me removing the word controversial without discussing it so if the decision comes out in favour of removing the whole paragraph then we will remove it but we need to restore it while the discussion is going on to preserve the WP:STATUSQUO, you cannot just drop a line here and presume that consensus has been achieved in your favor. When it comes to deciding about reliability of the source, we cannot decide it here, its not proper forum. Moreover, the text is properly attributed so I do not see anything in keeping that text Witt proper attribution. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it has not "enjoyed consensus for months". It got snuck in and then people expressed reservation. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline and it doesn't say what you think it says (it does not say "we must restore the status quo" as that'd be really dumb). There's obviously several editors objecting to the inclusion of this source. Which is pretty much a no-brainer as it's a non-reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, anyone can claim that it got snuck in but read WP:CONSENSUS, according to guidelines provided in it, this paragraph had consensus, now in order to remove it, you need a new consensus. The only objection being raised is that it is not reliable and you know on which forum you should be discussing that. Fighting to death on this in not an answer. You are also removing another source in there, this one, what objection do you have about this? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it did not have consensus. There's people objecting to it right above for funky sake. And yes, reliability can be discussed at WP:RSN, but that's actually up to you, not those who wish to remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And I'm removing the part sourced to Bartrop and Jacobs because without Chowdhury's book, it doesn't make sense to have that (very ungrammatical) sentence in there. But I guess we could put back in the fact that the students were unarmed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it did have consensus, I went back at least 250 edits in the history and the text is there. You have edited yourself several times since then and several other editors have edited the page even neutral editors who are not party to this dispute have edited it. People who are objecting above are providing one reason that the source is not reliable, well you need to take it to WP:RSN in a most neutral way, actually I am willing to take it but the text stays in the page until it is decided that the source is unreliable, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. For your information, WP:STATUSQUO is part of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and both of these are policies. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not consensus. That's "managed to stay in the article for 250 edits when no one noticed it". And no, the burden of proof for inclusion is on you - take it to RSN, then if that says it's reliable (it won't), you can include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

Your revision after over 250 edits is not without dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There's several editors here who are saying this is not a reliable source. That's consensus. Consensus is NOT "I managed to sneak it into the article and it was awhile before anyone noticed".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Bangladesh Law

Ref edits by Messiaindarain, I couldnt find any news that says the law criminalizing propaganda regarding 1971 war has been passed. All it says is that it is likely to be passed. So, for now I have reverted the edits, they can be put back when the law actually gets through. Moreover, when it gets through and we add the info here, it would also need to added in a NPOV way so as to include the fact that this new Bangladeshi Law is infact controversial, that people have been against it and that it have been criticized.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The legislation can, of course, be covered here, indeed almost certainly should be covered here, whether it is ever passed into law or not. The article must not state that it has passed, however, unless a reliable source can be cited to that effect. Also, the first paragraph of the "Estimated killed" section may not be the best point for material about the legislation. Much has been written about the proposed law. Whatever set of sources is selected to represent the range of views on the issue, I recommend that they include Bergman's [2] and [3] as one widely read opinion from a notable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The legislation may be covered, even if it hasnt been passed, however, as I pointed out earlier, it should be presented as it is while giving both sides' story to its acceptance, passage and controversy, if any. Also, I agree that the first paragraph may not be the best point where this should be mentioned. Whether to have it in a separate section is open for debate, but I guess that would be acceptable if the legislation could actually get through and is passed/implemented by the Bangladesh govt.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the law has not been passed, but has been proposed warrants notability. I implore my fellow editors to not remove link without consensus. Thanks. :)Messiaindarain (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

POV edits

Please stop trying to sneak "Mukti Bahini" into the "perpetrators" list in the infobox. It's inaccurate and highly POV. It's trying to establish a false equivalence. It's also been discussed to death, here and on related articles. THIS article is NOT about violence against Biharis during the Bangladesh Liberation War.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to discuss these issues rather than pre-empting edit wars. First, it would be useful if you could explain why you think the violence against Biharis in the 71 war should be excluded from this article, which is on the 71 atrocities? Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

These issues have been discussed. I guess we can discuss it some more but in the meantime cut it out with the POV edits. Don't put this in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a genocide which happened in 1971 in Bangladesh. Its not a one ethnicity issue. If there are sources saying Mukti Bahini committed genocide against Biharis in Bangladesh in 1971 then it applies to this article and must be mentioned otherwise the article will not be neutral. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces against Bangladeshis. It is NOT about the violence against Biharis. You know this. We've been over this. Stop trying to construct this false equivalence which is not supported by sources. The violence against Biharis ALREADY is mentioned in the article (in fact, with way too much WEIGHT, so that section should be cut). This is about putting it in the infobox. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean seriously, the RfC for that is still up above! Please stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken the liberty of going through the RfC from May, and as the closer accurately noted, that discussion certainly lacked a specific purpose. What I see mostly is a collection of strong opinions, ranging from what constitutes 'genocide' to arguments over sources. I am inclined to agree with the closing admin regarding working on each proposed addition incrementally. The first question, and the most relevant one for now, is establishing the parties in the conflict - on both sides. We do have multiple reliable sources stating that atrocities were committed by the rebel Mukti Bahini forces during the war. So this brings me to the other question - could you briefly summarize why, in your view, the article should not cover that violence? Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this article isn't about the Bangladesh Liberation War. Nor is it my view, as I've already made it plain, that the article should not "cover the violence" (there's already a way too big section about it). So please take that strawman home. This article is about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces and their collaborators against Bangladeshis. So putting in "Mukti Bahini" into the "perpetrators" in the infobox is both POV and obnoxiously offensive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to create a new article about the violence against Bihari during Bangladesh liberation war instead of trying to get undue content in this article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There already is an article on the subject and a couple POV forks to boot (at least there were, there was some consolidation at some point).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Who defined that this article is just about genocide committed by Pakistan Army? This article should cover all aspects of the genocide which happened in 1971 in East Pakistan and genocide against Biharis was one aspect of that conflict. Biharis are a significant population of Bangladesh and they are Bangladeshis as well. This article will cover genocide perpetrated by Pakistan Army and Mukti Bahini both and that would make it neutral. @Vinegarymass911: Violence against Biharis must be covered in this article and if the sources say that it was the cause of start of genocide against the other folks then that needs to be covered too. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Who defined that this article is just about genocide committed by Pakistan Army?" - Reliable sources. What you are doing is original research. Very very POV original research, which borders on the insulting. It's like putting Red Army into the infobox of the article on the Holocaust under "perpetrators". And I'm pretty sure this has been explained several times to you already so you're behaving in bad faith and being disruptive. (You're also inventing a new meaning for the word "neutral")

And for the millionth freaking time. "Violence against Beharis" ALREADY IS COVERED IN THE FLYING ARTICLE!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: @SheriffIsInTown: Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, Volunteer Marek, I don't see your argument addressing any of the questions raised. It's important to note that the previous name of this article was 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, before it was moved to the current title. While I saw agreement regarding the title move, I see no agreement over redefining or changing the article's scope regarding the killings of non-Bengali minorities. Please note that what you are proposing is essentially historical revisionism, which is fundamentally WP:POV (i.e. against NPOV, which relies on coverage of all sides). The idea of censoring one side of the conflict is preposterous, hence why I asked you the question. Your claim for instance, that the 1971 war atrocities do not include Mukti Bahini atrocities, is just not true if we look at some sources. For example, Carl Skutsch in Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities (Routledge, ISBN 9781135193881) writes: The civil war also saw tragic atrocities being committed by the Bengalis against Biharis, a situation that degenerated into official acts of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing.... The same source also attributes an account to Anthony Mascarenhas (who btw, is quoted in this Wikipedia article) that: 1) "refugees from Bihar were mercilessly wiped out. Women were raped and mutilated. Children did not escape the horror..."; 2) 20,000 "bodies of non-Bengalis have been found in the main towns of Chittagong, Khulna and Jessore. The real toll may have been as high as 100,000...". Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean " Unfortunately, Volunteer Marek, I don't see your argument addressing any of the questions raised"???

You say "First, it would be useful if you could explain why you think the violence against Biharis in the 71 war should be excluded from this article"

I reply - NO ONE IS TRYING TO EXCLUDE "violence against Biharis" from this article. You're making stuff up.

You say "could you briefly summarize why, in your view, the article should not cover that violence?"

I reply - that's NOT "my view". You're constructing a strawman.

You say "the first question, and the most relevant one for now, is establishing the parties in the conflict - on both sides"

I reply - this article is NOT ABOUT any "conflict" (i.e. the Bangladesh Liberation War). It's about the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Armed Forces and their collaborators against Bangladeshis.

So, no, your "argument" - which is just pure strawman - and "your questions" - have been more than adequately addressed.

Nothing is being "censored" (whenever someone starts crying about "censorship" on Wikipedia it's a near-certain red flag that they're just complaining that they don't get to push their POV in a given article).

Likewise I NEVER "claimed that the 1971 war atrocities do not include Mukti Bahini atrocities". STOP attributing views or statements to me that I never made. That's bordering really close to lying about someone. What I said is that the atrocities committed by Mukti Bahini were NOT part of the "1971 Bangladesh genocide". They weren't and reliable sources do not describe either the MB actions nor the genocide in those terms.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to say which content is undue or not, but if "Violence against Biharis" is included, Mukti Bahini must be included in the "Perpetrator" list. If it is not included then the section "Violence against Biharis" must be discarded. The ONLY other option is to split this article into 2: 1971 Bangladesh genocide against Bengalis and 1971 Bangladesh genocide against Biharis. The content cannot contradict the infobox. Alt. discard this infobox and use belligerents list. Thanks :)Messiaindarain (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative number of victims

Justification for this edit

1. The BBC source in this edit says Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 died. The Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million.
2. Hiro says on Page 216: The figure of three million - five times the estimate for the unparalleled communal butchery in Punjab during 1947 - first mentioned by Shaikh Rahman in his interview with British TV personality David Frost in January 1972 after his return to Dacca as a free man is now universally regarded as excessively inflated.
3. Page 9 of Henrik Alffram's book reads like this: figures of 200,000 to 400,000 victims are often mentioned in the literature, though some scholars claim that these figures are seriously inflated Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC does not say "There is no consensus among independent researchers" you made that up and misrepresented the source. I was wrong with regards to Hiro, but shall check his source. The Human Rights Watch was already shown to be wrong, two months ago, yet you persist in adding it? 45.125.128.247 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

IP, we are allowed to describe what the source says. Here it is clear that the source is saying that there are multiple numbers. I think Sheriff is on good grounds here. Let us drop this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have given a Pakistani claim about the origin of the 3 million figure [4] and Bangladeshi counter-claim in The Hindu (See [5]). Here, David Bergman, who is the son-in-law of Bangladeshi foreign minister Kamal Hossain posits a figure of 500,000 based on a 1976 study. Is this POV pushing if both arguments are present!? :)Messiaindarain (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note, I propose that the "Estimated killings" section be sub-sectioned to "Bangladeshi claims," "Pakistani claims" "Independent" and "Others." There could be matter of debate as to whether, "Sarmila Bose" goes under "others" or gets her own section.Messiaindarain (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I would take the bbc view as more correct. Some people who even say its 100,000 but nobody talks of them because small number of people who say what they want. more general correct view bbc seem to meSaadkhan12345 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

"The Hamoodur Rahman Commission set up by the Pakistani government following the war noted various atrocities committed by the Pakistani military, including widespread arson and killings in the countryside, killing of intellectuals and professionals, killing of Bengali military officers and soldiers on the pretence of mutiny, killing Bengali civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists, raping numerous Bengali women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture, deliberate killing of members of the Bengali Hindu minority and the creation of mass graves.[198]"

The above mentioned information, written in the article, contradicts the report itself. Other than the excessive use of force by the Pakistani Army which, according to the report, resulted in the killing of 26,000 individuals (Para 33), the commission never conceded any of above alleged crimes, in the manner that the current article is trying to project. With regards to the rape, the commission challenged the figures of Bangladeshi authorities of 200,000 by citing a hundred or more termination of pregnancies (Para 34) that were carried out by the abortion teams sanctioned by the Britain, in the early 1972. With regards to the killing of intellectuals, professionals, civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists, the commission acknowledged the fact that there do existed a preemptive plan to 'arrest' not to 'kill' the the above mentioned individuals, but that plan was never executed because of the inability of the army to secure their safety such individuals (Para 24, 25, 26, 27). 39.42.123.189 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for the move as the current title fits the common term. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

---

1971 Bangladesh genocide → Bengali genocide –

• There is no official name for mass killing and massacre!
  
• see Greek genocide Assyrian genocide Armenian Genocide Bosnian genocide! all of them named after target ethnic groups and victims!
  
• untill 25th march 1971 the victims were known as pakistani Bengalis and from 26th march to 16th december some area were under provincial government and some area under Pakistani Occupation !
  
• untill 1978, the Constitution of Bangladesh referred all citizens of Bangladesh as Bangalis. And all Victims were eliminated for being Bengalis! 78.34.205.197 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose new title fails WP:TITLE all 5 criteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the current title is a common term, e.g., [6]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose everybody mentions & searches the event using the present name. — Vamsee614 (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

oppose Bengalis are present in two countries but this massacre was only against Bengalis in Bangladesh. Even in Bangla this event is called 1971 Bangladeshi massacre. Not every Bangladeshi is a Bengali, there are Biharis and hill tribes also.Kiwigravity (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

u mean bengali in India!? which has no official value and out of many! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.93.248 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong Support the genocide victims were Bengalis, not Indian Bengalis! look at Infobox: Bangladesh Genocide in East Pakistan sounds like something Pakistan Genocide in India!? —78.34.205.197 (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Removed duplicate !vote - nom counts as support. -- Dane ^talk 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support per nom.—Ayomoy (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Need to add information of the year to identify similar events in different times.--Tr56tr (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

funny! how many Bengali genocide do u know !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.93.248 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is genocide fuuny?I do not think so.No matter how many times the event happened,I kept my respect.After all,every event is unique.--Tr56tr (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Wrong meaning

The words gonimoter maal do not mean "public property". It is Bengali for the "wealth of Ghanima" - Ghanima is an Arabic word used in the Hadith to mean "booty or spoils of war" from battles won by Muslims against unbelievers. Wrong translation is wrong translation, irregardless of the academic. Wrong translations tend to be partial. Ash wki (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201162513/http://www.newagebd.com/2005/dec/15/murdered/murdered.html to http://www.newagebd.com/2005/dec/15/murdered/murdered.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201162513/http://www.newagebd.com/2005/dec/15/murdered/murdered.html to http://www.newagebd.com/2005/dec/15/murdered/murdered.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104105107/http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_03-05-2013_ICT-issues-arrest-order-against-Mueen%2C-Ashrafuzzaman_485_1_2_1_0.html to http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_03-05-2013_ICT-issues-arrest-order-against-Mueen%2C-Ashrafuzzaman_485_1_2_1_0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602055513/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/chronology.asp?groupId=77103 to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/chronology.asp?groupId=77103
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2005/12/30/editorial.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214084924/http://www.rayimmigration.com.au/pressrelease.htm to http://www.rayimmigration.com.au/pressrelease.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903215345/http://esearch.fedcourt.gov.au/ to http://esearch.fedcourt.gov.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Beachler reference

The lead of the article cites and quotes an article from Donald Beachler to support the claim that: "However, some scholars deny it was a genocide." Here is the complete quote from Beachler, "Some scholars and other writers have denied that what took place in Bangladesh was a genocide. Journalists’ reports, expatriate testimony, refugee reports and an investigation by the International Commission of Jurists in 1972 all indicate, however, that the Pakistani army did commit genocide in Bangladesh in 1971." So the Beachler reference is not supporting the claim made in the lead, in fact it is doing the very opposite. Either this claim should be removed, or a reference that actually supports it should be added. Here is the complete article by Beachler: http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beachler_-_politics_of_genocide_scholarship_crp.pdf I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify your argument? How would you paraphrase Beachler with regard to the existence of scholars who have denied that a genocide took place? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My argument is not that there arent scholars who deny genocide. My contention is that Beachler is not a good reference for this. His other lines make it clear that he does believe a genocide took place, and he is mentioning the no-genocide scholars to setup his point. The line in the lead needs a citation which tells us which specific scholars deny genocide and their reasons for doing so. Or, we should extend the line in the lead to say that these denials were based on nationalist or other political considerations, which is the argument Beachler is making. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for expounding on your point. I'm open to a change of phrasing or context, but think you're dead wrong about Beachler not being a good reference for the statement, "However, some scholars deny it was a genocide". On the contrary, because he writes "Some scholars and other writers have denied that what took place in Bangladesh was a genocide", he is an ideal reference for the statement. His beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the statement. We're not saying Beachler denies it was genocide. The lead already states in the previous sentence that there is academic consensus that genocide took place.

The lead is a summary of the body of the article. The body identifies specific scholars who have denied that it was genocide, namely Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose (the source for which is again Beachler). As for their motivations, Beachler writes "Either they were unaware of the evidence pointing to genocide in Bangladesh or they chose to disregard it without ever informing the reader of their reasons for doing so." There may be room for expansion of that part of the body if other scholars have analyzed Sisson and Rose or have singled out other scholars who have denied that it was genocide.

The details are where they belong, in the body. The statement in the lead is a high-level summary, as it should be. Because many readers will find it a controversial statement, it cites a source, Beachler, which directly supports the statement. If you want to tweak the wording in the lead to emphasize the weight of academic consensus, that's fine, but there's no fundamental problem with the statement "However, some scholars deny it was a genocide" or with citing Beachler for it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613152129/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers3/paper232.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers3/paper232.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415235147/http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/bangladesh-stop-harassment-of-defense-at-war-tribunal to http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/bangladesh-stop-harassment-of-defense-at-war-tribunal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927041249/http://newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2012-11-14&nid=30049 to http://newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2012-11-14&nid=30049
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515115950/http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_09-11-2012_Jamaat-desperately-on-the-offensive_314_1_1_1_7.html to http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_09-11-2012_Jamaat-desperately-on-the-offensive_314_1_1_1_7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426074152/http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/events/2005iagsconference/abstracts/IAGS%202005.proposal.doc to http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/events/2005iagsconference/abstracts/IAGS%202005.proposal.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is the POV language?

RaviC you are mass reverting my addition of references with very vague edit summaries like this.[7][8][9] Can you point out a specific problem with them? There is hardly any new content being added. I am trying to add better references for the content which is already on the articles. TurboCop (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You've significantly changed the content that had been formerly discussed on the talk page as talk page archives show. Your edit wasn't minor and regardless of whether you are adding "better references", that would require consensus given the nature of your edits on this page was certainly not NPOV. RaviC (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You are making very vague objections. Can you point out a specific ref which you don't want or what are the problems you are finding with the refs? And please explain how my edits were not WP:NPOV. Please list each part of the edit separately and explain your objections to them with valid reference to policy. TurboCop (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RaviC and Rzvas Your objections are still not clear. We can go for dispute resolution if you still don't agree. TurboCop (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sentence alterations

Thank you @Worldbruce: for this constructive expansion.[10]

I have undertaken a project to sync all the Bangladeshi articles with the academic mainstream represented by Schendel, Baxter and the like. For this, some parts of our article text require modification. So we can pull them into sync with those passages from the top sources which discuss their theme.

For starters we should alter this sentence in the article It is alleged that Awami League-aligned militias carried out large scale massacres of Biharis and other ethnic groups. so it aligns with Willem van Schendel, A History of Bangladesh, (2009) Cambridge University Press pp.173

now that the war was over, Biharis were collectively branded as Pakistani collaborators. Severe retribution followed, leading to a counter genocide of thousands of non-Bengalis and forcing more than a million to leave their homes and seek refuge in overcrowded slum-like settlements all over the country.

We should also modify these texts of the article. After the convening of the National Assembly was postponed by Yahya Khan on 1 March 1971, the dissidents in East Pakistan began targeting the ethnic Bihari community which had supported West Pakistan. In early March 1971, 300 Biharis were slaughtered in rioting by Bengali mobs in Chittagong alone.

Bose asserts that during this 25-day period of lawlessness, attacks by Bengalis on non-Bengalis were common

and sync it with Schendel on p.173

In the period leading up to the Liberation War, nationalist mobs had killed Biharis

Do you have any suggestions, Worldbruce, for some new wordings?

@Adamgerber80: The citation I added in this edit[11] reads thus

Estimates of the number of war dead vary enormously, from the official Bangladeshi figure of 3,000,000 to the official Pakistani figure of 26,000...In the absence of any reliable assessment after the war, however, the actual number will never be known.

in Willem van Schendel, A History of Bangladesh, (2009) Cambridge University Press pp.173

I believe can reasonably agree that the above reference is reflective of this present text.

Bangladeshi authorities claim that as many as 3 million people were killed, although the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, the official Pakistani government investigation, claimed the figure was only 26,000 civilian casualties. TurboCop (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Yahya Khan about Killing 3 million

Hi, this published article (link below) provides some reason to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the "kill 3 million" quote from Yahya. Is it possible to add after the quote a line that says something to effect: "The reliability of this quote is, however, questioned by some." And footnote the article link below.

https://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110902&page=20

Below is the relevant section from the article.

When the uprising began, General Yahya Khan is quoted (and highlighted) on the Wikipedia page of the Bangladesh Liberation War as saying: "Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." I suspected this quote not to be true because it does not fit Yahya's character as I have understood it through the events that took place. Look at all Yahya did prior to the uprising. First, he decided to hand over power to the civilians by holding the country's first free and fair elections. Then he chased after Mujib (whom he publically called the next Prime Minister of Pakistan) and Bhutto for months to try to get them to form the government. Then, once the uprising started, he told his men to show restraint and remain in their barracks over the month of March before Operation Searchlight began, even as Mujib's direct rule resulted in anarchy and the army's food and ammunition supplies were disrupted. Does this sound like a premeditative murderer of vast proportions of his own people?

Strangely enough, the three million figure also conveniently coincides with exactly how many Bangladeshis are alleged to have been killed later. Hitting a target of three million would imply a level of competence that I doubt the military possessed. This is the same army that lost the war in 1971 in the record-breaking time of two weeks.

Suspicious for all these reasons, I tracked down the citation for Yahya's quote. It leads to a book by Robert Payne called Massacre (1972). In the introduction, Payne essentially acknowledges that his entire account is biased. He says, "This account is based largely on interviews with many of the people who helped bring the new nation to birth. I visited India and Bangladesh in March and April of 1972..." He did not visit Pakistan nor claims to have interviewed any one from there in the course of the two months of interviews that are the backbone of his book. Reading the book removes any doubt as to Payne's bias. It reads more as a comic book prone to hyperbole (Payne is a novelist and not a historian) than a history book.

According to Payne, Yahya is purported to have said the quote at a military conference in February of '71. Obviously it was not something Yahya would have said publically, so it must have come from someone who had reported this to Payne who had attended the conference. This must have been someone within the Bangladeshi Army as Payne admits to not having interviewed in Pakistan. But other than knowing that the quote possibly came from a biased source, we cannot say much else. The entire book is without a single footnote or reference other than a sparse one-page bibliography. Without evidence to uphold his assertion one must dismiss Payne's quote.

Payne's common-sense-defying quote about Yahya has been used in over 3000 entries on the web. Fiction has fed on itself and become fact, much like the three million figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimura (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Avoid using opinions and "Conflict of Interest" article links

Removed two links from opinion page of newspaper and COI article on a newspaper from Pakistan.

This article seems to heavily draw from Sarmila Bose's book. That's a bit odd considering her book has itself been the subject of a lot of academic criticism for all sorts of reasons like personal bias, lack of in-depth research, ignoring data that didn't fit her narrative, etc. For example, she largely ignores statements from rape victims because she feels their lack of education makes them unreliable. The list is so long that one should really be careful in citing from her "research". In particular, because of the dependence on this book, the article seems to repeatedly justify the Bengali genocide as a response to a Bihari genocide. This is quite disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.16.183 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Info box

User:FDW777 Many estimates of the deaths of bengalis in the 1971 war have been done and we would surely rely on the independent figures. The people should be able to differentiate on the independent figures and the awami league figures. Its better if 200,000 is quotes with the CIA refrence. Truthwins018 (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept your assertion that anyone publishing a higher figure is not "independent". FDW777 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

By independent i refer to anyone who is neutral. Nor does bangladeshi, indian or Bangladeshi claims have anything neutral to them, but it is fine to quote them. It would also be better if 200,000 could be quoted with CIA or something like US claim to differenciate on the neutral opinion. Truthwins018 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit said words to the effect of anyone giving a death toll of over 200,000 is not independent or neutral. I did include the lower-end estimate of 200,000 in the infobox and the lead, since it was already covered in the main body of the article. That's as far as is reasonable in my opinion. FDW777 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't edit on my behalf and nor should anyone do so. I had quoted CIA figures from a leaked intelligence report which you reverted. Many researches done by institutes show even lesser casualties. Sarmila Bose even quotes of 50,000. My talk here is to edit the infobox as such, 200,000(CIA)-3,000,000 Truthwins018 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I had quoted CIA figures from a leaked intelligence report which you reverted is simply incorrect. There is the footnote you added to "Looking Away From Genocide" in The New Yorker. In the current version, clicking on footnote 1 next to the 200,000 figure takes you here, which is the exact same article including the exact same CIA/State Dept estimate of 200,000. FDW777 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Worldbruce recently reverted my edit on the 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though they were well sourced with reputable books and just provided a profound estimate range. The reason was termed my ongoing talk with Kautilya3, which was on another topic of whether quoting Sarmila Bose was acceptable. My edit only transferred the already written phrase on biharis in another paragraph and further added to the range. Kindly better explain your revert and rather edit it further than reverting as i find my edit nothing of sorts to be termed in the "BOLD" category Truthwins018 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your most recent version can be seen here. The consensus version can be seen here. Other than the disruptive removal of footnotes, the only difference is the addition of and 163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistan to the lead. Since this claim doesn't appear in the article it's a violation of WP:LEAD, and I note the reference provided says Almost 100 people on either side of the conflict were killed and following the incident, several thousands of Biharis were arrested and imprisoned on allegations of collaboration. By 1974, the Pakistani government had transferred 108,000 Biharis to Pakistan. By 1981, the number rose to 163,000 which is different thing entirely. FDW777 (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Truthwins018: Thank you for the above explanation for this edit. It makes more sense than its edit summary, which is "Removed the controversial Sarmila Bose remarks until consensus. Sourced addition and organizing". Taking your two points in reverse order:

• Adding "and 163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistan" to the end of the paragraph that starts "During the war, ..." is misleading and off topic. No Biharis were transferred to Pakistan during the war. Pakistan did accept some Biharis in the decade after the war, and that is appropriately covered in Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. It doesn't appear directly relevant to genocide.
• Changing the range of estimated deaths is certainly something that can be discussed. The lowest recorded estimate is one thousand, the highest is one million. In accordance with MOS:LEADREL and WP:WEIGHT, Wikipedia should emphasize in the lead the views of a majority of academics. The lead should de-emphasize minority or fringe views, although they may be discussed in the body in due proportion.

Qutubuddin Aziz wrote in 1974, "As the Chairman of an official Committee for the relief and rehabilitation of war-displaced persons from East Pakistan ..., I met many hundreds of non-Bengali repatriates ... Their evidence gave me the impression that the non-Bengali death toll in the murderous period of March-April 1971 was in the vicinity of 500,000." Historian Christian Gerlach says that the first hand accounts cited by Aziz appear credible in many regards, but writes that Aziz's "own estimates, however, rather add up to about 350,000 non-Bengali deaths ... In 1971, Aziz, an experienced journalist, worked as a public relations man for the Pakistani government. He claims to have put together his book in a mere twelve weeks after publishing a call for survivor stories in February 1974 ... In his propagandistic account, Aziz ... inflates Bihari victim numbers, and makes unproven inferences about Awami League, Hindu, or Indian participation in the killings. Many of the accounts he cites claim automatic weapons' fire when Bengalis could hardly possess those, describe the culprits as "rebels" before March 25, and/or tend to date pogroms early." Is it your contention that Aziz's impression of deaths "in the vicinity of 500,000" is the academic consensus upper bound on Biharis killed?

--Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I see your reasoning for not mentioning the migration as weak as the article has multiple mentions of internal displacement like the mentioning of 30 million displacements. Biharis also lived inside of West Pakistan at the time and their migration and better explanation doesn't cause much objection.

As for the Qutubbuddin Aziz estimates, it has the right to be included in the article as we cannot judge as to what his propagandistic account. The figures of 2 million deaths is also very propagandistic and highly over stretched to laughable range, but it still makes it in the article. If you object further, we can maybe end with 1000-500,000 but the estimates remain controversial or something 46.152.111.198 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@46.152.111.198: It is easier to follow the discussion if you edit while logged in. Are you Truthwins018? I will assume you are.

The source you cited for "163,000 Biharis were transferred to Pakistan" is about Biharis in Bangladesh generally. Wikipedia covers their transfer within general articles about Biharis in Bangladesh, such as Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh.

Do reliable sources about the 1971 Bangladesh genocide talk about how many Biharis were transferred to Pakistan over the following decade? Not that I have seen. Based on the presented source and on Wikipedia policies no original research and neutral point of view (due and undue weight), as well as the supplementary explanation to guidelines, stay on topic, the subject is therefore off-topic for this article. Reliable sources do directly attribute the internal displacement of more than a million non-Bengalis to the counter-genocide directed against them, so that is on-topic here. We link to Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh so that readers can find out more about Biharis in Bangladesh if they want to.

Aziz's fanciful 500,000 estimate is included in the article. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the lead. Wikipedians are always having to judge how much weight to give different views. I'm not the one calling Aziz dead wrong. It's notable history professor Christian Gerlach who writes that Aziz's numbers aren't internally consistent, are inflated and unproven, and that Aziz had an axe to grind and cut corners. Of the more than a dozen academics who've written on the issue, none agree with Aziz. Most arrived at an upper bound of 150,000, and none say more than 200,000. To be fair, Minorities at Risk's lower bound of 1,000 also falls well outside the range of academic consensus. MAR doesn't cite their sources, so it's anybody's guess how they arrived at their number. No other source says below "a few thousand", and academic consensus appears to be at least 20,000. I would have no objection if you changed the lead from "1,000 to 150,000 were killed" to "20,000 to 200,000 were killed" and added a footnote to the effect that although that's the academic consensus, outlier estimates exist of 1,000 to 1 million killed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Having gone through your explanation, I agree on some points but I have a feeling of you not accepting Bihari's as part of Bangladesh. When we refer to Bangladesh genocide 1971, we refer to every community residing in Bangladesh that might have been subjected to war crimes. Having the claim of 3 million deaths in the lead, which is clearly overstretched to unimaginable limits almost allows for all the independent claims to be mentioned and sourced in the lead. The 3 million Bengali death claim was clearly rejected by the then Indian high commissioner Apa Bhai Panth, who was the first person to offer an estimate to Sheikh Mujib on the Bengali casualties and terms the figures as something of a shock and associates them with misunderstanding, as written by Ian Jack.

Aziz's claims might be fanciful for some, but mentioning them in estimates leads to no harm. The mere reason for estimates is that of no reliable figure and a produce of a range in which might or might not be placed the actual figure.

You mentioned of Bihari transfer source not being of credibility when the same source was used to quote the lower bound of bihari casualties. Truthwins018 (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Sarmila Bose again

Truthwins018, please search the archives for previous discussion on Sarmila Bose. There is no consensus to include her here as a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sarmila Bose seems to be a very reliable source as she has researched by herself speaking to war effectives and interviewed military personnel. I see no problem in atleast quoting the lower end figures of 50,000 proposed by her. Plus bihari persecution is very less written about and article is clearly messed. I didn't break WP:NPOV with my edit but most of my edits were inclusion of bihari rape and killing figures. Didn't remove anything so didn't find the reason for revert convincing Truthwins018 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War would suggest her viewpoint does not reflect mainstream consensus. FDW777 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Truthwins018:,@FDW777:, this source includes more than Sarmilla Bose and is published on the Open Library which is a reliable source.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not the Open Library, that's the Free Library which is a different thing entirely. The original article was published here. An article for the Pakistan Armed Forces' own magazine, published on an official Pakistan government website... FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes but it has it's own sources and is not self-published.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 An estimate defines a range of uncertain figures proposed by various individuals and is a result of uncertainty in an exact figure which could be accepted as a fixed point of reference. Estimates deserve the right of inclusion of any reputable journalist and research work and no one is deemed to be excluded due to critics. Many in the range have also been criticized but thats what estimates are for and I strongly believe sarmila bose should be referred to in the estimate. I also suggest the addition of the a phrase referring to the official CIA figures in the lead to bring out the most valid figure of the range of figures cited which would be 200,000. Any one objecting to this should then also be objecting to the refer of gonimoter maal (Bengali for "public property") and other irrelevant stuff in the lead which leads to no sense of their inclusion Truthwins018 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "official CIA figures", and the CIA estimate is already in the lead. FDW777 (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox - grammar

 Done In the infobox, the death toll is given as "estimated between 200,000 to 3,000,000". While these estimates have indeed been mentioned, the grammatically correct way to say this is "between 200,000 and 3,000,000". I should have submitted an edit request, of course. At any rate, a correction would be beneficial. Regards, ~~~~ 2A02:AB04:236:E600:C015:11A8:9F1B:1E8F (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

US estimate

@JeffUK: per WP:OLDSOURCES, I think your edit definitely has potential. The New Yorker article is at pains to point out the 200,000 was a conservative estimate by the C.I.A. and State Department while the killing was underway. It stands to reason we should be using more recent figures, not hanging our hat on that 200,000 figure. FDW777 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: There are other sources in a similar ball-park to the 200,000 (i.e. hundreds of thousands) But I really don't like just leaving it with a range of 200,000 to 3 Million people' without explaining why it's such a wide range. With such a wide range of estimates it's practically useless as a factual statement. I don't think any individual primary source does estimate that the deaths are in this range, except those which are referring to the 'range of estimates provided by other sources', the truth is that many estimates cluster around 300,0000-500,000 and many use the 'official' 3 million figure with very little in between. Considering a 'table of estimates' in the Estimate of Deaths figure, but how do we identify which sources to include and exclude. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM does a great job of explaining the complexity of the situation JeffUK (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami:

The party was not known by this name until it found itself in fear of being deregistered by the Election Commission of Bangladesh. In 1971 it was known as the Jamaat-e-Islami. Thus this entry requires a correction in line with the facts existing at the time in question. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

1,000 to 150,000

Sorry, but the statement that between 1000 and 150000 people were killed is completely ridiculous.

This is not even a guess, these are simply imaginary figures. It must be possible to determine halfway reasonable numbers based on the reports of missing persons from relatives or on the basis of registration data, unless, of course, the whole story is a lie from beginning to end. --2A02:908:895:5EA0:D28F:9ABD:640F:9FE6 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)