Talk:1971 Bangladesh atrocities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
It is requested that an image or images of be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Bangladesh may be able to help!

[edit] Needs a Brushup

I think many Wikipedian articles related to Bangladesh Liberation History need to be brushed up. When there are so many evidences of mass killing, rape and torture what is the point in mentioning that Pakistan denies the attrocities? There are plenty of links given at end. It seems that the links describe the whole story better than the wikipedian articles. 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)~~

Someone needs to expand on the Motivations section. There were major economic and political motivations behind the war that are not given. Only motivation for the war given is eradication of Hindu or Indian influences.Mehzabin ahmed 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

An image was added to the added to the Genocides in history article with the caption "A Pakistan Army soldier checks a Bengali man's penis for circumcision, to confirm if he is a muslim. Such racial and religious cleansing was regular during 1971 in East Pakistan." It has now been deleted Image:Genocide.JPG according to the log because it was a none free image not used for seven days.

The Rationale given for placing it on Wikipedia was

Currently there are no images in Wikipedia on the genocide images and this image is one of the 2 images used under a fair use license. It shows a Bengali being subjected to religious/racial cleansing by looking at his penis to know if he is a muslim (circumcised) or a hindu. Due to lack of any free alternatives to such an images I request that this be kept under fair use to convey the message.

Licensing: {{fairuse}} both added by user:Idleguy. It came from this source http://iweb.tntech.edu/fhossain/Genocide.html --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, fhossain's site does not own the photo either. --Ragib 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The title seems a bit strange. Technically, war crimes were committed before victory established the identity of Bangladesh. Perhaps the title "Atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War" would be better. All searches which obviously point to this topic can be redirected. Soletrane (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Bangladesh celebrates its Independence Day on 26 March, and it was recognized by a few countries weeks before the victory day (16 December). Besides, when discussing history it is fairly common to refer to a geographic entity by its current name (thus History of England would include events of an age long before the Angles were established there). Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a differences Soletrane between what constitutes a crime under international law and under domestic law. If the (western) Pakistan Government did not recognise that a civil war was in progress then under domestic law some of the crimes mentioned may not have been crimes under the domestic laws of the (western) Pakistan Government. For example the execution of men who had been fighting the Government my well have been legal under Pakistan martial law regulations, but if the war was a civil war this would be a breach of the Third Geneva Convention (i.e. a war crime). This is a very tricky area of law and so the naming of the article is of some significance and is not necessarily wrong. But at a practical level it is simpler if this article carries a name similar to that of the main article which is either the Bangladesh War of Independence or the Bangladesh Liberation War --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The name is currently Bangladesh Liberation War per argument presented in Bangladesh Liberation War/nomenclature justification. But, the atrocities in the article are put in in accordance to the Geneva Convention and wide international agreement. There, of course, can be a Pakistani POV incorporated... wait a minute, which part of the name are we discussing? Soletrane seems to have problem with the mention of Bangladesh, while Philip seems to have something say about the atrocities (which, indeed, is a bit of POV, but widely accepted all over the world). Having Bangladesh in the title seems to be quite okay. Right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It is currently under "Bangladesh Liberation War" because the last requested move did not have a consensus to do so, not because of the nomenclature justification article! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But, Soletrane apparently wasn't discussing that, and no article can have an either/or title. Using titles that still is just a proposal as an option to the actual title may not be very desirable. Bringing up an issue with the name another article while discussing another article's title without relevance may be even less desirable. Right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
They are the two common names that the conflict is known by and both of them involve the use of the word Bangladesh. So even if the war article is moved to a more neutral name it is still going to have the word Bangladesh in the title. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not discussing the nomenclature of another article here, are we? Let's use *this* talk page for things related to *this article*. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing the name of this article which in my opinion is tied to the name of the War article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the original comment was about the use of "Bangladesh" in the title to indicate an event that happened before Bangladesh achieved victory, and the proposal was to put it in a time frame (i.e. Bangladesh Liberation War). As it is common practice to use the current name of a geographic entity to describe events of the past (i.e. before the name came into use), there is no need for that debate. And, therefore, there is no relevance of starting a debate on whether the other article be called Bangladesh War of Independence. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not starting a debate I was stating a fact, it is you who started the debate with "The name is currently Bangladesh Liberation War per argument presented in Bangladesh Liberation War/nomenclature justification". Further many wars are described by location or participants names at the time the event took place, for example the Gallic Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"... the main article which is either the Bangladesh War of Independence or the Bangladesh Liberation War" - was that a fact? An article with two titles? And, stating the current title was starting a debate? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Much as I would like to bicker all day. I suspect we both have better things to do so lets drop it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Thankyouverymuch. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see there's some degree of disagreement on the title. For now, I'll simply try to think up all the potential phrases that might be searched for to find information of these atrocities, and redirect them to this one. Of all the things people would look for to find this article, I think "1971 Bangladesh Atrocities" would be less likely. Soletrane (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please not that it is "atrocities" and "Atrocities" that is because it is a descriptive page name, see WP:MOS#Article titles and the following section "First sentences". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)