Talk:Bangladesh genocide#c-A.Musketeer-20240107100400-Malerisch-20240106195200

Looking at the first citation, a PDF hosted on the expired domain "genocidebangladesh.org" doesn't look academic in nature at all. Self published sources are not reliable and hence not allowed, specially on such a contentious topic.

The citation that supports the claim: "Hindus were especially targeted" i.e. the book "The blood telegram" by Mr. Gary J. Bass does not include specific evidence to support his claim. He doesn't report how many causalities were Hindus as opposed to Muslims to provide concrete evidence that Hindus were specifically targeted. According to the mainstream consensus, the reason of conflict was "which language should be used in Bangladesh Urdu or Bangla" and not religion. At best, I would consider his work to be cited using in-text attribution. See WP:Biased.

While atrocities happened at Bangladesh liberation war, but the mainstream consensus is that the conflict happened due to language and not religion. Promoting the narrative that "Hindus are in danger" is not only dangerous but also serves as propaganda tool to the ruling Indian Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janta Party and puts the lives of Muslims in neighboring countries in danger.

I would recommend a serious probe into the citations of this article. And correct the tone to make it more objective, disinterested and neutral. Panacia64 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The 3 million number is clearly fishy and exaggerated. Like how can less then 100k Pakistani soldiers kill 3 million people in less then a year. it took the Nazis 4 years to kill double the number. Xenomire (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:The Nazis killed far more than 6 million people, and 3 million people could be killed in 280 days, approximately the length of the genocide, by 90,000 soldiers, approximately the number of Pakistani soldiers deployed on the Eastern Front during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, with each soldier killing one person every 8.4 days. 90,000 soldiers killing one person every day could kill 25.2 million people in 280 days. Please pick up a calculator before attempting genocide denial. Patriotparty1776 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well anyways the 3 million number came from mujiber rahmans speech as a mistake because he meant to say 3 hundred thousand which is the actual number. Also math does not work. there are many factors hindering a killing. Also read this please https://medium.com/@ancientpakistan/debunking-the-myths-of-1971-bangladesh-bd0f2829377d Xenomire (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Bangladesh genocide|answered=yes}}

I believe that the inital paragraph page does not reflect the fact that this genocide was primarly motivated by hatred and abhorence of hindus.

Even when muslims were killed they were being killed because Pakistan deemed to be too Hindu in nature( like their langauge or in the example of the mass rape of muslims women because they were deemed hindus like)

For example the line was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis should be changed to

was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis ( especially bengali hindus)

primarly because they were targeted and Hinduphobia was a primary factor behing why so many bengalis were targeted in the first place as they were deemed to nor be good muslims.

The page needs to reflect the motive and intentions of the perpetrator as they are an essential, defining component of a genocide/ethnic cleansing. Zpatrmm007 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis

:To

:was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis ( especially bengali hindus) Zpatrmm007 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Zpatrmm007 You could be right, but I don't know, because you give no source. Please provide preferably two WP:reliable sources to support your request. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Worgisbor (congregate) 15:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Zpatrmm007 Even though the edit request was closed, please feel free to still provide the sources. If you copy my username, I will get notified, and can see if I can make the requested edit. Lova Falk (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Lova Falk}} Before taking any action, please familiarize yourself with Talk:Bangladesh genocide/Archive 7#RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide, if you haven't done so already. Although the closer's last sentence suggests the wording {{tq|"... ethnic cleansing of Bengalis, especially Bengali Hindus, residing in East Pakistan"}}, in their penultimate paragraph they say something subtly different, that there is {{tq|"consensus to state that Bengali Hindus were disproportionately affected"}}. I would argue that the sources support "disproportionately", but not, on the whole: especially, mainly, primarily, particularly, or any of the other qualifiers that have been floated. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Worldbruce first of all, thank you so much for your comment. No, I was not familiar with this discussion about the Bangladesh genocide - I came here because I try to answer extended-confirmed edit requests. But, reading what you say, shouldn't we say something about this in the first paragraph, such as "The Bangladesh genocide was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis residing in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during the Bangladesh Liberation War, perpetrated by the Pakistan Army and the Razakars, with Bengali Hindus disproportionately affected." What do you think? Lova Falk (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Worldbruce}} {{re|Lova Falk}} There is one final wrinkle to the RfC: every single "Bengali Hindus" !voter, bar one, was recently blocked as a sockpuppet. I asked the closer what this meant about the RfC, and they suggested the lead sentence could just say "Bengalis" per WP:IAR. While it's true that Bengali Hindus were disproportionately/especially affected, I think it's debatable whether this should be mentioned in the very first sentence or the following sentence/paragraph per MOS:FIRST. Malerisch (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you Malerisch. I'll refrain from editing this page. Lova Falk (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There are various estimates of the death toll. The lowest is 50,000, and the highest is 3 million. The 3 million figure is generally considered exaggerated by scholars, as mentioned in the subsection "Estimated death toll." The stated range of 300,000 to 3,000,000 overlooks several viewpoints, including the lowest possible estimate. Therefore, I am replacing it with the sentence: "Estimates vary widely. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide#Estimated_death_toll", as is done in many Wikipedia articles where fatality and death toll figures differ significantly across sources.

Hu741f4 (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

These passages seems more like a quote of original text with some paraphrasing, where the author Yasmin Saikia is giving her viewpoints.

West Pakistani men wanted to cleanse a nation corrupted by the presence of Hindus and believed that the sacrifice of Hindu women was needed; Bengali women were thus viewed as Hindu or Hindu-like.

Pakistani men believed that the sacrifice of Hindus was needed to fix the national malaise

These passage generalizes all men or a large majority of West Pakistani men, irrespective of their status and role in politics and military. Furthermore it states that only men wanted to do so and so. In my opinion this isn't neutral wording. This should either be put in blockquote (without paraphrasing), citing the exact word of the author or should be removed from the lede,as the same is repeated in the article. Hu741f4 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Hu741f4}} I was the one who added that sentence to the lead. I'd agree that the generalization isn't ideal, though that's what the source says. I'm open a different phrasing that doesn't generalize as much, but the religious motivation behind rape is widely supported by sources (even if the actual targeting wasn't) and is WP:DUE in the lead in my opinion: see Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#RfC on article NPOV and accuracy. My wording actually replaced an even more extreme statement falsely claiming that most rape victims were Hindu women. You've now removed the paragraph about rape entirely, which is unjustifed since rape is a major aspect of this article. Malerisch (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::The problem is that the passage seems like a quote by an author, and its wording doesn't sound like general information. It should be placed in a < blockquote >. Let's wait for a third opinion. I'll revert my edit if no consensus is reached. Hu741f4 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)