Talk:Bangladesh genocide/Archive 4

835:

the genocide in Bangladesh as a country, it included all its residents;Bangalis, non-Bangalis, Biharis, Muslims, Non-Muslims, Hindus, Non-Hindus etc. We cannot limit the article's scope to just one ethnicity or religion or group of people. Or do you want to say that Biharis were not subjected to genocidal acts? If so, you will then be crossing a line - a dangerous line. And Gautus, allow me to explain you what 'genocide denial' actually means; it means, in its simplistic form, to deny that a genocide took place. Which infact you are doing by denying that genocide, persecution or systematic/planned killing of Biharis did not take place. I'd request you to re-read the RfC statement and understand that it is about inclusion of info concerning a(nother) genocide in Bangladesh,

588:. I'm having trouble understanding the rest of your comment. But are you questioning the sources I provided? If you have sources which claim that "the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide" was "a genocide against Biharis", by all means provide them. And what comment of Freeatlast are you referring to? Not seeing it. And if you're referring to the Gary Bass source then, NO, it does not talk about "genocide against Biharis". Clearly or otherwise. You're sort of exhausting my monthly allotment of good faith with such claims. And one more time - the fact that non-Bengali civilians were killed by Bengali nationalists should of course be mentioned in the article - and it is! - but that was not part of the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide as sources describe it. Look at 2094:(scholarly) source. In extension, we can also agree that Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury (whom the scholar Sarmila Bose quotes) is also a reliable source. What Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury says is relevant because it shows how much these rape statistics were exaggerated. So much that not even many Bangladeshi believe them. And if this was not a major issue, then there would be no debate on the numbers killed/raped. Do we see such debates on the numbers killed in the Holocaust? NO. Because those statistics are agreed upon and based on verifiable information. In the case of Bangladesh, most statistics were exaggerated. 1208:. But here's the problem - you did this as part of a blind revert and it's a very small easy to miss change and there was a ton of other problematic material you restored in that same edit. Had you done that as a separate single edit then maybe I would've left that in (hold on that). So see, before you accuse others of "restoring to his revision without caring much how much content was changed", how about you heed your own advice and refrain from making blind reverts. That way if you do make a slight constructive edit in addition to the reversion, it won't be missed. 1137:

plausibility). Noting that the figures of 3 million killed and up to 400,000 women raped were essentially plucked from thin air and "repeated uncritically by Western commentators" through citogenesis is the most moderate, sensible caveat in the world. To be fair, while both sides were in fact culpable for atrocities, I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of the figures attributed to the Awami League, either. And I wouldn't make any claims regarding "both genocides" in lieu of any reliable sources using comparable language.

1709:. "Bangladeshi professor Dr Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury also holds an alternate view." and so on. What happens are attempts to disprove views published in a vast majority of "Western" sources using nationalistic "alternative views" on the side of the perpetrator. I do not know, maybe Western scholarship is indeed biased, but it does describe this as a genocide of Bengalis by the Pakistani Army. There is nothing we can do about it. This looks like yet another example from 3216:. The onus to discuss and achieve consensus is on the party which wants to add that text and wants to keep it there. This additional text is unsourced and POV. Their was no entity existing by the name of West Pakistan in 1971. Moreover, the whole of westren region was not involved in a genocide against whole of East Pakistan. In fact, a lot of indiginous East Pakistan elements were involved in that activity as well. Secondly, that Payaslian source only says that 2222:, discussing all the available sources in an NPOV manner. On the second issue, regarding the number killed, the 3 million figure is clearly a Bangladesh government figure. The article is using WEASEL wording in claiming that "independent researchers" have stated that figure. This RS says point blank that "most independent estimates" have put the figure at several hundred thousand. If the Knowledge editors engage in their own assessment (mild form of 1972:

figure of 100,000 Biharis and 150,000 Bengalis killed. This is when he said that the Pakistani military reaction was much more brutal. Furthermore, he himself mentions that for 25 days before Operation Searchlight began, the Pakistani troops were being attacked by Bengalis and the Pakistani troops did not retaliate and exercised great restraint until Operation Searchlight. So to make the article neutral, such information should also be included.

31: 286:

source is "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."

1738:. I am not saying that, its what others are saying. Admins should be careful while considering their opinion when they are together in an RfC or anywhere on Knowledge. No wonder you would show up here to support VM and at AE to do the same, claiming "you do not know anything about the topic" but you must support him. That explains why you would show up outside of your usual topic areas to support VM. 2282:- This is not the job of volunteer editors on Knowledge to define the Bangladesh Genocide. Almost all reliable sources refer to the Bangladesh genocide as the actions by Pakistan army and associated paramilitaries on Bengali (Especially Hindu) civilians. Atrocities were committed by Bengalis on Biharis, no one is denying that. To call it Genocide there must be reliable sources that do so. Changing 2226:), they need to provide information to support the claim that these are indeed "independent researchers." Many of the citations given are decidedly not independent. I suggest that "several hundred thousand" should be used as the claim of independent researchers, not 3 million. Discussion is still continuing, and it is still continuing inside this RfC. The nom has raised the RfC prematurely. -- 1960:) as a Bangladeshi who questions the popular narrative. Needless to say the popular narrative comes from unchecked and unaccounted statistics which have been repeated without a thought by Western media. Although the British medical Journal and Population Studies reject these exaggerated statistics (and also include deaths due to malnutrition and disease amongst the casualties). 3048:"? You say that I am bringing in her "supposed nationality" and that she being an "Indian academic" is "not true anyway", but can you please prove that it her being an Indian is supposed and not factual/sourced or that it is untrue? Anyone can be educated and brought away from his/her home country, but that does not change their nationality, unless they renounce it formally. 2307:

searchlight can stay. Biharis had also committed violence against Bengalis so that should not be changed to imply that only bengalis committed violence. That being said a separate article can be created on Violence against Biharis during Bangladesh liberation war and should be created. Adding this amount of content on violence against Biharis is clearly

3377: 1461:. I have given several sources in above conversation which categorize the violence against Biharis as a genocide. Its very important that we cover that. As a neutral information portal, we should not be taking sides. This means we should also be adding "Biharis" as target and "Bengalis" more specifically "Mukti Bahini" in the list of perpetrators. 2007:

against the Biharis was widely recognized as a genocide there'd be a TON of sources about it. There'd be international commissions issuing reports. There'd be people writing doctoral thesis and books on it. But there isn't. Because generally it's not recognized as a genocide, and even in the colloquial sense of the word, it is not seen as such.

3019:, Sarmila Bose, by bringing in her supposed nationality and how she is supposed to have overcome it, going against her nation's position. This, despite all the biases in her treatment that have been pointed out by scholars which, they say, are going in the opposite direction. You need to stop bringing sources' nationalities into question. -- 267:: It's clear case of pushing a fringe theory with an aim to "Genocide Denial". Academically, it was a genocide against Bengalis. And, in that process some Biharis were killed. The "state machinery" was against the Bengalis. So,oppose it totally. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. 3336: 2807:

some opinion as being the opinion of the party concerned, until such a time as a wide consensus of historians describes the issue in detail. Perhaps the article should focus more on the sources already mentioned, and then also include the HRW's cited opinion for now. Using the original historians is of course much better.

2449:- Yes, the sources being added are clearly reliable and there is no reason to censure the information in them. This article will not succeed at achieving neutrality unless it includes details from all the perspectives advocated in scholarly sources. Sheriff said everything that needed to be said, definitely include this. 2424:

This edit relies too much on the work of academic Sarmila Bose. Keeping this edit colors the article with a bias which is hard to miss. Above comments have claimed the article, as it is, to be "one-sided" but juxtaposing it against the work of a single author at length does not address that issue. At

2124:

1. Yes, the source is reliable. But sticking an inline citation at the end of a piece of text does not mean that NPOV has been observed. It's trivial to misrepresent the source, take a quote of context or give undue weight and then put an inline citation to make it look legit. And that's what's going

1939:

1. Adding background information for the origin of Operation Searchlight. The proposed addition is coming from a reliable Routledge source. There is simply no reason to exclude a good-sourced sentence explaining Operation Searchlight's origin. I suspect that those who are opposing this change want to

1238:

Adjusting the language is not a problem but only if someone suggests so. For example, in this case we can change the word "horror" to "surprise" but it was never pointed out as a problem. My reason to add the source in that same edit was that you did not point out any other specific issue. That's why

2355:

being added to the article. Problem is, there is no source saying that. Also, i do not have a problem with adding of 400,000 women raped if sources support that figure, in fact make it a million if a source says so, all i am asking here is that allow the sources which say by logic that number is too

2002:

3. Not sure what this has to do with this particular edit. As for Bose, while she is indeed a reliable source, her views are controversial and we need to observe WP:DUEWEIGHT. I.e. they should not be presented as factually true, or universally accepted, and in places where she is used as source, she

1945:

2. Serajur Rehman: He says he was the first Bangladeshi to meet Mujib and talk to him about the casualties. This makes him a highly valuable source and also partly explains the reason for where the 3 million number came from (now universally regarded as excessively inflated). And as per Wiki policy,

1873:

My very best wishes. It may come as a surprise to you but numerous Western sources (eg Christian Gerlach) point out to the fallacy of these rape and death statistics. The rape statistics of 200,000-400,000 women raped were 'plucked out of thin air', were not based on any ground research or data. And

1347:

I did not have any other way to resolve this issue except this RFC. Volunteer Marek has a habit of reverting many edits together. He comes and restores to his revision without caring how much content was changed. If he has an issue with a little bit of content, he would still revert everything which

2900:

Second, as regards to your "why it belongs in the article" and that it is "irrelevant to topic", first you need to explain why you are removing a long standing and sourced content. But as you have repeatedly failed to do so, I will explain that it is relevant because despite being an Indian she has

2315:

That is not true. Dr Bina D'Costa, in her article, said some 150 000 to 170 000 women had abortions before government initiative was taken. Take into consideration the number that did have abortions after government initiative, the number that was not pregnant or did not have abortions than 400 000

1965:

4. It may not suit some people's nationalist narratives, but Biharis suffered a massive genocide in 1971. The Biharis were an ethnic minority (compared to ethnic Bengalis who constituted the vast majority of East Pakistan's 75 million people) and even by conservative estimates of Bihari casulaties,

1348:

becomes a mess and after we are done with edit-warring and talking at talk page, the only option left is an RFC. Then its hard to single out content when all the content is part of the dispute. Are you suggesting multiple RFCs? Would you like to explain if any of the content change you can support?

863:

Except there are no sources which say that the violence against Biharis was part of the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh. The article is about "genocide in Bangladesh as a country" as defined by reliable sources. And ALL of these when talking about the "1971 genocide in Bangladesh" are talking about the

834:

The title clearly says that it is about the genocide that took place in Bangladesh which occurred following/prior to the events in 1971. So how much POV you like to push, it wont change that Biharis were subjected to genocide too, and thus it should be part of the article. When the article is about

643:

ANY part of the article. So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive

2402:

are clearly reliable and it would be highly remiss to deprive the article of the doubt these sources cast on the figures. The other sources in a similar vein I'm less able to judge, but I see no red flags. Much of the argle bargle seems to be about whether to name a particular ethnicity as being a

2099:

4. The International Commission of Jurists in 1972 said that if there was intent involved, then the killings of Biharis were certainly genocide. The ICJ however expressed reservations about calling the killings of non-Hindu Bengalis a 'genocide'. That should say something. And yes whatever sources

1908:

And the statements being included about the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini are also well-sourced. For example Yasmin Saikia, a reputable scholar, was provided as the source for the statement about rapes committed by Indian Army and Mukti Bahini (I just checked the sentence being referred to here and

2806:

I agree that the article is not currently well weighted on this point, and such a claim should not be cited to HRW. However, I think it would still be useful to include a short mention of the HRW claim, cited to HRW as HRW's opinion. With controversial issues, often it is very valuable to include

1971:

5. Furthermore, its well known that the violence was initiated by Bengali mobs against Bihari before 25th of March. This is backed up by a neutral reliable source from Routledge (Bina D'Costa). Anti-Pak army journalist Anthony Mascarenhas reports this and in the early days of the conflict gave a

1456:

This page's title is "1971 Bangladesh genocide", as per sources two genocides happened during that time, one which was against Bengalis and the other which was against Biharis. The title of the article gives a wrong impression if genocides which happened during 1971 are not fully covered. Without

1317:

for two reasons. First, this RfC asks to support a lot of disputable and already disputed changes simultaneously. This never works. One should discuss individual changes separately. Second, each specific genocide usually has a specific perpetrator and specific victim. That one does not look as an

1151:

The fact that the 3 million figure might very well be inflated is already in the article. In the lede even. What should not be in the article is an anecdote from a letter to an editor - a primary source - about where it comes from. That can only be included if this info can be found in a reliable

1136:

I support most, if not all, of the proposed additions. There does need to be some explanation for the fact that the obscenely exaggerated figure of three million apparently originated in a mistranslation of 300,000 (itself likely to be on the high side, but perhaps not totally beyond the realm of

543:

Nobody ever said that the article is not about genocide against Bengalis and neither the content in that edit denies that, the edit mentions violence against Biharis part of genocide as well as the violence against Bengalis. It also introduces different figures based on reputable sources which go

285:

There is one source in the article, this one which talks about an academic consensus about 1971 Bangladesh genocide. It talks about the overall events which took place in 1971 in East Pakistan and does not say that the consensus is about atrocities committed by just Pakistan Army. The text of the

2941:

The relationship and pre-existing bias she brings to this work plays out in her selection of stories, credulity about certain accounts, and dismissal of others.... Her stated agenda is to correct the bias. Yet, in that process, her research goes so far to the other side as to create a new set of

1904:

Now do point out where it has been said by me that the Pakistani army were the 'good guys' (although yes there are sources to that effect but I have not ever brought that up nor do I intend to)? Nor has it been written into the article that the Pakistani army came to save Bihari women from being

2006:

4. You need sources which actually call the violence against Biharis a "genocide". So far, there has been only one source provided which makes that claim (plus a purposeful misreading of a couple other sources) and does so in an off-handed manner and is not even about the topic. IF the violence

1569:

are trying to hijack this article and turn it into a coatrack for persecution of Biharis. The overwhelming majority of sources DO NOT talk about "two genocides", you guys pretty much invented that based on some passing mentions and vague terminology (interpreted in a self-serving POV way) which

912:

How about you start an RM here and change the title to "1971 genocide against Bengalis" instead of 1971 Bangladesh genocide because according to your statement this article is about genocide against Bengalis. Clearly, the current title do not describe it properly. As long as there is one source

717:

I stand by my comments. All deniers should be treated equally. If is a biased attitude that a person who denies holocaust is sanctioned while here we have people who are saying that "biharis were killed in the process"? Srsly? I mean come one, this is a full blown genocide supported by multiple

107:

There is no consensus to add this wording in its totality to the article. This RfC suffers from a lack of specific purpose. Rather than proposing an entire rewrite of the article in one RfC, which is impossible to properly debate in all its nuance, propose a single addition/rewording/removal of

796:

I already reworded my request in a neutral manner, i don't think it can be reworded any further and still explain the edit. You need to stop with your accusation of tag-teaming. People working on the same project are not a tag-team. This request was published in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Politics,

662:

Your comment is so absurd it's actually offensive. It's you guys who are trying to whitewash and weasel the genocide against Bengalis with these false equivocations. The violence against Biharis *is already mentioned* in the article! No one says it shouldn't. What should not be done however is

1874:

they were repeated without research by Western sources. However those who have researched, rather than repeated old statistics, do not believe these rape and killed statistics. To the extent that even Human Rights Watch notes that schholars consider the rape stats to be 'excessively inflated'.

2306:

is simple historical revisionism that is not supported by Reliable sources. They are too many quotes to Sarmila Boses work already in the article. The Fact that she is Bengali has nothing to do with her research and it should be judged on its own merits. The Pakistan army's justification on

1977:

6. The ICJ in 1971 had reservations about applying the term 'genocide' to all the killings in the war, preferring to restrict that term to the killings of the Hindu minority and indiscriminate killing of Bengalis towards the end of the war. It doesn't need pointing out, but the presence of

320:

No, this is false. Pretty much every source that discusses "1971 genocide in Bangladesh" refers to the genocide perpetrated by Pakistani Army and their allies against Bengalis. Yes, other violence also occurred and other groups also suffered. But the specific word "genocide", when used, is

2403:

victim of genocide. If reliable sources say they were, then obviously the article should say they were. Most of the objection seems to be about relative privation. If the impact had a highly disparate impact on various ethnicities, and reliable sources remark on it, then all the advice of

1464:"Deportation" and "ethnic cleansing" should be removed as attack types until someone can source them, same for "genocidal rape", i saw sources only for "rape", i did not see sources use the term "genocidal rape", i do not have a problem with anything as long as sources support the content. 1029:

Ummmm... that source is clearly referring (very briefly - single word in a hundreds of pages) to *Hindu* Biharis killed by the Pakistani army. (There is a number of sources which do that - use "Bihari" to refer to the non-Bengali Hindus which were also killed by the Pakistanis). Nice try

1318:

exception, after quickly looking at this discussion. Painting victim as a perpetrator or describing them both as perpetrators is a classic "revisionist/denial" approach. I think we should not do it. Instead, all other violence (which certainly also took place) should be mostly placed to

885:

Ok, finally we have ONE source which refers to what happened to Biharis as a 'genocide'. That doesn't change the fact that: 1) that is just one source and overwhelming majority of sources do not describe it as such and reserve the term "genocide" for what happened to Bengalis. You used

2072:@Volunteer Marek: If it was from the Pakistani Army POV then I would have referred to a Pakistani Army website. I referred it instead to a neutral and highly respected source (Bina D'Costa). Of course, if you believe Bina D'Costa is a Pakistani soldier in disguise then thats up to you. 1604:

After spending some time, I found two sources calling violence against Biharies a "reverse genocide". However, the claim of genocide (as oppose to simply "violence") in this case seems to be an obvious "minority view", although not necessarily "fringe". Given that, I agree with VM.

684:

Again, see above and examine the edit more carefully one more time, the edit is not denying genocide against Bengalis, it's you who is denying that violence against Biharis should not be included and also removing other sourced content and bent on keeping unsourced content.

2010:

5. No, this is your very skewed misinterpretation of the source. Again, this is the very clearly POV and very biased narrative that "Pakistani Army only committed the genocide against Bengalis to save Biharis". This is clear cut revisionism and has ZERO support in reliable

519: 509: 503: 516: 1660:; The above users belongs to a club of Pakistani POV pushers, who wants to show that Pakistan Army were the good guys and Mukti Bahini were the bad guys. They are working together to promote preposterous theories sourced from Pakistani websites and Pakistani writers. 843:. And VM, your references are self-defeating, and the strange thing is that you know it and points the same out in your argument yourself. But I do agree with you that deniers of genocide must be reported, and hence you may want to take a look at Ghautus' comment.— 2138:

5. Nope, your interpretation and exaggeration of what sources actually say. The Pakistani Army DID NOT initiate Op Searchlight to protect Biharis, and it DID NOT conduct massacres and the genocide to protect Biharis. Arguing that that's why they did is sort of

497: 385: 2176:

And who said primary sources can't be used for 'stuff like this'? You don't own Knowledge. Wiki policy allows inclusion of non-interpreted primary sources. Serajur Rehman is relevant under the 'estimated killed' section and thats where his statement has been

1173:

Honestly, you should check the edit before reverting it. I did add a secondary scholarly source to support the primary source so there were two sources supporting Serajur Rehman claim. You have a habit of blind reverts without actually examining the content.

490: 2131:

3. Stating Knowledge policy on WP:WEIGHT and NPOV is not "taking the discussion off on a tangent". Of course I agreed Bose is reliable. But also controversial. So due weight, and attribution. (and spare me your own personal opinion and original research

1912:

Furthermore, let me tell you something. I am trying to neutralise a biased article which is giving a one-sided picture and I make sure to use good references. I don't know why neutralisation of a one sided article seems like POV pushing to you.

1474:

The article starts saying that "genocide began with commencement of Operation Searchlight", the next line should describe the background of Operation Searchlight which is supported by a highly valued, neutral scholarly source. Its necessary for

1955:

3. Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi professor and reputable academic Sarmila Bose (an academic who has received immense praise for her work from Western scholars) has referred to him in one of her journal articles (in the reputable

638:

Removing this amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned. We have the same with Holocaust deniers, why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed? It is quite clear that no one is

2210:- On the first issue, whether to include the mention of "genocide" against Biharis, the issue is premature. If there was such a genocide, it should be discussed in a separate article and then it can be summarised here. There is already a 544:

against the mainstream adapted figures thus balancing the article and making its content more neutral. It's also a partisan viewpoint that your search term is only centered on "genocide in bangladesh Bengalis", also as Freeatlast pointed

325:. And as has already been pointed out to you, the Rummel source DOES NOT call the killings of Biharis "genocide" (it calls it "democide" which is a different concept). And even if it did, that would be a different topic than this one. 1512:

The next paragraph which is being added explains the rationale given by Sarmila Bose abut why she has an alternate view about the figures of people killed and women raped. I don't see anything wrong with that as it si attributed to

968:

Here is one more source for you, let me know how many you need? How can we limit this article just to Bengalis? This would not be NPOV, it would rather be a POV article if we did not mention both genocides which took place in 1971.

143:

be made to the article which includes addition of content about violence against Biharis, the edit also includes different figures regarding number of people killed and women raped and reason why Operation Searchlight was launched?

2743:

appears to be wrong. HRW cites Brownmiller Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape pp 78-86, however Brownmiller gives figures of 200,000 - 400,000. Likewise HRW cites Nayanika Mookherjee as giving lower figures for rape, cited to

1508:

The text about Serajur Rahman telling Mujib a different figure than what Mujib later on touted is supported by two sources, the word "horror" which was not my addition can be replaced with the word "surprise" or some other NPOV

941:

How about you start a different article if you really must. This article is about the 1971 genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Army against Bengalis because that's how overwhelming majority of sources define "1971 Bangladesh

2393:

The posing of the RfC is a bit confusing as it links to a diff which is a reversion, so I can't quite figure which side would be supported by an "Accept" or "Reject" vote. With respect to numerical figures of rape and murder,

289:

And then, there are others which say that violence against Biharis were a genocide as well, this is one of those sources. So, clearly the consensus is about overall events being genocide and not just violence committed by one

1516:

Javed Jabbar gives a very interesting rationale about why the figures given are overly inflated and it would broaden the reader's comprehension of the subject. It is also attributed to him and we are not stating that text as

1877:

Furthermore Germaina Greer, a notable feminist, has stated that the famous allegation of mass rape in Bangladesh was 'not true'. The notion that these statistics of death and rape were wildly exaggerated is now becoming an

1564:

No, one more time - this article is about the genocide of Bengalis by the Pakistani Army. Because that is what sources mean when they use the term "1971 Bangladesh genocide". You, and a few other editors with obvious POV

493:

explicitly names the Pakistani Army as the perpetrators of the genocide. And while it doesn't explicitly say "against Bengalis" it does say "against unarmed civilians" and from the context it's obvious it's referring to

483:. And while I think it's completely ridiculous to pretend that this article isnot about the genocide against Bengalis, since some users are trying to actually push that kind of POV, here are some representative sources: 3077:. As far as this page is concerned, unless you have evidence of a pro-India bias, she must not be described as an "Indian author." When necessary, "Oxford researcher" is the correct professional description to use. -- 3055:

History emerges only slowly from the passion-filled context of contemporary events. Sarmila Bose’s book sets Bangladesh’s struggle for liberation at the start of this long passage.’ — David Washbrook, Trinity College,

2788:. If no other scholar can be found in a reasonable amount of time who also says the figures are seriously inflated, then also change the wording of the text from "some scholars consider" to "Sarmila Bose considers". -- 745:

Honestly, this RfC was an attempt to stop fighting and involve the input of un-involved editors, you have given your comment and you have given your vote, i will suggest that you leave it for others to comment now.

2105:

5. I have made no interpretation here. I am just pointing out what Bina D'Costa and Anthony Mascarenhas have said. Don't accuse me of making interpretations please when I am just stating what these two have said.

1044:

No, its not, you are misinterpreting the source. The source does not even mention Pakistan Army or Hindus. It clearly says "Biharis in Bangladesh", I can quote the whole paragraph for you. Do not mislead people.

2925:

Good quality scholars of the kind we use on Knowledge are expected to be objective about the subject matter they study. Their nationality is not relevant, unless we have good reason to believe there could be

1838:

That can exist as main article. Violence against Biharis is just a very small portion of this edit. There is content in that edit about figures of Bengali genocide and reasoning behind Operation Searchlight.

1905:

raped. (Needless to say, but a reliable Routledge source does say that Pakistan used anti-Bihari violence as justification to commence Op Searchlight, although it doesn't explicitly refer to the rape).

2752:] by Bose, therfore the source cited for this line is incorrect and it either needs to be removed or altered to read that Sarmila Bose believes there were but a few thousand rapes during the genocide. 2901:

challenged what India has been claiming as regards to casualties during 1971 Bangladesh genocide, and hence it is quite pertinent to mention this as it adds weightage and makes it more authentic.

1570:

rarely occurs in sources. You have NOT shown any kind of support for this original research and/or fringe theory above. This is a blatant attempt at POVing the article, as others have also noted.

224:

What is not neutral in that section heading? I see it very neutral. Is there a forum where we can take this section heading to find out if its neutral or not instead of fighting with each other?

3040:

All the twisting is being done by you alone when you say that she is not an Indian. Can you prove that she was not born to Indian parents when you yourself say that she is an "American of

2948:

The complexities of these biases are not illuminated in your nationalistic caricature as "Indian academic," which is not true anyway. She calls herself an "American of Indian parentage."

1387:. It also was already mentioned several times that the numbers of victims are highly unreliable. So, these changes look to me as unnecessary repeating of the same. But this is not all. 1528:

Most of these changes were not mine but were introduced by another editor and i think they are good changes and should be made. We would not provide any service to encyclopedia if we

2180:

And also, I have never argued that Pak army carried out massacres of Bengalis to 'protect' Bengalis. This must be a figment of one's imagination. Do point out where I have said that.

1934:: The article as it exists is already heavily one sided. The changes being proposed will neutralise the article by presenting both perspectives. Lets examine the proposed additions: 2311:. There are already too many claims cited to Bose in this article. "Anti-Pak army journalist Anthony Mascarenhas"? Really what makes him Anti-Pak? Is that your personal opinion? 3059:

Bose has written a book that should provoke both fresh research and fresh thinking about a fateful turning point in the history of the subcontinent.’ — Martin Woollacott, Guardian

2173:

As far as Bose is concerned then wherever she has been mentioned then she has been attributed. And there aren't more than a couple of sentences from her on the entire page anyway.

644:

to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included. We are wikipedia, not some crackpot holocaust deniers club, have some decency people.

2170:. Again you can argue on this point till the cows come home but what we're trying to include is Bina D'Costa's highly valuable and relevant citation which doesn't suit your POV. 1211:

Ok, now this secondary source. If you reword that sentence properly, without the non-encyclopedic POV language ("to Serajur Rahman's horror", etc) then we can put that back in.

1122:

We don't have to leave it out and no one's proposing that the killings of Biharis get omitted. It just has to be given due weight because this article is about something else.

3074: 370:

No. Democide is "killing by government". Democide *can be* a genocide. But democide also can be NOT a genocide. And as pointed out previously, this is a separate topic.

2781: 1520:

Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi professor who holds an alternative view about the figures described by mainstream Bangladeshis. It's inclusion makes the article more NPOV.

2100:

that have so far been presented, categorise the killings your freedom fighters did in the same category as the killings the Pakistanis and their local allies did.

898:

over there). This article is about the genocide against Bengalis in 1971 because that's what virtually all sources mean when they write "1971 Bangladesh genocide".

2753: 1523:

The main objection about Qutbuddin Aziz was that its a primary source but i did support it with a secondary source. I hope there should be no objection to it now.

1073:

Yes, but from the context it looks to me that is referring to the Hindu Biharis who were also targeted by the Pakistani army. Don't accuse me of... random stuff.

1999:

2. No, this is from a "letter to the editor", which is a primary source. If there is a secondary source, then please provide it, not just assert its existence.

1584:

So you agree that 'genocide of Biharis' is a fringe theory? What bothers me more is that you at the same time also try to champion one genocide over another?!

3224:. With starting this discussion, i will go ahead and remove that text. Please participate in the discussion and achieve consensus if anyone wants to add it. 3212:

was added at the end of first paragraph without discussion and without achieving any consensus otherwise first paragraph have always been ending at the word

1391:. Why "ethnic cleansing" was excluded? Why it tells in introduction that genocidal "Operation Searchlight" was somehow "justified"? That does not look good. 3107:

It is on you to gain consensus before modifying sourced content. Please do that and stop twisting the discussion. The content stays till you gain consensus.

1966:

the proportion of Biharis deaths was extremely high compared to the proportion amongst Bengalis. And Sarmila Bose takes note of this in her journal article.

2313:"1971 Bangladesh genocide", as per sources two genocides happened during that time, one which was against Bengalis and the other which was against Biharis. 1671:, large scale POV pushing to make Knowledge look like a Pakistani encyclopaedia. They are spreading their propaganda all over Bangladesh related articles, 864:

genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani Army and its allies against Bengalis. That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article are a POV

613:- Gimme a break. Whenever someone is prevented from pushing their POV on some articles they start crying "WP:CENSOR!". Adhering to NPOV is not censorship. 1978:

pro-Pakistan Bengalis and the killing of fellow Bengalis they committed is also a fact. This fact skews the claim that all the killings were 'genocide'.

778:

Ok, but then you need to reword the request in a neutral manner. And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual

1821: 1672: 670:

And I really suggest you strike your accusations of "Holocaust denial". That's very very very offensive and if you don't I am soooo reporting you.

1505:

Attribution to Sarmila Bose is good enough in the beginning of the paragraph, it does not need to be repeated three times in the same paragraph.

718:

RS(for example the second source that you yourself provided is agaisnt your claim) and you guys are saying that "no" this is a coatrack? Srsly?

548:. It is completely ridiculous to pretend that the genocide excludes non-Bengali civilians massacred by Bengali nationalists". You are trying to 2935:

Bose's book is methodologically inconsistent and appears to be informed by a disdain for Bangladeshis and their movement for political freedom.

2977:

Thankyou for pinging the Admins. Didn't you by using phrases like "nationalistic caricature" and "nationalistic argumentation" just break the

500:

explicitly states that this was a genocide "against Bengalis" although it does emphasize that among Bengalis, Hindus were especially targeted.

2658: 2632: 2606: 2580: 2432: 2785: 2749: 1467:

Pakistan flag should be removed as it represents the whole nation and not just the Armed Forces, it is misrepresentation of the flag as per

2211: 2128:

2. I know Knowledge's policy on primary sources quite well, thank you very much. And no, you can't use primary sources for stuff like this.

1813: 1487: 891: 322: 2745: 839:

removing any info related to the genocide of a particular group - there's a huge difference in both. So, please clam and tone it down, as

2907:

Lastly, as you are the one removing long standing and sourced content, the burden to gain consensus lies on you which you are not doing.—

3176: 2599:

The Man who Divided India: An Insight Into Jinnah's Leadership and Its Aftermath, with a New Chapter on Musharraf's Do Or Die Leadership

2867:

it, you also reverted info sourced from two sources which supported the fact that she is an Indian author by giving an edit-summary: "

2702: 1705:

I reluctantly agree. This is definitely a problem for a number of pages; one should simply look at their editing history and changes.

91: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2689: 2674: 2166:

What I said was that Bina D'Costa says that Pakistan justified Op Searchlight based on anti-Bihari violence by Bengalis. There is a

3283: 2904:

By removing this sourced info you are trying to push POV by omitting this fact so that readers are unable to see who the author is.

1380:

you tell: "It should discuss all genocidal events, no matter who committed them." Yes, indeed, there was violence by another side.

913:

describing violence against Biharis as genocide then it warrants mentioning under current title! Here is one more source for you.

2534: 3158: 592:

for a comparison. There, there were also Hutus killed by Tutsis, especially in reprisal. But the genocide was "against Tutsis".

2740: 1142: 1734:

The edit you showed is part of this very RfC. One should check your editing history as well and when we do so, then we find

134:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2730:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1718: 1610: 1490:

during the war and Bihari women were raped and tortured during the war and its aftermath by Bengali males, primarily from

1396: 1327: 2469:

Can we PLEASE not have editors trying to sabotage the RfC process by starting edit wars and making POV changes like here

3414: 2757: 723: 649: 3343:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

2407:

comes into play. Nothing should be hidden, but the article should be clear and explicit about any disparity of impact.

1996:

1. No, this is written from the Pakistani Army point of view, but presented as factual. That's pretty straight up POV.

111: 2081:

you agree that primary sources can be used as per Wiki policy (just as long as editors don't add their input to it).

321:

specifically referring to Pakistani Army genocide of Bengalis. There are separate articles for the other info, like

2454: 38: 3220:, that source does not mention the culprti and the victim. Adding that additional unsourced text makes it POV and 3239: 2771:

when it says "some scholars claim". The word "some" overstates what is said by the sources HRW cites—namely that

2481: 2436: 2375: 2325: 2264: 2146: 2077:

2.I think you need to check up Wiki's policy on using primary sources. I am willing to provide secondary sources

2059: 2016: 1854: 1829: 1753: 1680: 1634: 1575: 1551: 1427: 1363: 1319: 1297: 1282:

There is a secondary source there as well and you confirmed that you saw it. How about you suggest the wording?

1273: 1254: 1239:

I decided to address the problem area while restoring other content to which no reasonable objection was raised.

1216: 1189: 1157: 1138: 1127: 1078: 1060: 1035: 1012: 984: 947: 928: 903: 873: 812: 787: 761: 700: 675: 618: 597: 567: 534: 447: 423: 403: 375: 357: 330: 307: 239: 215: 201: 187: 159: 3261: 3015:

No, that is blatant attempt to twist what I have said. "Nationalistic caricature" is what you are doing to the

1729: 1714: 1676: 1606: 1407: 1392: 1342: 1323: 47: 17: 2840:. But you never said a word about why this is important and why it belongs in the article. Please explain. -- 1779: 1502:. Violence against Biharis need to be described at some level as violence against Bengalis is being described. 1100:"A successful war of independence soon followed victorious Bengalis killed about 150000 biharis residents in 3405: 3269: 719: 645: 3062:

A significant intervention into the historiography of the Bangladesh War of 1971.’ — Amber Abbas, H-Memory

1692: 3086: 2849: 3389:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3355:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2450: 1946:

primary sources are allowed so long as editors don't add their own input. Furthermore, David Bergman in

1533: 3369: 3299: 3268:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 882:

There are definitely sources which describe violence against Biharis as a genocide, see this for one.

3326: 3225: 2793: 2477: 2428: 2361: 2338: 2321: 2250: 2197: 2159:@Volunteer Marek: Point out the sentence where I said the Pak army started Op Searchlight to protect 2142: 2111: 2045: 2027: 2012: 1986: 1918: 1887: 1840: 1825: 1739: 1620: 1571: 1537: 1413: 1349: 1283: 1269: 1240: 1212: 1175: 1168: 1153: 1123: 1093: 1074: 1046: 1031: 998: 970: 943: 914: 899: 869: 798: 783: 747: 740: 714: 686: 671: 614: 593: 553: 530: 433: 419: 418:

Where? See my comment below. It does not talk about "genocide against Biharis". Clearly or otherwise.

389: 371: 343: 326: 293: 225: 211: 197: 183: 145: 100:

RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped

3082: 3024: 2968: 2845: 2231: 1619:

Offcource, you would agree with VM, you must! Did you ever go against him? Any diffs you can show?

3293: 2356:

high and claim the number was in fact low. Present all view points so that the article becomes an

3051:

Lastly, you say that she is biased, but at the same time many independent sources do praise her:

2317: 1787: 1468: 865: 664: 480: 388:, this clearly talks about genocide against Biharis? Explain to me why it should not be covered? 3284:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090212114450/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf

3390: 3356: 2812: 2655: 2629: 2623: 2603: 2597: 2577: 2571: 1817: 1782:

and then summarized some noncontroversial items here? Saw someone suggested it already above.

1688: 1495: 1476: 797:

History, Village Pump Policy and Neutral Point of View forums to get a broader point of view.

779: 2649: 2984: 2956: 2927: 2768: 2412: 2348: 2287: 1585: 1566: 1529: 608: 589: 549: 272: 3419: 3397: 3363: 3247: 3028: 3010: 2972: 2920: 2816: 2797: 2761: 2509: 2485: 2458: 2440: 2416: 2383: 2329: 2272: 2235: 2201: 2150: 2115: 2067: 2020: 1990: 1922: 1891: 1862: 1833: 1791: 1761: 1722: 1696: 1642: 1614: 1599: 1579: 1559: 1435: 1400: 1371: 1331: 1305: 1277: 1262: 1220: 1197: 1161: 1146: 1131: 1117: 1082: 1068: 1039: 1020: 992: 951: 936: 907: 877: 854: 820: 791: 769: 727: 708: 679: 653: 622: 601: 575: 538: 455: 427: 411: 379: 365: 334: 315: 276: 247: 219: 205: 191: 167: 122: 3172: 2789: 2308: 2193: 2107: 2044:

There is a secondary source in the edit being discussed to support Serajur Rahman letter.

2039: 1982: 1914: 1883: 3287: 2780:

HRW also does not fit the description of an ideal source for history given in the essay "

2032:

For item number two, why do you keep claiming that there is only a primary source after

3078: 3020: 2992: 2964: 2960: 2855: 2841: 2750:

Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War

2357: 2352: 2295: 2249:

Thanks for pointing that out, this was my first RfC, i will try to get better on that.

2244: 2227: 1499: 1480: 1458: 1268:

No, that won't work either, because it's just editorializing based on a primary source.

522: 3396:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3362:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3073:

page. If you want to debate the merits and demerits of the book, you can do so at the

180: 3104:

It was you who FIRST brought the merits and demerits of her book into the discussion.

2998: 2908: 2831: 2499: 2404: 1783: 1589: 1451:: My reasons for acceptance are outlined below point by point addressing all changes: 1107: 844: 118: 2951:

This kind of nationalistic argumentation you are doing is precisely what the recent

3221: 3070: 2808: 2651:

The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined

2223: 1882:. Thats why alternative viewpoints are more important in this conflict than others. 1684: 1491: 997:

One more. Let me know, when to stop because i have other things to do in life too.

895: 2739:"however, some scholars consider these numbers to be seriously inflated" cited to 2125:

on here. Source is reliable. But the text here is written from Pakistani army POV.

2955:

was meant to guard against. But apparently it is not working. So I am requesting

2548: 3305: 3277: 2408: 2344: 2299: 2291: 2283: 1736:

Long-term pattern of tag-teaming between Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes

268: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2748:

however this article is a critique of the third source given by HRW which was

2218:

makes no mention of a "genocide." That is where the issue should be developed

1710: 1662:

Pakistan Army came to rescue the Bihari women from being raped by Mukti Bahini

1412:

You raised some good points, my response is below in my acceptance statement.

1383: 890:", plural. 2) That is a separate topic for which we have a different article: 210:

Again. Please reword your section title and your request in a neutral manner.

1812:

I made a suggestion along those lines above. There already is an article on

1096:

How can we leave this out from an article titled "1971 Bangladesh genocide":

3204:

Genocide committed by whole of West Pakistan against whole of East Pakistan

2033: 1494:." is supported by multiple sources in the article. Its also necessary for 339: 2863:

which was long standing and quite relevant for the obvious reasons. The

2690:

Bangladesh court convicts British journalist for doubting war death toll

2163:. You are making up things now and putting fictious words into my mouth. 582:

Nobody ever said that the article is not about genocide against Bengalis

2887:

Sarmila Bose is an American journalist and academic of Indian parentage

3384:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

894:(if you feel that that article isn't titled correctly, please start a 2930:. Multiple reliable sources have argued that Sarmila Bose is biased: 2836:

You have reinstated Sarmila Bose's nationality thrice, the last time

3370:

http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2005/12/30/editorial.htm

3300:

http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2005/12/30/editorial.htm

2784:". So as a first step, I recommend replacing HRW with a citation to 2189:

2. Pakistani troops exercised restraint until Operation Searchlight.

3159:"This account of the Bangladesh war should not be seen as unbiased" 2425:

best, there would be a short paragraph summarizing Bose's claims.

2186:

1. Pakistani troops were attacked by Bengais until Op Searchlight.

1816:

though, so care would need to be taken not to create a content or

1204:

SheriffIsInTown, I see that you did indeed add a secondary source

432:

A. J. Rummel also calls it a counter-genocide, not just democide!

3135: 2891:

and when the second source (The Guardian) also very clearly says

2303: 1822:

Violence against Biharis during the Bangladesh War of Liberation

546:

the second source clearly talks about "genocide against Biharis"

3294:

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2005/12/03/remembrance.htm

2476:

protected by Ymblanter. Leave it there until the RfC concludes.

2086:

3. Now don't take the discussion off on a tangent. So you have

2676:

Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict: Po - Z, index. 3

2183:

What I did say however was that Anthony Mascarenhas said that:

25: 2316:

does not sound unbelievable. Overall the edits are undue and

3311:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3069:

If you want to debate her nationality, you can do so at the

1376:

Actually, I am not sure if any of this should be included.

3272:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1820:. It would also need to be something more specific like 1666:

Indian Army and Mukti Bahini were involved in mass rapes

3265: 3210:

by West Pakistan against the people of Eastern Pakistan

2978: 2952: 2864: 2861: 2859: 2837: 2495: 2491: 2473: 2470: 1735: 1706: 1668: 1388: 1377: 1205: 840: 585: 140: 3288:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/48049.pdf

506:

explicitly names Bengalis as targets of the genocide.

3177:"Flying Blind: Waiting for a Real Reckoning on 1971" 1950:

also quotes him. So a secondary source is available.

3101:

It is you who are discussing Sarmila's nationality.

2893:....the Indian author Sarmila Bose, claimed that... 1901:

You are displaying bad faith against other editors.

2979:restrictions which were specifically placed on you 2858:You have removed Sarmila Bose' nationality twice 1778:Would it help, if we first created an article on 2214:article, whose section on the 1971 events under 529:Pretty much any source on the subject says this. 179:Please reword your RfC in a neutral manner. See 3218:events which took place in 1971 were a genocide 3208:We move on to next item in the list. This text 1382:But that was already included on the page, see 1488:killing of Biharis by Bengalis in the genocide 1104:alongwith about 5000 suspected collaborators." 3306:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/ 3278:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/ 2775:says that the figures are seriously inflated. 1532:them just because editors with a certain POV 512:explicitly makes the Pakistani army culpable. 8: 3044:" or when The Guardian says that she is an " 2703:"The threat of Pakistan's revisionist texts" 3153: 3151: 3149: 1457:that the article do not scale very good on 2426: 2034:accepting that there is a secondary source 584:- uh... you pretty much said exactly that 3260:I have just modified 5 external links on 2933:The second source you have cited states, 2767:I agree with your analysis. HRW is using 1673:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War 3122: 2525: 3344: 3130: 3128: 3126: 2940: 2934: 2892: 2886: 2782:Identifying reliable sources (history) 2573:Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities 667:about something that matches your POV. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3323:to let others know (documentation at 7: 2625:Stress of War, Conflict and Disaster 2212:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh 1940:keep the article in its biased form. 1814:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh 892:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh 323:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh 130:The following discussion is closed. 2654:. Indiana University Press. p. 12. 2549:"Statistics Of Pakistan'S Democide" 841:requested earlier to you many times 479:as a clear attempt to create a POV 24: 3264:. Please take a moment to review 2465:Disruptive editing during the RfC 1322:and only briefly mentioned here. 3375: 3334: 2726:The discussion above is closed. 2692:, The Guardian, 2 December 2014. 2622:George Fink (25 November 2010). 2570:Carl Skutsch (7 November 2013). 1880:accepted truth in the mainstream 663:turning this article into a POV 29: 3304:Corrected formatting/usage for 3298:Corrected formatting/usage for 3292:Corrected formatting/usage for 3276:Corrected formatting/usage for 3181:Economic & Political Weekly 2939:A peer-reviewed critique says, 3420:14:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 3248:19:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) 2942:biases, even more problematic. 1: 3005:Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 2915:Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 2602:. Popular Prakashan. p. 214. 2505:Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 2400:Economic and Political Weekly 1595:Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 1113:Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 850:Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 108:content and work from there. 1958:Journal of Genocide Research 3087:22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 3029:18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 3011:16:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 2973:10:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 2921:07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 2850:22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 2824: 139:Should the changes in this 3435: 3257:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2825:Sarmila Bose's nationality 2648:Michael Berenbaum (2002). 2628:. Academic Press. p. 292. 2510:21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 2486:01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 2459:18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 2441:02:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 2417:03:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 2384:20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2330:17:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2273:13:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2236:11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2202:07:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2151:07:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2116:06:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2068:20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 2021:04:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 1991:03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 1923:04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 1892:04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 1863:18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1834:18:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1792:17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1762:19:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 1723:16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1697:12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1643:19:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 1615:23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1600:21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1580:15:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1560:11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1436:12:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1401:03:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1372:02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1332:23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 1306:14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1278:14:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1263:03:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1221:02:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1198:02:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1162:23:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 1147:21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 1132:21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 1118:20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 1083:03:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1069:02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1040:21:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 1021:20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 993:20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 952:21:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 937:19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 908:19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 878:18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 855:18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 821:19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 792:18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 770:18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 728:17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 709:17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 680:17:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 654:17:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 623:18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 602:18:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 576:18:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 539:17:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 456:20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 428:18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 412:18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 380:18:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 366:17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 335:17:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 316:17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 277:16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 248:18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 220:18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 206:17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 192:17:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 168:16:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 2963:to address the issue. -- 2880:it was not in the sources 2878:You need to explain how " 1681:Bangladesh Liberation War 1320:Bangladesh Liberation War 3262:1971 Bangladesh genocide 2817:21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 2798:17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 2762:16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 2754:2A02:20B0:32:100:0:0:0:5 2728:Please do not modify it. 2679:. Academic Press. p. 64. 2537:. Oxford bibliographies. 2535:"20th Century Genocides" 1780:Violence against Biharis 1677:1971 Bangladesh genocide 1486:"The war also witnessed 132:Please do not modify it. 123:20:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 18:Talk:Bangladesh genocide 3253:External links modified 2885:the first source says: 2343:I have no problem with 2003:needs to be attributed. 1669:Mass removal of content 342:is a form of genocide. 2865:last time you reverted 2735:Violence against women 2596:Rafiq Zakaria (2002). 2576:. Routledge. p. 220. 42:of past discussions. 2474:This was the version 1707:Here is typical edit 1139:TheTimesAreAChanging 1102:retributive genocide 196:Try a little harder. 3315:parameter below to 2873:irrelevant to topic 2208:REJECT as premature 1730:My very best wishes 1715:My very best wishes 1607:My very best wishes 1408:My very best wishes 1393:My very best wishes 1343:My very best wishes 1324:My very best wishes 607:"You are trying to 3408:InternetArchiveBot 2533:Payaslian, Simon. 720:FreeatlastChitchat 646:FreeatlastChitchat 133: 2660:978-0-25-321529-1 2634:978-0-12-381382-4 2608:978-8-17-991145-7 2582:978-1-13-519388-1 2443: 2431:comment added by 2135:4. Source please. 131: 115: 112:non-admin closure 97: 96: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3426: 3418: 3409: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3346: 3341: 3338: 3337: 3330: 3243: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3196: 3195: 3193: 3192: 3173:Mohaiemen, Naeem 3169: 3163: 3162: 3155: 3144: 3143: 3132: 3042:Indian parentage 3008: 3006: 3003: 2996: 2988: 2918: 2916: 2913: 2835: 2719: 2718: 2716: 2714: 2699: 2693: 2687: 2681: 2680: 2671: 2665: 2664: 2645: 2639: 2638: 2619: 2613: 2612: 2593: 2587: 2586: 2567: 2561: 2560: 2558: 2556: 2545: 2539: 2538: 2530: 2506: 2503: 2451:Homemade Pencils 2379: 2371: 2368: 2365: 2349:ethnic cleansing 2342: 2288:ethnic cleansing 2268: 2260: 2257: 2254: 2248: 2063: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2043: 2031: 1858: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1757: 1749: 1746: 1743: 1733: 1638: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1596: 1593: 1555: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1534:do not like them 1431: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1411: 1367: 1359: 1356: 1353: 1346: 1301: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1258: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1193: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1172: 1114: 1111: 1064: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1016: 1008: 1005: 1002: 988: 980: 977: 974: 932: 924: 921: 918: 851: 848: 816: 808: 805: 802: 765: 757: 754: 751: 744: 704: 696: 693: 690: 590:Rwandan Genocide 571: 563: 560: 557: 515:Further sources 451: 443: 440: 437: 407: 399: 396: 393: 384:Well, how about 361: 353: 350: 347: 311: 303: 300: 297: 243: 235: 232: 229: 163: 155: 152: 149: 109: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3412: 3407: 3380: 3376: 3339: 3335: 3324: 3270:this simple FaQ 3255: 3241: 3233: 3230: 3227: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3190: 3188: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3157: 3156: 3147: 3134: 3133: 3124: 3004: 3001: 2999: 2990: 2982: 2914: 2911: 2909: 2829: 2827: 2737: 2732: 2731: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2712: 2710: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2688: 2684: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2661: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2635: 2621: 2620: 2616: 2609: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2583: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2554: 2552: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2518: 2504: 2501: 2478:Volunteer Marek 2467: 2433:130.132.173.185 2377: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2339:Vinegarymass911 2336: 2322:Vinegarymass911 2266: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2242: 2143:Volunteer Marek 2090:that Bose is a 2061: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2037: 2028:Volunteer Marek 2025: 2013:Volunteer Marek 1856: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1826:Volunteer Marek 1755: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1727: 1636: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1594: 1591: 1572:Volunteer Marek 1553: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1429: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1405: 1365: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1340: 1299: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1270:Volunteer Marek 1256: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1213:Volunteer Marek 1191: 1183: 1180: 1177: 1169:Volunteer Marek 1166: 1154:Volunteer Marek 1124:Volunteer Marek 1112: 1109: 1094:Volunteer Marek 1075:Volunteer Marek 1062: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1032:Volunteer Marek 1014: 1006: 1003: 1000: 986: 978: 975: 972: 944:Volunteer Marek 930: 922: 919: 916: 900:Volunteer Marek 870:Volunteer Marek 849: 846: 814: 806: 803: 800: 784:Volunteer Marek 763: 755: 752: 749: 741:Volunteer Marek 738: 715:Volunteer Marek 702: 694: 691: 688: 672:Volunteer Marek 615:Volunteer Marek 594:Volunteer Marek 569: 561: 558: 555: 531:Volunteer Marek 449: 441: 438: 435: 420:Volunteer Marek 405: 397: 394: 391: 372:Volunteer Marek 359: 351: 348: 345: 327:Volunteer Marek 309: 301: 298: 295: 241: 233: 230: 227: 212:Volunteer Marek 198:Volunteer Marek 184:Volunteer Marek 161: 153: 150: 147: 136: 127: 126: 125: 102: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3432: 3430: 3402: 3401: 3394: 3373: 3372: 3367: 3360: 3309: 3308: 3302: 3296: 3290: 3282:Added archive 3280: 3254: 3251: 3205: 3202: 3198: 3197: 3175:(2011-09-03). 3164: 3161:. theguardian. 3145: 3136:"Sarmila Bose" 3121: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3105: 3102: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3064: 3063: 3060: 3057: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2937: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2889: 2876: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2801: 2800: 2777: 2776: 2769:weasel wording 2736: 2733: 2725: 2721: 2720: 2694: 2682: 2666: 2659: 2640: 2633: 2614: 2607: 2588: 2581: 2562: 2540: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2517: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2444: 2419: 2387: 2386: 2353:genocidal rape 2333: 2332: 2296:genocidal rape 2276: 2275: 2239: 2238: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2164: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2126: 2119: 2118: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2083: 2082: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2023: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1997: 1980: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1961: 1952: 1951: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1700: 1699: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1588:is all I see.— 1525: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1484: 1472: 1465: 1462: 1453: 1452: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1335: 1334: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1209: 1097: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1024: 1023: 995: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 858: 857: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 773: 772: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 711: 668: 657: 656: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 527: 526: 525: 513: 507: 501: 495: 485: 484: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 430: 291: 287: 280: 279: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 208: 137: 128: 106: 105: 104: 103: 101: 98: 95: 94: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3431: 3422: 3421: 3416: 3411: 3410: 3399: 3395: 3392: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3371: 3368: 3365: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3332: 3328: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3307: 3303: 3301: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3258: 3252: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3244: 3237: 3236: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3203: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3168: 3165: 3160: 3154: 3152: 3150: 3146: 3141: 3137: 3131: 3129: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3106: 3103: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3049: 3047: 3046:Indian author 3043: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3007: 2994: 2986: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2943: 2938: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2929: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2919: 2917: 2906: 2903: 2899: 2894: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2869:Not in source 2866: 2862: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2833: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2742: 2734: 2729: 2709:. 18 May 2009 2708: 2704: 2698: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2683: 2678: 2677: 2670: 2667: 2662: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2644: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2618: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2592: 2589: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2566: 2563: 2550: 2544: 2541: 2536: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2515: 2511: 2508: 2507: 2497: 2493: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2380: 2373: 2372: 2359: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2340: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2310: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2278: 2277: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2262: 2261: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2188: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2177:incorporated. 2175: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2104: 2103: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2057: 2056: 2041: 2035: 2029: 2024: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1976: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1944: 1943: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1930: 1929: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1898:@ArghyaIndian 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1872: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1852: 1851: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1751: 1750: 1737: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1656: 1655: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1632: 1631: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1549: 1548: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1460: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1449:Accept as nom 1447: 1446: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1425: 1424: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1361: 1360: 1344: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1295: 1294: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1252: 1251: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1187: 1186: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1115: 1105: 1103: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1058: 1057: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1010: 1009: 996: 994: 990: 989: 982: 981: 967: 966: 953: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 934: 933: 926: 925: 911: 910: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 884: 883: 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 867: 862: 861: 860: 859: 856: 853: 852: 842: 838: 833: 830: 829: 822: 818: 817: 810: 809: 795: 794: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 776: 775: 774: 771: 767: 766: 759: 758: 742: 737: 736: 729: 725: 721: 716: 712: 710: 706: 705: 698: 697: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 669: 666: 661: 660: 659: 658: 655: 651: 647: 642: 637: 634: 633: 624: 620: 616: 612: 610: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 578: 577: 573: 572: 565: 564: 551: 547: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 528: 523: 520: 517: 514: 511: 508: 505: 502: 499: 496: 492: 489: 488: 487: 486: 482: 478: 475: 474: 457: 453: 452: 445: 444: 431: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 409: 408: 401: 400: 387: 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 369: 368: 367: 363: 362: 355: 354: 341: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 324: 319: 318: 317: 313: 312: 305: 304: 292: 288: 284: 283: 282: 281: 278: 274: 270: 266: 263: 262: 249: 245: 244: 237: 236: 223: 222: 221: 217: 213: 209: 207: 203: 199: 195: 194: 193: 189: 185: 181: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 169: 165: 164: 157: 156: 142: 135: 124: 121: 120: 113: 99: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3406: 3403: 3383: 3374: 3348: 3342: 3333: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3310: 3259: 3256: 3240: 3226: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3207: 3189:. Retrieved 3184: 3180: 3167: 3140:Sarmila Bose 3139: 3117: 3071:Sarmila Bose 3050: 3045: 3041: 3039: 3016: 3000: 2910: 2879: 2872: 2868: 2828: 2786:Sarmila Bose 2773:Sarmila Bose 2772: 2746:This article 2738: 2727: 2711:. Retrieved 2707:The Guardian 2706: 2697: 2685: 2675: 2669: 2650: 2643: 2624: 2617: 2598: 2591: 2572: 2565: 2553:. Retrieved 2551:. Hawaii.edu 2543: 2528: 2520: 2500: 2468: 2446: 2427:— Preceding 2421: 2399: 2396:The Guardian 2395: 2390: 2376: 2362: 2312: 2279: 2265: 2251: 2219: 2216:Mukti Bahini 2215: 2207: 2192: 2167: 2160: 2091: 2087: 2078: 2060: 2046: 1981: 1957: 1947: 1931: 1909:its source). 1879: 1855: 1841: 1754: 1740: 1689:ArghyaIndian 1685:Mukti Bahini 1665: 1661: 1657: 1635: 1621: 1590: 1552: 1538: 1492:Mukti Bahini 1448: 1428: 1414: 1384:this section 1381: 1364: 1350: 1314: 1298: 1284: 1255: 1241: 1237: 1190: 1176: 1108: 1101: 1099: 1061: 1047: 1013: 999: 985: 971: 929: 915: 887: 845: 836: 831: 813: 799: 762: 748: 701: 687: 640: 636:Fully Accept 635: 606: 581: 568: 554: 545: 476: 448: 434: 404: 390: 358: 344: 308: 294: 264: 240: 226: 160: 146: 138: 129: 117: 75: 43: 37: 3327:Sourcecheck 3187:(36): 40–52 3075:book's page 2985:RegentsPark 2957:RegentsPark 2345:Deportation 2318:WP:COATRACK 2300:Mass murder 2292:mass murder 2284:Deportation 1469:WP:FLAGICON 866:WP:COATRACK 665:WP:COATRACK 611:Knowledge." 552:Knowledge. 510:This source 504:This source 498:This source 491:This source 481:WP:COATRACK 36:This is an 3415:Report bug 3191:2015-03-19 3118:References 2953:ARE ruling 2790:Worldbruce 2521:References 2516:References 2194:Towns Hill 2168:difference 2139:offensive. 2108:Towns Hill 2040:Towns Hill 1983:Towns Hill 1915:Towns Hill 1884:Towns Hill 1818:WP:POVFORK 1711:this essay 1567:WP:AGENDAs 1496:WP:BALANCE 1477:WP:BALANCE 1389:Here is it 942:genocide". 780:WP:TAGTEAM 3398:this tool 3391:this tool 3364:this tool 3357:this tool 3345:|checked= 3079:Kautilya3 3056:Cambridge 3021:Kautilya3 2993:Lord Roem 2965:Kautilya3 2961:Lord Roem 2856:Kautilya3 2842:Kautilya3 2360:article. 2245:Kautilya3 2228:Kautilya3 1948:The Hindu 1586:WP:AGENDA 1530:WP:CENSOR 609:WP:CENSOR 550:WP:CENSOR 494:Bengalis. 92:Archive 7 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3404:Cheers.— 3214:genocide 2882:" when: 2832:TripWire 2713:20 April 2429:unsigned 2309:WP:UNDUE 2092:reliable 2011:sources. 1784:Dorpater 641:removing 340:Democide 3313:checked 3266:my edit 2809:MPS1992 2555:31 July 2496:why not 2391:Comment 2358:WP:NPOV 2161:Biharis 2132:please) 1500:WP:NPOV 1481:WP:NPOV 1459:WP:NPOV 1152:source. 1030:though. 886:"source 39:archive 3321:failed 3017:source 2871:; and 2447:Accept 2422:Reject 2409:Rhoark 2405:WP:DUE 2351:, and 2280:Reject 2088:agreed 1932:Accept 1658:REJECT 1517:facts. 1315:Reject 832:Accept 477:Reject 290:party. 269:Ghatus 265:Reject 3242:☎ 911 3222:WP:OR 2378:☎ 911 2267:☎ 911 2224:WP:OR 2220:first 2062:☎ 911 1857:☎ 911 1756:☎ 911 1637:☎ 911 1554:☎ 911 1513:Bose. 1509:term. 1430:☎ 911 1366:☎ 911 1300:☎ 911 1257:☎ 911 1192:☎ 911 1063:☎ 911 1015:☎ 911 987:☎ 911 931:☎ 911 896:WP:RM 815:☎ 911 764:☎ 911 703:☎ 911 580:(ec) 570:☎ 911 450:☎ 911 406:☎ 911 360:☎ 911 310:☎ 911 242:☎ 911 162:☎ 911 16:< 3349:true 3317:true 3083:talk 3025:talk 3002:Trip 2989:and 2969:talk 2959:and 2928:bias 2912:Trip 2846:talk 2838:here 2813:talk 2794:talk 2758:talk 2715:2016 2656:ISBN 2630:ISBN 2604:ISBN 2578:ISBN 2557:2013 2502:Trip 2492:Sure 2482:talk 2455:talk 2437:talk 2413:talk 2398:and 2326:talk 2304:rape 2298:to 2232:talk 2198:talk 2147:talk 2112:talk 2017:talk 1987:talk 1919:talk 1888:talk 1830:talk 1788:talk 1719:talk 1693:talk 1611:talk 1592:Trip 1576:talk 1498:and 1479:and 1397:talk 1378:Here 1328:talk 1274:talk 1217:talk 1206:here 1158:talk 1143:talk 1128:talk 1110:Trip 1079:talk 1036:talk 948:talk 904:talk 874:talk 847:Trip 788:talk 724:talk 676:talk 650:talk 619:talk 598:talk 586:here 535:talk 424:talk 386:this 376:talk 331:talk 273:talk 216:talk 202:talk 188:talk 141:diff 3347:to 3331:). 3319:or 3286:to 3231:eri 2741:HRW 2367:eri 2256:eri 2051:eri 1846:eri 1745:eri 1626:eri 1543:eri 1419:eri 1355:eri 1289:eri 1246:eri 1181:eri 1052:eri 1004:eri 976:eri 920:eri 837:not 804:eri 753:eri 692:eri 559:eri 439:eri 395:eri 349:eri 299:eri 231:eri 151:eri 119:Rob 3329:}} 3325:{{ 3246:| 3238:| 3234:ff 3228:Sh 3185:46 3183:. 3179:. 3148:^ 3138:. 3125:^ 3085:) 3027:) 2981:? 2971:) 2875:". 2848:) 2815:) 2796:) 2760:) 2705:. 2498:.— 2494:, 2484:) 2472:? 2457:) 2439:) 2415:) 2382:| 2374:| 2370:ff 2364:Sh 2347:, 2328:) 2302:, 2294:, 2290:, 2286:, 2271:| 2263:| 2259:ff 2253:Sh 2234:) 2200:) 2149:) 2114:) 2079:if 2066:| 2058:| 2054:ff 2048:Sh 2036:? 2019:) 1989:) 1921:) 1890:) 1861:| 1853:| 1849:ff 1843:Sh 1832:) 1790:) 1760:| 1752:| 1748:ff 1742:Sh 1721:) 1713:. 1695:) 1683:, 1679:, 1675:, 1664:, 1641:| 1633:| 1629:ff 1623:Sh 1613:) 1578:) 1558:| 1550:| 1546:ff 1540:Sh 1536:. 1434:| 1426:| 1422:ff 1416:Sh 1399:) 1370:| 1362:| 1358:ff 1352:Sh 1330:) 1304:| 1296:| 1292:ff 1286:Sh 1276:) 1261:| 1253:| 1249:ff 1243:Sh 1219:) 1196:| 1188:| 1184:ff 1178:Sh 1160:) 1145:) 1130:) 1081:) 1067:| 1059:| 1055:ff 1049:Sh 1038:) 1019:| 1011:| 1007:ff 1001:Sh 991:| 983:| 979:ff 973:Sh 950:) 935:| 927:| 923:ff 917:Sh 906:) 876:) 819:| 811:| 807:ff 801:Sh 790:) 768:| 760:| 756:ff 750:Sh 726:) 707:| 699:| 695:ff 689:Sh 678:) 652:) 621:) 600:) 574:| 566:| 562:ff 556:Sh 537:) 521:, 518:, 454:| 446:| 442:ff 436:Sh 426:) 410:| 402:| 398:ff 392:Sh 378:) 364:| 356:| 352:ff 346:Sh 333:) 314:| 306:| 302:ff 296:Sh 275:) 246:| 238:| 234:ff 228:Sh 218:) 204:) 190:) 166:| 158:| 154:ff 148:Sh 116:~ 3417:) 3413:( 3400:. 3393:. 3381:Y 3366:. 3359:. 3340:N 3194:. 3142:. 3081:( 3023:( 2997:— 2995:: 2991:@ 2987:: 2983:@ 2967:( 2895:. 2844:( 2834:: 2830:@ 2811:( 2792:( 2756:( 2717:. 2663:. 2637:. 2611:. 2585:. 2559:. 2480:( 2453:( 2435:( 2411:( 2341:: 2337:@ 2324:( 2320:. 2247:: 2243:@ 2230:( 2196:( 2145:( 2110:( 2042:: 2038:@ 2030:: 2026:@ 2015:( 1985:( 1917:( 1886:( 1828:( 1824:. 1786:( 1732:: 1728:@ 1717:( 1691:( 1687:. 1609:( 1574:( 1483:. 1471:. 1410:: 1406:@ 1395:( 1345:: 1341:@ 1326:( 1272:( 1215:( 1171:: 1167:@ 1156:( 1141:( 1126:( 1106:— 1077:( 1034:( 946:( 902:( 888:S 872:( 868:. 786:( 782:. 743:: 739:@ 722:( 713:@ 674:( 648:( 617:( 596:( 533:( 524:. 422:( 374:( 329:( 271:( 214:( 200:( 186:( 182:. 114:) 110:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index