SheriffIsInTown (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Capitals00 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
:::They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|'''<font color="blue">Sh</font><font color="red">eri</font><font color="blue">ff</font>''']] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|'''<font color="black">☎ 911</font>''']] | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
::::You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|'''<font color="blue">Sh</font><font color="red">eri</font><font color="blue">ff</font>''']] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|'''<font color="black">☎ 911</font>''']] | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::You need to tell why. Why you can't prove that he is an on Bangladesh or this war? Read [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]]. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:35, 19 April 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Redundant citations in lead for uncontroversial statements
Cohen and the Los Angeles Times, where cited in the lead, establish only that India supported the Bengali separatists and that war started between India and Pakistan on 3 December 1971. Neither statement is about a living person, a direct quote, or controversial or likely to be challenged. The lead summarizes the body, where the material is already cited. So I have removed from the lead the two redundant citations to Cohen and the Los Angeles Times per MOS:LEADCITE. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
US-Soviet Confrontation
The article says that the Soviet Navy dispatched a "submarine armed with nuclear missiles". But the cited reference says that the fleet had "nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles". The term "nuclear submarine" generally means a nuclear-POWERED submarine rather than one armed with nuclear missiles. I have searched the Indian Defense Review--which is the source for the cited article's information--and a variety of other sources and I can't find any original source for the claim that the sub was carrying nuclear weapons.
In fact, I can't even find a very reliable source for even the claim that the Soviet fleet had a nuclear-powered submarine. Most of the sources seemed to be based on hearsay. The one piece of direct evidence comes from an interview the Soviet commander gave to a Russian TV program, in which he describes having nuclear submarines (I believe the Russian phrase also refers to nuclear-powered submarines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2E_PpVUYw
Whether or not there was a standoff with nuclear weapons is a significant issue. I'm researching nuclear close calls, so if there is compelling evidence the submarine was armed with nuclear weapons, I would very much like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert de Neufville (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018
The title of this article should be "Liberation War of Bangladesh-1971" and also in the each and every line of this article. 182.48.77.118 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: Readers can find that topic at Bangladesh Liberation War. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit
@My Lord: Can you please explain why you removed this sourced edit? It expands on the tense bilateral relations which followed shortly after the war, so your claim definitely does not hold true especially with the text preceding it. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You used POV wording that Indian liberators "soon became unpopular" in Bangladesh because of some trivial events, and whole para depending on a book about Sri Lanka. That's not enough and content is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. My Lord (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Unpopular" is the exact term that the source used. If you have an alternative term, you can suggest it but it should not deviate from the actual source. You haven't explained why you removed content that was sourced, so I'm going to wait and give you another opportunity. Please note Wikipedia doesn't allow censoring reliably-sourced content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In this case, you deliberately removed text from a section discussing the Indo-Bangla bilateral relationship in context of the war. Mar4d (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's clear WP:IDHT from you. I had explained it in edit summary as well as here, but you have no concerns about using a weak source for your POV pushing. And when you are telling that others are "censoring" removing content cause they "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help. My Lord (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you think K. M. de Silva is a weak source, please be my guest and take it to WP:RSN as required and we'll discuss the merits of your case. The burden is on you to put it forth. But right as of now, you really need to follow WP:BRD and stop blanking sourced content. Just screaming POV without basis isn't going to help. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You don't understand what is a WP:BRD, it is that if you added something and it has been reverted for being objectionable then you have to wait till you get consensus. The statements you are presenting are WP:UNDUE. You seem to be missing the link between events that if Indians became unpopular, why they have a high rating today? We can't present content in Wikipedia voice that would raise doubts, and this source is clearly not clarifying. My Lord (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am definitely following BRD here on the talk, however you haven't complied. Your first edit was a blanket removal with no discussion whatsoever. This is especially contentious when the removal concerns sourced content. And I am not sure what you mean above. The content is about the disagreements and at times cold bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh shortly after the war ended, which has been covered in great depth. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that's why you restored your edit[1] without gaining any consensus. That's not BRD. Next paragraph talks about the good reception of India among Bangladeshis, citing pewforum if you have seen. We will have to fulfill the gap, that what made Bangladeshis like Indian so much if they disliked them in 1974.. Though the source (Silva) cites no convincing sources for his information or any good evidence. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva is corroborating what Gill and numerous other sources explore on this relationship. I am not sure why you bring up the PEW survey, since I did not remove it. If you want to bring sources on the table discussing how the relationship evolved, you can do so. Though we simply can't leave out the fact that India lost much goodwill, and most of it had to do with political failures. This is exactly what the source explains. Please let me know what you would like to propose and perhaps we can work around it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Options are that we should be fine with removal, or we need multiple reliable sources that would emphasise the downfall, or we need sources to describe how India's reception evolved in Bangladesh if it was so bad in 1974. My Lord (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva is corroborating what Gill and numerous other sources explore on this relationship. I am not sure why you bring up the PEW survey, since I did not remove it. If you want to bring sources on the table discussing how the relationship evolved, you can do so. Though we simply can't leave out the fact that India lost much goodwill, and most of it had to do with political failures. This is exactly what the source explains. Please let me know what you would like to propose and perhaps we can work around it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that's why you restored your edit[1] without gaining any consensus. That's not BRD. Next paragraph talks about the good reception of India among Bangladeshis, citing pewforum if you have seen. We will have to fulfill the gap, that what made Bangladeshis like Indian so much if they disliked them in 1974.. Though the source (Silva) cites no convincing sources for his information or any good evidence. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am definitely following BRD here on the talk, however you haven't complied. Your first edit was a blanket removal with no discussion whatsoever. This is especially contentious when the removal concerns sourced content. And I am not sure what you mean above. The content is about the disagreements and at times cold bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh shortly after the war ended, which has been covered in great depth. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You don't understand what is a WP:BRD, it is that if you added something and it has been reverted for being objectionable then you have to wait till you get consensus. The statements you are presenting are WP:UNDUE. You seem to be missing the link between events that if Indians became unpopular, why they have a high rating today? We can't present content in Wikipedia voice that would raise doubts, and this source is clearly not clarifying. My Lord (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you think K. M. de Silva is a weak source, please be my guest and take it to WP:RSN as required and we'll discuss the merits of your case. The burden is on you to put it forth. But right as of now, you really need to follow WP:BRD and stop blanking sourced content. Just screaming POV without basis isn't going to help. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's clear WP:IDHT from you. I had explained it in edit summary as well as here, but you have no concerns about using a weak source for your POV pushing. And when you are telling that others are "censoring" removing content cause they "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help. My Lord (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Unpopular" is the exact term that the source used. If you have an alternative term, you can suggest it but it should not deviate from the actual source. You haven't explained why you removed content that was sourced, so I'm going to wait and give you another opportunity. Please note Wikipedia doesn't allow censoring reliably-sourced content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In this case, you deliberately removed text from a section discussing the Indo-Bangla bilateral relationship in context of the war. Mar4d (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@My Lord you havent yet explained what is the exact problem that you have with Mar4d's edit? You made a blanket revert without adequately explaining it and are now shooting in the dark. Please be specific.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 08:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. —MBL talk 09:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- MBL, excellent contribution to the discussion at hand, dare I say.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 09:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mar4d has provided a good source [2], the author is an eminent historian and its due because its covered in multiple reliable sources. Another source, of a book published by Routledge in 2012: [3]. M A A Z T A L K 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- And for one, the PEW source (which also mentions the cold bilateral relations) is a primary source whereas the above Routledge source is a secondary source by an academic, so it takes precedence per WP:RS. Silva meets WP:HISTRS, being an eminent historian. My Lord's claim therefore about the "change in attitude" stands invalid as it is, as the above similarly mentions Bangladesh having been wary of India as a regional hegemon. Mar4d (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hand-waving publisher and author doesn't means you have fulfilled WP:DUE. Content is WP:UNDUE and Silva neither cites any sources (like mentioned above) neither Bangladesh has any negative reception of Indians like you want to claim. See WP:RGW. Rzvas (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are reliable sources saying the exact opposite is the case.
[4] MBlaze Lightning talk 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)In the case of Bangladesh and its relations with India, the two states embarked after 1971 on a relationship whereby India was the hegemonic power and sought to maximize its influence and power in Dacca. Relations between Delhi and Islamabad however remained trapped in the transient dynamic of Lockean and Hobbesian cultures that at its zenith reached a new height of Hobbesian danger in May 1998. After the founding of Bangladesh, relations between Delhi and the newly established Bangladesh underwent a qualitative change from pre-1971 relations. In stark contrast however, relations with Pakistan remained tense and mutually antagonistic.
- Indeed, there are reliable sources saying the exact opposite is the case.
- Hand-waving publisher and author doesn't means you have fulfilled WP:DUE. Content is WP:UNDUE and Silva neither cites any sources (like mentioned above) neither Bangladesh has any negative reception of Indians like you want to claim. See WP:RGW. Rzvas (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- And for one, the PEW source (which also mentions the cold bilateral relations) is a primary source whereas the above Routledge source is a secondary source by an academic, so it takes precedence per WP:RS. Silva meets WP:HISTRS, being an eminent historian. My Lord's claim therefore about the "change in attitude" stands invalid as it is, as the above similarly mentions Bangladesh having been wary of India as a regional hegemon. Mar4d (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are you folks playing a game of hide and seek here? No one replies to Mar4d and Ma'azs legitimate comments for a week and then when the content gets restored for irresponsiveness then the whole junta shows up to play the revert game!
- And to you MBL, As for your "quite the contrary" content is concerned, the source you provided does not exactly say what you are trying to purport in your comment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it says explicitly that the relations between India and Bangladesh "underwent a qualitative change from pre-1971 relations. In stark contrast however, relations with Pakistan remained tense and mutually antagonistic." Perhaps a WP:CIR situation. MBlaze Lightning talk 12:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- MBlaze Lightning‘s above quote actually does not support his argument at all. All it says is that India was exercising hegemonic influence over Bangladesh and it does not say anything contradictory to Silva about the Bangladeshi population's opinion. Another scholarly source validates it and adds that Bangladeshi people think India has hegemonic influence in the region and forces its agenda on its neighbours and that’s why it flows into the negative views about India which bubbled to the surface in 1974. samee converse 08:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's source misrepresentation because it also tells that India and Bangladesh relations underwent a "qualitative change" post-1971, in direct contradiction to the claims of Silva that Indians "soon became unpopular" and so on. If contradiction exists then we shouldn't be adding the information unless its too common but that's really not a case in this situation. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Why we are dedicating nearly a paragraph to Silva. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, how he is that relevant or has expertise in 1971 Indo-Pakistan war? Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- When digging a little deeper, it becomes clear that the relations between India and Bangladesh were good post-1971 until 1975, contrary to the claims made by Silva.[5][6][7]
- There are other reasons for rejecting Silva source as well, namely because it doesn't meet the criterion set forth in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and hence it's not a reliable source for the information in question. Silva is basically making outrageous claims without backing them up. MBlaze Lightning talk 12:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva—a historian, thus WP:HISTRS—does not need to show anyone back ups for his statements. And the incident and trend he referred to is documented also in primary sources such as Dixit who was Indian diplomat in Bangladesh at that time. [8] Read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS again, it has nothing to do with your objection. The paragraph is about Bangladeshi perceptions about India. Also the sources you have brought up provide no support for your propositions. samee converse 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to tell why. Why you can't prove that he is an on Bangladesh or this war? Read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Capitals00 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva—a historian, thus WP:HISTRS—does not need to show anyone back ups for his statements. And the incident and trend he referred to is documented also in primary sources such as Dixit who was Indian diplomat in Bangladesh at that time. [8] Read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS again, it has nothing to do with your objection. The paragraph is about Bangladeshi perceptions about India. Also the sources you have brought up provide no support for your propositions. samee converse 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)