Talk:Bangladesh genocide

Brushup of 'Violence against Biharis' section

The following paragraph has been omitted as I find it irrelevant --

In May 2003, a high court ruling in Bangladesh allowed 10 Biharis to obtain citizenship and voting rights. The ruling also exposed a generation gap amongst Biharis, with younger Biharis tending to be "elated" with the ruling, but with many older people feeling "despair at the enthusiasm" of the younger generation. Many Biharis now seek greater civil rights and citizenship in Bangladesh. On May 19, 2008 the Dhaka High court approved citizenship and voting rights for about 150,000 refugees who were minors at the time of Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, and those who were born after would also gain the right to vote.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabih omar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 December 2009

Requested move 21 December 2018

'

1971 Bangladesh genocide → Bangladesh genocide of 1971 or Bangladeshi genocide of 1971

---

The move is to make the title more resemble other genocide and massacre articles like the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66.

Article should be named the Bangladesh massacres

Since its still disputed widely that if the bangladesh killings in 1971 was a gonocide or not this article should be named the 1971 Bangladesh Massacres instead of "Genocide" to avoid spreading anti pakistan propaganda. After all there are sources which state the number of deaths are "over exagerrated" and according to them numbers still lower. Like the one that states deaths around 13,000. 203.175.72.22 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you share said sources? OkLs (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

All the sources are mentioned and authentic. Pakistan army did a genocide,face the reality. 103.165.22.18 (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There is no citation to the first paragraph anywhete. It seems like a commentary or narrative of someone. Was that you who wrote this.

The introductory paragraph before the table starts doesnt have anything.

Would you at least add citation there of any sort. Like one of your Indian authors books that you usually use in such articles. Add something there? 85.76.151.80 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Motive: "Racism"

Hello, I've viewed the Motive as "Racism" and it is quiet ridiculous. Whatever the word is for quelling separatists and crackdown on populations is much more appropriate, in fact racism as a motive might need to be removed entirely. Thank you PreserveOurHistory (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The main motive was Racism and treating bengalis as second class citizens with respect to west Pakistanis that alienated them and hence they started a movement for their independence against racist and colonialist Pakistani government.

That's the reason,face reality 103.165.22.18 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Title Name Change

Change title from “1971 Bangladesh genocide” to “1971 Bengali genocide” Thotianaa (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Why lead this article with such high numbers?

The numbers are disputed and the number ranges given by different academic and non-academic accounts vary enormously. Why does this article lead with the least conservative death toll of 3 million, when in section "Estimated Killed" the numbers of most academic accounts differ and suggest a much lower death toll? Notably, the studies on death tolls by Gerlach, who in 2010 dedicates several pages to the death toll discussion and in 2018 an entire chapter, strongly and very plausibly suggest (based in part on Bangladesh, not Pakistan, data -- i.e. the country that otherwise uses the maximum death toll of 3,000,000 -- as well as a number of independent sources, including much more reliable demographic data used to examine famines in parts of East Pakistan/Bangladesh that give a clearer picture of excess mortality) a different death toll of likely higher than 500,000 but very unlikely more than 1,000,000. Other sources under "Estimated Killed" do not examine the various death toll data with even nearly the same degree of scrutiny as Gerlach does! It's a bit silly to use news sources (e.g. Aljazeera, which in turn uses the official Bangladesh figure of 3 million) for citing death tolls when other sources are available (and also when observing journalists at the time gave death tolls in the hundreds of thousands but not in the several millions, see Gerlach for this).

Furthermore, in the "Estimated Killed" section the Alston source (Women and Climate Change in Bangladesh) is used as a separate source for the 3 million death toll, even though she in fact cites Debnath, in Totten (2009), and Debnath is already listed as a source. The Debnath source is in fact credited wrongly in two ways (at least in the 2009 edition of the book edited by Totten): 1) the page number given (p. 55) does not mention any death count, the page number that does give a death count is p. 47; 2) the death count Debnath gives is not 3 million, but in fact 1 million. Debnath does not give any sources for her numbers and just notes that they are disputed in the corresponding footnote (fn 2). Why a random social psychology source is used to support any death toll estimate is rather mysterious and seems to me only explicable as an attempt to ramp up the numbers of sources supporting a preferred death toll estimate. In short, neither Alston nor Debnath nor Jahan (in the other book, cited in this article, edited by Totten in 2009, Century of Genocide) in fact do any estimating themselves, they merely pass on a number given by someone else (and in the case of Debnath do not give a source for that number). To quote Ben Kiernan (who said this wrt Etcheson's exaggerated death toll of Khmer Rouge deaths in Cambodia) "Exaggerating a horrific death toll [...] contributes to the ethnic auctioneering of genocide research” (Kiernan 2003, p. 587)!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.236.6 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

---

1971 Bangladesh genocide → Bangladesh genocide – Most domestic and international sources refer to the genocide without the year, similar articles regarding genocides which occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia etc omit the year so it seems unnecessary to have the year in the article title.--AMomen88 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Support I don't know of another event referred to as the "Bangladesh genocide". CJ-Moki (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as more concise. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bangladesh

103.139.145.34 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)