Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Asian / South Asia B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force History B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bangladesh B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Pakistan B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. India B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012. Bengal (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal articles Cold War B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Colonialism Unassessed (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject ColonialismColonialism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

@Aman.kumar.goel, Boing! said Zebedee, Tibet Nation, MarkH21, and Voidvector: In the absence of a source for this claim, I feel that it ought to be removed from the page. Let me know if there is any source that would show that this statement is factually accurate. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stop WP:CANVASSING and see this and this. Orientls (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: Thanks for your response. These sources do get closer to the mark, but I need to see specific, clear evidence from notes or documents on what steps the Nixon White House took in respect to their encouragement. Please give me the quotations. Did they call up Mao and say "hey new buddies, send some troops over there" or what specifically? The sources you give don't say what Nixon the man did in respect to encouraging China in this respect. Once the sources are really, really there, then I can remove the citation needed span. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two books you give are discussing the crisis. But what I'd like to see now is which quotes you propose to be justifying the statement "Nixon encouraged China". I need to see exactly what wording in the secondary source justifies the words "Nixon encouraged China" being used on Wikipedia mainspace. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative:The Berlatsky source added by Orientls has this quote, which should be sufficient:

According to the State Department historian, 'When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration tilted toward Pakistan [...] It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India
— East Pakistan, p. 52-53

Minor modifications might be needed to be made to the paragraph, but this looks like it's supported by the source. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: What I find interesting is that the Berlatsky source is only quoting an anonymous source and not making reference to sources proving the matter. Is a solitary quote of the State Department historian really sufficient to show that "Nixon encouraged China"? Is there any other secondary source beside this quotation from one person to show this event occurred? The quote doesn't go into the ways in which Nixon encouraged China and the manner in which China refused. "Encouragement" implies that there was some kind of communication or action taken on the part of Richard Nixon. What was that action? What if this historian was just speaking off the cuff? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

I'm not saying these events (whatever they are proposed to be) didn't happen. I'm saying we have not yet reached the threshold to include it on Wikipedia. It's not sourced yet. Also, the crucial sentence in the quote above is grammatically malformed: "It also involved encouraging". This is not even a direct double quotation mark reliable quotation- it's a one-quotation mark paraphrase, and poorly written at that. At best, you've got a grammatically malformed paraphrase from an anonymous source in which "it" (= Nixon administration) may have done something, not Nixon. This is on the level of New Testament apocrypha level evidence for the actions of Jesus, not reliable history- "one guy told me something like this happened". Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The State department historian office is a highly reliable source. They have a very strong team of scholars and access to all the documents, and they are not beholden in any way to Nixon. Reviews of their books in the scholarly literature are VERY strong. The published text is online at https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: From the source you added: "Nixon's prediction was borne out when it developed that China had no intention of threatening military action against India." What I'm looking for is a quotation that says that Nixon or the Nixon administration encouraged China to do something. The above quotation is said to be from a from a State Department historian, but it is an anonymous ungrammatical paraphrase. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the quote is "When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration "tilted" toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian Government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union." that is pretty clear to me and is from a highly reliable scholarly source (the State Dept History office) that scholars cite. 00:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the sentence with new content based on the State Department source. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a statement from a scholarly journal in 2012: "In 1971, the United States threatened India with the use of military force as West and East Pakistan disintegrated into Pakistan and Bangladesh....The Nixon administration eventually sent the USS Enterprise carrier battle group to the Bay of Bengal in an effort to deter India from what Nixon and national security advisor Henry Kissinger believed was its ultimate goal: the destruction of Pakistan. Although the United States and India never used military force, the threat was present—making the confrontation a militarized interstate dispute." [Jarrod Hayes, "Securitization, social identity, and democratic security: Nixon, India, and the ties that bind." International Organization 66.1 (2012): 63-93. [full text online free on pp 63-64 Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: Let me know what you think of the new wording. I used the State Department source to create the new sentence. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good re China. I recommend Add more on carrier "Enterprise" and cite Hayes article. 00:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Rjensen (talk)

Geographyinitiative thinks it is an "amazing and significant fact". I am not so sure it is. Applying pressure on India directly as well as indirectly via China was certainly on the cards. That is all our article is saying. But the State Department historian is saying something much stronger. They are saying Nixon encouraged China to "menace India". Does "menacing" mean just moving troops to the border? Even for Nixon lingo, that would have been too strong an expression. They are saying that Nixon was essentially trying to start a world war. There is an "amazing and significant fact". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: When we first started the discussion, I don't think there was enough evidence for the original sentence. Now there seems to be credible information that gets more specific about what happened. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re footnote 152 citing Noah Berlatsky --we can do better. the author "Noah Berlatsky edits the online comics-and-culture website The Hooded Utilitarian and is the author of the book Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism" -- this topic has been worked over by a number of established scholars. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh war included conflict with Pakistani state on both fronts by Indian armed forces. Indo Pakistan part of war is related to then border standoff and bombing Indian air bases and can't be seen in separation in anyway except its causes. As reliable sources either don't see both in separation, these edits by @DdBbCc22: are only misrepresentative and WP:POINTY. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate question is whether the strength of the Pakistan Armed Forces involved in the Bangladesh Liberation War was "~365,000 regular troops (~97,000+ in East Pakistan)" or simply "~97,000" [regular troops being implied by militiamen being listed separately].

Both points of view in the dispute cite [1] to support their position. The source contains the number 365,000, but I see no evidence that it is a reliable source for history (or WP:RS for anything, for that matter). Does website ACIG.org (Air Combat Information Group) have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? The first source the authors list is "discussions on ACIG.org forum", which would not be a reliable source.

It would be helpful if both sides gave full citations to between one and three specific reliable sources that support their position rather than simply asserting that reliable sources are on their side. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Along with issue of more reliable sources, my point of view is that the "Bangladesh Liberation War" was fought in between Eastern commands of Pakistan armed forces and Indian armed forces (along with Mukhti Bahni). So only the number of troops of Eastern commands should be added. Because this article is solely about independence war of Bangladesh as the war in between Pakistan and India on western front has separate article.

But if my this point of view is wrong, then the number of Indian troops of western command should be added just like as for Pakistan because how it is possible that both commands of Pakistan armed forces were involved on both fronts but in case of India only Indian eastern command was involved on one front.DdBbCc22 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a reasonable opinion, but Wikipedia's content is determined not by the beliefs of its editors, but by all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Unless you cite reliable sources that support your view, the discussion is unlikely to reach a consensus that favours it. On the basis of the sources presented so far, the policy-based thing to do would be to remove all strength numbers on both sides except the ~25,000 militiamen. But that isn't what either side in the dispute wants, and we should be able to serve our readers better than that. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope so there will be consensus about my opinion. @Worldbruce:. I want to discuss some sources as mentioned below either they can be considered or not

1) The Betryal of Pakistan 1 - published by Oxford University Press.

2) Pakistan's War Machine: An Encyclopedia of its Weapons, Strategy.... - book published by UK based publisher

3) Sharmila Bose Indian Bangali writer

4) 4 - clearing the confusion about troops present in East Pakistan of both armies, Mukhti Bahni, soldiers ratio and POW's

5) 5 - troops of Pakistan and POW's

6) 6 - timeline from Operation searchlight to Fall of Dhaka, number of troops of Pakistan and Indian forces as well as Mukhti Bahni. DdBbCc22 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your six:

1. Datta, Antara (2012). Refugees and Borders in South Asia: The Great Exodus of 1971. Routledge. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-25036-1. By November 1971, they [the Mukti Bahini] had an estimated 45,000 soldiers. - This is a reliable source for history. The cited page has no information about the strength of Pakistani forces, which is the immediate question, but might be useful for the strength of the Mukti Bahini. It would be interesting to know what source Datta is citing for that figure.
2. Iqbal, Saghir (2018). Pakistan's War Machine: An Encyclopedia of its Weapons, Strategy and Military Security. CreateSpace. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-25036-1. - This is self-published, not a reliable source.
3. Bose, Sarmila (2011). Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-70164-8.^{[page needed]} - This is a reliable source for a significant viewpoint, but no one will consider it seriously without a page number.
4. Jabbar, Javed (22 December 2012). "Pakistani PoWs: correct figure". Dawn (Letter to Editor). - A letter to the editor in a newspaper is not a reliable source for history.
5. Khan, Masud Ahmed (17 December 2019). "Myths and realities of 1971 war". Daily Times (Commentary). - An opinion column in a newspaper is not a reliable source for history.
6. Ahmad, Junaid (1 April 2017). "93,000 Pakistani soldiers did not surrender in 1971 because….?". Global Village Space. - A posting by a management consultant on a random website is not a reliable source for history.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DdBbCc22: Amendment of long established version without support of any reliable source is very problematic. The article doesn't cover only the battle happened on eastern front of Pakistan with Indian forces. But battles with de facto Pakistani in west, and all the diplomatic aspects along which together make up Bangladesh Liberation War. Until you gain concensus that Bangladesh liberation war was strictly only around battle in eastern Pakistani front and not related any Pakistani commands or diplomatic campaigns (which is highly unlikely), your version will be reverted right away. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1-In the introductory info box, whole Pakistani strength is written, while only that indian strength is written which was deployed on East Pakistan sector, which is not correct.

2-There is no reliable conformation that civilian casualities were upto 3 million, that is just a propaganda and a hoax.

3-There is no mention about the massacre of Biharis, Punjabis and Pathans which was carried out by Mukti Bahini and Indian BSF.

4-Here it is written that Pakistani troops deployed in East Pakistan numbered 76000 which is never verified as per reliable sources while it is confirmed as per pakistani authorities that there were no more than 45000 to 50000 soldiers ever deployed there.

5-There are sources supporting my claims as Some reputable books but you people already have refuted them above while you people have accepted Indian and Bangladeshi versions whole heartedly. Alizain6534 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just read the infobox. The article adequately covers point 2 and 3. For 1, the numbers were taken from a reputed sources. For 5, you may remember that 73,000 POWs returned to Pakistan. That would be strange if we believe in that 45,000 soldier theory. Anyways, you are most welcome to provide an alternative number, but do not miss to back it up with reliable sources. Even a Pakistani source need to reliable. You are also most welcome to point out which of sources used are unreliable and why. Being Indian or Bangladeshi doesn't make a source automatically unreliable. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

result = Decisive Indian & Bangladeshi victory Reference = instrument of surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Instrument_of_Surrender, https://archive.thedailystar.net/suppliments/2009/december/victorydayspecial/page01.htm, https://www.indiatimes.com/lifestyle/self/the-pakistan-instrument-of-surrender-in-1971-was-signed-by-my-grandfather-s-pen-248456.html 103.126.149.16 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC) video reference: Replug : A 2012 interview with Lt. Gen (Retd) J.F.R. Jacob on India's historic victory in 1971 war : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq1Hq5bH9pQ[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:trim|1=

Result: Decisive Allied Victory or Indian-Bangladeshi Victory {{Source: Pakistani Instrument of Surrender , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Instrument_of_Surrender) (Various book including)}

}} 'JamanK' (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result = Decisive India and Bangladeshi Alliance Victory (Reference: https://archive.thedailystar.net/suppliments/2009/december/victorydayspecial/page01.htm) 'JamanK' (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The word "decisive" does not appear in the source or in the current version of this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AjmainFaieq (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangldesh Liberation war is the biggest achievement in the history of Bangladesh

Right AjmainFaieq (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation war of Bangladesh took place in 1971 from 26th of March till 16th December.This war happened under the leadership of Bangladesh Government in exile. India joined the war on 3rd December and took part in the war as a part of India Bangladesh joint forces. The victory of Liberation war is of both Bangladesh and India. But it is written in the result info box that it is an Indian victory. It should be India Bangladesh joint forces victory. So,I would request the concerned editor to update the information. Yamin Chowdhury (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most importantly, according to the instrument of surrender, Pakistan surrendered to the joint Bangladeshi and Indian forces, so officially it's a Bangladeshi-Indian joint victory. There are some cherrypicked sources added to cite the claim of Indian victory, but I'm not sure if they really pass WP:HISTRS. For instance, author of one of the sources, V. K. Nayar, is an ex-Indian Army officer. The stable version of this article always showed Bangladeshi-Indian victory as the result in infobox, and it seems it has been changed without any consensus. I'm reverting it back to this stable version. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't push "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" without provided that both official and unofficial sources call it so. The last "stable" version you are talking about was once interrupted by someone and both bothered by others for long. The existing concensus is that all available sources mention it as "Indian victory" what led to liberation of Bangladesh. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "pushing" Bangladeshi-Indian victory, this is what stated by the official instrument of surrender which was incidentally formulated by an Indian general himself. The document can be accessed in the wikipedia article and I did provide a note with references (carrying the surrender document) when I edited this article. I don't see any WP:CONSENSUS in the discussion you linked. You can't put forth your own statement as "the existing consensus" since you were involved in the dispute as I can see in the article history. The only third opinion in that discussion seems to be Rzvas who's comments are also aligned with my interpretation of joint victory. And as I said, the sources cited here don't even pass WP:HISTRS, books published by obscure agencies, memoirs written by ex-Indian officers or authors without any credentials are not reliable. Even if you show a reliable source, that won't necessarily prove it was an exclusively Indian victory, overriding the official document. There are many sources that state that World War II resulted in American victory but the most commonly accepted interpretation is that it was Allied victory. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman, I believe you are getting carried away by the WP:TRUTH. But, as things are, Wikipedia is about published information from WP:RELIABLE sources, not the truth. And, at that, nothing is more reliable than an "official" instrument of surrender, signed by Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi military commands. A document that is publicly available from both official and unofficial channels. I don't think you will ever be able to hold up the "Indian victory" hearsay at the Wikipedia. If needed we can take this to bigger forum for discussion, and seek opinion from uninvolved editors. If you really want an Indian victory, you may have it at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, though the same Instrument also covers that war, and hence "officially" is an Indo-Bangladeshi victory. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: Falsifying statements of other editors is not going to help you with your erroneous WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. What Aman Kumar Goel added back is completely supported by WP:RS. Since you have failed to understand such a simple fact, I would recommend you to take a look at WP:CIR.

@Kmzayeem: I find it rather surprising that you talk about WP:HISTRS yet you stick to unreliable web news sources such as the ones you added on this edit. You are also misrepresenting the reliability of sources by ignoring Scarecrow Press source which is of high quality and you are cobbling it up with some "memoirs written by ex-Indian officers". How about you find a source as credible or more credible than Scarecrow Press supporting your unsourced claim that the result was "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" instead of throwing your false analysis of consensus? Orientls (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the instrument of surrender itself. The links from The Daily Star and others are added as a medium to access the text of the document, not as a source. And how those cherrypicked books even support the claim that Bangladesh liberation war resulted in Indian victory? And why would these books be considered more authoritative than the official document itself? As Aditya Kabir stated, Indian victory can be claimed at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, not at this article. It is even absurd to claim Indian victory in a liberation war against Pakistan since India was not fighting for its independence from Pakistan. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, dear Orientls, you may be wrong, and I am refraining from asides about your rather strange and WP:INCIVIL comment about "falsifying statements of other editors". Please note that the "official" instrument of surrender says that the Pakistani forces, led by Gneral Niazi, surrendered to the Indian and Bangladeshi forces, both led by General Aurora. None of the sourcces used to establish an "Indian victory" doesn't contradict with it. They just say that India won. India did win, and so did Bangladesh. As a Joint Command. Easy enough?

As for RS, have the following:

• Tom Ruys, Olivier Corten, Alexandra Hofer, The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach, page 170, Oxford University Press, 2018
• S. K. Kochhar, Teaching of History, page 167, Sterling Publishers, 1984
• Avtar Singh Bhasin, India-Bangladesh Relations, Documents, 1971-2002: Political, page 11, Geetika Publishers
• Vijay Prakash Malhotra, Defence-related Treaties of India, page 81, ICC India, 2002

All of them has the text of the Instrument. Ignoring the official "fact" and using WP:SYNTH to read more than what is written in the sources is not helping. Thanks. I hope both of us will be more CIVIL to each other the next time. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it very simple for you by asking this question: Which source say "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" or "Indian-Bangladeshi victory" contrary to my sourced edits which clearly support "Indian victory"? You are clearly misrepresenting the policies you are quoting, i.e. there is no WP:SYNTH if the parameter has been appropriately supported by the sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdityaKabir, then you are just proving my point further. What WP:SYNTH? While Kmzayeem is refusing to even read the sources.

You need to quote the sources, like this:-

• "S R. Chakravarty and Virendara Narain, Foreign Policy of Bangladesh : Trends and Issues". South Asian Studies, Vol. XIII, Nos. 1-2, January-June and July-December, 1977. p. 80. -dividing Pakistan. They viewed the liberation of Bangladesh as the victory of India and defeat of Bangladesh".[2] P. 41.
• "Indira Gandhi was re-elected after India's victory over Pakistan in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971", p. 137.
• "Indian victory over Pakistan in the war of Bangladesh liberation, p. 408.
• Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780810865020. "A rapid and complete Indian victory brought about the liberation of Bangladesh in December"[3]
• Handbook of ASEAN and Regional Cooperation, Prabhas Chandra Sinha, Pentagon Press, "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image"[4]
• Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher, p.51, "key aspect for the Indian Army with its successful liberation of Bangladesh.... Indian victory in 1971, was in the words of M. J. Akbar" [5]

These sources make it clear "liberation of Bangladesh" was an "Indian victory". Orientls (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me provide a quote from a source brought by Aditya Kabir,

• Ruys, Tom; Corten, Olivier; Hofer, Alexandra (2018). The use of force in international law : a case-based approach (First ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780198784357. At the last of these meetings, on 21 December 1971, the council adopted resolution 307 in which it acknowledged, 'Pakistan's agreement to the cease fire in the western theatre,'... This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan

This is what the instrument of surrender reads,

"The PAKISTAN Eastern Command agree to surrender all PAKISTAN Armed Forces in BANGLA DESH to Lieutenant-General JAGJIT SINGH AURORA, General Officer Commanding in Chief of Indian and BANGLA DESH forces in the Eastern Theatre"[6]

When someone states Pakistan Armed Forces surrendered to the Commander-in Chief of Indian and Bangladesh Forces in a war, it patently implies that the war ended in a joint Indian-Bangladeshi/Bangladeshi-Indian victory. Now which source should we follow from these contested claims? The natural answer would be, the official document which has been agreed by all three parties — Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. The proposition also fits with WP:NPOV. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV isn't about burying common view shared by scholarly sources but giving equal weight to both sides. Where are the section of scholars who say the war ended in "India-Bangladeshi victory"? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You did not get the point. That's okay. @Kmzayeem: @Aman.kumar.goel: @Orientls: Let's take this to a bigger forum - WP:MILHIST. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one makes it even more redundant and misleading that there was a dispute in results. Seems that Aditya is not going to understand the problem what I'm trying to imply. By adding his own research he is breaching WP:OR further. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you warring here when we can get more people to discuss? Are you interested to get to WP:MILHIST or are you afraid of uninvolved (and non-Indian) editors taking a look at this? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issue with any involved/uninvolved editors regardless of their nationality. Only what I see that fellow editors don't have sources to support their version and hence want to push issue elsewhere to get support. Those editors frequently involved with (regardless of nationality) Afghanistan, India and Pakistan related articles will anyway do better here than WP:MILHIST in general. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, WP:TRUTH what you are trying to apply here is actually out of context given verifiability with WP:RS actually lies with Indian victory than Bangladeshi Indian victory. Why I immediately reverted your version, just have a look. What would one interpret reading it? Verifiability with your sources is just another issue I let off. But Indian (although foreign third party sources state same) commentators claim Indian victory versus Indian government claiming Indo Bangladeshi victory. You are risking making lead of a high quality articles a mess just for a trivia official word what barely has been mentioned anywhere else in scholastic/news articles even for decades after war. I'm not definitely wrong when I say Bangladeshi-Indian victory is just being pushed. Not for any good reason but just for the sake keeping it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even after being warned earlier, you are being totally disruptive by your continuous edit warring and WP:Gaming the system and this is not even limited to this article only. The sources are already shown above. I suggest you self-revert and seek a dispute resolution as suggested by Aditya Kabir to achieve a consensus. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed on this edit, scholarly sources say "Indian victory" while not a single source say "India-Bangladesh victory" or anything similar. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The highest RS here is the Instrument of Surrender, the document signed by Pakistani and Joint Commands. This supreme RS says it's a Indian-Bangladeshi Joint Command victory. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are preferably third party scholarly sources and not official press releases (and even there you have only single trivia so far) are used on contentious topics. Official surrender document is ultimately most reliable, something I wasn't expecting from an experienced editor like you at least. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The text of the instrument of surrender is a primary source and we should ignore that. But, that said, are we sure we're not ascribing sources for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with sources for the Bangladesh Liberation War? It does seem odd that a war that was also conducted by Bangladeshi forces that resulted in their independence doesn't include them in the victor list. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But are they separate wars, or is this just a fork anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by Aman Kumar Goel above, the six academic sources I laid out in my above message are clearly talking about "Indian victory" in "liberation war". Note that "Liberation war" (this subject) refers to independence of Bangladesh, while Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 also covers the battles that took place at present day India–Pakistan border and Indian Ocean. Orientls (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, Bangladesh Liberation War began on 26th March 1971 following the Operation Searchlight and the subsequent Proclamation of Bangladeshi Independence, eventually ending on 16th December 1971. Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 refers to the last 13 days of the conflict which began with India's intervention on 3rd December 1971. In that sense, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 is basically a part of Bangladesh liberation war. Coming back to the discussion on sources, in principle I'm with Aditya Kabir's suggestion of using the document of instrument of surrender as the most authoritative source to determine the result simply because it is the official stance of all three parties in the conflict rather than subjective opinions of different authors. It also addresses the peculiarity mentioned by RegentsPark. If a secondary source needs to be considered, most of the sources cited in this discussion are of dubious credibility, the most unequivocal WP:RS among them would be the one from Oxford University Press,

• Ruys, Tom; Corten, Olivier; Hofer, Alexandra (2018). The use of force in international law : a case-based approach (First ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780198784357.

which states, At the last of these meetings, on 21 December 1971, the council adopted resolution 307 in which it acknowledged, 'Pakistan's agreement to the cease fire in the western theatre,'... This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lt. General AAK Niazi of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh forces in East Pakistan

If we are to strictly follow the reliable secondary sources without any WP:SYNTH, the result would be,

Eastern theatre

• Surrender of Pakistan Armed Forces to joint Indian and Bangladesh forces
• Establishment of the sovereignty of Bangladesh

Western theatre:

• Agreement on Ceasefire

--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]