Jump to content

Talk:Bangladesh genocide: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Southern Asia (15 articles) Configured as topic=History
Line 77: Line 77:


{{ping|FDW777}} There are other sources in a similar ball-park to the 200,000 (i.e. hundreds of thousands) But I really don't like just leaving it with a range of 200,000 to 3 Million people' without explaining why it's such a wide range. With such a wide range of estimates it's practically useless as a factual statement. I don't think any individual primary source does estimate that the deaths are in this range, except those which are referring to the 'range of estimates provided by other sources', the truth is that many estimates cluster around 300,0000-500,000 and many use the 'official' 3 million figure with very little in between. Considering a 'table of estimates' in the Estimate of Deaths figure, but how do we identify which sources to include and exclude. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM does a great job of explaining the complexity of the situation [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|FDW777}} There are other sources in a similar ball-park to the 200,000 (i.e. hundreds of thousands) But I really don't like just leaving it with a range of 200,000 to 3 Million people' without explaining why it's such a wide range. With such a wide range of estimates it's practically useless as a factual statement. I don't think any individual primary source does estimate that the deaths are in this range, except those which are referring to the 'range of estimates provided by other sources', the truth is that many estimates cluster around 300,0000-500,000 and many use the 'official' 3 million figure with very little in between. Considering a 'table of estimates' in the Estimate of Deaths figure, but how do we identify which sources to include and exclude. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM does a great job of explaining the complexity of the situation [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

== Bangladesh Jamat-e-Islami: ==

The party was not known by this name until it found itself in fear of being deregistered by the Election Commission of Bangladesh. In 1971 it was known as the Jamat-e-Islami. Thus this entry requires a correction in line with the facts existing at the time in question. [[User:Abul Bakhtiar|Abul Bakhtiar]] ([[User talk:Abul Bakhtiar|talk]]) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:58, 9 October 2021

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 (talkcontribs) 15:01, 23 December 2009‎

Requested move 21 December 2018

'

1971 Bangladesh genocideBangladesh 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.

Infobox - grammar

 Erledigt In the infobox, the death toll is given as "estimated between 200,000 to 3,000,000". While these estimates have indeed been mentioned, the grammatically correct way to say this is "between 200,000 and 3,000,000". I should have submitted an edit request, of course. At any rate, a correction would be beneficial. Regards, ~~~~ 2A02:AB04:236:E600:C015:11A8:9F1B:1E8F (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US estimate

@JeffUK: per WP:OLDSOURCES, I think your edit definitely has potential. The New Yorker article is at pains to point out the 200,000 was a conservative estimate by the C.I.A. and State Department while the killing was underway. It stands to reason we should be using more recent figures, not hanging our hat on that 200,000 figure. FDW777 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: There are other sources in a similar ball-park to the 200,000 (i.e. hundreds of thousands) But I really don't like just leaving it with a range of 200,000 to 3 Million people' without explaining why it's such a wide range. With such a wide range of estimates it's practically useless as a factual statement. I don't think any individual primary source does estimate that the deaths are in this range, except those which are referring to the 'range of estimates provided by other sources', the truth is that many estimates cluster around 300,0000-500,000 and many use the 'official' 3 million figure with very little in between. Considering a 'table of estimates' in the Estimate of Deaths figure, but how do we identify which sources to include and exclude. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM does a great job of explaining the complexity of the situation JeffUK (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Jamat-e-Islami:

The party was not known by this name until it found itself in fear of being deregistered by the Election Commission of Bangladesh. In 1971 it was known as the Jamat-e-Islami. Thus this entry requires a correction in line with the facts existing at the time in question. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]