Jump to content

Talk:2001 Bangladesh–India border clashes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article

[edit]

I was suprised that this wasn't already written, I would appreciate all the help from fellow wikipedians in "completing" this article and making it a much more informative article.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of name from War to Conflict?

[edit]

The name of the article has been changed without consultation on the talk page, Its been changed from 'War' to 'conflict', The person responsible claims there was no 'declaration of war' thus it was renamed 'conflict', So if this is the case, Kargil War should be re-named conflict since there was no declaration of War there either.

I sense double standards at work here and on the Kargil war page.

If this changes name from war to conflict so must that.

S Seagal 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situations are entirely different and you know it. In the Kargil war there ere multiple battles, significant forces were deployed and significant casualties occurred. This was a mere border spat with only 23 deaths. The two situations were entirely different.Hkelkar 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, there was no declaration of war in either Kargil war or the Indo-Bangladesh war, but both must be referred to as wars in the interest of wikipedia neutrality, one can not call something a war, and another a conflict if in both instances thier was no formal declaration of war. The changes in article title here are just as applicable there.
You say there was no "significant forces", 20,000 Bangladeshis troops is that not significant? in Kargil war there were 30000 Indian troops just slightly more than the number of Bangali troops in the Indo-Bangladesh War.
I reverting the title of the article back to its original until this issue is resolved here on the talk page. It would have been best if you had taken other wikipedians into confidence before moving articles around to suit your own political leanings.
S Seagal 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states that proper evidence through sources be provided for such statement like calling a conflict a war. Regarding Kargil you will find many such articles that state it as a war. But this is a minor border fight only. Chanakyathegreat 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh won??

[edit]

Sure, sure! And Ahmad Shah Abdali smokes hookah and does the disco, right? Show me a single source where victory is specifically attached to Bangladesh!Plus, all that "demoralized" crap is just that. More crap. Again, quote me a source per WP:V and WP:RS. If you continue to be disruptive and disrespectful to wikipedia policies admin aarbcomm will be required. Hkelkar 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not up to me to decide who won the war, let the reader decide that.
After India's defeat, the Indian people were heavily demoralized, its armed forces heavily discredited. Prime Minister Vajaypee also faced harsh accusations from government officials. Many in India had called for 'serious introspection' of the Indian armed forces for its 'poor tactics and pathetic intelligence'. Many newspapers such as the Hindustan Times blamed excessive deployment round the year and lack of training for its defeat.[1]
I must protest your removal of sourced information, the source there clearly talks of the huge Indian intelligence failures and names them "pathetic". Its not me but a source of the Indian government that is saying this, its not even a Bangladeshi source.
S Seagal 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't attribute a victory. read WP:NOR. Hkelkar

I've read those links numerous times, thanks.

Lets take the example of this war and the kargil war.

In Both Instances the follow were the EXACTLY the same:

  • No public declaration of war
  • No change in borders
  • Thousands of troops mobilized on both sides
  • Intelligence failures

If the cause is the same, if the reasons are the same, and the outcome is the same, Wikipedia in the interest of neutrality must treat both the same. So this article must remain called a war until the changes are made here and there. We cant call some skirmishes wars that make our countries look good, and conflicts mere border 'spats' ones that make us look bad.

S Seagal 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree with you about that part. I am fine with keeping the name "war". Only that. Hkelkar 05:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could compromise make changes to both articles in the interests of fairness and neutrality. Namely the following:
Status quo ante bellum means no change in border and things went back to normal the way they were.
However one can not make a change here and leave the other article the same, the changes here are just as applicable there and vice-versa.
Best Regards S Seagal 05:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did not edit that article, but I don't necessarily disagree with you on this one. You can discuss in that page and I will tryo to join in. Hkelkar 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of a name change since this isn't referred to as a War. Officially Bangladesh denies its involvement and such spontaneous attacks by troops are hardly classified as war. Further sources refer to the incident as a "conflict", not war. See Chola incidenthere, for a very similar limited scale border conflict between India and China. Surely we can't classify every clash of arms as "War". Idleguy 06:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idleguy,
You just undid alot of peoples work here, We already are discussing this issue above, Please read the talk page and contribute before waltzing in and making changes.
I have raised the point on the Kargil War also. S Seagal 06:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well bear in mind that I did not necessarily support the title "War". it's just that the term "War" is bandied about on wikipedia a lot already and was too tired to argue anymore and it's a minor point anyways. Besides, Seagal does make a valid point about Kargil War as it wasn;t a declared war but essentially a border conflict also.Hkelkar 06:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Siachen will also fall into that category like Kargil and this one, But it does seem that some people want wars that make them look good, and 'spats', 'skirmishes' ones that make them look bad.
S Seagal 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well my dismissal of the little spat was hardly motivated by nationalism but by the simple fact that the casualties were small. I mean, 24 people? More people die in lorry accidents in a week than that, dude.However, like I said, a minor point IMHO.Hkelkar 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to rewrite history or the names used to refer to historical events. As I said, this border conflict is similar to the Chola Incident between India and China. Siachen Glacier too isn't a war. Next up, we'll be renaming battles as wars! I've replied in detail in the kargil War talk page too. Idleguy 06:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of such border incidents are Sino-Soviet border conflict, Thailand-Myanamar, some countries in South America and Africa. They are ALL termed as border conflicts/incidents. Not war. Idleguy 07:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why isnt Kargil renamed likewise?
you want wars that make you look good, and 'spats', 'skirmishes', 'conflicts' ones that make them look bad?
S Seagal 07:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Kargil war is named so because the entire media calls it a war. Here's a crude test - "Kargil war" returns more ghits that kargil conflict. But this article is about the Indo-Bangliadeshi border conflict. Please do not drag the Kargil issue here. If you have problems with the naming of the Kargil war, then take up the issue there. The burden is upon you to prove why this article should be titled a war and not a border conflict. I could not find a single ghit calling the conflict a war. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So who won this?

[edit]

I've just read this article that i created and others helped edit,

but the question that goes through my mind and other readers would be: So Who Won This?

Thanks S Seagal 08:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone "won" this. The whole thing ended in a stalemate, and the land borders reverted to the status quo before the conflict. --Ragib 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Wikipedia is for simply stating the facts of the incident, not making judgments on either side. Per WP:NPOV, no one should impose their interpretation, their version of events. Rama's arrow 14:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I've found some pictures of BSF troops killed and hung upside down on Bamboo poles by Bengalis I will upload the images and put the pictures on the page.

I also plan on expanding this article considerably.

thanks S Seagal 08:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing facts

[edit]

I did some copyediting and reorganization to try to make sense out of the the content without going back to read the reports of the conflict. There were a number of redundant passages and a confusing timetable. I don't know whether I got the sequence correct, but at least it seems to flow a little better. Vontrotta (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please

[edit]

Somebody added random figures for each side during the conflict but failed to provide any sources for these claims. Also, how come Mr. Vajpayee was one of the "commanders" of this conflict? And seriously.. please cut the nationalistic crap. It is silly. --Nosedown (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed that someone added a blog/forum as a source while mentioning Indian casualties. Please go through WP:Reliability before adding nonsense to Wikipedia. --Nosedown (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: Ok. Lets get this straight - 700,000 Indian troops and 5,000 Bangladeshi troops fight resulting in 99 Indian deaths and 3 Bangladeshi deaths. None of the sources say this. Most of the references provided lead to 404s. The few references that still exist refers to the claim by Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) border guard chief Maj-Gen Fazlur Rahman that 300 Indian soldiers were involved and that 16 Indian soldiers were killed. [2]. The Indian claim is that it is 15 and names of these soldiers have been provided. [3] I will be making these corrections and cleaning up the article based on the still existing and verifiable sources soon. I do not want to trigger an edit war - I am willing to listen/look at any reliable sources saying anything to the contrary. Please discuss your views on this here. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undid an edit by 180.149.3.253. Please discuss here before editing. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh?

[edit]

Hi,TitoDutta what do you really want?BSF had 215 man?The link does not work.BDR had 17 it did not work,finally the source which is provided about causality says the BSF dead is 15,not 16.Ovsek (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk where you asked the same question! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

[edit]

The source provided about Causality saying 215 and 17 is dead and no other sources confirm this.So dead link is not acceptable,and for causality the link which is provided says Indian causality was 15 not 16.Any reply?Ovsek (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for pointing to it Ovsek. It has been fixed, the ref tag was wrong, and the figures have been corrected too. Faizan 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Faizan but I found the link about strength does not say BSF had 215 and BDR had 17?Ovsek (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pro bangaladesh bias by user "A.Musketeer"

[edit]

User "A.Musketeer" ,whose account was created only a few days ago ,keeps making repeated changes to this article to introduce an Anti-India and Pro-Bangladesh bias. This User is very likely a Wikipedia:Sock puppetry since all the articles he has edited since account creation aim to introduce pro-bangaladesh bias into the respective pages). I am listing out the issues which he keeps changing so as to find out if this really needs to be changed.

The mistreatment , torture and execution of POWs is expressly forbidden under the Geneva conventions, and this is the crux of the reason why the issue of this border conflict received so much attention in the media and in politics, it is for this reason that i have chosen to highlight the fact that these were illegal killings. please provide your reasons for reverting them.

before you attempt to introduce your biased version, please add relevant neutral sources which state that india has "ILLEGALY" occupied these exclaves and which state that the border guards died in battle and rest fled away, since all almost neutral sources point to the fact that they were murdered in cold blood. Pvpoodle (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's actually you who is making biased editing. The mistreatment , torture and execution of BSF men is already written in the result section, why are you repeatedly writing it in different parts of the article? Is there any particular agenda behind your such editing? And see this source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/barbaric-killing-of-bsf-jawans-puts-india-bangladesh-relations-under-severe-strain/1/233646.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Musketeer (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are new to wiki please try to under stand that the result section is different from the introduction and the infobox, most people look at the summary and the infobox to get the details of the article without bothering to read through the entire page. I have added the report of torture and execution to the introduction and infobox since it is highly relevant to the reason why this incident is infamous and therefore the reason why this article is in existence not because i am biased towards one side or the other. you question my agenda? my agenda is to present the truth in its entirety and not fragments of the truth that benefits one party over the other. may i ask what is your agenda is reverting this edit? you should actually read through the article you just referenced. It clearly states that the BSF partol did not fire back since they are trained not to fire at civillians and that they were captured and executed. Pvpoodle (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the incidence is famous because it is the first such conflict between Bangladesh and India since 1971. I don't see any reason to repeatedly state the sentence about torture of bsf men in different parts of the article since it would not only present pro-India and anti-Bangladeshi attitude but also make the article unsatisfactory for reading.

The "Incident" (incidence is different from incident. please learn to spell as spell check does not always work to your advantage) is "infamous" (please learn the difference between famous and infamous) because of the unlawful killings. This is not the first border conflict between India and Bangladesh since the creation of Bangladesh, there have been numerous instances of armed confrontation between 1971 and 2001 and many more since then. i am providing the following source that is considered reliable to verify this statement | nytimes report. I have stated my reasons for why i have included torture in the introduction passage and info box and i believe them to be valid. This does not introduce a pro or anti bias in any way as the reason for the infobox and introduction are to summarize the content of the article, which makes it valid to mention what happened while also preserving a neutral point of view. The words torture and execution are not used any more than necessary as you claim it to be. Most readers of wikipedia are mature enough to understand the harsh realities of the world we live in and a silly reason like "unsatisfactory for reading" is not going to hold up anywhere to provide a distorted impression of what actually happened. you do not provide any sources for your changes and do not seem to be willing to reach an amicable compromise and resort to edit warring to resolve your disputes. this behavior along with the other biased points of view you try to be attempting to push forth on all the articles you seem to have edited on your contributions page, since your account was created leads me to believe that you are a sock puppet of another user trying to push forth his biased views. it is in light of this behavior that i have reported you for edit warring. Pvpoodle (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The article, even though written by a non-Indian, appears to be in light of Indian point of view, for instance, it quotes statements by Indian officials and Indian newspapers but nothing from Bangladeshi officials or newspapers. Besides, the torture has been denied by Bangladesh. I have shown a source above for my statements and here is another one: http://newagebd.com/supliment.php?sid=313&id=2142. It looks to me that, you are actually a sock puppet trying to push forth indian biased views in different articles. I will also report you for your edit warring with a particular political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Musketeer (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well you have been reported. the article from NYTIMES is considered reliable since they actually take efforts to verify facts before reporting them. i have noticed that since you have been reported you have again vandalised the numbers of casualties without providing any sources. and the existing sources only claim 15 casualties. as per my earlier statement you are the sockpuppet or the master of the ip user who has been repeatedly vandalising this and other bengladesh related pages. (also maybe you should actually read WP:SOCK before you accuse me of being a sock puppet. Pvpoodle (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - New York Times is definitely reliable but as I said the article reflects only the Indian point of view and nothing from Bangladeshi side since the article is based on Indian news reports. The torture of BSF men was reported by Indian media and was denied by Bangladesh, it shows that according to the Indian point of view the torture of BSF men is the main catalyst behind the wide spread reporting of this event, for Bangladesh it was not an issue. Besides, the fact is already stated twice, not even once, in the result and aftermath section, there is simply no need to add it in other parts of the article. I have changed the figures of casualties according to the article of New Age I have posted above. A.Musketeer (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very source you have quoted [ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/barbaric-killing-of-bsf-jawans-puts-india-bangladesh-relations-under-severe-strain/1/233646.html ] has pictures taken by the Bangladeshis of the event with the torture clearly apparent. the bangaladesh government might refute this fact all they want but almost everyone else agrees on what happened. as i said before you are pushing your opinions. Pvpoodle (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - as I said there is no need to mention the same thing multiple times in the article, the facts are already stated A.Musketeer (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2001 Indo-Bangladesh border clash

[edit]

"Conflict" is too much, and gives impetus to hardliners from both sides to push their fantasy that this was a full scale war. Neither governments were involved; this was a local border skirmish instigated by a few adventurous officers. Matters became worse with a BJP government in India trying to cash in on the violence.

I suggest we move the page to the above mentioned title. Nearly all reliable international sources see this as nothing more than a border clash.--Bazaan (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

casualty figures.

[edit]

user A.musketeer keeps posting this [link] as a reference to try and claim Indian fatalities were 400. This is in violation of WP:QS, since the reference is an interview with a man who is expressing his personal opinion and is not verified in any way. These casualty figures are not confirmed by any one else in Bangladesh or India or any neutral 3rd party, with 16 being the highest figures listed anywhere. that the person in question was later sacked by his own government for refusing to follow orders and holds a grudge against his dismissal, makes him an even less likely source of verifiable information. To point out further, the newspaper in question calls itself "outspoken" and is well known for trying to stir up controversy with faulty reporting, in a feeble attempt to further its ratings, all the time. In all likelihood the statement about 400 casualties was made as a self promotion to further his own political future against the politicians that sacked him. The figure of 400 is so unbelievably high, one has to question how no other news paper covered that figure, i would assume that the multitude of investigative journalists out there looking to make headlines would have uncovered this long ago. not to mention the relatives of the dead would have come forward. perhaps you should take a look at WP:Fringe before continuing to insist that all the Indian and foreign media are in a conspiracy with the government of India and sheik hassina in a massive cover up, to tarnish the image of Bangladesh armed forces.

as established above and with multiple references provides in the article itself, the figure 400 represents a distinctly tiny minority view (i.e the subject of the interview and the user a.musketeer himself) and hence violates WP:UNDUE. (if you are too lazy to check the rules, here is a quote "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all") overall the link in question severely violates Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:Fringe and WP:QS and hence i am reverting it. Pvpoodle (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You have wrote many false stories here. First, the former DG of BDR was not sacked rather he took regular retirement. Second, New Age is one of the most popular English dailies in Bangladesh, I can see it has been cited in many articles in Wikipedia, tell me just one such case as you are saying that it is well known for trying to stir up controversy with faulty reporting. The figure of 16 deaths is the figure that has been quoted in most of the sources, this is why I did not changed the figure in infobox, just mentioned the 400 deaths figure in just one sentence in the Conflict section that too with precisely what the source says "Major General ALM Fazlur Rahman, former director general of the Bangladeshi Border Guard stated that as many as 400 Indian soldiers were killed". How does this violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:Fringe and WP:QS?

Now you added a strength figure of 1000 men quoted by BSF IG V.K. Gaur, doesn't it violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:Fringe and WP:QS as I don't see any other source giving this figure of 1000 men? And did you even read the full story? The report itself is calling the statement false "Gaur's theory isn't supported by the situation on ground." A.Musketeer (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did you read the entire article in that link you keep trying to add? he was dismissed from service. here is a quote from that very same link "Most unfortunately, BNP-Jamaat government dismissed me from the armed forces". not to mention that a little googling revealed that he was strongly implicated in the bdr mutiny by members of the bangladesh government. your link violates everything because no one else has mentioned the figure 400 or even a number close to it. he is clearly boasting about his own exploits as a means of self promotion in his future political career and to curry favor with the anti-india political parties in bangladesh.
you say i didnt read that article completely? i can ask you the same thing. either you didnt read the whole thing or your reading comprehension is really poor.(considering the arguments you make and your lack of understanding basic rules i am strongly inclined to believe the latter) To explain it to you further , the article doesn't question the number of attackers but the fact that Gaur refused to confirm that the bsf were inside Bangladesh territory. multiple sources provide the 1000+ number which i have now added which clearly indicates that this figure is closer to the truth. also you mention that you didnt vandalise the infobox figures. the logs will prove that you were repeatedly vandalising the infobox figures a few months ago and i was fixing them until the point you got banned for crossing the 3RR. you accuse me of lying and claiming falsehoods? please rethink who the real liar here is, since i have just proved you wrong. Pvpoodle (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were so many inconsistancies, for instance no source says that a foot path was being built by the bsf. all sources agree that the incident started when bdr and ba entered Pyrdiwah. this is also the standpoint of the bangladesh government. however the article misquoted a link claiming that bangladesh did not initiate hostilities. while the actual source said that the government said that it did not give the orders to initiate hostilities but its local commanders acted on their own. i have fixed several other inconsistencies found throughout the article. before making any changes please go through the quoted references. the article as it is preserves NPOV by not assigning blame as to why the incident happened. the reasons for the initial attack and the bsf incursion are unknown. all references mention that. i have made sure to point out in the article that the reasons are unknown. i have also included the sacking of the bdr director, which is relevant to the article as the dismissal of the head of a service is quite a big deal. thank you for bringing that to my attention. Pvpoodle (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You have used only the Indian sources to cite the strength figures, in that case there is no harm in using Bangladeshi source to cite the casualty figure of 400 deaths. Besides, the article is full of Indian sources, the source from New Age is the only Bangladeshi source discussing this topic, it needs to be added. You have turned the whole article into Indian point of view, to make it neutral, the article should contain the Bangladeshi point of view.

The BDR DG was dismissed as a political ploy, since he was from the Awami League government, their rival BNP-Jamaat government dismissed him from the position. This dismissal have no significance since it's a regular feature of Bangladeshi politics. A.Musketeer (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i have not used "indian" sources only like you claim. there are numerous bbc and other western media articles linked as references. you included a personal interview with a person which is not a reliable source. despite me and also the editor faizan pointing this out numerous times you fail to understand even in the course of including that link as a reference for other things the figure 400 cannot be verified in any way and must be considered as a boast or in other words a tiny minority perspective which is not allowed. the fact that the village is occupied by non bengalies is notworthy. your reasons for changing that is flawed since india is a multi cultural secular state and less than 40% of people in india list hindi as their mother tongue. it is not even the national language of india as most people think it is. (for instance i am indian and do not speak or understand more than 3 or 4 words in hindi.) the provided references also mention that Pyrdiwah is in meghlaya stop editing and misquoting sources. please stop making your biased changes on the article by changing sourced text. if you want to include your point of view include sources while following WP:RS,WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. npov means including the majority point of view while including significant minority point of view. the majority point of view here is that there were 16 casualties and hostilities were initiated by bangladesh and reason for attack is unknown, as evidenced by indian, bangladeshi and western media reports. your claims of 400 casualties and construction of footpath are not a significant minority but a tiny minority and should not be included, not to mention it was a personal interview and hence not a reliable source. general responsible being fired is a notworthy event and should be included. wikipedia is to document what happened not to engage in speculation or original research. please follow WP:NOS before you continue to insist that incidents perceived by you as being politically motivated are not worthy of inclusion.
from your repeated failure to understand facts, arguments presented by others, and the general guidelines to editing on wikipedia, it seems to me that you are either a very young person who has not yet fully matured or someone suffering from severe disabilities in reading, understanding, comprehension and independent thinking. I you would suggest you leave the editing to older and more experienced users if it is the former and i would offer you my sympathy if it is the latter, and suggest you consult a physician to see if there is anything in the form of medication that may help your situation. If you want to persist in continue to make your disruptive edits please find published sources following the guidelines stated above because i really have better things to do than to keep coming back here every day. continuing to make disruptive edits without following the guidlines will lead to you being reported and banned for disruptive editing. Pvpoodle (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You have used only Indian sources to quote the strength figure of BDR, show me any neutral source that shows the strength figure of 1000+ for BDR. Bangladesh is not made up of Bengalis only, there are almost 50 ethnic groups in Bangladesh and Khasis are one of them, if you want to point out their difference from Bengalis, you should also point out their difference from the mainland Indians. Besides, your repeated personal attacks against me clearly proves your prejudiced attitude to edit this article. A.Musketeer (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no prejudiced attitude from my side. the referenced link states the difference between the khasis and bengalis which is the reason for its inclusion. please understand what WP:ISNOT, you can not add your own opinions in the place of sourced text. bengalis make up the vast majority of bangladesh as they do in the indian state of west bengal, those are the facts, however the indian state of meghalya where this incident took place is a diffrent matter,(since there are very few if no bengalis) which was the reason for the inclusion of that fact in both the reference provided and the sourced text. i am tired of trying to make you understand the guidlines and i am willing to compromise by letting you remove the sourced text citing the difference in ethnicity of the people. this is not a victory for you but a defeat for npov and wikipedia. also why are you going about removing citations for the references provided. that is an act of vandalism and failure to restore them will lead to you being reported. i have reached out to you personally on your talk page but you have continued to make your changes. please try to achieve consensus before making your edits. please do not confuse the events you added the kurigram/ Boroibari incident which happened after the Pyrdiwah incident on the next day. please move the event to the next paragraph which documents the Boroibari incident. using only indian sources is not a problem when there are no other sources that dispute this. this is the majority point of view according to WP:NPOV(please read the entire section of the guidelines, i have asked this numerous times yet you dont seem to be following it). if you can provide any other sources that claim a lesser strength number as a significant minority please provide them and include them and i will be happy to accept it if the source is reliable. also if something is stated once in the cause section that does not mean you should remove it from the results section. the outcome was that he was sacked for his involvement which constitutes the result and hence should be included in results. bd armys involvement was confirmed by bangladesh government and by multiple references provided. again do not engage in WP:NOR by including your opinions that the army does not have a post (how could you possibly know that? are you party to classified infomation? even if you were you cannot include personal knowledge on wikipedia). i have issued a warning for disruptive editing and refusal to follow the guidelines established by wiki for the above stated reasons. please revert highlighted changes you have made or i will be forced to report you to the administrators.Pvpoodle (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just noticed reply on your talk page. i did leave a mild warning but i will go ahead and post there with why some changes are made and why some cannot be. hope we can resolve this dispute mutually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvpoodle (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Don't lie, the referenced link states nothing about difference between Khasis and Bengalis. There are many Bangladeshi Khasis living in the Sylhet Division. And don't make false accusations, when did I remove the citations for the references? I never added anything from my own opinion, everything is cited by the sources. You are reluctant to understand that back in 2001, there hardly any Bangladeshi online news website available, on the other hand there were plenty of such websites from India. This is the reason why you are able to find many Indian sources that are supporting the views of BSF reports but I'm only able to find a single source from Bangladesh. Can you show me any non-Indian neutral source that is quoting the figure of 1000 Bangladeshi soldiers or the involvement of Bangladesh Army? Just use your commonsense, how can a troop of 1000-3000 soldiers be deployed in a border village which itself is inhabited by few hundred people? Still, I agreed to compromise and allowed you to add those biased Indian sources and the unrealistic strength figure but in return I only demanded to add the single Bangladeshi source available on this topic, that too cannot be digested by you. The dismissal of the BDR DG was not because of this incident, it was instead a political ploy of the rival of Awamy League, BNP-Jamaat alliance, part of their long-standing enmity. He was dismissed in 2002, and this incident took place in 2001. A.Musketeer (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

[edit]

I'd like make grammatical changes of the name of one of the commander. Rabindranath Roy (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2024 (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. NotAGenious (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024 (2)

[edit]

Make grammatical changes Rabindranath Roy (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024 (3)

[edit]

Please Change "result: stalemate" to "Result: BDR-victory" Rabindranath Roy (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi victory or stalemate?

[edit]

I was thinking, that the result could either stay as "Stalemate", or it can be changed to "Bangladeshi victory". The reason is the Boraibari attack by Indian troops was unsuccessful and humiliating for many people in India who supported their forces, as they lost 16 or more troops and got many wounded and captured and they lost a village, Named Padua/Pyrdiwah, that they occupied in the past, BDR retreated because, they were ordered to, not from Indian pressure or external cause (If i am wrong about why they retreated or anything else, Please reply) BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_Bangladesh–India_border_clashes&oldid=1245368719"