Bangladesh Liberation War received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. [show]
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal
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
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
This article is written in Bangladeshi English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analyse, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Why is the UK listed? The Box should only be kept with the 3 powers, Soviets, US and Chinese. The UK i understand were selling weapons to both India and Pakistan, it did not support a party against another, certainly not Pakistan against its own insurgency either. I don't think mere sale of weapons was this particular article's rule precedent policy for listing a country in the support by section. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahammed Saad: I haven't examined at the edits in question, but a common mistake is trying to cram too much information into the infobox, which defeats its purpose as a high level summary of the article. Template:Infobox military conflict/doc says the infobox shouldn't contain material not present in the article, which the current list of commanders already violates. It also says, "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted." That's two more ways in which the current list deviates from convention. "Adding missing items" could be controversial if it makes the above violations even greater. See Help:Infobox for more information.
If you think your edits are in line with guidelines, the best way to gain consensus for them would be to break them into easy to understand groups of changes (like changes you want to make to the commanders section). For each batch, show the before and after versions side by side on this talk page, and explain why it's an improvement in terms of policies and guidelines. Comparisons with other articles can be drawn, but I recommend using only featured articles as examples, since there's no guarantee that any random article follows Wikipedia's rules any better than this article. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is from reliable Indian News Agency News18.Com, are you saying Indian News Outlets are completely fake as I can point out multiple garbage resources on the following Wiki Article about 1971 War. Please confirm or I will escalate the issue. 2607:FEA8:4FE5:6F00:7984:14A8:D91C:C5C (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News media is generally reliable for news reporting. In this case, News18.com is a reliable source for the statement that Taslima Nasreen wrote something on Facebook. So what? That doesn't mean that what Nasreen wrote is historically accurate. "Garbage resource" isn't really a term we use here, but for history, books written by historians and published by academic presses make far better sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, as Worldbruce pointed out - News18.com is a reliable source for stating the fact that Narseen wrote something on FaceBook - but that doesn't mean what Nasreen wrote is historically accurate. Additionaly I would like to know what you mean by [...] I will escalate the issue? The AP (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The AP (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
