This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Cold War 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 Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) History 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bangladesh 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 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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India: West Bengal 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2024. 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 Cold War Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

@RevolutionaryPatriot Oh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls, @Ratnahastin can you both please explain me where do my edits look controversial?? Is adding missing items controversial?? I just wanted to improve the infobox in light of Israel–Hamas War & Irish War of Independence and added the names of some missing leaders. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls, @Ratnahastin Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2024 (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]

Thanks for discussing Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we attempt to add Bihari casualties in the Infobox? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ਸਰਦਾਰਅਮਨਦੀਪਸਿੰਘ (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minor grammatical correction in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. There is no need for "the" before "China". 2001:4DD6:887:0:1988:B960:D1C3:58BA (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to include that Indian Forces lost 17,000 Soldier during the 1971 War with Pakistan. This is very important edit as India lost more soldiers than it reported to the media. https://www.news18.com/world/india-now-supposedly-an-enemy-taslima-nasreen-slams-bangladeshs-shift-towards-pakistan-9147802.html 2607:FEA8:4FE5:6F00:8DD8:BC6F:9901:DC3A (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The AP (talk) 19:27, 7 December 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]