Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox

The infobox recently added in the article is 1) unsuited for a series of (sometimes unrelated) conflicts and 2) a blatant WP:NPOV violation. Please self revert per WP:BRD and discuss instead of editwarring. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. An infobox of this kind is meant for one battle/one campaign. It is meaningless since its a summary/list. TG, go ahead & revert. AshLin (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is an infobox of War on Terror, then can't on it. Does not WP:BRD does not apply there, lTopGunl (talk).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozoisis (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:BRD... it means when some one objects, then you need to come to the talk page and discuss those edits, if your edits stay it means there is a silent consensus. War on terror is a single war on the whole going on over a long duration. It's nothing more than 65 war having an infobox. In this case it is different, these conflicts are not all directly related even though 3 might be on Kashmir. And then adding Lashkar-e-Taiba etc in the infobox on Pakistan's side would be a blatant POV as those are only accusations. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Social conflicts

Jozoisis, a good idea will be to add this [4] to India-Pakistan relations, Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Indophobia articles in the relevant sections. Your additions are good, but probably not for this article as it is about military conflicts and engagements. Maybe a bit of inline highlights in the introduction can still be due about social conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I think some of the threads have been missed in the archiving... please include those too. [5]. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your wiseness

User lTopGunl (talk) u are wise, this article is mainly about the armed engagements not on the other conflicts. In your heading of Other Conflicts, there are other military engagements.--Jozoisis (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article title does not say it is only about the armed engagements, it is about all wars and conflicts. Conflicts here include the given topics. It is better suited to have a single article for such instead of having one for the wars and another for the conflicts. Infact this is rather a descriptive list. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

lTopGunl, In that case, may we add a few more paragraphs about the armed engagements? The way the article is currently organised, the plot does not get sufficient explanation. There has to be some clarity on the motives of each of the story elements. Satanclawz (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

attack of qabailies on kashmir

friends i have been hearing about the qabaily attack on india where pakistans indirect involvement as proven .. have seen the documentaries as well quiet many years back but dont remember when and what exactly was it... could that be added to this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.30.24 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research

This text "... However, most neutral assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared." is possibly original research of the editor/s who added it. As the text was supported by five inline citations, it more looks like that an original opinion is furthered/conclusion is made by combining all those sources. It better be reworded or removed. --SMS ^Talk 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We have a word for that too: it's called WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Unclear statements

Removed a few unclear statements and restored the maintenance templates that were removed by replacing a unsourced statement. It is also unclear whether India has any official involvement in Balochistan conflict, while those allegations and wikileaks are notable, they cannot establish any official involvement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction For Article.

I am Removing 'NativePak' link from the 1965 Para, Since its an Unreliable source, And the Australian Newspaper is even not been there in there WebSite, Although this has been discussed in the Battle of Chawinda can be looked here And, I'm Adding fee lines at the last Para 1965 WAR as per as Neutral Sources, also these lines are mentioned in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ' Although the war is described as inconclusive, India had the better of the war and was a clear winner in tactical and strategic terms. ' F-INSAS (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC) F-INSAS (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Mar4d you need to revert your edit or I have to do this. You removed sourced contents. It is indeed necessary to write those lines as per as sources and yeah it's you who have to read Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 it is mentioned by all sources that India won the war as it thwarted pakistan, captured 1,980km2 land of Pakistan with losing only 520km2, even in the Aftermath of Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 it is clearly written that 'Despite the declaration of ceasefire, India was perceived as Victor and I copy those lines from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 only as per as neutral sources..... It's better if you revert yourself F-INSAS (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If its not bloody obvious bu now the above user is another sock of Wciws or whatever the sock was named just revert him wherever you see him. 2.222.28.148 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Misrepresentation of sources

@Kautilya3: you can be wrong. "while others credited Pakistan for the position" is misleading and ungrammatical. There are 3 sources provided for claiming that Pakistan won 1965 war. None of them support such a huge claim.

• "Confidence". No. The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995). Canberra Times. AAP-Reuter. 16 September 1966. Retrieved 2 November 2014. : Only about Battle of Chawinda.
• Fricker, John (1979). Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. University of Michigan: I. Allan. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-71-100929-5. : Its a snippet with no mention of results. You have a quote to verify?
• "Biggeyst Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian. No. 364. 14 September 1965. p. 1.: Image of a newspaper about Battle of Chawinda uploaded on a nationalist propaganda blog.

Such portion of article is equivalent to WP:VANDALISM. There is no requirement of WP:BRD when all you have to do is verify the sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That is how BRD works. Discussing on the talk page can clear up differences quickly, whereas edit-warring generates more heat than light.

Link to the edit [6]. I agree that the first and third sources do not qualify because they are not WP:HISTRS. If the second source is good, can somebody produce a quote from it that establishes the claim? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait! HIAS (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. The title of the second source is "Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965." Air war only or the whole war??? By the way, India indeed had the upper hand when the ceasefire was declared. And, I can provide ten reliable sources.Ghatus (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, here is the partial link of the second source of p.128 as quoted. It seems to be not about the entire war, but on the Battle of Chawinda. Again, the language seems to be propaganda language and the background of the author is dubious.Ghatus (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is an alternate from an Indian book "In spite of Shortcomings, the Pakistan Army had managed to fight the large Indian Army. The Pakistan Air Force had fought well in countering the much large Indian Air Force and supported the ground forces." Remember link in citation is of Page 38 you have to Check page 41 for text verification.

Battle of Chawinda and Air war only was not whole war but it was the part of 1965 war and pakistan was better at many fronts including Battle of CHawinda, Operation Dwarka and Operation Grand Slam ,Chhamb area,rajhastan and near kashmir. During war both countries claimed Victory, Multiple sources presented multiple opinions , Some credited Pakistan While others credited India, Some declared war as Draw while other analysed as stalemate. Per WP:ANALYSIS Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus forming process becomes more explicit. HIAS (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say Pakistan had the upper hand when the ceasefire was declared??? I am yet to find it.Ghatus (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We are still discussing D4iNa4's edit. So far, his claim that the sources have been misrepresented is standing up. Somebody tried to paint the "upper hand" in the Battle of Chawinda as the "upper hand" for the entire war. That is misrepresentation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

References

WP:FAKE

Kautilya3 can you please link me the source out of those 8 sources which says, "However, most neutral assessments pointed out that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared"?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I thought you were quibbling about the 1965 sentence. For the 1947 war, I agree that it doesn't make sense to talk of a victor. I will self-revert. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou. I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times. No harm done.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. You ruined the graciousness of that "thank you" by taking cheap shots once again... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, confusing stuff. You were indeed quibbling about the 1965 war [7]. Maybe some rewording would be better. I will look through the sources and see what they say. From what I know, Pakistan was running out of arms supplies and would have lost the war if it continued further, whereas India had its own munitions and parts. In that sense, India had the "upper hand." Speaking as a student of "history" rather than military history, India's goals are defensive whereas Pakistan's goals are revisionist. So maintaining status quo means a victory for India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt care what your opinion is.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a list article and was pretttty good and neutral without any disputes from any POV before the sock started POV-pushing. We should revert the damage (which I think is now reverted) and leave it at that. This is certainly not the place to make our own deductions based on events - that is the task of historians, not curators (which is what we are on wikipedia). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted the IP partially but kept the result of kargil war off this article altogether. It is a dispute for that article which already had an admin revert to a previous version which does not speculate on victories rather facts in the infobox after (ironically) the same sock (MBlaze) infested that RFC. Stop the edit war here. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The "upper hand" assessment for the 1965 war has been in the article since at least August 2013 [8], and possibly much earlier. It has always been well-sourced. If the editors are going to come and randomly delete stuff they don't like calling them "sock edits," Ghatus and I are not going to accept it. Mar4d socked for years and years. None of us ever went and reverted all his edits when he got blocked. In fact, many of us felt sorry that a good editor was lost. The amount of venom that is being poured on this particular editor is quite shocking to me. TopGun, I hope you will be an honourable editor and tell all your colleagues to behave themselves. If they have valid objections, they should bring them up. But no blanket reverts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• One, if MBL was your colleague, that doesnt mean everyone here else is too. So stop accusing a respected editor.
• Two, for an info to remain present (unnoticed) for long doesnt not qualify it to be encyclopedic.
• Three, if you want to keep the "upperhand" assessment, like I requested earlier, you need to prove that those 8 x sources support/says the same, which you have not. Just by repeating "It has always been well-sourced" wont suffice, because it's a typical case of WP:FAKE i.e the 8 x sources does not say it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My statement - As I am being misunderstood.

First, I will be the last man to say that Indian won the '65 war. The war was inconclusive. It was [I, myself ] who added that statement in the lead of '65 war to make it clear that the war was inconclusive and none was the ultimate winner.

Secondly, at the same time it will be a blatant lie to give an impression that both India and Pakistan were at the same situation at the time of ceasefire. And, eight sources are given in support of it. Ceasefire does not mean false equivalence.Ghatus (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree and if we look at some older stable versions,[9] we could still read "However, most neutral assessments pointed out that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared." Much before Mblaze joined this article. D4iNa4 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Result of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this edit [10], you find a statement that India had the upper hand in the war at the time of the ceasefire, supported by 8 sources. Should this statement be retained or deleted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose the statement and any form of judgment on result of the war for that matter. This POV statement, inserted by a now blocked sockpuppet, brings no value to this article other than that of nationalistic sentiments. Taking a look at the final battle of the war, Battle of Chawinda, we see a completely different result (which is based on a thorough consensus). The truth is, each country claimed victory and sprayed its respective population with propaganda as it happens with all wars. Similarly, authors cite each country to be victor and facts from the battle article that I mentioned show a completely different story. it would be best to avoid mentioning any "result" of the war other than the territorial changes and the ceasefire etc. This is supported that by the fact that the 65 war article itself states the result to be Inconclusive ! Go ahead and dispute that instead of fueling a dispute that a sockpuppet started because that is what they definitely aimed for. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you earlier, the statement has been in the article [11] long before any sockpuppets got into the picture. So, bringing in the sockpuppet is a red herring. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as per following:

• A clear case of WP:FAKE: The 8 x sources being cited by Kautilya3 does not support the statement by any measure.
• A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:CHERRYPICK: The editor adding the statement is picking up bits and pieces of info of his own liking and synthesizing the statement he wants to add.
• A clear case of WP:POV: The statement is adding-editor's own personal opinion and a POV as the 8 x sources say nothing which can be concluded into the statement being added/pushed.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin. Ghatus below has recused himself from the RFC saying that his version is the WP:TRUTH, therefore his vote/opinion should be disregarded by the closing admin/un-involved. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghatus, your comment (that you created as a new heading) is WP:POINTy disruptive as you !vote to withdraw/abstain in your bid to not recognize the consensus being developed here on the matter, but still do fully participate in it to make your point. Maybe it would be a good idea to stick with one thing? Please also don't post each comment under a new heading, it creates confusion and disrupts the discussion; learn how to add your comments in the way every one is doing in this section. Every one has the right to an equal voice and creating new headings will not give emphasis to your comments, it will only irritate the closing admin. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely keep as sources are saying so:Neutrality does not mean lying or distorting the truth. See the sources. Some even claiming Indian victory. Ask any "neutral" man, you will get the answer. You can not create a false equivalence (WP:FALSEBALANCE) when multiple sources (all non-Indian) are even terming it as "Indian Victory". So to say both India and Pakistan were at the same situation when ceasefire was declared is actually a PoV pushing. Not a single source has said so. Actually it is my fault. I should have quoted sources in toto with phrases like "By the time United Nations intervened on 22 September, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat". I was being more than generous.Ghatus (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghatus This discussion is about adding or removing the statement given in the RfC basing on the 8 (WP:FAKE) sources, not what you think about the status of the war when it ended. So please stick to that. Second, why instead of wasting other good-faithed editors' time by giving long explanations of your opinion/POV about the status of war, you dont copy/paste text from those 8 (WP:FAKE) sources which can prove that those sources indeed say what the statement being pushed says? This I guess would be a more productive discourse for this RfC—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to any number of logical reasons, some of which I will give below. To be frank I am surprised that a hoax and fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT is being given a dedicated RFC. As per WP:DENY we should not allow this to happen, the creator of the RFC should understand that if we start going through RFC's for every stupid hoax inserted by a vandal and a serail socker, then they actually win. It is the goal of vandals and sockers to disrupt wikipedia, and with this bickering we are playing right into their hands. MBL is most probably laughing himself to tears seeing that his disruption and vandalism is going through an RFC. So next time, WP:DENY the WP:BULLSHIT of vandals and sockers. However, seeing that we are going through an RFC I deem it appropriate to point out the abundance of bad things in this edit.

1. It is WP:FAKE. Simple as that, if a guy says that Obama is twenty feet tall and quotes the NY times, we just look at the NY times, see that it does not say so, and remove the gibberish. Same here, the vandal has added this statement and quoted 8 sources, we see that the sources are not saying what he is making them say, we REMOVE the gibberish.
2. The edit falls foul of a handful of other policies as well such as WP:POV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH and many others.

So in a nutshell, please deny the vandals their sought after recognition and do not bicker over their vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, it (arrangement of sources) was done by me in Sep'15, not by the sock.Ghatus (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well hi there Ghatus. I do not care about formatting of sources to be frank. You should have taken care not to format sources without verifying them first. But no harm no foul dude, you were acting in good faith and its no big deal. So no worries, and no I am not accusing you of the vandalistic edit lol. You just saw sources and formatted them. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the inclusion: WP:ARBIPA clearly prohibits the use of Wikipedia for political propaganda, political agenda and battleground. User:MBlaze Lightning, the newest sock of User:KnightWarrior25 came to do exactly that. Kautilya3 has been on his heels supporting his POV edits as he has a history of supporting socks against established editors who remain sock-free. He has supported POV edits of User:Akbar the Great who was a sock of User:Bazaan, he has been in close contact with User:Greek Legend who was a sock of User:CosmicEmperor and now he seems to be owning edits of another sock. He has been exchanging emails with them. The encyclopedia cannot improve when editors like Kautilya are ready and readily available to assist socks and then carry-on their agenda once they get blocked. I see these BS RFC's coming on all those Indo-Pakistan pages where MBlaze started controversies. This behavior should be discouraged. If we look at the history this user's master KnightWarrior25 was blocked for POV pushing then he created 8 more accounts to push same POV and restored edits against consensus and Kautilya encouraged that and keeps encouraging. This type of support system for socks discourages and disheartens the good editors who come to improve the encyclopedia but they have to put up with account abusers and their supporters. I am afraid that game of supporting the socks might still be being played here. I am afraid there is some bigger plot going on against this encyclopedia. Its ironical that sock master of 8 socks added 8 sources here to support his POV WP:OR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Withdrawing from Rfc as it is a fact, not some hypothesis.(Hence source needed, not opinion)

Neutrality does not mean lying or distorting the truth. See the sources. Some even claiming Indian victory. Ask any "neutral" man, you will get the answer. You can not create a false equivalence (WP:FALSEBALANCE) when multiple sources (all non-Indian) are even terming it as "Indian Victory". So to say both India and Pakistan were at the same situation when ceasefire was declared is actually a PoV pushing. Not a single source has said so. Actually it is my fault. I should have quoted sources in toto with phrases like "By the time United Nations intervened on 22 September, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat". I was being more than generous.Ghatus (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No amount of Rfc can be done to prove that Sun rises in the west. We need sources which is not being provided. Already 8 sources are given but no counter point( wp:rs ) is provided.Ghatus (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC can definitely help when sources do not support the statement which is the case here. The statement being pushed in is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. It does not matter who added it. Let the RFC decide because the other option is the edit-war and we do not want that to continue. Let the matters settle. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No. That "India had the better of the war" is neither a WP:OR or a WP:SYNTHESIS.Ghatus (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus if you want to withdraw from the RFC, no problem with anyone, you can recuse yourself whenever u want. To be frank there is no reason to open a new section of the talkpage about this either, just a single sentence will suffice, rather you can just delete/strike ur previous comments and feel free to continue editing other pages etc. Furthermore, the discussion about the RFC should be in the RFC, not in some other section. Also about the feelings you have shown in your comments such as saying that this is a fact and therefore should be now writ in stone. I find your attitude quite annoying and borderline petulant. It goes against every single tenet of consensus building that when a request for comment is posted you declare that your version is the WP:TRUTH and immediately withdraw from the RFC. It is tantamount to you saying that your version is right and everyone else who are building a consensus through an RFC are "wrong/lying/not telling the truth(take your pick)". This not only violates wiki etiquette, it basically violates etiquette per se. When an RFC is started, even if it discusses vandalism by a serial socker, we should honor the RFC. You can see that I myself am against allowing a vandals edits to be granted an RFC, but I made my comments on the RFC showing how these edits are against policy. Please do not take this to be a personal attacks, for I am merely commenting on your feelings which you, yourself have made public through your own comments and have invited others to comment on them by posting them here in this section. As far as your edits outside this subsection go, I have nothing to say about them as per WP:NPA. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As FreeatlastChitchat says, we don't follow WP:TRUTH here. To get something to be a part of an article you need 1) sources that back that up and 2) WP:CONSENSUS that determines that your sources are infact in context and correctly saying what you are trying to mark as the result of the war. I don't think you have consensus at all as of now as per this RFC and at minimum you should wait till this RFC ends before reverting anything. Any one can revert material added without consensus and your edits are subject to being reverted. Your reverts constitute an edit war and I will not hesitate to report you if you go above three or work towards an edit war generally. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, we can not create a POV fork here when the consensus on the 65 war article is different and the sourced result there clearly says that militarily, the war was "inconclusive". Now if some one was to push the Pakistani POV that Pakistan had the "upper hand" Battle of Chawinda, being the final battle of the war, with equally good sources, is enough to determine that but we do not go with self made deductions and keep WP:NPOV intact. For which we will need to avoid either country's version and go with the status quo neutral assessment. There was nothing gained or lost in the war - in the end, the areas captured were given back by each side save a few key locations which is nothing out of the norm. You may not cherry pick sources of your choice (as others have pointed out in this discussion already) and use them to say what you say is correct and negate all other facts, sources and realities of the matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Summoned by bot per above, 'oppose any form of judgment on result of the war' which seems pure synth. Whilst RS factual info about the military situation at the end might be informative, this seems to be an attempt to extrapolate 'we won REALLY', which is PoV and more to do with nationalistic sentiment than the intention to inform. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC) … … … having looked more closely at the sources, they are being 'cherrypicked' and synthed to produce 'upper hand' for example India, by contrast, is still the big gainer in the war. (quoted below), is immediately followed by Shastri had united the nation as never before. Said one Western ambassador last week: " … Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right." This is referring to a political victory. Time and time again when I looked at the sources, they give a more nuanced account than 'upper hand', certainly Pakistan failed to achieve its objectives. While there clearly is a place on the main article for a fuller nuanced account, it is completely out of place in this summary. Also I wonder who 'most/many neutral assessments/observers' are? Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not a single source is Fake

Out of the eight sources given, four sources are are available online direct and the other four sources are available off line.

• The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on 22 September, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat
• India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.
• India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called
• India, by contrast, is still the big gainer in the war.

Other four are available off line. Talk on wp:rs , not in air.Ghatus (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion It was clearly not inserted by the blocked user. Text existed long time before that,[12] we could still read "However, most neutral assessments pointed out that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared." D4iNa4 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

References

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121216074135/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=story_26-7-2002_pg4_12 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-7-2002_pg4_12
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090108040104/http://www.ipcs.org:80/ipcs/displayReview.jsp?kValue=102 to http://www.ipcs.org/ipcs/displayReview.jsp?kValue=102
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100615050107/http://indianembassy.org/pic/PR_1999/July_1999/PR_July_15_1999.html to http://www.indianembassy.org/pic/PR_1999/July_1999/PR_July_15_1999.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120326005341/http://www.hellojunagadh.com/history_introduction.aspx to http://www.hellojunagadh.com/history_introduction.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080530033107/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14989 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14989
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dunyanews.tv/index.php?key=Q2F0SUQ9MiNOaWQ9MjcwNTk=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160115205405/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055430/https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm to https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609180906/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Games.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/History/1971War/Games.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

News organizations

To editor Kautilya3: Hi Kautilya3, I am talking about WP:HISTRS. Do you think that this WP:NEWSORG is reliable per WP:HISTRS while some other WP:NEWSORG share an entire different story again mentioning Nawaz Sharif. As this reversion is contested (by you) I will not revert it again per WP:BRD but I think you should consider a review on your revert. Thank you HIAS (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

HISTRS is not relevant here because the news reports are about what Sharif said, not what happened in the war. The cited news report is from 2003, which The Times of India also reported. The news report you are citing is from 2006 when Nawaz Sharif is supposed to have written a memoirs. The contradiction is between the two figures that Sharif gave. It is not a fault of the NEWSORGs. So, which of the two figures should we take? It is for you to make the case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3: How can you say that HISTRS is irrelevant. It definitely qualifies WP:HISTAR. Per WP:HSC Journalism does not qualify as Historical scholarship. Kargil is a notable event with dozens of historical scholarships available online and you still want to relay on NEWSORGs. You asked me that which figure we should use...just substitute any Historical scholarship even if it depict 5,000. HIAS (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat: the news reports are about what Sharif said, not what happened in the war. Sharif's statement is not in the historical past. It was immediately reported. Please take it to WP:RSN if you are not convinced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220041521/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/13/reacts/print.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/13/reacts/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040221091712/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/war_in_kargil.pdf to http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/war_in_kargil.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918040826/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1974.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1974.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313011224/http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/1998/pow12-08.html to http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/1998/pow12-08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

India Emerged victorious in 1965 war

India Emerged victorious. There is not a single source which mention Pak won the war. If source can be provided we can mention India won the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwar jibba (talk • contribs) 00:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two publications by Oxford scholars who have stated that " The war proved disastrous for Pakistan "

The following are the author quotes In Page 142 " India could have sustained the conflict and turned it into a outright victory In page 143 " Pakisthan made no gains in the war" C. Christine Fair

This book mentions In page 130 "The operation ended in a stalemate and proved disastrous for Pakisthan" Peter Lyon -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwar jibba (talk • contribs)

Neither of them said, "India won the war". It is far cry from calling it "emerged victorious".

Please do not use WP:SYNTHESIS. It is prohibited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am suggesting based on the sources we should add --- " Pakistan did not gain anything from the war and it was disastrous for Pakistan " -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwar jibba (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

When the main article link, that means that the section is a summary of the main article. So you should only use the information stated in the main article and use the same words. And, your edit summary should state that.

If you want to revise the main article, that discussion should happen on its talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have made changes as per the discussion and will also start a discussion in main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwar jibba (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is not an opinion peice

Fellow writers and editors,

The articles second paragraph claims the following: "The Kashmir issue has been the main cause, whether direct or indirect, of all major conflicts between the two countries with the exception of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 where conflict originated due to turmoil in erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)." This narrative flattens an issue of colonialism and cultural strife into a border dispute while peddling a position in the manner of an opinion editorial. Wikipedia is not an opinion editorial. So...

How can the statement best be replaced with a better statement that better represents the array of roots this inter-regional strife stems from?

No. INFINITY (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)No. INFINITY

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Why revert to op- ed style writing?

You reverted a section of the article "Indo- Pakistani wars and conflict" from a cited retelling of three causes to the uncited claim that Kashmir was the cause of Indo- Pakistani conflict. The claim that your revert turns the article into takes the form of an op- ed article when it claims the the cause of the greater conflict is Kashmir land dispute. In addition to promoting a confusing and oversimplified version of history, this claim -- that the issue is 'all about Kashmir' -- turns the Wikipedia page into an opinion piece. And an opinion peice is, if I am not mistaken, included in "what Wikipedia is not." With this in mind: 1) Do you desire the article to take on a form of opinion and claim? and 2) How can we together make this page into what Wikipedia is: a democratic record of the world we live in?

No. INFINITY (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)No. INFINITY

Hi, I have reviewed the articles. Unfortunately I had to revert the edits. Kindly understand the policy WP:MAINSTREAM such OP Eds cannot be used as a references for controversial articles. You will need better sources from WP:RS for such controversial claims. --DBigXray 19:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Background section

I think that to, decide these kind of issues, the Background section needs to be cleaned up. I see plenty of WP:OR in this section. And it is probably half-baked too. There is a mention of "clean partition", which I cannot find in the cited source, Ambedkar. It defies imagination that the Two-nation theory, the Muslim League ideology, could ever lead to a "clean partition". The Muslim League did not ask for an exchange of populations. Neither was it satisfied with "genuine Muslim areas", a demand that was essentially conceded by Ambedkar, Rajagopalachari, Gandhi as well as the British Cabinet. The Muslim League did not see that the demand for "five full provinces" was inconsistent with the Two-nation theory. At no stage was the "cleanliness" of partition made an issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the WP:OR as soon as you locate them. Unsourced and poorly sourced content cannot be spared in controversial articles. --DBigXray 12:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am posting here so that you people can check, and the original contributor can respond if they are still around. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani Wars Result

The Result section for the war wrongly states that it's ongoing. Whereas it has actually ended. rationalwikiuser 00:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

42.201.170.219 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 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. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Please change in the 2019 India Pakistan clash that India acknowledges that one of it's Mig-21 planes has crashed and the pilot was taken captive. Currently the grammar is improper "one of it's plane" and lacks information on the plane. Also the Mig-21 has only 1 pilot, and both Pakistan and India acknowledge that 1 pilot is captive. REJ17 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased sentence

"Most of these wars and conflicts, despite being initiated by Pakistan, have ended up with defeat or disaster for Pakistan" - Heavily biased sentence. Can we please have some NPOV and factual statements within this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.249.173 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that highly undiplomatic language have been used in the reference. But a more diplomatic source will have to introduced before the removal of current one.

Besides the language, there is no way the article can be "biased". Because the "unbiased" sources don't suggest any different things here. Indo Pakistani conflicts have not been very favorable for Pakistan. Writers while writing their articles have a poetic approach of framing their sentences and that's why they put it as "disaster". IMHO, a more diplomatic and humble set of words can be chosen while source being same.. But reference shouldn't be removed if an alternative can't be provided. Please, contemplate here in talk first before removing or modifying it again. Regards Aman Goel (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Map

The map in the Background section wrongly shows the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir as disputed. This is incorrect only partial areas of the state are disputed between India and Pakistan and China. Can we please remove the image or have a correct one in its place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.16.97 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire Kashmir region is disputed. It is claimed in its entirety by India; it is claimed in all but its entirety by Pakistan, which however does accept the sovereignty of China (PRC) over the Trans Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin. In those regions however, India and China have a dispute. As you probably know, it (i.e. Kashmir) is the oldest dispute before the UN. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)