Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:22, 9 April 2016

	Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 26, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept December 17, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia 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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force

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)

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)

Social conflicts

Jozoisis, a good idea will be to add this 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. . --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:32, 10 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 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

1. Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies", 1941–1991, ISBN 1-4289-8189-6, DIANE Publishing, Pg 238
2. Dijkink, Gertjan. National identity and geopolitical visions: maps of pride and pain. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-13934-1.
3. Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP, 2003. ISBN 0-7735-2639-0.

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 . 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

2. Dr Shah Alam (11 April 2012). Pakistan Army: Modernisation, Arms Procurement and Capacity Building. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. p. 41. ISBN 978-93-81411-79-7.

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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   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 . 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)

Misplaced Pages doesnt care what your opinion is.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   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 , 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   19:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Result of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In this edit , 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)

• 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 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   20:44, 8 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)
• 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)

References

1. "Pakistan :: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". Library of Congress Country Studies, United States of America. April 1994. Retrieved 2 October 2010. Quote: Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan.
2. Hagerty, Devin. South Asia in world politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. p. 26. ISBN 0-7425-2587-2. Quote: 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.
3. Wolpert, Stanley (2005). India (3rd ed. with a new preface. ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 235. ISBN 0520246969. Quote: 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, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.
4. Kux, Dennis (1992). India and the United States : Estranged democracies, 1941-1991. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press. p. 238. ISBN 0788102796. Quote: India had the better of the war.
5. "Asia: Silent Guns, Wary Combatants". Time. 1 October 1965. Retrieved 30 August 2013. Quote: India, by contrast, is still the big gainer in the war. Alternate link:
6. Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies", 1941–1991, ISBN 1-4289-8189-6, DIANE Publishing, Pg 238
7. Dijkink, Gertjan. National identity and geopolitical visions: maps of pride and pain. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-13934-1.
8. Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP, 2003. ISBN 0-7735-2639-0.

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• List-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• List-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• List-Class South Asia articles
• High-importance South Asia articles
• South Asia articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment