Talk:Kargil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Kargil War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 10, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
February 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
October 20, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.

Official Pakistani Casualties[edit]

Pakistani army names 453 soldiers killed in Kargil War. The 4,000 casualties written on article is political statement made by a leader. Kashifyy (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read more: In denial till now, Pak quietly names 453 soldiers killed in Kargil War - The Times of India

Lt Nachiketa[edit]

Add hot link to Lt Nachiketa in the article. It should link to —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Kargil Location[edit]

Kargil is a a district in Jammu & Kashmir/Indian Occupied Kashmir. Kargil is Located in near LOC between "Gilgit-Baltistan (Pakistan)" and "Jammu & Kashmir (India)". The Location of Actual Kargil from Srinagar is 120 Km Were in 1999 Kargil conflict was found between Pakistan Army and Indian Army —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== Kargil War

Very Poorly Written Goebbels Like In Its Indian Delusions and Propoganda.Article Needs To Be Taken Down and Redone Impartialy With Impartial Sources[edit]

A very poorly constructed and risible article on Kargil, those impartial readers from neutral countries such as myself can read it and read between the lines that this is a laughable article created and manipulated by pro Indian persons. Its a shame that Wikipedia and its integrity has been sabotaged in this way. I mean one of these persons calls the CIA a credible impartial source!!! Almost all the facts given by the Indians are false. Wikipedia needs to do more to stop Indian xenophobes hijacking almost any article relating to Pakistan like this otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming a mouthpiece for the indian successors of Goebbels much like Youtube is. These idiots do not realise that educated persons outside India do not buy their primary school level propoganda and lies—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannvt (talkcontribs) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force aided India[edit]

Why am I considered as a vandal becouse I added the Israeli Ar Force on the infobox? It's an undisputed fact that the IAF gave India a decisive aid in the fight against the Pakistanis, although Israel was never in war against Pakistan. Why was this removed? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Providing AID does on qualify as being a combatant in a war. China supplied weapons to Pakistan doesn't mean China is a combatant in the Kargil war. End of Story. Saroshp (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry for disturbing. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If there are notable sources, and even if its in Israeli Newspapers, please show. If they are good source and if I agree(which I will if there is even a single point of truth) along with other wikipedians, It will be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tall.kanna (talkcontribs) 12:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

India LOST 2 MIGS shot down by kashmiri and taliban mujahideen[edit]

india lost 2 aircraft shot down by the kashmiri and taliban mujahideen

why is this not mentioned in the indian casualties side in the article

typical useless wikipedia, no wonder people have given up on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


NEW DELHI: An Indian general, who commanded troops during 1999 Kargil war, on Sunday broke his 11-year silence to say that India actually lost the war in strategic terms.

Isn't he the same guy, who has been indicted for favouring a Brigadier? No wonder, he's now spinning stories. Shovon (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No he isnt that guy. This guy is a credible source. An Indian General admits they lost the Kargil war yet the indian zealots on wiki have their way and this pathetic pro progaganda piece remains unable to be edited to reflect the pakistani view and the actual facts of who won and lost the war . (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian propaganda[edit]

This is clearly Indian propaganda. Most statistics are taken from Indian sources which are off course biased. Certain events are missed out and others are modified. There is a lot of exaggeration in this article. This article needs to be written from an unbiased point of view so that it may be credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

which only goes to prove that no one considers you guys information worth anything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@above : according to your statement , everything is indian propaganda well you are right this is true !!!The whole world running on Indian propaganda because we are 1.3 billion ! the whole world says and believes the lies written here as there are more Indians than Pakistanis by 8 to 1. A lost war counts as a lose in a nations history. Unfortunately, for India, Kargil was a los. So lets not blame Pakistan for it. Please give neutral sources like BBC and CIA or anything that you think is not propaganda , before making statements here and yes i am retarded and an uneducated slumdog Indian savage for thinking the CIA and BBC count as unbiased sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps the above signed ought to learn rudimentary spelling of words like "losses" before spinning laughable Indian propoganda on here. India lost the Kargil war and that is a well known fact in the West and I am a South African in London writing this call me biased too, Indians commenting on this article seem to beleive they have the sole right to bias.

Just like articles about 1965 and 1971 this one is also an Indian baised story. Argument is, how many are they in population. They are confronting Pakistani arguments in almost each and every platform. Someone from Indian side is always there with his baised argument. One should expect them to come up with a neutral source, hard to say.

In 1965 war's article many references are qouted from Globalsecurity. Articles on this website are without authors name. So it just looks like a database of articles to strengthen Wikipedia articles. If follow the footprint of Globalsecurity, there appears a name John Pike. Article about John Pike on Wikipedia does not meet the quality standard so there is sweep sign on it.

Many sources are Indian media and therefore dont respectfully have the appropriate level of probity. Articles from low brow indian newspapers wont be appropriate for quoting crucial unbiasedfacts therefore this whole article in its present guise is a joke and an Indian mahabaratian fundamentalists wet dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenematica (talkcontribs) 14:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


this artical is completely biased towards india lik all wikipedia articles. no doubt tat india is aiding this article. first of all wars r not explained as given. first the ORBAT or order of battle is given. pakistan had 5 northern light infantry battalions and india had 3 inf. divisions (1,20,000) troops,300 pi-76 bofor guns and 300 warplanes. now firepower must also b mentioned. it is a fact even accepted by the indians tat the indian artillery fired 2,50,000 rounds tat was 50 rounds per pak soldier! moreover all claims r indian and not even a single pakistani claim is incoperated such as those of brig.rashid qureshi of 2000 indian soldiers killed and 3 to 4 times injured and 5 iaf warplanes destroyed 2 of whose wreckages were shown. in the last bt not the least pakistan army was not defeated. it stood on the kargil heights for 75 days against terrible odds. a ceasefire was organised by the UN and then the pakistan army pulled back,thus lik 1948 and 1965 india once again drummed her UN-backed political victorya as a millitary victory. today still pak occupies 4 most important indian bop's viz point 5353,dalu nag,siddle ridge and buker ridge which r not mentioned and r a clear sign tat pak won millitarily. i dnt know y wikipedia and the west side india when they havent won even a single war millitarily. tuking abt '71 it was "won" wen the UN oriented ceasefire was converted notoriously into a surrender deed by indira,says jfr jacob (indian general. so wiki plz come out ur pro-indian cacoon and think broadly,or else this wiki is gonna become a joke and a meer tool of the naive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

please do not bring your pro pakistani views to the article and do not bring up other issues which do not relate at hand to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklaodord (talkcontribs) 06:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@above I strongly agree that this article is totally biased. It may be due to the fund raising by indians or something else. I hardly cannot find any neutral citing. Indian propaganda and lobbying is famous world wide for fabrication and association of false news. What rampage and massacre have Indian armed forces done in Occupied Kashmir! So far India has lost 3 wars against Pakistan including Kargil. I also can hire alot of authors to write books and articles in the favor Pakistan. I suggest WIKI to be neutral and not biased. Kazisaad (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)QAZI

Plz add or edit this articat to make it more reliable by sources and make it un-biased,or write about it in very un-biased way.Here I see My Pakistani Brothers are just saying its biased because its what they believe and are not providing factfull and reliable sources.As far as Indians are considered our education system is open ,any one can see what we are thought and how we protray.Indian government can not hold secrets as we have Right To Information.If India has lost all wars why Kargil is still part of India, Why Bangladesh is Independent now.India even went upto Lahor but Due to UN we retreated, just because we do not want more Hate and want Peace we have compromised always When we HAVE WON.PLZ GO AND READ HISTORY AND THEN COME AND ARGUE WITH FACTS. پاکستان سچ کو مانو، پیار فےلاو — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratboy (talkcontribs) 12:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC) it is a clear fct that india lost all conventional wars to pakistan. no fabrication can ever change this issue. so ur mentioning the previous wars to proveu won??? in 1965 india was badly battered, and india never reached lahore, indias corp was stopped dead along the brb canal and 21 indian indian offences were repulsed. in 1971 , just know wat sam manekshaw says, it had to trample over its thousands of dead, and the secret is a ceasefire was converted to a surrender deed. just go and know wat lt.gen.jfr jacob of ur own indian army has to say. in kargil the indian army was clearly blotted out. losing 4000 dead and 2000 injured it nvr captured kargil until the 4 july 1999 accord was signed and pakistani troops had pulled back, if india was such a big victor y are 4 posts 5353,dalunag,siddle ridge and bunker ridge in pakistani hands? india took wat we left and we didnt leav u nvr took it back. india lost 40% of kashmir in 1948, 1640 sq.miles in 1965 and in 1971 india ended up losing chummb permanently. 3000 dead and 50%+ troops psycho patients(star news india) in siachen, just thank the western and russians who came to ur help!

Casualties and losses have wrong info[edit]

Hi I was just checking out the references for the casualties and losses box and references 5 and 6 states Pakistan lost 253 Soldiers in the war and somehow it says they lost 357 on the box......

and I also noticed that for the Indian side it says 3 aircraft (MiG-21) (MiG-27) and a Mi-8 helicopter were all shot down this is not true as the IAF lost 6 aircraft to enemy fire and 3 to engine flame-out the MiG-21 and Mi-8 were shot down by Stinger missiles but the MiG-27 was lost to enemy fire reference 55 candidly explains this so can i or someone else change this to the correct information? Buklaodord (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Done--UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you but the Indian side lost 2 aircraft MiG-21 and a Mi-8 to enemy fire but they lost 1 fighter jet a MiG-27 to engine flame-out as stated in reference 55 Buklaodord (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The old reference 55 was unreliable and so was removed. New reference 55 does not state anything about any jets lost. Reference 53 states 1 MiG-21 and 1 MiG-27 were lost.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

yeah but in reference 55 it says MiG-21 was shot down but not the MiG-27 and in the casualties and losses box it says two fighter jets were shot down which is incorrect a MiG-21 and a Mi-8 were shot down but not a MiG-27 the MiG-27 was lost due to engine failure not because it was shot down Buklaodord (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I didn't go through the reference properly. I have changed the data in the infobox.

U.S Intervention for a Truce?.........[edit]

the U.S did not arrange a ceasefire for the Kargil war nor did they directly intervene granted that Bill Clinton and Nawaz Sharif met for how to handle the situation i don't recall any U.S intervention to bring both combatants to cease fighting in fact it was Sharif himself who ordered the Pakistani army to unilaterally retreat even he mentioned himself that the Kargil war was a defeat for the Pakistani side as stated in Reference 8 and another thing can anyone produce a reference or source for that statement "U.S Intervention for a Truce" ? --Honorprevails123 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 December 2011[edit]

In the War Progress section, the row with date May 27 reads the word "looses" which should instead be "loses". Just a grammatical mistake. Manishsaraswatbhopal (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Only Pakistani Army regular were involed[edit]

It is now clear from independent as well as Pakistani sources that kargil invasion was done by pak army secretly even without informing their won govt, so there is no question of any mujaheddin or militant involved in this operation from pak side. all were Pakistani army regular in disguise of militant. so, pls remove the militant involvement in this operation from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Simla aggreement[edit]

Simla agreement is mentioned only in passing in the article. This is to be detailed in background section as it was signed by both sides. (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

करगिल युद्ध[edit]

The place is called करगिल not कारगिल. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan casualities biased[edit]



Information from Pak Army Gen Aziz[edit]

| 'Kargil war a disaster, Musharraf tried to cover it up' gives information such as war cover up, regular soldiers and not rebels in war, Shimla agreement, etc. (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Real truth Kargil WAR[edit]

"Kargil War had two phases"

Kargil war on the ground (phase one): Pakistan gave stick to Indian forces and showed them the gutter. President Musharraf was the hero of this war. Indian lost thousands of elite soldiers without achieving anything. There were minimal Pakistani casualties and Pakistan gained control over huge areas (most peaks in the area) with Indian forces in Kashmir vulnerable.

Kargil war on the table (phase two): India complained to USA, Nawaz was called by Clinton and Nawaz (God knows for what reason) surrendered and thus agreed to withdraw from all areas Pakistan gained (hence in effect making a victorious war into a lost war). Actually, Nawaz declared to Clinton that all occupying Kashmir on Indian side were not Pakistani soldiers (thus denying them status as Pakistani soldier), regardless, Nawaz also agreed that he will use his influence on them to make them retreat. During this retreat (or withdrawal), Pakistan lost number of men that volunteered in this war.

Result: Pakistan won the war on the ground (phase one) and lost the war on the table (Phase two). It's All Politics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikliaquat (talkcontribs) 08:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan lost atleast 700 soldiers of regular army(US HOME DEPT ESTIMATES) and all the falsehoods of your has been thrown out to gutter, over 600 Pakistani soldiers body was not taken back by Pakistan, the video of Indian Army Hindu soldiers burying muslim Pakistani soldiers in kargil is available. (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

it is the only example in modern warfare history that an army occupying hills suffered more casualities than the army which was climbing up. India lost 500 soldiers, Pakistan lost atleast 700 soldiers(US HOME DEPT), and plz name few hills which Pakistan held when they retreated(as you are claiming) , by that time indian army has captured all hills and regained 80% of infiltrated area the rest of area was of plains and Pakistan losses were very heavy, it was a military retreat as to assume that Pak army chief will listen to Pak civilian govt is unlikely with almost 700-800 Pakistani soldiers killed Musharraf has no option but to retreat , even today pak army don't listen to govt. (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani casualities biased[edit]

Pakistan losses hav been toned down for example giving Musharraf figure in Pakistan claim is foolish, Pakistan army official site give 453 soldiers and officers of Pakistan army killed in kargil, its obvious that this figure of 453 is very very low as Pakistan refused to accept many dead bodies of soldiers, further in the box wrong info is provided "INDIAN ARMY CLAIMED 1086 PAKISTANI OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS DEAD, THE FIGURE OF 700 IS ESTIMATED BY US HOME DEPT AND THIS WAS VERY INITIAL ESTIMATE ACTUAL FIGURE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE" (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014[edit]

Hi. Operation Vijay was not named after India's victory but after an officer Col. Vijay Bakshi whose unit 3 Punjab was in Batalik before the war started. His unit was the first to report infiltration at the border and hence the operation which was first thought to be small was named after his first name, Vijay. It is very important that this information is shared with people as very few know of this and the officer deserves credit for it. (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor Sing 10:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014[edit]

There were many co-belligrants, i wanted to add and i justify myself because the western world did not want this war because both sides had nuclear power. SnowDestructor (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want to add? And what reliable sources are you using? Myopia123 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. NiciVampireHeart 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Journalistic sources vs Peer Reviewed articles by unbiased authors[edit]

I had noticed a dispute regarding the result to be entered in the infobox and added two references, one from the journal Small Wars and Insurgencies by Dr. Manuel Acosta. The other from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. Both the authors seem to have no partisan allegiances, and both clearly mention the outcome of the war as an Indian victory. User TheSawTooth has reverted edits and addition of relevant, peer reviewed material without any explanation or discussion. Their edit history indicates previous attempts to push a particular POV, see use of term 'Afghan terrorists' here.

I am reverting User TheSawTooth's edits unless they can bring credible references to back up their changes. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: Peer reviewed literature seems appropriate. I would expand a little bit though and not just leave it as a simple 'Indian victory' result. Myopia123 (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The short editwar was already over before I could take a look and give my opinion but it was settled in a good way. Wikipedia's job is to report what happened and not right all wrongs or change the history. We only say what sources report and we do it neutrally. "Victory" is not the right word to use since the result was going back to status quo. Victory here can be a long debate and as section itself. Some would say Pakistan took advantage of its nuclear deterrence and harassed India with virtually no consequence. On the other hand India succeeded in politically restoring the status quo as well as putting some military pressure. There are sources backing all these sides and the most neutral way for wikipedia is to leave it at that esp. in the objective statements of infobox. A section dedicated to this debate is due though. However, the current version seems fine and neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • India did not win Kargil War. Respect compromise and stop POV pushing. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Restored the pre-edit war parameter.[2](20 Oct, 2014) I couldn't find "Indian victory" to have clear consensus in the archives, neither there was any discussion about the newly expanded POV summary about Pakistan withdrawing due to "international pressure". OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
One of the given sources seems to back the "international pressure" statement [3]. The version created by Myopia in compromise seemed to be a better one. It avoided taking sides and declaring 'victories'. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It could be better than the direct statement like "Indian victory", however, any new change to result parameter would require strong consensus. If I had to support any of these 3 types of versions, I would probably support the current one. If other users have their peer reviewed literature with them, they can help in expanding other sections. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ofcourse, "Indian Victory" would be blatant POV. If a reliable news source gives the reason for international pressure, it seems ok. For the rest, I guess myopia's version is just clearer version of the current one and so doesn't need a strong consensus. What the OP tried to do was obviously POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The current version seems quite neutral and reports the ground realities. It is also difficult to gauge what really constitutes a 'victory', since the result was basically a revert to the status quo position, as TopGun mentioned. Pakistan probably suffered losses more in number, but there were Indian losses as well. Counting the number of losses on paper on both sides does not necessarily translate to defining what constitutes a decisive victory, especially in a conflict of high losses like Kargil. I can find varied literature with varied analyses on the result of the conflict. For example:

... This is despite the fact that many in Pakistan argue that while Kargil might have been a strategic failure for Pakistan, at the operational and tactical level, it was a success for the Pakistani army. Some in India also do not view India's victory in Kargil as unequivocal, arguing that "the structure and conditions of the withdrawal [rendered] what most likely would have been an unconditional military victory into a profoundly complex and problematic one.

— Contemporary Debates in Indian Foreign and Security Policy, p. 75

Also, one Indian army lt. general Kishan Pal who led troops on the ground during Kargil considered it a strategic loss. Not convinced we won Kargil: Lt Gen Kishan Pal to NDTV Mar4d (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, since correct me if I'm wrong but here is what we do know: 1) Pakistan withdrew from captured territory, 2) India regained all territory save for some peaks, 3) The exact result of the war is disputed, i.e., there is no clear winner or loser. If that is accurate, I'm sure we could phrase it like that - Myopia123 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is phrased like that, you did good before. Commentary is not required. Pakistan withdrew under international pressure. It maybe political victory, it maybe some peaks won, both sides always claim victory. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Clearly there is no consensus to add any of these unnecessary commentaries. It is actually as correct or more correct that the war was clearly an Indian victory, [4] it is better to restore to the version, prior to commentaries that were added recently. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to consider other versions of the infobox entry, however, if we have peer reviewed sources, they definitely get precedence over journalistic ones. As User Mar4d's quote mentions, even peer reviewed sources that problematize India's victory, do start from the point that the Indian military was victorious. India's victory was definitely not decisive, it hasnt achieved a settlement of the Kashmir dispute on its terms. However, it was a military and political victory. The current infobox entry as reverted by User TheSawTooth is completeley unacceptable, it renders all the Pakistani withdrawals due to international pressure, which was clearly not the case, here is another unbiased, academic source describing the war,

Augmented by staff from the High Altitude Warfare School and supported by over 120 guns of various types, the 2nd Rajputana Rifles seized Tololing Hill on June 20, 1999. By July 26, 1999, Indian forces had cleared the mountains of Pakistani invaders.

— Preparing and Training for the Full Spectrum of Military Challenges. Insights from the Experiences of China, France, the United Kingdom, India, and Israel (National Defence Research Institute) Pg. 193

I am not sure why territorial changes are necessary for military victories, see the Sino-Burmese war, where territorial changes were minimal, yet the Burmese were victorius. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot be 100% sure about the Pakistan's possession of peaks. Source is "Tehelka", an opinion website. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll be talking about the 'victory' first... there's no way under a neutral point of view that we use a victory for any side in (at the very least) the infobox. Sources at both sides call it a victory and a loss. Same is the case with neutral sources. The rest, retaining peaks is common sense. Infact, it is just trivia. Any nation who would give back land would retain strategic positions. This was also done in 65 war to keep the high ground for future (by both parties where ever they could). This kind of information is trivia and if it comes in infobox in context to giving the land back, it's fine. The fact that Pakistan withdrew under political pressure is not a hidden fact either. Who are we kidding? If you want to add peer reviewed commentary, do so in the article. Infobox is something very objective. There's no space in there to discuss whys and hows; the current statements are simple and consensus needs to be achieved to change the stable version. The fact that the current version was stable since a week already means that the consensus successfully changed that time. Now if this needs to be changed and is objected, WP:BRD is the way. Achieve consensus to change, don't claim an old version to be stable. See WP:CCC. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Which neutral, peer reviewed sources say that the war was a victory for Pakistan ? This is not about commentary, its about the result of the war. Nobody is kidding anyone, you just need to be produce credible, non-biased sources to back up your claims. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one putting claims of Pakistani victory in the article. We follow NPOV here. Sources are always POV; they are supposed to be POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think here is what should be considered in terms of Victory/Defeat. This was not the kind of traditional wars like World War I and II and even the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 where victory is obtained through obliterating the enemy and/or accepting the enemy's surrender, which leaves little room for doubt about victory and defeat. However, this was a very limited war(I don't think either side even declared war). If you look at it in terms of goals, India's goal was simply to regain control of the peaks that it lost which was achieved. Pakistan's goals were to keep control of those peaks, which it did not achieve. Any other conclusion in terms of victory and defeat is, I believe, still debated among various different sources and as pointed out, people from the same side(Indian Army) have conflicting views about the extent of their victory. Therefore, I believe that the only way to go about this while sticking to WP:NPOV is to summarize something along the lines of India regained all captured territory, Pakistan lost all captured territory and leave it at that. - Myopia123 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And also, I would leave out "due to international pressure" since clearly there are multiple peaks which were regained by force. Battle of Tiger Hill, Battle of Tololing were instances of when Indian Army recaptured peaks by force. This article already has names of soldiers who fought and died on both sides in these operations. Operation Safed Sagar also documents IAF's invovlement so obviously there was military pressure too. Myopia123 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Counting peaks in minority or majority of whether there were more left at ceasefire or more gained by force would be WP:OR. Sources label international pressure as a major factor, so I don't think removing that is the right thing. The fact that this was a political game (the intent of Pakistan's attack also depending on a ceasefire that would cut off Indian troops for long due to limited conflict with presence of nuclear weapons) automatically makes international pressure a factor. The two countries being nuclear brought the international pressure.. Pakistan did not make the better of it. For the victory / defeat, it is right that there's no clear definition. Both sides can be seen as having to achieve some thing or having no consequence of an attack etc. India regained the territory and Pakistan had to give back what it captured (noting trivia that it kept some strategic peaks). I don't know what could have been a better compromise and why FMT wants to push his POV of Indian Victory. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that we should count peaks, I was just saying that the best way to summarize the article in the infobox would be to just give an account from both perspectices: Indian Perspective - Regained all or 99% of territory. Pakistan's Perspective - Withdrew from captured territory. Retained some territory. All other points can be elaborated on in the article itself. The summary is not the place to do that - Myopia123 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
For Example in Iraq War there is no talk in the infobox of Victory Defeat. The Results section is more like a timeline of the most notable events. Myopia123 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case, how exactly is it different from the version you created last week (Save the international pressure part)? Three editors are favouring it with good reason, and I guess you were fine by it since you wrote it. I only see FMT opposing to revert in something that is never going to get in and another editor who just reverted, never cared to discuss or give any kind of explanation for revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not. But User:Fundamental metric tensor is perfectly entitled to seek a debate on this matter. The fact that his changes did not achieve consensus is a separate issue. - Myopia123 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Routledge sources cannot be considered as "POV".[5] They are highly legit. Calling it an "Indian victory" certainly makes more sense than the recently added commentaries, efficiently based on a opinion website. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully, FMT got a thorough debate then. Obviously, it is for editor consensus to decide about sticking to NPOV in wikipedia articles. Whether or not a secondary source is POV (though they likely are and should be) is not an issue here. We balance the sources and try to stick the neutral versions that represent points of view of all sources. Where it would be applicable to use longer descriptions in article about Indian victory, an objective outright statement of that on the top is highly undue and POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know about the routledge source. It doesn't really analyse the conflict in detail. For example, in [6] it's made pretty clear that this was a limited conflict where Pakistan seized territory, India was making progress but slow progress, and the international community starting mounting pressure to prevent a full scale war between two nuclear armed opponents. This is the simplest way that I can describe a very complex conflict and simply labeling it as as 'Indian Victory' would not be acceptable to me. -Myopia123 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, your analysis of the political and military progress from both sides also says much about the validity of international pressure. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Look at that, an Indian and a Pakistani reaching consensus. Who would've thought. Sidenote: Apologies for violating WP:FORUM. Myopia123 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
One more thing about the routledge source and other journalistic sources: Of course it's a victory from an Indian Perspective. The army got exactly what they wanted. Or 99% if you agree that some peaks were not regained. But this was not a "war" in the traditional sense and so if we include "victory" then that has to be clarified. It would be like giving the same sort of implication in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 where there was a declared conventional war and it ended with a surrender, which is a definite victory. Myopia123 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perks of disputes, eh? Well, retention of posts and pressure is undeniable trivia. So is the loss of captured area by Pakistan. All belligerent parties disappointed or happy in their performance get to have due coverage in the article (and all editors get to balance that as well - atleast those who got time). No one should be here to change the history. In my personal opinion, Nawaz Shareef messed it up for Pakistan to save his political career after allowing it to happen. With respect to the military of Pakistan, they would probably be the ones flexing under the nuclear deterrence? This seems to be a good article around it [7]. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
User Myopia123, here is the master's thesis the Routledge article is based on, it is a pretty detailed study of the war. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:Kashmiri your revert was the best I could do. Do you have a solution or do you just push the revert button? Did you read the additional source I added, from a third party source? Could you specify which parts weren't WP:V -Myopia123 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Current version by User:Kashmiri is completely useless, unless you're a native latin speaker. Oh wait that's a dead language. It's completely useless. -Myopia123 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Kashmiri's version is not really bad, adding convenient "latin" term is effectively better than adding some commentaries. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for cutting into a discussion, I was not aware a discussion on the infobox content was going on here. As to the infobox itself, template documentation states clearly:

resultoptional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

The versions offered earlier did not present the result of the war but described the progress of military campaign. "Regaining control of occupied territory" by India was not a result, because before the conflict started India did have control of the territory which it subsequently lost. So, the end result was no change whatsoever. Similarly, retreat of Pakistani forces cannot be termed a result because Pakistani forces were at the end of the conflict at exactly the same positions as at its beginning (if the conflict is understood, as in the article, to include the Pakistani incursion). Template's clear intention is to give the reader brief information as to which side, if any, was the war's winner, and not to analyse the progress of the conflict.
Speculations about "international pressure", "nuclear war", etc., have nothing to do with the outcome - if anything they were only accompanying factors. As we now know Pakistani government had initially little control over the events unfolding. Talks about a "nuclear war" are pure speculations and do not belong to an encyclopaedia as neither side pushed for escalation of the conflict beyond J&K, and nuking the mountains wasn't on the cards either.
Additionally, I replaced "occupied Kashmir" with "Jammu & Kashmir" which sounds more neutral to me, hope this is not an issue. Regards, kashmiri TALK 07:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, looking at it from an objective point of view (I'm English) I would just like to add to some others here that we should have a status, be it "political Indian victory" or whatever. The bottom line is, India achieved its objective of the war, but Pakistan didn't. This war was very similar to the Sino-Indian War, where the Indian army later withdrew. That has been put down as a decisive Chinese victory. Furthermore, the Chola incident between China and India (which again was an incursion) has been put down as a "Decisive Indian victory" due to "Chinese Withdrawal". I know there wasn't an official surrender from Pakistan, like in 1971, but like I said, India achieved its objectives and Pakistan didn't. Furthermore, Pakistan withdrew from their positions. I know this might cause some resentment from the Pakistani readers, so maybe we can put something down like "Both sides claim victory"? I have already added that "Pakistan military retreat" as that was the official reason/ requirement for the UN mandated ceasefire. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For the result, we could also run with 'India regains possession of Kargil' instead of a 'victory' statement, like this web-based encyclopaedia has done.

Peak 5353[edit]

@Kashmiri: and @TopGun: It is largely about a single peak. [8] and [9] have been used for adding that "However, the Pakistani army retained control over some strategic peaks".[10] Source has exactly tried to address its own view along with the WP:PRIMARY source of the event, it is not really confirming the information. While it is also confirmed by other sources that Peak 5353 was not actually held by India before the war.[11] Some may have doubt that it is the part of LOC, rather than the part of India or Pakistan.[12]

Let's say that Pakistan had gained 5353, but India had gained 4251 and 4275. It is actually necessary to add this material on the lead then? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede already says India gained 'majority' of the positions / area (either by capturing or by ceasefire)... adding every single post captured by India will be WP:UNDUE, the few that were retained are more significant (esp to India for not regaining them since they had once been trying to get them back) as they were not returned at ceasefire. It is infact written in a completely minimal manner.. no posts are named for Pakistan either.. only the word "some" is used --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Pakistan gained "peaks" or "a peak"? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It says "some" peaks.. so that's plural. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone It isn't only one peak on which Pakistan retained controll, there are three other also like Bunker Ridge, Saddle Ridge, Dalu Nag. These peaks are inside Indian territory, kindly read the link again [13] There were four peaks to be exact on which still retains control. And they very important from their strategic point. So it should mentioned in the article Zerefx (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zerefx: You have not understood well. According to the WP:PRIMARY source that you have provided, Dalu Nag has to do nothing with the Kargil war, neither any other that you have named had anything to do with the Kargil war, but some events from 1980s about which the army chief was just talking about. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Zerefx is a new editor, it is best to avoid contention by linking him to wikipedia policies so that he can get acquainted. However, WP:V is satisfied in the additions of zerefx and the previous ones from SawTooth/FMT editwar... the content is the same. Also, the credibility of the publisher is added to the author's when considering published sources. I suggest to make do with the current sourcing for now and add better sources whenever any one brings them in. I don't mind the infobox being in its current form, the lede should, however, reflect what is in the body, and the retaining of posts is there and significant enough for this bare mention in the lede. Zerefx, I had already reverted the lede part of your edit back in, so please don't re-add the same thing twice (see before adding, it's already there in the lede, just not in the infobox). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@TopGun: Zerefx was socking.[14] We cannot add WP:PRIMARY thoughts as facts on the lead. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been out of touch... I just added the link back, not Zerefx so it's legitimate (I don't see him blocked anymore so don't know where that matters anyway). It's not something controversial that it can not be sourced to primary. It's just a simple fact that's routinely done in wars (sides keep strategic points while returning territory). If you think there's some POV in the wording used, then you can raise it here. Secondly, you didn't just remove it from the lede.. you purged it from the article. I don't mind if you only want to shorten it further where it appears in lede and leave it as is in the section below. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It is claiming the later changes(redundant) of the territories that is already out of the scope of the war that originally took place. Second it is controversial because it contradicts with the official results that Pakistan had totally withdrawn from the territory. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not in conflict with any other statement (including total withdrawl.. it's an expected thing to happen even in that scenario). The war resulted in withdrawl, the country having gained some territory may not give some highground back while still observing the old working borders, that doesn't mean it wasn't "total withdrawl". If you just want it off the lede to reduce its weight, I can compromise on that given that it's left in the section as is. After all, it's note worthy. It's not something worth spending much editing hours on. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not noteworthy because it is certainly out of the scope. Now don't restore until you gain consensus. You have to just find a secondary source that has made this statement without depending upon a primary source. Check what Tiger Hill, Kargil says, unclear if it was ever held by India either. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've left it out for now to avoid an edit war but when you revert edits, do not undo everything or rollback everything. Watch for grammatical fixes and unrelated edits such as the one in the infobox that was restarting a settled editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@TopGun: When did I said that I was against this information? If you believe that the information is notable, then what about adding that information in some other section and attributing to the actual primary source? "According to ......" OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You completely reverted it out. That is the loudest way to say you don't want it in. I already said I can compromise to keep it in the relevant section where withdrawl is being discussed. If you want to add attribution, I am fine by that too if it is worded the same (as it was quite short and neutral). Go ahead and attribute it. You will have to revert / modify this edit [15] if you want to add it back to the same section. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes its done. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems good. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kargil War Result[edit]

@TopGun:, can you please explain why you feel you have to censor the FACT that the Pakistani military retreated? If you have a look at most other war/ battle articles, they all briefly state the results, along with a more elaborate explanation in the subsection. Your stance (from your profile and other edits) is that Kashmir should be united with Pakistan. And you yourself are a national of the said country. Could that be clouding your judgement? And threatening to have me blocked on my Talk page because I brought this up, doesn't help solve the issue. I propose we add the Pakistani military retreat to the result. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1) It's redundant, it already says return to status quo, 2) it will spark a longer to and fro addition of victory / defeat claims which was just resolved in favour of linking aftermath section as per guideline. No comments on your personal attacks, but you need to stop discussing editors (and certainly stop calling them vandals if they disagree with you). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
See, the explanation wasn't so hard was it? I am not personally attacking you if I point out that your POV might be clouding your judgement. Again, let me reiterate, a bunch of victory/ defeat claims are not facts. I know some previous editors have had this as an Indian victory for a long time. Clearly that is not a fact, which is why it was finally removed. But the fact is that there was a cease fire, a Pakistani military retreat, and a return to status quo. Both of those 'Pakistani military retreat, and 'Return to Status Quo' should be included under the heading of 'Ceasefire'. This will bring consistency with the other Indo-Pak war articles (and general Wiki war articles too) Imperial HRH2 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not quite happen to understand what you're trying to arrive at here. Just at the section above, you're calling for the infobox to be replaced with "political Indian victory" (whatever that means) or "both sides claim victory" (while true, again redundant), and now you've made another 180-degree turn and asking for an annotation of "Pakistani military retreat." You're going all over the page history and talk page calling out personal attacks and nationalities, when we can't be sure about you (your WP:POV). Everyone has a POV, correct, but that should not be used to cloud NPOV. I think we had some substantial discussion above regarding the outcome and one thing that was agreed was that it was a return to the status quo. In other words, things returned back to as they were. This is not only neutral, but also factual and objective. What part of this are you disputing? Mar4d (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I did a 180, because there was noway I was going to gain consensus for it to be a "Political Indian Victory" (which it was, you just need to read the aftermath to figure that out) because this article seems to dominated with editors from one certain country, which make it seem as if it is state sponsored (this does not amount to personal attacks by the way) . Either way, Im not disputing anything. I agree with your earlier discussions about it being a return status quo. What baffles me is why you wouldn't want to include 'Ceasefire' or 'Pakistani military retreat' when they are also both FACTS, have gained consensus, and are included within the article itself. The main objective of the infobox is to convey to the reader, in a summary of how the war played out. Only, putting 'Return to status quo, could simply mean anything from one nation obliterating the other and returning to their border, to a situation like the Korean war. While I appreciate that it does direct the reader to "see aftermath", a better infobox would be to include 'Pakistani military retreat, and 'Return to Status Quo' under the heading of 'Ceasefire'. The other Indo/ Pak articles are covered this way. Hell, most if not all other war articles have something similar going on in their info boxes. This makes me question why you would rather not have that on the info boxes. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Returning to status quo doesn't just mean "obliterating another nation" when it says "see aftermath section" right next to it. There were no permanent border changes and that is significant - by editwarring you are just undoing what was settled in the previous dispute. Calling those who disagree with you, trolls and vandals is definitely nothing less than a personal attack and incivility. I don't mind including "Ceasefire", but "retreat" can be take in another context as POV and would invite a counter POV into the infobox and more editwar.. that's the first reason we just removed it from the infobox and let the article explain. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed here. There were no permanent border changes in Iraq either. Yet, America's war wasn't a return to status quo. Anyway, Im willing to listen to you and draw consensus. But, simply tell me this. If you admit that the Pakistani military retreated, why can we not have that in the info box, under the heading of 'Ceasefire'? This was the EXACT scenario regarding India's two wars with China. The first where India infiltrated the border and then retreated. It is regarded as a 'Decisive Chinese victory' on Wiki. The inverse of that happened a few years later and it is recorded as a 'Decisive Indian victory' on Wiki. These therefore set precedents to be followed. Now I agree it would be unfair to class this war as an Decisive Indian/Pak victory, but we should at least include enough information for the reader to deduce from the info box the reason, the course of action, without having to go through a lengthy 'Aftermath article'. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
How is a one sided invasion such as Iraq's comparable with this?? Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Another article's flaws or correctness has no effect over this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The way i see it User:Mar4d and User:TopGun have a specific point of view which they are trying to impose on this article, Frequently engaging in edit wars and threatening users with block warnings. The interesting trend i notice here is to make a edit first and then fighting for consensus. As far as this edit is concerned i fully support the observation of User:Imperial HRH2 and i believe first a proper consensus should be reached here, and only after that the edit should be made to the page. RahulText me 07:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Then you see it wrong, as we are not the ones adding content. The statement invites POV and edit war. Removing it is as per the scope of infobox in this case when the result is a bit complicated. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Rahul: The way I see it, a mysterious and unknown user barges in and makes reverts without having ever participated in the talk page discussion. Not only is your motive and POV questionable, but I would also say you are in the fault here as you're reverting in content that is clearly contentious and under discussion here, and for which there is no consensus formed yet. Mar4d (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that this is being reverted means it's not an "accepted version", not to mention the "last accepted version". You've now violated 3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Kargil war is well documented war with tons of verified sources. If you want to make these changes,provide a legit source and gain proper consensus in this thread. In the mean time, we can change the statement to "Pakistani forces withdrew to their peacetime positions" RahulText me 07:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you even bothered going through the threads above? And you have broken 3RR by the way, you need to self-revert. Mar4d (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It's atleast better than what it says now but you choose to come up with suggestions after breaking 3RR which does not leave much WP:AGF. Anyway, this statement can just be described in one word, "ceasefire". And that would be best. The article can explain all other details. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not reverting any changes which were agreed by the majority here. I am talking about this particular statement and i believe no mutual agreement have been reached about this section in this talk page, you are free to enlighten me RahulText me 07:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
1) Reverting regardless of who supports a point of view is editwar and 3RR is a clear line and may get you blocked, 2) Consensus is not a vote or a majority decision. It's the result of a discussion. You've not achieved any consensus for adding it. Coming to the edit itself, I am okay with "ceasefire", but the statement as it is invites more edits to it and fuels more contention. This was stable on the article until imperial decided to revert in. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
We cant hide facts, fearing that they will invite edit wars. As i stated above provide a verified source , gain consensus then make changes to the article and stop spamming my talk page with block warnings. If you believe i am at fault, you are free to report me. I believe the resulting attention would be good for the page. RahulText me 08:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rahuloof: See this discussion. By the end of the conflict, Pakistani forces were at the same positions as they were before the incursion. This is appropriately covered under the result mentioned as status quo (i.e. return to the original positions). So the term "retreat" is vague, factually incorrect and cannot be termed a final outcome. The template should appropriately summarise the end results and position, which it already is, rather than analysing the development of the conflict. That is to be left into detail for the article sections. Mar4d (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
are you serious? i suggest you read the aftermath section in the article. Pakistan lost the war, at least on some level. Thats the truth, you cant pretend otherwise. RahulText me 08:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits on Kargil War Result[edit]

User:TopGun have made changes to the particular section without getting any proper consensus in talk page, and as per my observation of the above thread the consensus is still not reached. Hence i am reverting the edits made by the user until final conclusion is reached. RahulText me 06:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on the one adding content to get consensus for their edits as this was stable since some time till Imperial added it. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous sources, that would claim the victory of India. Stating that Pakistan retreated, such statement is still slanting towards Pakistan's side. Nothing is wrong with the edit or Rahuloof. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yet it wasn't a victory. I suggest you look up what constitutes a military victory, and also go through the previous discussion. The circumstances surrounding Kargil are very complex. Also, it is rather immature of you to support an editor who's violated WP:3RR on this article. Mar4d (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@mar4d you dont own the article, if you want to make any changes, first gain consensus. I dont know about you but i believe this is how wikipedia works. RahulText me 08:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There was no actual consensus to remove the results. Should we have RfC stating that who won? There are sources stating that India had won. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There is already consensus on that part. I don't understand why you'd bring that up, and also your continuance of the edit war. Mar4d (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
3 editors at this moment, have shown disagreement with your proposed results. They want to state Indian victory, you should compromise with the current parameter. 1 edit in a month is not edit warring, but 5 reverts in 24 hours is. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a waste of editor hours. As Kashmiri pointed out in our last discussion about this above that the results field does not need a parameter such as this when there's no very definite status. When all the sources are not agreeing on the same, the infobox can simply state "See aftermath" as per the documentation of the infobox template itself. Again, I'll quote it, "It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." That statement is redundant and invites such more clarification as it takes a perspective. So, let's get to the point here... can you go by "Ceasefire" along with return to "Status quo" already mentioned? That shows clearly that forces from both sides went to their peacetime positions. It's very precise and neutral to be honest and I don't see why anyone wanting to show positions after the conflict would dispute this new suggestion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not a speculation , its a fact. Pakistan army failed in their objective while the Indian army was successful in repelling the attack. Its as simple as that. Your being stubborn doesn't mean you can deny facts and as I said above if you want to have these changes provide a good source and gain consensus here,otherwise I feel WP:RFC would be our only option. RahulText me 11:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, with pure NPOV I'm agree with view of OccultZone. What is NPOV? I will give an example, If X defeated Y and we wrote in article that X defeated Y, then supporters of Y will say, there should be neutral point of view and we should write Y defeated X or should not write that X defeated Y. Here I wonder, What is the problem in writing truth?? If Pakistan defeatS India in a cricket match or India defeatS Pak in cricket match then should news media report like match was draw/"no result" to maintain NPOV?? What's harm in writing truth? India sent mission to Mars, so should we write Pakistan too sent mission to Mars to maintain NPOV?? --Human3015 11:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think a vote is required here. Its clear that Topgun and mar4d are engaged in some kind of groupism. There is no place in wikipedia for nationalistic propoganda RahulText me 12:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss edits and not editors. I've attempted to discuss the content in question with you, instead you've chosen to go on about me and Mar4d. Stick to the content and clarify what issues you have with my last comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Why can't we have a vote now that most editors here agree its a 'Pakistani Re-treat' at the very least, if not a 'Pakistani Defeat'. TopGun and the other one said I needed to gain consensus and were threatening me. Well now I have consensus. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve[edit]

Given the warnings to everyone on this talkpage from AN3, I suggest we take another go at resolving within our selves. I've suggested the word ceasefire, any other wording is welcome as well. But we can't really have an RFC without even having options to go with. Most likely if we had options, we can even resolve it within ourselves. Consensus is usually not exactly anyone's version, so try being ok with other wordings of the sentence which does not put in any assumptions. After all, the linked aftermath section explains everything and this is completely within the scope of the infobox template as I quoted. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


What is meaning of retreat?

Read here Online Dictionary- Retreat, it says, retreat means "the forced or strategic withdrawal of an army or an armed force before an enemy".
So in short "Retreat means "withdrawal" of army.

Now read this BBC news. Kargil conflict - BBC. 7th paragraph says, "Both sides claimed victory in the conflict, which ended when, under pressure from the United States, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called upon the infiltrating forces to withdraw." --Human3015 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Which makes it same as another statement in the infobox saying return to status quo... that makes adding retreat again redundant and vague. You are reiterating what I just said. Retreat, withdrawl, return to status quo mean the same... why repeatedly add two statements in the "results field" saying the same while it already says return to status quo. What it does not already state is that there was a ceasefire which can add some clarity to the infobox. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
TopGun, You yourself agree on retreat but not willing to write it here because you have some POV, but if you think that its double writing then why not delete "status quo" and write only about retreat?? Pak army "retreated" thats why "status quo" is achieved, in a war or conflict it is important to write that "who withdraw the army". On current date (26th April 2015) also there is a "status quo" exists. Read Vietnam War, withdrawn of American forces is written, read Gulf War withdrawn by Iraqi army from Kuwait is written. Please close this matter. --Human3015 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If we read infobox of article Vietnam War they wrote "victory of north vietnam" also "withdrawn of American army". So according to some people's logic, if "victory of vietnam" is already written then why "withdrawn by america" is mentioned?? Though nearly all wikipedia admins are Americans and Vietnam War is very famous in America and that article has large number of views, still no admin has problem with the word "withdrawn of American army". Because its a fact and one should be honest enough to accept the truth. It needs big heart. But some people have objection to it in Kargil War article. One just can't deny the reality and can't change the past. --Human3015 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
TopGun. There you go. That is now five editors to two editors. Consensus achieved? In all honestly, I believe the two people from that certain nation are hired by the nation's propaganda department. That is the only way we can logically explain someone who doesn't want to agree with facts. I keep getting blocked threats and my name posted on Administrator pages. All by Pakistani nationals for some reason. When a military doesn't achieve its main goal, while the other military does, its called a defeat. The fact that India succeeded in driving the Pakistani army away, (and in the process achieved its goals) it goes to show clear victory. What more do you want? You wanted India to go and invade Pakistan just so you can put down 'Pakistani defeat'? Most sources including the BBC agree that both sides claim victory but analysts agree India's was the only legitimate claim. You only need to read the 'Aftermath' on this article to deduce that. But now, we have to appease two editors from Pakistan. And because I thought appeasing them would be better than edit warring, I merely suggested to write 'Pakistani military retreat', and not 'Pakistani defeat'. That was the compromise on my part, but clearly, some editors have very strong POV, probably the result of national propaganda. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Imperial HRH2, This matter has been closed, though BBC mentions that both parties claimed victory but they also mentions "Withdrawal of Pakistan army from Kargil". TopGun also accepts "withdrawal" but he/she was against writing it in infobox, so I gave example of Vietnam War and Gulf War. Any war in which some forces withdraw the territory, it has been mentioned in infobox. --Human3015 21:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Imperial HRH2 is not dropping the blatant accusations inspite of my attempts to talk about edits only and I would not like to remain in this mud throwing competition. Do what you like... The article will eventually come to NPOV and it's not worth wasting manhours when even a this slight change is being opposed with such accusations. Human, I don't mind changing it to withdrawal in the article. I'm not here to impose my own decision, mutually agreed upon edits would ensure they stay as far as we keep our focus on edits. Well, withdrawl is more NPOV than retreat given the counter claims and the long winding debate on who won. The article can fully detail the versions of all sides and sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)