Jump to content

Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 79: Line 79:
[[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 [[User:F-INSAS|F-INSAS]] ([[User talk:F-INSAS|talk]]) 04:11, 8 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 [[User:F-INSAS|F-INSAS]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2.222.28.148|2.222.28.148]] ([[User talk:2.222.28.148|talk]]) 06:38, 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. [[Special:Contributions/2.222.28.148|2.222.28.148]] ([[User talk:2.222.28.148|talk]]) 06:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

== Misrepresentation of sources ==

{{Ping|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.

*{{cite news|url=http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/105862237?searchTerm=pakistani%20tank%20victory&searchLimits=l-decade=196|accessdate=2 November 2014|agency=AAP-Reuter|issue=The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995)|publisher=[[Canberra Times]]|date=16 September 1966|title=Confidence}} : Only about Battle of Chawinda.
*{{cite book|last=Fricker|first=John|title=Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965|year=1979|publisher=I. Allan|location=University of Michigan|pages=128|ISBN=978-0-71-100929-5}} : Its a snippet with no mention of results. You have a quote to verify?
*{{cite news|work=[[The Australian]] |date=14 September 1965 |number=364 |page=1 |title=Biggeyst Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory|url=http://nativepakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Rare-newspaper-about-Pakistan-The-Australian-newspaper-14-September-1965-edition.-Pakistan-wins-tank-battle-Rare-newspapers.jpg}}: 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. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:10, 20 September 2015

Former good article nomineeIndo-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
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2009Articles for deletionKept
December 17, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Social conflicts

Jozoisis, a good idea will be to add this [1] 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)[reply]

Archiving

I think some of the threads have been missed in the archiving... please include those too. [2]. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Original research

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

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

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)[reply]

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.[1][2][3] ' F-INSAS (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC) F-INSAS (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts&oldid=681944623"