Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

/Archive 1 September 22, 2004 — January 19, 2006

/Archive 2 January 19, 2006 — August 2, 2006

/Archive 3 August 2, 2006 — September 6, 2009

/Archive 4 September 7, 2009 — 22 August 2011

Edit below this line

Or preferably use the 'new section tab' on the page top to post your message. AshLin (talk)

Editings by Hassanhn5 (talk)

User by Hassanhn5 (talk) is POV pushing and calling it as REVERTING VANDALISM ? The Admins are requested to check [| His Edits]. --dBigXray (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hassanhn5 (talk) in my opinion your edits are not constructive in the first place.So i would request please allow the admins to decide if your edits are constructive or Vandalism. Please note that the citations must be verifiable and your references are not . So they are very likely to be removed by the future edits of this article by admins. --dBigXray (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The addition is well linked and cited with international neutral sources. However you removed an entire (well cited) paragraph without any reason under the cover of "added internal wiki link for Bangladesh Liberation war". [1]

This is clearly disruptive editing. Refrain from damaging the article like this or you might get blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• As Far as your citation is concerned it is not verifiable . please support it with other verifiable and Valid references . Moreover you SERMON me of not commenting on your talk page about the ARTICLE RELATED comments and you yourself Indulge in doing that. eh .. ? and as far as my blocking is concerned ,please leave leave that for the admins as you dont have either the power or right or responsiblity to do that. In fact i would suggest you to check your own edits . regards--dBigXray (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link. I have verified the references. The first one is a named reference in the article (ref#28) and follow the second link to find the book. I own this book and have verified the content. You can check it from the link. Do not make such sections without first verifying the references yourself.

"Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International, issue published 5 May 1984 (page 1208). Can be viewed at FlightGlobal.com archives Retrieved: 22 October 200

[2]

I definitely don't want you editing my talk about about article related content. But here, you have started a discussion yourself, to which you are replying. Your replies here will attract more replies. Otherwise, I'm not interested in commenting here. I hope this would be my last edit of your talk page. You've already started on the bad foot with me. I have nothing against you, but don't provoke me for a flame war on every article I edit, follow WP:Civility. Go for a neutral POV. Discuss on the article talk pages instead of making complaining sections. They will do no good to the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ChawindaBattel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChawindaBattel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

i read an article on indo-pakistani war of

1965 and i came to know that it contained material which is out of logical reasons.in this article it is repeatedly convinced to reader that india was logically victorius in the war though the war was militarily inconclusive. > first thing which the writer says that infantry csaulities was heavy on the side of pakistan which i think is not a reason to declear india as victorius because no. of cusalities doesn't matter it matter upon the fact that wheather attacker achived it's goal or not OR whether defender achives its goal or not. > the most biggest reason given by the writer was that india conquered more territory in pakistan than pakistan conquered in india which i think that it is also defective.first you should keep in mind that pakistan was defender and india was attacker.second india attacked pakistan midnight without any announncement.third the all terrirtory which is shown to be conquered by india was conquered during the period of night when pakistani army was not ready for war.as soon as pakistani army got prepeared for war india couldn't even conquered a inch more than it had already conquered.so saying that india conquered more region in pakistan is out of logic because it is understood that attacker will suerly conquer some region if it imposes war without announcement. it is clear from the fact that in WWI & WWII germany and its allies first conquered most of the euoropian allied region but in the end these countries(germany and its allies) were decleared > as defeated.Also in the modren warefare the victorius country is selected on the basis of goals that is,which party achived its goals most will be victorius.now compare the goals of pakistan and india.india's goal was to conquer whole of pakistan or atleast lahore and sialkot sectors.whereas pakistan's goal was to stop the invaders from enetering the country.now compare the success india controlled only that region which it conquered during night whereas pakistan not only succedded in stoping the invaders but also conquered 1600miles square region.so according to rules pakistan is clear winner but writer repeatedly says that india is winner.so i want that whole of the article should be changed and be rewritten with the hekp of some neutral source.

Safwanzulfiqar (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)