Talk:Kargil War

Seems this article has been written by Pro-Indian elements

I never believe these articles in cases of wars and nobody should believe what is written These articles are written by elements which are against Muslims and they Show that Muslims always loose like shown in all wars 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999 all articles r pro India and against Pakistan. And the reality is that both countries claim that they won in India it is taught that Pakistan was brutaly crushed and defeated everytime "they say Pakistan always lost" and in Pakistan they say India lost all the battles except 1971 and that is only because of the bengali nationlists otherwise Pakistan could have easily crushed india into Pieces. so both countries say they r superior and better than the other. But nobody knows the reality. The only people who know it r the people in the armed forces they know the reality in both India and Pakistan.

Misc

Someone has the wrong photo in this article - gwe

According to this article at timesofindia Shariff claims Pak lost more than 2700 men. Shouldn't we update the article to reflect that.

Also Shariff claims he never knew of the war and it was all based on Musharaffs judgement. Not only that Shariff also claims Musharaff moved Nukes.

China if I'm not mistaken moved their troops closer to the Indian border during the war according to a recent statement by RAW.

I think we need to update the article based on recent events

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1711896.cms

138.88.165.177 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Kargil war an incorrect name for the article. Officially the Kargil conflict was never identified as war by either India or Pakistan. Second thing, while the recent edits by 134.117.59.150 were both incorrect and biased. I think replacing Islamic guerrillas with Kashmiri guerrillas makes more sense? Another problem with the article, both of the following lines are POV. Since they do not have appropriate source listed I am tempted to remove them.

527 Indian army soldiers were killed. Nawaz Sharif later noted that 2500 Pakistani soldiers had been killed in the conflict, more than in any prior Indo Pak war.

The conflict saw almost a thousand Indian army soldiers die, with thousands more wounded. This was the highest death toll suffered by the Indian army in any of its operations against Kashmiri insurgents.

Finally, whoever added the external links probably did not go through the article. What if anything does the article have to do with Pakistan's northern areas? The article is about a conflict in India. --Ankur 23:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which links would those be? And could you be more specific please?

POV

This is a very POV article, and very confusing for someone who has no idea of what happened.

First, we are told they are "Squatting insurgents" (does that mean they Squat?). Then it calls them "terrorists". Then "The Indian army fought and won valiant victories" (as opposed to non-valiant victories?). Then it says, they were not terrorists at all because "poorly equipped rag tag terrorists would neither have the ability nor the wherewithal to seize land.. fought at [those] heights". Then we find out "2500 Pakistani soldiers had been killed in the conflict" so now we know for sure they were not terrorists. Or squatters. Or insurgents?

This article needs to relax with the drama, and get the facts straight, because I still have no idea who it was that India was fighting. Squaters? What's that? Terrorists? How come they are terrorists? If they are terrorists (or squatters.. or was it insurgents?), how come 2500 Pakistani soldiers were killed?

YEah, too much innuendo, war should be cold hard facts to stop biases, but don't you live in pakistan or India? We all now know that they were pakistani soldiers pretending to be terrorists, is that clear enough? BTW, If you want a rather biased gist of what happened, watch the bollywood flick Lakshya, one of the best films the industry has managed to produce in my opinion. -XK

Avataran try to keep the POV low and list sources for your "facts".

To the anon user, perhaps you would like to check the "facts" yourself from the sources that I did list:

• Kargil Conflict
• Limited Conflict Under the Nuclear Umbrella
• War in Kargil

They happen to from Globalsecurity, RAND corp. and Center for Contemporary Conflict. I dont see how these sources can be labelled POV. Avataran

There is a reason why the article may appear as POV to those who have largely only read Pakistani accounts. However, the problem is that this was a covert Pakistani War as has been established by repeated independent analysts. Thus Pakistan had no option but to lie about it to the extent of not even claiming its dead. Since then the truth has come out in bits and pieces and even ackowledged by the two former Pakistani Prime Minister's and slowly also by Musharraf. However, can Musharraf fail to continue to spin the war as positive for Pakistan, given that it was his brainchild? So he does in "The Line of Fire." A credible Pakistani perspective must first explain why Pakistan continued to claim that its army was not involved even though it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was by many independent sources.

Operation kargil was actually aimed at getting pakistan more room at the bargaining table besides its not as though as though india hasnt done such things in the past what about operation meghdoot also the operation itself was not a failure but the way the international media reported it and the way the pakistani government responded to that criticism was what made it out to be a failure —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniGenius (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've just gone over the article and tried to do a little cleanup, but I didn't vet all the facts cited. There are a couple sentences which seem to be a bit NPOV, lacking some clear delineation that is; e.g.:

The Indian army fought and won victories against considerable odds and retook most of the heights.

What were the odds, exactly? Were they "considerable"? What does that mean? 3 million to one, or 1.0000001 to 1?

Odd's means that the battle was tilted towards the Pakistani side due to their occupation of higher ground. -XK

Also, I rewrote the small passage in the final section regard "the first nuclear war since Hiroshima". Since Hiroshima is not a "war" unto itself, it is a fortiori not a nuclear one. World War II itself can't be truly considered a "nuclear war" with only two nuclear weapons used and only the final days of conflict to hasten a victory which no one would argue was not inevitable one way or another.siafu 03:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan Regular army, or Insurgents?

The article makes this statement:

In late May 1999, regular Pakistani troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as the mountain warfare specialists the Northern Light Infantry (disguised as Muslim guerrillas) set up base on the vantage heights of the Indian controlled region.

Is this true? I have always heard it was insurgents backed by Pakistan (weapons, support). Is there a source for this statement that it was %100 Pakistan troops? The article lacks any credible sources (well, any source at all) and should be taken lightly as I believe some of the editors are not entirely NPOV. Stbalbach 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm gives out some of the details in the kargil campaign that involved many SSG commandoes and Norther Light infantry in the war. It is from a neutral perspective and many other sites like pakdef.info also support this view that SSG operated in Kargil. --Idleguy 08:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks. My immediate reaction on this page is to question everything. Stbalbach 15:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats because of your Pakistani bias, you would care less about the facts.

Disputed Article

With due respect to each and every opinion, this article should clearly be marked as "disputed". Since no one can claim to be fully informed regarding the subject matter, this article should be taken as "one's viewpoint" rather than a general agreement. Haiderhussain 11:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely true. If you take the time to read the external links you would realise that there is very little by way of any disputes. This war was covered by media both in the subcontinent and around the world. Moreover officially Pakistan had to pull out both due to political as well as military reasons. the aftermath too is one that can be easily verified by looking at the indices of both nations and the political turmoil in Pakistan vis-a-vis India's political gains internally and externally.

Also a few like me take more than just a passing interest in military history. Cheers.--Idleguy 07:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this conflict can be seen as a war, it was certainly not reported as such by any of the credible world media organizations or by the countries involved? I thereby contest that unless any major international media organization has reported this as a war, then it should be refereed to the Kargil conflict. I’m quite happy for the author to find some sources, and for my evidence see the attached link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/355280.stm

I am also disputing the balanced nature of the article, their seems to be a complete lack of Pakistani Sources, the source used such as the Dawn newspaper article is gained from another website, thereby invalidating the source.

The complete lack of a Pakistani perspective makes the whole article a POV. In the same mould I don’t think it would be difficult for me to put together an article which favors a Pakistani viewpoint.

The following is an extract from the quoted Pakistani source [11]

" When asked if the army intervention was due to Kargil conflict, General Musharraf said, although this was a common charge, but "this is disinformation." "There was no disagreement between army and the previous government over the issue of Kargil or Kashmir. There never was a disagreement," he added. Replying to another question as to why action against him was taken when he was out of the country, he said, "It's still an enigma to me. We had good relations. I was appointed by him (former premier) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee a few days ago and that showed he was satisfied with me. At times I had offered him the support and assistance of army in the nation-building task. I even did not meet him after he gave me the additional charge of office of CJSC. He said, he would like to put in full use the economic resources and he was sure that economy will stabilise. "We will spend whatever amount is required to ensure our security. Our security concerns are vital and foremost." To a question as to the outcome of Kargil, he said, "It was a total success from military point of view and Indians know that very well. Army did not lose an inch of land on the Line of Control (LoC) and Pakistan Army inflicted five times more casualties on Indian army. It did tremendous damage to them. I hope that Kargil episode may lead to resolution of Kashmir issue because Indians have realised that greater issue of Kashmir bedevils the relations between the two countries and they must take into account the wishes of Kashmiri people. Indian side must have realised after paying such a huge price that Kashmir issue must be resolved now." Asked as to how Kashmir issue will be resolved, General Musharraf said, "the attempts that were made previously were non-starters. They did not include the core issue of Kashmir. The Lahore Process was there and Kashmir was included in it but with a very milder tone. In practical upfront it were Indians who always put the Kashmir issue on the back-burner. Kashmir led to three wars and the Kargil. Anything without Kashmir is a non-starter. "

Now from this source the Pakistani President is stating that they inflicted five times more causalties. The following was attached to the source which is found under the Notes section states “Government of Pakistan press releases, where Musharraf talks on the Pakistani soldiers killed.” I have not found a single sentence in this source which states this and again you have to question the objectivity and the motives of the writer here.

This article is already on dodgy ground and unless it come with more credible sources then it should be assigned disputed, I’m quite happy with the author to come up with some credible sources both from the world and a Pakistani Perspective.Deadlyvenom 23:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ~

A simple google search would reveal that the term "kargil war" is more widely used. Responding to the question of neutrality, there are atleast 5-6 sources/links from pakistan sites/authors. The bulk of the primary references are from third parties. If anything there is a greater % of Pak based references, as all the notes are interview/commentary from a Pakistan standpoint! So I don't see what this issue is about. Idleguy 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, I made specific requests around major media organisations and you have failed to provide these and in fact you feel that doing a Google word search is sufficient evidence! Sadly in an academic circle this kind of argument wouldn’t get you far. You need to provide news articles from major media organisations to back up your point. In fact I’ve digged up another article from the BBC which relates to the issue that both India and Pakistan denied having POWs! Which means it wasn’t deemed to be a war but a conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3548396.stm

Sure, I'll provide the specifics but I merely used Google to back up the fact that a majority of the articles on kargil use the term war. However many articles use both the terms interchangeably. Apart from the fact that every news organization in India used the term "kargil war" the primary source, i.e. US (Center for Contemporary Conflict) also talks on kargil as such. One pakistan defence website [1] also mentions war. among worldwide publications on the same thing, the guardian, A book review in Asia Times quoting a pakistani author, Yale Global and a Yahoo news story that calls it kargil war and that india and pakistan exchanged POWs! Yahoo - though the lack of prisoners is in itself not a qualification for terming a conflict as war. I have not quoted any Indian sources since they use kargil war. I have merely used international or pakistani news sources to show that "Kargil War" was pretty widely used. Again I would suggest you use Google - not because google is producing anything but because you can find a lot of information and sources that clearly mention kargil war. [2] shows that a LOT of Pakistani news media have called Kargil War. please don't hesitate to click on the individual publications like Jang Daily Times, Dawn and countless other sources from Pakistan.

Hi Idleguy, Thanks for the response. I’m well aware of how to use Google and I'm still disputing this is as a war, the term has been misused as neither Pakistan nor India declared war. Officially a war is described as when one party declares and since neither party did, this cannot be classed as a war. See the the wikipedia definition of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War . Secondly if it was war why did Pakistan hold back its Air force as a cover for it troops or reinforce its troop’s positions in Kargil? It knew it would be drawn into a war. Why didn't India attack Pakistan? As before it knew it would drawn into a war. The main reason both countries did not want a war was due to their Nuclear Statuses they were happy for it to be a localised conflict/battle and this distinction is very important in the Kashmir conflict. A War would result in battles across multiple fronts, Air, Sea and Land, this was not the case with Kargil, so it is very important we keep this distinction, it was a Battle/Conflict and not a War. Thirdly as I pointed out earlier both countries denied having POWs! Feel to put your case forward on why you still think it should be deemed a war.

Your comment stating “If anything there is a greater % of Pak based references” can you please back this up, I certainly couldn’t find this. The majority of sources used are American and Indian with small scattering of Pakistan sources around the fallout and one unsubstantiated article on the number of casualties, for which sources 8 and 9 don’t exist but yet you state 4000+, so where is your source for this from Pakistan? The Pakistani source you used from the Daily Jang had the Prime Minister for Pakistan stating anything between 2700 or upwards but he isn’t sure, so where has your factual figure of 4000+ come from? You should revise the number of casualties to 2700+ instead of the 4000+ you have at the moment, as the Indians source you used the ‘The Hindu’ does not match the Pakistani source the ‘Daily Jang’.

I wouldn't mind doing the counting but shouldn't you have done this first. Anyways, here goes: Kargil_War#Notes section is from Pakistan's official website (infopak.gov.pk), then from an author called "Ahmed, Samina" - from Pakistan and finally, former PM Shariff's speech that is merely hosted on The Hindu. The casualty figure of 4000+ is sourced from Shariff's own count of the Pak soldiers killed which superceeds the previous statement (being more recent in nature).

You have not answered my question on the number of casualties. Your source comes from the “The Hindu” which is Indian and may have some bias in it and despite my best efforts, I could not find a second corroborating source from Pakistan or a Neutral perspective on this news article.

I did not find other sources from a Neutral perspective or from Pakistan which matched with the former PM Sharif’s statement in “The Hindu” and more importantly this statement on the number of Pakistani casualties has been disputed by President Musharraf in an interview with the Dawn and by others, see attached articles.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/05kargil.htm

http://www.defencejournal.com/nov99/india-kargil.htm

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0331/nat.indiapak.war.html

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/04aug06/inter.htm#1

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/26kash2.htm

http://www.ppp.org.pk/articles/article25.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9907/12/india.pakistan.01/

In addition to this one of your sources also states the viewpoint of President Musharrafs on the number of Pakistani casualties, see your source 14 or my previous comment further up this thread or click on the following article.

http://www.infopak.gov.pk/public/govt/reports/CE_interview.htm

I ask again that you should revise the numbers of casualties for Pakistan as it’s not an official number from Pakistan. Unless you can come up with some evidence it will need to removed as it’s a POV as you have choosen to ignore other media articles and the Pakistan Presidents statement on the number of casualties. As before feel to counter this.

Just as a matter of curiosity, have you fully read through the articles mentioned by you? Because some like Asiaweek don't mention the casualty numbers (the figure is for terrorist incidents after Kargil) and half of them clearly call this "Kargil mini-war" and others a war or something like that. Even by your own statements below it is a "limited war". Also a war doesn't need to involve all air, land, or naval forces to be called such. And merely choosing to restrict the theatre of conflict to one place doesn't mean it isn't a war.

Barring Musharraf's speech which is more of a desperate spur of the moment rebuttal than an exact count, every other estimate tends to put it otherwise after the end of the war. There is a difference between an estimate taken while the war raged and the final count after the war. The bulf of the articles quoted by you are news items from that period. The problem with the Pakistan Army figure - which there isn't any - was that they probably don't include the NLI and SSG (or any "militant" deaths) along with the regular army losses.

In the PPP article it mentions 3000 pak casualties - not accounting some unclaimed ones. That is another proof from an ex PM's party that the figure was likely somewhere close to the 4000 mark. Apparently Sharif had given an interview in Dawn newspaper - currently offline - but a later follow up editorial in the newspaper hereshows that he made the statement that "we lost more officers and men in Kargil than in the whole of the 1965 war" The 65 war had resulted in 3,800 deaths - one of the few statistics both nations agree - and therefore this second interview in Hindu is in keeping with the fact that 4,000 > 3,800. Also despite the name "The Hindu" is hardly a pro hindu newspaper as someone who might not be familiar with their content might assume. I hope i've made myself clear. Idleguy 19:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you list the 5/6 sources and what they contributed towards the article. I noticed you added one in your last editing of the article. I find some of the sources used fairly weak, as I have outlined two of the above already, and one of them is the Dawn which is not sourced from the Dawn itself but from somewhere else.

The primary references are clearly listed in the article. Again 4 out of 5 of the references are from third parties. Dawn is not a primary reference but a secondary one and it is syndicated from Dawn as you can clearly see in the top. Still i've replace it from the horse's mouth. The current article links directly to the newspaper's article with Ayaz Amir's photo.

Thanks.

On another note it would help if you had other angles on the conflict such as a Civilian and a secondary political perspective as outlined below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/404221.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/401931.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/353729.stm

We can add these in the external links.

I have attached other articles which puts the whole issue of Kargil at the doorstep of the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr Sharif. I would like to add extracts of this to the article, as I feel it gives a different edge to the conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1989886.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/787795.stm

Precisely what i had mentioned earlier in the article: that Shariff was party to the plan and gave orders to execute it. However in a previous edit, it was found to be POV and removed by another editor. Now I feel it's time to include this information.

Agreed

I am also disputing your simplistic version of the events on the economic fall out for Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/393671.stm

I didn't originally write that "version" but the facts are still undeniable. Your source does reveal that Pakistan economy did take a beating and I quote "the fighting is almost certain to deter foreign investment" which seemed to be the case until Musharraf took reign and post 9/11 saw an improved Pak economy. By economy it means not only stock indices of both nations but various other economic indicators.

Agreed.

Feel to revisit but I expect much more in-depth answers to my questions rather than one liners, which tends to show a lack of a counter argument and is a common stalling technique. If I feel this is the case then I will reedit the article myself, sorry if this sounds aggressive, it’s not meant too!

Deadlyvenom 03:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've answered everything in detail and I don't mind it if it improves the credibility of the article. Idleguy 06:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree I would like to improve the crediblity too. I'm pretty happy with everything else.Deadlyvenom 17:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called a "war" because that is what some people call it. This is well documented. We report on what others do. As for it legally/technically being a war, it's irrelevant. Vietnam War was not a war, the US never declared war. The legal concept of war has been deprecated since WWII, most countries have more definitive legal terms to refer to a conflict, but the term "War" is still widely used and legitimate. See the Vietnam War article for how they handle the different names for the conflict, such an example could be applied here as well. --Stbalbach 19:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree see my comments above to idleguy, in the context of this, this was a limited war on the part of Pakistan no logistics support, no air cover, no support what so ever apart from artillery support. It was not fought on air or sea on other fronts, you cannot deem it with Vietnam as a war. The Vietnam war you talk about was fought on multiple fronts so this was different.Feel free to provide evidence on why you feel this is a war, a mere one liner to the Vietnam war which lasted over a number of years and on mutiple fronts is a poor contrast to this conflict which lasted at most several weeks and was on one front. I don't buy into it why this is deemed a war so please explain to me why this is deemed to be a war akin to all other wars.

Feel free to post a counter to the following to the idleguy: “I'm still disputing this is as a war, the term has been misused as neither Pakistan nor India declared war. Officially a war is described as when one party declares and since neither party did, this cannot be classed as a war. See the the wikipedia definition of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War . Secondly if it was war why did Pakistan hold back its Air force as a cover for it troops or reinforce its troop’s positions in Kargil? It knew it would be drawn into a war. Why didn't India attack Pakistan? As before it knew it would drawn into a war. The main reason both countries did not want a war was due to their Nuclear Statuses they were happy for it to be a localised conflict/battle and this distinction is very important in the Kashmir conflict. A War would result in battles across multiple fronts, Air, Sea and Land, this was not the case with Kargil, so it is very important we keep this distinction, it was a Battle/Conflict and not a War. Thirdly as I pointed out earlier both countries denied having POWs! Feel to put your case forward on why you still think it should be deemed a war.” Deadlyvenom 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My or your opinion if it should be called a war or not is irrelevant in the context of Wikipedia. We report on what people do, not what we think they should do. People call it a war. --Stbalbach 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a very balanced article, showing both the sides of coin (India and Pakistan). 203.109.99.43 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased Article - Talks about the Indian view only

I found this article to be very biased and to be pro-Indian. Encylopedia articles should not be one-sided, they should be objective in their analysis. How can the article say that Pakistani soldiers entered India; how can this be labbled a WAR, when no country declared it as so; how can this article qoute Nawaz Shareef without any proof? This article needs to be deleted because there was no Kargil war just a conflict! Fawwad - 2 Sept 2005 - 15:28 PST

Regarding your first doubt on "How can the article say that Pakistani soldiers entered India", it is now a widely known fact that Pakistan army and paramilitary forces from the SSG and NOrthern light infantry was involved. This is collaborated not only by indian and neutral sources but by pakistan's own official admission many times. Kargil being clearly under indian control was infiltrated by pak troops and the ultimate damning evidence is the fact that a couple of these soldiers were awarded the nishan-e-haider for bravery as the article includes.

The use of the term war is a grey area. There is just a thin line between a conflict and a war, but since both nations declared a "state of war" existed in Kargil and the fact that gallantry medals of both nations which are reserved only for wars were awareded, it became the defacto name. Param Vir Chakra and Nishan-e-Haider were given, a sign that there was an undeclared war between the two.

Thirdly all the quotes have been sourced from reliable sources and the external links do reveal the full story of this. So your question : "how can this article qoute Nawaz Shareef without any proof?" holds little water as almost all the information has been taken from such links as given in the article.

I don't see why the article should be deleted just because pakistan lost the war. if that were the case then losers would be demanding the deletion of all wars citing other reasons. Idleguy 11:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan did not loose the supposed "war." The Indian military lost so many men that they were in trouble. If it was not for the U.S pressure and intervention, the freedom fighters would have taken over the whole of Indian Occupied Kashmir. Please get your facts right before boosting about India's supposed "victory."

Also the countries did not Declare war!! And it is not considered a war in the international arena!! If that is the case then the U.S's occupation of Iraq should also be called war; it is not because the U.S did not declare a state of war!

Indian bias should not be reflected in the article! It should be objective. The present article shows Indian in very good light and Pakistan in bad light. After all India is not an Angel. It did test nuclear weapons first in 1974. Sara Khan - 2 Sept 2005 - 20:28 PST

India clearly defeated Pakistan in the Kargil war.Regarding the U.S intervention it was to save the retreating Pakistani soldiers from their sure defeat and their death .The Pak-backed terrorists who had entered kargil would have been exterminated. Have you forgotten the defeat of the Pakistani army in the 1971 war? 91,000 soldiers of the Pakistani army surrendered to the Indian army. You first get your facts right khan.

Re war versus conflict, since we dont do original research here, and act as reporters who report on what other people say, there is plenty of citable support to call it a war. Perhaps a sub-section that discusses the debate would be in order. However if it is true that both sides declared war as Idleguy said, there is really no point as it is simply a fact. Can you support that both sides did not declare war? (other than just saying so). And in fact it's called the "Iraq War", "Vietnam War", etc.. nameing is irrelevant of the legal view. Finally the article does mention that it is sometimes called a Conflict in the very first sentence. Stbalbach 17:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalbach explained the "war" issue you have raised clearly. On the so called neutrality issue, as far as I can see the external links, which were used as references includes articles that were written by some of the military strategists from India, Pakistan and third parties. Either Khan hasen't gone through those links or is here just to ruffle some feathers. The article does not talk about an Indian "military victory", rathers shows how the world viewed the diplomatic blunder of Pakistan. The "freedom fighter" angle was thrown away as rubbish even by Pakistan's Chinese allies and even Pakistan as I mentioned before, gave away their military awards for the war. It is in contravention of your guerilla theory for no nation would award military medals to those who are not inducted as soldiers.

It is tempting to think of What If scenarios like what if Pakistan had defeated India at Kargil etc. but this is not the place for fantasy. Also victory in any war is seldom defined by the count of soldiers killed, but in the political/strategic aims that is fulfilled. In this scenario Kargil was recaptured by India by both armed and diplomatic means. Given this background it was and is seen as a failure for Pakistan. And I don't get it why the issue of nukes tested in 74 is being dragged into this article on a war that took place decades later.

I hope that answered your questions. Idleguy 17:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The article says "The Indian Army, supported by the Air Force, attacked the Pakistani positions and forced a withdrawal across the Line of Control." If this isn't an indication of the supposed victory, what is? First of all the people fighting with India were freedom fighters, when India attacked Pakistani positions inside Azad Kashmir only then did the Pakistani military respond, hence the military awards. Also the only reason the Pakistani military ended the conflict was the U.S pressure. India had a very hard time with this conflict. And the figures of Pakistanis supposedly killed by India is also incorrect. One Indian soldier was recently court marshaled because he made up stories of killing "Pakistani" soldiers. Sara Khan 10:28, September 3, 2005 (PST)

I suggest you read neutral articles on the war to know how Pakistani government tried to cover up the incident and ultimately paid the price with a military takeover. I would again suggest you read up properly on facts. According to the ex-CENTCOM Chief Anthony Zinni, Pervez Musharraf himself who had planned the whole operative wanted Nawaz Shariff to talk to Clinton as written in his book because they were on the losing side. So from a military perspective too they were in pretty bad shape and nowhere does any author of repute suggest that it was the mujahideens who planned this attack. The "freedom fighters" merely acted as porters according to most Pakistani accounts!!! The fact thus remains that the war was about to be lost by Pakistan before the diplomatic blunder put the final nail in the coffin. The victory was not just a victory of gun but a holistic victory involving polito-military one. There are subtle differences between the two.

And I suggest you back up your statements with neutral references as the article mostly quotes sources that are not from the subcontinent. Also one Indian soldier alone couldn't have killed thousands of soldiers himself, so those isolated cases of bragging are exceptions than the rule. The figures quoted again are from neutral and Pakistani accounts. Also I'll be adding more Pakistani views as external links like the one from Dawn etc. that talks about the humiliating withdrawal for Pakistan. Idleguy 09:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy, If these beliefs satisfy you then I am happy for you;) However, you cannot change the facts. There are no neutral sources. Sara Khan - 15:44 (PST) September 4, 2005

Idleguy is incorrect; thousands of Indian soldiers died in the CONFLICT and there was cover-up on the Indian side. Pakistan only did what it did because of U.S pressure. The "powerful" India was on its knees. Tanya 13:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have to resort to so many pseudo names? Are you afraid of reading the truth? One can only take the horse to the water, but can't make it drink. So if you wish to remain ignorant and fail to read any neutral articles (some of which are in the article) I think it's pointless to continue this farcical debate of yours which no person outside Pakistan believes. Idleguy 15:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tanya, idleguy is correct. To be patriotic toward Pakistan, you need to accept the truth. See for instance, your own country's supreme leader at the time telling you:

• Media report: 'Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif'
• Media report: 'Nawaz Sharif breaks silence, says 4000 Pakistani troops killed in Kargil war'
• Media report: 'Over 4,000 Pakistanis died in Kargil conflict: Nawaz Sharief'
• Interview with Nawaz Sharif states Pakistani soldiers killed in Kargil war were more than combined total of 1965 and 1971 wars
• Government of Pakistan press release where Musharraf attempts to refute Sharif's statements on Pakistani soldiers killed
• Government of Pakistan press release in 2004 where Musharraf claims "Pakistan Army inflicted five times more casualties on Indian army."

Your country hasn't published the complete list of names of NLI and other soldiers killed in Kargil. (How do I know - I searched Google with site:gov.pk) You know why? Because it was an illegal war (Pakistan broke several covenants with India, including one signed only months before the war). And mainly because Pakistan lost. India has no such problem - it made it's list of war dead public and huge compensation was awarded to their next of kin. Plus India is a functioning democracy - soldiers take orders from civvies, and not the other way around. And our soldiers and civvies are proud of that. Regarding your deluded wishful thoughts abouts "thousands of indian losses", do you think for a moment that in India, a democratic country with a free press, the next of kin of our Kargil dead will willingly forgo compensation AND the honor of the dead sons? Anyway... here's your choice: You can choose to live a lie like Musharraf does. Or you can accept the truth, and live the truth. The second action is uncomfortable, but it is the only action a true Pakistani patriot would take. Remember, God does not turn a blind eye to covenant breakers.

- Uniquer

--

Since when does India model the truth? What I find really funny is how Indians are obsessed with this myth that they are functioning democracy with a free press. There might be many presses, but they all give a hardline Hindu stance on everything that is where they are united. What's even more funny is how many Indians claim that over 100 thousand people died in Kashmir because of separatists. Give me a break, hundreds of thousands of cowardly Indian soldiers are stationed there with a shoot to kill policy. There are entire villages where nobody was left alive because of pathetic indian soldiers who pull out their gun whenever something makes a noise. I suppose that the Indians like uniquerare really happy believing that they live in a wonderful democracy where they ignore crimes committed against so many ethnic groups in Gujarat, Assam, Amritsar, and Jammu and Kashmir. I can only hope that kashmir does not fall into Indian hands otherwise they will be massacred. My father is Indian, he can admit India's atrocities, why can't you? I know I would be ashamed to have been Indian. India's record shows that it twists the truth and they twisted the war in Kargil too. Uniquer's idea of neutral are extreme hindu web pages and this article is not neutral. - Henry P.

I would like to remind you that Pak's ex-PM admitted defeat in the war and Musharraf too admitted to staging the war. So let's just move on since the facts are now out and India does not control the world media. Also Kashmir is already in India's hands, albeit not entirely. So pl. don't make statements "I can only hope that kashmir does not fall into Indian hands" that questions your knowledge on this subject. Idleguy 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To Henry P: You must love tangents. It doesn't matter to this discussion, which is about the Kargil War. Correcting you: Most Kashmir is in Indian hands (more than 50%). It's been signed into those hands by a lawful authority - the raja. Pak. gained territory by invasion. India is a democracy but a flawed one (we're in better shape than the US was 50 years after freedom - the Indian supreme court hasn't passing a Dred Scott decision yet). Yes, India has a substantially free press. On both these things India is better than Pakistan (though Pak. has a substantially free press as well). Though comparisons to Pakistan aren't so useful generally, it is necessary to draw them when the pot calls the kettle black. Pakistan is better than India in other things (eg: slighter higher per capita GDP, less killings in PoK). Indian soldiers operate under difficult circumstances in Kashmir. Think Iraq with no air support, no body armor. Some are cowards, most are brave. Some Indian soldiers HAVE committed atrocities in Kashmir, most have not. The rule of law needs to be better respected in India. And re: sneering references about Hindu websites: (a) they're correct (b) how did you miss the jang.com.pk link for the Sharif interview which says the same thing (c) I'm Christian. I'm happy to be an Indian. My family has Kashmiri muslim and Kashmiri Hindu friends. And like it or not, Kargil war was an evil committed by the Pakistani military establishment. The effect was Pakistan stabbed us in the back - words used by the ex-Pak PM himself. And they paid for it. (So did we). You don't like this, go argue with Musharraf who's now ADMITTING Kargil was a Pak. military opertion (see my link to Gov. of Pak. press release) and is trying to justify it as a masterstroke since so many Indians died. Go argue his former civilian boss, Nawaz Sharif, who correctly said (a) 2700+ to 4000 Pak. soldiers died in Kargil (b) Pak. stabbed india in the back in Kargil.. Hope you lose your foolish attitude. Uniquer

Haha never read anything more hilarious than this. Look here m8 your "freedom fighters" were holed on the mountans like cornered rats. It was only US Pressure that kept India from starting a full blown war. Read sources from neutral websites like BBC. We want Factual account of war not Pakistani account. Pakistani accounts of Indo-Pak wars are famous for their Myth creations, for example in 1965 war Pakistanis havent been told by their govt abt Operation Gibraltar by Pakistani army which started the war. With regards to 1971 war Pakistanis havet been told about the nice lil' genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistani Army. Truth may be bitter. But learn to face it rather than living in a fantasy world. AMbroodEY 05:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi..Just thought I'd contribute my 2 cents. I dont know anything about this war. Just thought I'd look it up since it was mentioned in an article. The overall tone of the article seems to be extremely one-sided. The actual facts used to buttress the arguments may in fact be correct but often the choice of what facts to include/exclude in the construction of arguments is the key issue. I may research this issue more thoroughly and post again. Cheers.

Your source is very poor Uniquer, having just looked at one of your sources *Media report: 'Nawaz Sharif breaks silence, says 4000 Pakistani troops killed in Kargil war' website its one of the most one sided hate filled rants at anything Pakistani, its just goes to what side of the fence you sit. Your pretense at impartiality is a smoke screen. Where are the major news organizations for truly objective neutral view such as the BBC, Reuters and CNN? I’ve talked to many bigots who conjecture behind a false veneer of respectability, and look to express their hatred through false hoods, you're in the same boat. You've ventured onto the wrong board, this is a board for discussion of facts not an excuse for narrow minded bigots Deadlyvenom 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at the pakistan-facts.com site. It is a purely anti-Pakistan site. The main page discusses supposed Pakistan ties to N Korea, why Pakistan should be in the Axis of Evil and the like. These types of propoganda websites should definitely not be used for an "encyclopedia" article. Fkh82 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be very much okay and balanced article. This article has shown Pakistani side as well, however I feel in reality Pakistan's side itself is weak and hence few may feel that it is a biased. 203.109.99.43 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

this article fails to mention the mounting preasure on pakistan from the united states......the u.s in fear of nuclear war by india and pakistan preasured sharif to pull back troops from kargil or the u.s will have to join in with india........when sharif ordered the surprising retreat, the soldiers were stunned....pakistan was willing to fight to the fullest

Reasons for Dispute Tag

Please list specific actionable items for the dispute tag. Not general, but specific actionable quotes from the article. Just because there is ongoing discussion doesnt mean it should have a dispute tag, otherwise every article would have it. Almost all of the so-called "dispute" over this article has been from biased editors who want to push a POV. I honestly dont see any reason for the dispute tag. Stbalbach 19:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Editors want to change the POV of this article, therefore there is a dispute tag. The dispute above is how to make it more neutral. Personally, I think the article has a pro-indian tilt/bias to it, but nevertheless it is only fair to let the discussion above continue and to continue to NPOV the article. Not all articles with ongoing discussions will get the tag, only ones where there is a large dispute over neutrality and the factual accuracy, such as in this one. I think that there needs to be a more productive discussion, but nonetheless the tag is there also to attract attention to the discussion. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Stbalbach asked for specific actionable quotes from the articles and you talked about everything under the sun except that :-) Tintin 20:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tin, but as I said the dispute tag is there because of the dispute above. Why not ask those users to cite what sections they think to be POV? As you can see, I am not directly involved in the dispute above. I have said that the article was POV before, but now only make minor corrections to it. The users above are involved in a large dispute over pretty much the entire content. What we don't need here are pro-whatever editors starting an edit war against anyone who tries to make the article neutral. I am sorry to say that is pretty much the nature of many India-related articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you have an agenda beyond any specifics about the article. India-related articles, where editors just line up to make attacks against non-Indians. Tags are not meant to be used to make a point. If you have specific actionable reasons for the article then list them please. Stbalbach 21:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalbach, the neutrality of the article is disputed. What is hard to understand about that? Can you not see the discussion above that has been going on over the last 2 days? If need be, read the article once and think whether any part of the material written would ever by said by a Pakistani. For example, However elements in the Pakistani government had other designs as they covertly trained and sent troops and paramilitary forces in the guise of mujahideens into the Indian territory - wow, how definite that is, would a Pakistani source say that? I think there need to be both, Pakistani and Indian editors working on this article. I can not speak for them, all I know is the article is disputed in its neutrality as marked in the discussion above. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for listing 1 actionable item. Could someone please provide citations, additional support, or re-edit the sentence? However elements in the Pakistani government had other designs as they covertly trained and sent troops and paramilitary forces in the guise of mujahideens into the Indian territory. Thank you. Stbalbach 21:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How about you ask others to contribute neutrality issues too? So far you seem to think I am the only one that did not find this neutral when there are several remarks above doubting the neutrality of this. Once again, the tag was added because there is controversy over the neutrality of this article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Quoting from the second link in the references [3]:

Apart from keeping the plan top secret, the Pakistan Army also undertook certain steps to maintain an element of surprise and maximise deception (etc) Hence 'covert'.

Two paragraphs later : The pattern of infiltration clearly established the participation of trained Mujahideen and Pakistan Army regulars in these operations in areas east of Batalik and north of Dras.... The Intruders on the heights were an amalgam of professional soldiers and mercenaries. Looks like 'mujahideens and soldiers' rather than 'soldiers as mujahideens'.

This article states that the world critisized pak of crossing the LOC but I think it would only be bias when you mention the hundreds of times India has violated the LOC such issues as siachin as for the indian propaanda, in the films border and LOC they showed bearded mujahideen with dance girls and such when everyone knows that the mulahideen are strict religios men . Such scenes are quite amusing for me , these show how stupid the indians and there propaganda is

The profiles of those who maintain the site can be found here. From the links, they all seem to be very qualified to write about the war and none of them are Indians. Tintin 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read the references before disputing 4 the sake of arguing

I find that the recent edits by User:Anonymous_editor is a very sneaky way of changing what he feels should not be told on this war by marking his changes as minor. There are 2 types of POV, one that explicitly expresses one's viewpoints and the other which tries to stifle information thus destroying the very accuracy of information and in turn resulting in POV. Both are not welcome and a look at the editing history would reveal I've reverted the excessive Indian POV content added by a anon editor (not "Anonymous editor"). Similarly any removal of facts that are based on neutral observations should stay. Eg. the statement The morale of its forces after initial euphoria was badly damaged as many units of the NLI were destroyed while many of the dead were never brought home and worse still not acknowledged. was taken from the source. It has been backed up not only by people in the middle ground but also by some pakistani sources.

Unfortunately as I see it, some who wish to edit this article have not even taken the time to go through the list of sources and external links and jump to produce a pro-islamic view. All because the article has facts on the defeat of Pakistan. Removing POV is one thing, but removing facts is an entirely another matter. Idleguy 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All my changes were minor. There are a lot of them but they are still minor. They are not sneaky at all either. Many were spelling corrections, removing of a link that does not refer to the war, grammar corrections and some NPOVing. Saying that I am sneaky shows that you have a bias to begin with. Secondly, please cite some of these Pakistani sources that say that the morale of its forces after initial euphoria was badly damaged. Also give the exact source that implies Few nations believed the Pakistani attempt at plausible deniability by linking the incursion to insurgents.

Also religion has nothing to do with this article at all. I for one have not made any edits using a religious perspective. Would you like to tell us where specifically a user has used pro-Islamic religious perspective? Looking through the edit history will show that I have also taken the article away from religious levels and POV. Most of the material I removed was unverifiable information. It is more pro-Hindu views that are being reflected in the article. Looking at the external links that were initially in the article will show that. Don't start pointing fingers at me when you know all I want is to NPOV this article and please answer my questions above. Thanks a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you have requested proof, I'll give it to you. But if you have a hard time comprehending the meaning of the word minor, this discussion might be fruitless. To begin with, a minor edit is one that does not involve deleting significant text of the article. According to Wikipedia, "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text." And almost all the recent edits made by you involved deleting of some lines which you felt should not be told and marking it as a minor edit. I had no issues with copyedit and spellchecking but removing whole lines are not minor. A check into the history page of the article would reveal that you have deleted sentences like the ones below and marked them minor.

The line that u deleted, "The morale of its forces after initial euphoria..." was taken from the sources as I explained in my edit (which I didn't mark as minor, if u notice carefully). It still is amusing that you have not read even one of the sources, so what is the point in spoon feeding you? Still, the source for this comment was from a neutral viewpoint, not a pakistani or an Indian. I clearly stated that this view was backed up Pakistan based ones. There is difference between stating a certain viewpoint (neutral) and someone else agreeing to it. (Pakistani and Indian). I hope you were now able to comprehend the difference between the two. One of the pak authors (Samina Ahmed) that back the drop in moral of the armed forces can be found in [4]

Thirdly, the line "Few nations believed..." does not need any references. This is one of those facts that is derived from what transpired. If most nations did believe in Pakistan's version of the story, then India would have faced major objections at the world stage, including from China which was a close ally of Pak. None of the permanent members of the security council or major nations supported Pakistani stories (The one or two nations that may have sided with Pakistani stories might have included Taliban ruled Afghanistan).

finally i'm not a hindu, so pl. don't make assumptions. I have said some pro-islamic deletions have taken place since I find that you are reluctant to accept facts on similar articles related to muslims/islam etc. In the Pervez Musharraf article you had initally deleted facts related to the general's defeat in a Siachen conflict and evidence of his involvement in kargil. I noticed that you don't even know what happened in 1999, when u deleted statements like "army enlistment swelled in India and celebrities pitched in". If you need proof even for the celebrities pitching in and the surge in patriotism in India, which any third party'd assume as a foregone fact, I'll provide them with photos. [5].

Hope, I've answered ur doubts. Idleguy 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I never called you a hindu. Secondly, none of my edits to Pakistan-related or India-related articles has a religious focus, but many editors try to bring up links to hindu extremist sites and/or religious POV and I am not going to doubt that. Only you have brought this religious issue up now in trying to undermine my edits. My edits to other articles are not related to this. If you think that my edits to religion related articles are "reluctant to accept fact" then that shows that you have a bias against Islam to begin with because I am mostly reverting vandalism or rewording added anti-Islamic POV on those articles and I do the same on certain christianity-related ones (but ofcourse you jumped straight to Islam). Since when is vandalism or POV fact? Once again you fail to cite when I made any religious deletions on this article. Thirdly, you did not source correctly in your edits before. Maybe if you had sourced them initially then there wouldn't be a problem. Lastly, ofcourse the "few nations believed" line needs sources. Just because China or other countries did not speak up is not directly related to this. The deletion of statements such "army enlistment swelled" does not mean I don't have knowledge of the issue, it shows that I don't really sit around watching Indian army enlistment numbers change. Also certain "significant" texts that I deleted were not useful in the article and were just adding POV. I really don't know why you find me trying to make this article neutral and professional unfair. I hope that you will continue to help with this article and I don't think any further discussion on this issue is needed. In time the article will become NPOV, hopefully. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ajay Ahuja

Hello,

I would ask user:Idleguy and others to retain the reference to Ajay Ahuja.

I don't want to list gallantry award heroes, but discuss the controversial issue of his death and how it fueled patriotic sentiments and outrage in India, and produced counter-emotions in Pakistan.Rama's Arrow 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Movies section

Idleguy I disagree about the removal of the movies. "XXX in the arts" is a valid section in many history articles. Also providing some contextual statement to its historical accuracy is perfectly valid. See Medieval film for example. These things are valid and done all over wikipedia and professional encyclopedias. I think an arts section would add value to the article, plus other people in the future may want to add other things in the future, better to give them space, we should not exclude the arts. --Stbalbach 13:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Note, I never removed the section. Infact I always try to add the media section in other articles where appropriate. I merely thought it was subjective here to note that one movie is more accurate than the other. Having seen the first one and finding it accurate enough (if only by bollywood standards) I merely thought that the wording used by anon editor was not correct. I could be wrong though since I've not seen any other movies. Tx Idleguy 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry guess I got lost in what transpired in the edit history, just saw the edit notes and assumed it was removed, should have looked more closely. I'll re-add the additions you had made. --Stbalbach 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has became point of view of Idleguy. I have added to NPOV to discuss this page for neutral point of view. Siddiqui 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That might be your personal opinion, I disagree for one. If your going to put up a NPOV tag up, you have to list factual and actionable reasons. --Stbalbach 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Siddiqui, this article is highly, highly flawed and it does seem that Idleguy has made himself Judge, Jury and executioner.S Seagal 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Nice work!

good article!--Dangerous-Boy 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Truely good work. This one of the most comprehensive and well composed literature on the Kargil War

Excellent work guys!!! Good job, congrats to the entire editorial team .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.196.167 (talk) 09:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This Article presents the Kargil War in the viewpoint of India and not Pakistan

For example, the casualties for Pakistan is shown to be 4000.

That is completely ridicilous. The figure comes from Nawaz Sharif in 2003 who was deposed and living in exile. I highly doubt that he would have presented the number of Pakistani dead in favourable terms since the man who lead the attack was General Pervez Musharraf. The 4000 dead is a completely ridicilous number as there were at the most 800-1500 men manning the hills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercenary2k (talk • contribs) .

You only gave one reason to have a POV, the casuality figure. You may be right, but you didnt provide any source to back up your claim. POV tags are not meant to be expressions of personal opinion, they need to have actionable and factual items that can be addressed, so that yourself or other editors can improve the article to remove the tag. If you had provided a source for a lower casuality figure then I could understand the use of the POV tag. But you have not even tried to edit the article, just went straight for the POV option basd on personal opinion with no sources. --Stbalbach 20:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would Nawaz Sharif present wrong figures and try to disgrace Pakistan? I know that Pakistan had stationed more than 500 troops to guard just Tiger Hill! In just one day, air assualts by IAF Mirage killed more than 150 Pak troops and insurgents in bunkers around the Tiger Hill. In this case 4000 doesn't seem to be a very high figure. Also note that 4000 includes Pakistani troops and insurgents. --Deepak|वार्ता 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll clarify the issue of casualties. Any army operation on the mountains require huge logistics. According to one of the sources listed herein, there were around 5,000 ppl on the hills, including ppl providing this logistics support. And this is from a retired Pakistan Army veteran. Atleast one newspaper (Dawn) has mentioned that thousands of soldiers were sent up there. So there is no rational ground to dispute the numbers/casualties involved in the operation. Idleguy 05:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no actual count. Musharaf claims it to be 357, that might be true, but the rest 3700 would have to be Muslim insurgents. Indian army itself cannot determine who was from the Pak army and who were the Insurgents. As Idleguy just mentioned above, even Pakistani media claimed around 5000 ppl were on the hills, but no one knows how many of them were from the paksitani army. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Numbers

First of all idleguy, there is no definate numbers of pakistani casualties.

relying on a number given by nawaz sharif's is ridicilous

pakistani military people, indian analysts as well as foreign analysts have said that pakistan had 400 men initially and later around 3000 and lost around 1000-1200 men

You are just picking and choosing whatever sources and articles that are pro-Indian and using them to do Pakistan bashing.

I have given you 2 different articles in which it cleary states that Pakistan did not lose 4000 men and it did not have 5000 men in Kargil and yet you continue to repute those facts and rely on Nawaz Sharif's assertion of 4000 pakistani soldiers killed.

Nawaz Sharif was deposed in october 1999. he almost killed pervez musharraf by not letting his plane land. musharraf was the architect of kargil. and you mean to tell me that nawaz sharif in 2003, now deposed, was at one time under a death sentence is going to talk glowingly about the kargil war??

relying on nawaz sharif's claims is ridicilous

and lastly idleguy, this is an international site. which means neither you or me own it.

so u r not in charge of this article. you cannot just write an indian account. this article has to be neutral and has to take both pakistan and indian viewpoints.

First you expect to do some haggling on the casualties, as per your previous talk as if this was an item for sale. Then you come and claim that Nawaz Sharif, RAND Corporation et al are pro-Indian (from which the casualties and strength was sourced respectively). I suggest you do a thorough reading of the sources and notes. Your additions can and will be added where apposite, but in accusing others of POV when sources are provided is not a good way to go about. As mentioned earlier, Pak sources have cited this 5,000 figure mark. Anyone is welcome to edit the article and maybe it is a good idea to understand that while the Indian Government has published an official commision and the count of the number of personnel dead/injured, Pakistan hasn't done the same. Which leaves us only with guesstimates and most would certainly find it more believable if an ex-PM who was incharge during the conflict talks about the figures, than any odd site that makes only assumptions based on limited data. It is time we stopped denying history and facts and move on. Idleguy 10:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. Its useles. You are not going to budge from your viewpoint and I am not gonna budge from mine. I have read many accounts on Kargil but I have never read anywhere that Pakistan lost around 4000 men or it had over 5000 men. It apprears we are at an impass. The only solution to this is, I am gonna write a new article which shows Kargil from a Pakistani perspective as this one is clearly tilted towards an indian perspective. I am not a hawk, i support peace between our two countries but I am gonna expect outlandish lies or exaggarated facts that smear pakistan. Mercenary2k 5:36 AM, 6 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

Maybe you still haven't read the sources. That's why. :) Idleguy 10:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am just reading them right now. But so far, no mention of 4000 pakistani dead or the presence of 5000 men in Kargil. :) Mercenary2k 5:50 AM, 6 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

Just to help you out. [6] from the US's Centre for Contemporary Conflict. Hardly what you can term as biased. It is already in the references, just needs some digging out given the vast amount included in that site alone. Idleguy 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article you are referring to. I read it and it is clearly biased towards India as I can tell from the tone and tempo of it. In any case, I was just reading the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 Article. Thats the kind of article I would like to see. It addresses both sides of the arguments and gives the casualty claims of both sides. That is a neutral article. Not this one. but oh well. I am not gonna get to hung up on this matter. Its been 7 years since the war and both countries are progressing towards peace. Mercenary2k 6:03 AM, 6 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

That article is from the US military's CCC, hardly an Indian viewpoint. If you find that's not a pleasing read, well... nothing much I can add. In the context of neutrality, I have merely pointed that the sources used are neutral. One of your source (storyofpakistan) on the other hand still maintains that it was only the "freedom fighters" involved and talks about casualties being 1,200 on both sides. Given other more reliable and neutral sources, this has proven to be false. And I still say it's much more reasonable and practical to take a former PM's account of casualties than any site.

I've also been extensively involved in editing that 65 war article as well. So you aren't suggesting that I'm somehow biased only for this article? If anything the human casualty claims in the 65 war is pretty much down and dusted i.e. Indian @ 3,000 and Pak @ 3,800. The material casualties are the only problem of dispute in that war. That is quite the reverse here, if only on the Pakistan side since it involved not only the army but also the militants and its much more difficult to gauge the losses in guerilla warfare. Idleguy 11:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Enough :) Mercenary2k 7:11 AM, 6 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

NPOV

This article looks like an article written by an Indian to glorify India.

It has no picutures of Pakistan, or Pakistani soldiers and doesnt present a fair picture of the battle.

It has no detailed background information on why Pakistan mounted this operation.

Articles on wikipedia have to be neutral but this one is certainly not.

Every possible mention of Pakistan has some sort of negativity attached to it and uses very strong words to further lambast pakistan.

This article relies on 3rd rate information for facts for Pakistan such as the off hand comment by Nawas Sharif in 2002 about Pakistani losses in Kargil.

In regards to Sharif, he was overthrown in a coup, locked up in jail under a possible death sentence, then exiled from pakistan.

The man who did all that and planned and carried out the kargil war, was Musharraf. And you really expect me to beleive that Sharif is going to say things which show the Army and Musharraf in a positive light while living in exile?

Relying on Nawas Sharif for Pakistani casualties in Kargil is like believing David Irwing on how many Germans were killed in Dresden.

The casualty numbers are totally wrong. 4000, give me a break. We lost like less than 1000.

This article does not deserve to be a featured article. The only people who supported it are other indians.

Look at the Yom Kippur War article, which is a neutral article on a very heated subject. It balances out both sides, gives a historical prespective and viewpoints on both sides, uses references, quotes and citiations from both Israeli, Arab and other journalists to give a very neutral perspective to the conflict and this enables the reader to make up his/her own mind.

Here, the reader is just basically spoon fed anti-pakistan propoganda.

I guess its up to me then.

I am gonna write a new article about the Kargil War which gives a pakistani perspective to the battle.

Mercenary2k 12:26 AM, 27 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

FYI forking is against the rules and it would be deleted. Your better off editing this article. -- Stbalbach 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a picture on Pakistan (see TIME image), which was removed by another editor but reverted now. If US sources, Pakistani veterans, Pak-based authors along with statements of former Prime Ministers (Sharif and Bhutto) on the events of the war and the casualties are "3rd rate", then nothing more constructive can be added by me. By "We" if you mean only Pak military, probably 1,000 would be correct, however there is the issue of militants who lost more than just 1,000 and I don't understand why you should defend their casualties as well. These militant groups have claimed (as per the sources) to have lost thousands during the conflict.

Interestingly, the Yom Kippur War which Mercenary talks about, uses a lot of Israeli and American sources to a greater extent than this one. As it is well known that US was Israel's closest ally (more closer than US's relationship with Pakistan), there have been allegations in that article's talk page concerning the neutrality since the majority of sources are from pro-Israeli ones. An approximate count would reveal that a significant majority of the sources in that article are Israeli (Rabinovich leads that pack) and pro-Arab sources are in the minority.

On the other hand, this article uses 4 sources from US (Pak's ally) or from unaffected sources (non-asian). 2 are from India and the remaining one is from a Pak general. If Pak govt. had published any commission the count would stand at two. As far as the notes section is concerned, of the 32 numbered ones, only 6-7 are from Indian sources! These stats have now convinced me that Mercenary has not gone through the origin of the sources, either in this war or the israeli war. Idleguy 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the image that was here before showed a demoralized Pakistani soldier while pictures of Indian soldiers are shown with flag waving patriotism. Indian prime minister is giving the victory sign, etc. Thats bias.

Sharif and Bhutto are both unreliable sources. Both were extremely corrupt and both are banned from entering pakistani politics by the army leadership, so I highly doubt they would have anything positive to say about the armed forces.

The Yom Kippur War has a lot of Israeli sources but in the war box, it gives the approximate casualties for both israeli, and arab perspectives. I have read Rabinovich's book and he gives a good account as to the war. Since arabs potray the war as a victory and Israel as a intelligence failure and since Israel militarily won the war, Israeli authors will be much more critical as to how the war progressed with frank criticism, such as Rabinovich's mention of Egyptian sagger missiles which destroyed Israeli armor.

As for this article using American sources. After the nuke test of 1998, USA was no longer our ally. Read the History of the Pakistan Army which I wrote the entire article, in which I give a proper account as to the fickle nature of US-Pak relations. Currently, USA has had a Indian tilt and are going to write pro-indian articles no matter what. Britain is still a country which gives a fair shake to Pakistan. Also on the history of the pakistan army page, I wrote a small paragraph about Kargil but I gave it a neutral account and presented casualty figures from both sides. Thats being neutral.

I agree, the Pakistan government should publish a proper death-toll count as to how many Pakistani backed forces were killed, but that doesnt mean that idle guessing from deposed leaders should be considered to be the truth.

I suggest, you make the warbox casualty figure similar to that of Yom Kippur War page in which the estimates of Arabs and Israel is given.

That will aleviate some problems from this page.

Mercenary2k 5:04 AM, 27 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

You have pretty much made up your mind that the whole world is against Pakistan and anything they say or do is going to be against Pakistani interests. Additionally, anyone (Pakistanis specifically) who speaks the facts is branded a corrupt liar, little realising that a military dictatorship has far lesser credibility than a popular government. Instead of trusting multiple independent as well as pro-Pakistani sources on this contentious subject matter, if one choses to believe solely in vague statements of the very Pakistan general, who has never published any casulaty figures so far and who led his forces in an unsuccessful venture, it would only devalue the meaning of neutrality. Trying to pass judgements like "extremely corrupt" only on erstwhile elected representatives of the people while attempting to show a military ruler under the halo is a bit cheeky IMO.

As for the images of Pakistani soldiers, if you can get an image that is free to use or public domain, please go ahead, until then the TIME magazine photo will have to do. As for the Indian soldiers waving flags and Vajpayee after the elections, those were the facts and has little to do with any "bias" whatsoever. Unfortunately the democracy was toppled in Pakistan soon after and no victory parades were held either so there wouldn't possibly any images of gleeful politicians or army personnel.

All said and done, I'll try to fix the casualties issue. And if it does help, the note on the casualty states that a majority of this death toll on the pakistani side is made up militants as well. And as said before, these separatists have publicly claimed thousands dead in Kargil (see CCC source). Idleguy 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the image that was here before showed a demoralized Pakistani soldier while pictures of Indian soldiers are shown

with flag waving patriotism. Indian prime minister is giving the victory sign, etc. Thats bias.

That is reality. To show otherwise would be bias.

Hello. Re: reliability of former Prime Ministers. I'm a Pakistani-American journalist who has visited Pakistan many times and have family working in the newly burgeoning non-governmentally controlled media in the country. Amongst the journalists I talked to in recent visits (1999-present), journalists at such stations as IndusVision and newspapers such as the Dawn stated quite frankly that there has been the advent of considerable press freedom since Musharraf took power that was not there by any means under the previous elected governments of Bhutto and Sharif. For example, in their reigns non-governmental tv stations were not allowed. Also, the issue of governmental corruption under those regimes (which does continue on many scores under this current one, but which has been improved upon, somewhat on a number of fronts) it was a fact of life for any Pakistani or Pakistani-American visiting the country that there was serious corruption and political violence being waged by all sides. Regarding Sharrif's trustworthiness, I would point out that the way Musharraf came to power, as I recall from various western news reports, was that at one point Sharrif got wind of Musharraf consolidating his power-base in the military and ordered that Musharraf's plane not be allowed to land in an attempt to crash the plane. Musharraf was able to land in Afghan territory, re-entered Pakistan and staged his bloodless coup. So Sharif tried to kill Musharraf. If that is not a sign of his being a bias source on matters relating to Musharraf, what is? Also, the perspective of the Muslim Kashmiri is not accounted for in this article. I know Pakistan is a very very very flawed place. But this article is clearly not taking an objective Pakistani experience into account.--Fawad Siddiqui, Miami, FL

TIME image

According to the image description page "This is the ONLY image available that shows Pakistani involvement in the Kargil War". I have updated the caption to reflect this. Is this true, however? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No Mention Of Flight Lieutenant Nachi Keta On PTV ; Downed IAF PLANES

I have noted the 'media in kargil section' I would like to add that PTV was parading Lieutenant Nachi Keta on telivision after Pakistan successfully smashed his aircraft out of the skies, This was very powerful pyschological weapon as Pakistan were broadcasting images of downed Indian airmen from the confrontation, The PTV coverage of Lieutenant Nachi Keta captured and infront of cameras gave Pakistani forces a psychological edge and a moral boost for its forces in the region.

I will add this very soon, If anyone has anything to further add please do says so but I think this definitely needs to be added to be more balanced and factual and may i add impartial. Also we should add the picture of FL Nachiketa to the article.

As far as I know, it was an engine failure. This is evident even in the interview with the Lt. Maybe on Pakistan side it is stated as being shot down. However, it makes little sense that he survived after as you say "Pakistan successfully smashed his aircraft out of the skies."--Blacksun 19:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Issue - IAF claims it to be an engine failure, PAF claimed to have brought it down. Indian Army/Air Force lead the investigation and found that there was an engine failure, but the investigation can be questioned as Pakistan did not (not allowed) investigate this. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nachiketa Image Added

I have just added a PTV image of downed Indian airforce pilot FL LT Nachiketa who was downed an paraded on Pakistani national news, The media section of this article is highly flawed and I will be looking to add more about the implications of ft lt nachiketa being paraded as a war trophy in Pakistan and also the how Indian media coverage backfired as million of Indians were being demoralized by seeing the coffins of Indian soliders returning from the conflict live on television. The part about Indian coverage of the kargil conflict as being like CNN coverage of the gulf war is completely ludicrious since Indian government was not aware for months Indian territory in the kargil sector had been been lost to insurgents. However I will make any edits taking fellow wikipedians into confidence.

Well their was no conflict while India was unaware of the intrusion. So, I am not sure what you are trying to state. Also, I do not remember hundreds of millions of Indians being demoralized but ok? Anyways it would be useful if you signed your posts. --Blacksun 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, that image is pretty cool but I am fairly certain that it does not meet the copyright criteria of wikipedia. You might want to find another image as this will be deleted by some admin sooner or later. You have to find an image that is in the public domain. --Blacksun 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian propaganda

I suppose now they will say that we also won the Indo-Chinese war. These indians, they think of themselves as some kind of superpowers. Pakistan is not Sikim or Bhuttan. You guys should change your views about Pakistan. Pakistan is now not a country of 1947 and please donot follow the pathetic lies of your media which is "Hindu Oriented". Ask your soldiers how they feel about this war and they will tell you the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.123.171 (talk • contribs)

What exactly are you saying is Indian propagranda? Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers dont usually like wars. India did not *start* this war (this can be backed up by plethora of international sources including pakistani). It did not have a choice but to fight it. If you are implying that the article claims that India had an easy time in the war then you are looking through your own glasses of bias. The article explains in great details the difficulty India had with clearing the infiltration. So anyways, what is your point? -Blacksun 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani Bias Creeping In

The edits of mercenary2k are seeping with a Pakistani bias. To quote the BBC's very short summary of Pakistani history and take the comment: With more than a thousand casualties on both sides To mean that there were basically very close to 1000 casualties on the Pakistani side is POV and the facts are misleading. Do you think Perves Musharraf will want to say that Nawaz Sharif was completely honest in his facts, but then think of why Nawaz Sharif would want to cause his country to lose its influence on the world stage. He was, after all, a leader of a nation and he should have (like most leaders) loved his nation. So why are we undermining the comments of a former leader of Pakistan?? The general view is that India lost a lot less troops than Pakistan and our Air Force was particularly strong in making that happen. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes and before I made these changes, this article was seeping with Indian bias. No offense, you don't own this article. Its a collaboration with multiple viewpoints so that a neutral article can be asertained. You are so quick to accept the casualty estimates from Nawaz Sharif and yet are more reluctant to accept the casualty estimates from the current leader of Pakistan and the man who planned Kargil in the first place. Talk about being a hypocrite. I am sorry that the International casualty estimates, current leader of Pakistan's casualty estimates don't conform to your viewpont. But you have to learn to accept it. You are saying why are we undermining the casualty figures from Nawas Sharif, well lets see, he was deposed by the army, put under a death sentence, then exiled and never again to return to pakistan and he is gonna say nice things about the army and the person who replaced him with. He was probably trying to undermine the current military leadership which has barred him from running in pakistani politics. But you and I are both making guesses at their decision at the casualty figures. Since you don't know what goes on inside the head of Nawaz Sharif and I don't know what goes on inside the head of Musharraf and then its best to put forth both sides of the argument and let the user decide. But remember please, this isn't Bharat-raksha website, where you can claim pakistan lost 10,000 men at Kargil. This is a website where people from all over the world contribute to get a neutral article on different topics. And by the way, you rely heavily on the left wing PPP as sources for many of your outlandish claims. While thats ok, I am also going to add counter arguments to these loaded statments like many soldiers were left for dead, and northern light infantry forces were destroyed, and Kargil was Pakistan's biggest blunder, etc.....

Stay Tuned....

I am almost finished with World War II and I will be getting heavily involved in Pakistani topics.... Mercenary2k April 18, 2006 11:25 PM

I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I just came to read this article very recently and have no view of owning it seeing as I hardly have made a contribution to it (apart from putting it up as a candidate for Selected Article). I suggest both Sharif and Musharraf's figures be stated and as we cannot read people's personalities let the reader decide. Is it absolutely necessary to measure casualties in the box at the start of the article? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read references before adding ""

the sources for many of the figures are reiterated in the references section like the 5,000 figure (of Pakistan strength) and the bodies being refused by Pak etc., still I've added additionals sources for the latter. What if any, the sources HAVE to be read first and then if there is a factual statement missing a source, THEN it has to be tagged as such. Most, if not all, the statements are properly sourced. If anything is truly missing, it can be added. Thanks. Idleguy 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ok good enough. I am surprised that you didn't remove all of my changes from this article. Like stating pakistani and international perspective of kargil casualties. That really surprised me. Mercenary2k 12:49 AM, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

well, I certainly have a problem with the Pakistani estimates section for pakistani casualties. I think it is quite rich to put estimates based on the then prime minister of Pakistan as not part of the Pakistani estimates. --Blacksun 06:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you guys make of this article?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-5-2003_pg7_14

Monday, May 05, 2003 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Indian general praises Pakistani valour at Kargil

From Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: A retired Indian general expressed high praise here last week for the valour of Pakistani fighters in Kargil, singling out for special mention Capt Karnail Sher and Capt Hanifuddin, both of whom fell fighting and posthumously honoured.

Addressing a meeting at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Lt General M Y Bammi, who retired from the Indian army in 1995 and has just published a book on the Kargil conflict – Kargil: the impregnable conquest – said the Pakistani troops had fought bravely. It was a brilliant action militarily, which had taken India by surprise. However, diplomatically and politically it turned out to be disastrous. India, contrary to Pakistani expectations, retaliated with full force and though it suffered heavy casualties, the Indian army took back every single feature captured by Pakistani troops. He said initially Pakistan had pretended that those fighting in Kargil were “mujahideen” but it later admitted that they were regular Pakistani troops, though they had a smattering of others. In any case, all doubts as to the identity of those fighting in Kargil were set at rest when Pakistan announced 92 gallantry awards at the end of the conflict, many of them posthumous.

General Bammi, who was commissioned in a Gurkha regiment, said that while bodies found at Kargil by Indian troops at recaptured positions were almost without exception those of “other ranks” or non-officers, it was ironic that quite a few of the 92 gallantryawards had gone to officers. He put the number of Pakistani dead at Kargil between 597 and 1,000. Eight were taken POWs. However, those figures were estimated ones, he added, as Pakistan had provided no official count so far. India, he said, lost 481 men, while 1,151 of its personnel suffered combat-related wounds. Two men were to this day unaccounted for.

The Indian general said Pakistani artillery fire was effective and inflicted heavy casualties on the Indians. He said there were several explanations of why Pakistan launched the Kargil operation. Did the planners assume that India would not respond? Was it an attempt to internationalise Kashmir? Or was it to gain area? He said incendiary statements of the kind that emanate from former Pakistani generals such as Aslam Beg and Hamid Gul “make us pause and think.” Meanwhile, the insurgency continues and Hindus keep getting targeted. India also worries if Pakistani nuclear assets are fully secure and in safe hands. How good is the control and command structure, it wonders?

General Bammi said there were several conflicting signals from Pakistan, such as a statement by Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan to the effect that the Line of Control should be accepted as the permanent dividing line or the statement by federal information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed saying that the Kashmir issue would be resolved in three years. He emphasised that at no time during the conflict in Kargil did the two countries reach a “nuclear flashpoint.” He said the attack on the Indian parliament was a much graver provocation than Kargil. It was clear now that Pakistan had learnt a lesson from Kargil as the international community had come out against the Pakistani incursion. Pakistan had also realised that there could be no more Kargils, he added.

In answer to a question, Gen Bammi said Kargil was an Indian intelligence failure. Indian intelligence failed to read the signs or identify the activities that were going on since 1997. Indian planners were also misled by the Lahore visit of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. He said the Kargil Plan of the Pakistan army was a very good one, but it was not new. It dated back to 1987. He added that former Pakistan army chief Gen Jehangir Karamat on a visit to New Delhi had told him that it was not his plan, nor had he ever discussed it with Benazir Bhutto.

Asked if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been “taken for a ride” by the army, Gen. Bammi referred to a statement made by Gen Pervez Musharraf in September 1999 claiming that “everyone was on board” on Kargil. He said Sharif might have been informed but not given “the complete picture.”

Mercenary2k 1:55 PM, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are 1.09 Billion people in India and believe me quite a few of them are retards. This general is one of them. --Spartian 17:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. So you are not going to beleive this Indian General's claims, then why should I beleive the claims of Nawas Sharif and the PPP. Don't you think that I have a valid argument against the casualty claims that have been posted here. This General claims that only 500-1000 Pakistanis died in Kargil. Yet, you don't beleive him. Thats fine. But If I don't beleive the claims made by Nawaz Sharif and PPP about Pakistani casualties in Kargil, then why are those numbers still posted here? Please Explain. --Mercenary2k 3:25PM April 19, 2006 (UTC)

First of all your case would be better suited if you find another newspaper running this story - prefferably neutral source. Secondly, I think that the casualty estimates for Pakistani side can be merely stated as between a range of 600 to 4000 according to various conflicting sources. Thirdly, I personally think that the then prime minister of Pakistan is a better source for casualties than an Indian general. However, Indian general is still a credible enough source worth mentioning. --Blacksun 06:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A) Your source would be happy to sieze such talk would it not? B) I wonder how this 1995-retiree suddenly got such accurate figures on the casualties. C) I think some people need to know that India won the war and deserved to win the war. D) Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's leader during the war is way more credible than a retired Gurkha soldier who didn't fight in the war. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But as this article states Nawaz Sharif was kept out of the loop. Then how can he make a proper account of many Pakistani soldiers died in the war?? --Mercenary2k 7:54AM April 20, 2006 (UTC)

He was the Prime Minister of the country at that time. Being the head of state, the military should have informed him about every single bullet fired in Kashmir; which apparently it didn't. Reason: the military can take an action without consulting the PM but the military cannot turn down a direct order from the PM. I am sure after Nawaz came out to know about his military's endeavours in Kargil, he would have asked for a full detail of the conflict which the military couldn't turn down. --Spartian 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And a very interesting observation by Nobleseagle. Didn't this general retire in 1995? How can a general who retired from the army in 1995 come up with such figures about a war which took place in 1999? Hmm... beats me. --Spartian 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, lets see. Since he works for a Research Institute. I am sure he has sources high up the Indian high command or friends and colleagues who still work there. They can easily inform him of all the latest developments. --Mercenary2k 7:25PM, 20 April 2006

I have no problems in adding him as another source to support the range of casualties. However, it would be far better if you can find a non-pakistani newspaper running this story. I have seen some pretty bad summaries/reporting by this particular newspaper in the past. However, even if you cannot find that it will be ok. Just highly recommended. You also need to address my concerns (previous topic) regarding your changes - I do not agree with not including Sharif's estimate as part of Pakistan estimates. A good compromise would be to keep a general range (600-4000) followed by various sources for each of the conflicting sources and not break it down. --Blacksun 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Research Institute... thats news. Look, this retired general is a jobless man and wants to make some quick bucks by selling an unverified story. Also, we can't consider his figures credible unless he mentions his sources in the Indian high command. And look at the way he talks about Pakistani bravery.. as if he was there in Kargil fighting against them. I think its pretty obvious this man is making up stories to generate public (or rather Pakistani) interest in his book. --Spartian 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has read this news story previously while editing this article, I would like to clarify a few things. We are not here to figure out how many people actually died in the conflict for we are not a fact finding organization. As an encyclopedia our duty is to merely report the facts and where suitable provide well referenced insights to enhance the article clarity. In that sense quoting well known figures like ex-PM Nawaz Sharif warrants merit and so does the quoting of PPP figures on the conflict as well as the official Indian count on its casualties. On the Pakistani side NO official count has been made and this does lead to confusion, but it is not reason to indulge in wild speculation. Any number of retired generals can make X number of estimates that vary wildly, but if all of them were to be included here then it wouldn't make any sense. Instead, including the Chief of Army staff's statements (both Pervez Musharraf and VP Malik) and official versions would be the right way I feel, at least when assessing the casualties figure. After all the most important characters who were involved in the war should carry more importance than armchair experts. Idleguy 04:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't change the article based on what people unrelated to the war say. I'm Nobleeagle, Wikipedia Member and I know that Pakistan fought very bravely but I must say the Pakistani casualties for 4131 while the Indian casualties were 567. Are you going to believe me? Is my OR going to be included in the article? I think not. So why include sources that are not reputable. As Spartian said, this guy is a retiree trying to make big bucks with the Pakistani public, Indians know that India fought bravely in the war (and LOC Kargil, Lakshya etc. took the honours in revealing this to the public) but Pakistani people still don't have as much media on their side of the war, this guy probably got told to do this by his financial advisor. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a rubbish analogy. He was at one time a general in the Indian army that gives him lot more access than you do and also credibility. Furthermore, he has written a book on the topic and you have not. Finally, he stated this fact at a conference to which he was invited and you were not. Seriously, their is no valid argument against adding him as a source - especially since his figures are supported by other sources too. Also, your comment on his intention (big bucks with Pakistani public) is pretty narrowminded and at best, silly. He made this comments while at a conference in washington and a pakistani newspaper picked it up. --Blacksun 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say your comment above is more silly and childish than nobleealgle's. "He stated this fact".. ok here it goes.. he retired in 1995 dude. If he really has contacts in the Indian high command then he should mention them. Since he hasn't, we can't consider him a credible source. How can a general who retired before the Kargil War know so much about it and can refute the Indian Army? Just keep this bullcrap out please. Only Pakistani media (and Pakistanis) can fall in for such crap. If he had commanded a segment of the army, then I would take his opinions seriously; but the fact that he didn't.... I think this discussion is over now.. as there is no point spending more time and energy on this general. --Spartian 00:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And you say "his sources are supported by other sources too". So may I know these sources. Now don't give me Pakistani sources. --Spartian 00:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Indian general said Pakistani artillery fire was effective and inflicted heavy casualties on the Indians." I just don't know how can this general make this comment. He is just trying to attract public attention, which he very well has. --Spartian 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Given his credentials, he is a good enough source for wikipedia. A retired general can still be an expert on such affairs (1995 and 1999 are not that far apart) and able to create citable work. Your opinions on him or his beliefs or his intentions are irrelevant. I may be "childish" but you do not even realize that you are insulting someone who has given 37 years of his life serving the nation at the highest caliber. I am sorry but I will pick a real warrior over a board warrior anyday. Toodles --Blacksun 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He can still be an expert, I don't disagree with that. Also, his figures of pakistani casualties anywhere between 500-1000 agree with most of the figures given by Indian generals (who took part in Kargil, that is). But publishing him as a source on Pakistani casualties is like Jimmy Carter giving the State of Union Address for 2005 just because he was the president of USA at one point in time. Unless he doesn't mention his sources in the high command, his figures can't be considered credible. And one last thing.. there are numerous people who have given their entire life for this country.. this general only gave 37 years. Too sad that an Indian general talks about Pakistani bravery but can't mention Indian heroics during the battle. Just for your information.. have you heard of Captain Anuj Nayyar? he was my cousin. --Spartian 15:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cmon, do you really think that he does not think good for the institution he spent most of his life working for? Obviously, Pakistani newspaper is not going to run those things. Their might be some bad summarization going on too in that article. That is why I originally asked for trying to find a non pakistani newspaper that ran that story. However, yes he can still be used as a source. You seem to have a strange understanding of what a source can be. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that you felt the need to spew venom about another veteran when you have family members in the army too. I have given more than enough backing in my other post as to why him and his book can be considered as a source for kargil war related material. BTW, his was one of the first books that claimed that most of infiltirators that were involved were Pakistani soldiers. --Blacksun 16:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly let's not go into the family members topic, It'll only make reaching a conclusion worse. Many Indians suffered heartache during the war, that cannot be disputed by anyone. But the point I was going to make is how about we use excerpts from the book only as a source for this. Not comments from a Pakistani newspaper, perhaps it is possible that we are hearing a mixture of the views of Khalid Hasan and General Bammi. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The bit about comparing myself with a general was not meant to be serious Blacksun, please treat it as such as opposed to calling me silly. The fact that he wrote a book means nothing, there would be many people that were actually involved in the war that may tell a different side of the story, furthermore these people are more credible, the fact that he's published something doesn't make him more credible than any other 1995-retiree-General or 1999-War-veteran. Movies like LOC Kargil were made using the help of veterans of the war in order to work out the details. Should we consider them strong and credible sources when we know that they are significantly glorifying the Indian effort in the war? I think not. And have a look at what this general has done, he has created a sense of pride amongst the Pakistani people and the Pakistani newspapers seized on his comments as a way to do this. Now don't you think this'll make Pakistani people read his book? Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You compared him with yourself to undermine his credibility. And no writing a book is not a little thing. What makes it a little thing? A book on a war by a high ranking officer is not insignificant by any shot. Furthermore, his book would not have been listed for sale at Bharat Rakshak bookstore with this description -"The author has handled the subject of the Kargil war with the sensitivity and insight of an experienced higher commander."- had it been some silly book. Also, it would not have been called an authorative military account here. That he retired in 1995 doesnt make him uncredible in any way. Just because someone retires does not mean they are out of loop and are incapable of performing citable research (refer to his profile at the bottom). Furthermore, he was invited to talk at a fairly prestigious institution on strategic affairs. Again, a sign of credibility MORE THAN good enough for wikipedia. So ya, he is a credible source to include as one of the sources for the conflicting estimate. You are welcome to add more sources that back the 4000 figure if you like. Just because his estimates do not agree with yours does not make him insignificant. And yes, your insinuation was silly and amusing because you ahve not even read his book. He could have written the entire book about how Pakistan lost the war etc. etc. but you are willing to damn a retired soldier based on him stating a casualty figure that you do not agree with (and are apparently afraid that it will give great pride to the citizens of Pakistan). Ya, you are right - silly is not the correct term here - I should use words like shameful. Finally, the nature of the war makes the number of casualties not mean a whole lot. I would not feel proud about the kargil war if I were a pakistani whether my nation lost 500 or 5000 troops. Regards --Blacksun 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A description of Y.M. Bammi:

"During his 37 years of distinguished military service in the Indian army, General Bammi played an active role in counter insurgency operations, the 1962 India-China war, and the 1971 India-Pakistan war in East Pakistan which led to the establishment of Bangladesh. He commanded an infantry battalion on the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, an independent infantry brigade, a mountain division, and a strike corps. Bammi retired as the Director General of Assam Rifles-India's oldest paramilitary force guarding the North East frontier. He served as instructor with the Royal Bhutan Army from 1963-1965 and was India's defense advisor in Malaysia and Singapore from 1977-1980. He has traveled extensively, including to the USSR, Germany, the U.K., France, Thailand, Nepal, and Japan.

In addition to contributing articles on various security subjects, including the Pakistan army, Gen. Bammi recently completed a research thesis on South East Asia. His first book, Kargil 1999: The Impregnable Conquered was released by Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, MC, in October 2002, and is currently under reprint. An active member of the Indian Institute of Strategic Studies, he is a visiting lecturer at the Indian Institute of Advance Studies, the Infantry School at Mhow, College of Land and Air Warfare, and the Indian National Police Academy. He is a research fellow at the United Services Institution of India and a member of the Gorkha Rifles foundation in the United Kingdom.

General Bammi is a graduate of the Defense Services Staff College, Higher Commanders Course and Senior Defense Management Course, and has a master's degree in Military Science." I am sorry but this is not INSIGNIFICANT by any metric. Case closed. If you really take offense at this quote then only thing you can do is make sure that the pakistani newspaper is not doing false reporting. Regards --Blacksun 06:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say "thank-you for elaborating, you have me convinced" . But I don't feel like thanking someone who would call me silly and shameful as opposed to explaining that I may not know all the facts. A bit of anger management when on the internet may be required for you Blacksun. I hate ignorant people too, but my methods of dealing with them are somewhat different. My comments on the casualties issue can be seen below. Regards :-) Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, its fine what you think of me. Just in future dont jump to conclusions. A retired soldier demands more respect from us than that. Regards. --Blacksun 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualties Issue

Is it really required for us to display the casualties in the war info box at the top of the page? I suggest we create a section under Consequences detailing the Casualties Controversy. Where we can state Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Mussharraf, the Indian government or retired generals as long as we can believe their credibility to some extent. The bit about Sharif and Musharraf may make for some good reading too and the section could be to some extent well built. I don't feel like radically changing a featured article so I await those who have worked here a long time to post their views on such a section. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is the standard template for war articles. Currently the changes made to the Pakistani casualties by merc. are inaccurate as they try to put Sharif's estimates separate from Pakistani estimates. I am waiting for him to respond. --Blacksun 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps most Pakistanis don't consider Sharif as another proud Pakistani. It's a matter of judgement and I'm sure the debate on Sharif's credibility will keep on sprouting up by other Pakistani Wikipedians apart from Mercenary2k. Either we repeatedly revert this seperation, which would lead to huge debates and arguments with the Pakistani users who don't trust Sharif, or we incorporate their views. Not all wars are the same, so the template can be slightly changed in order to allow for a more informative read, that is, after all, the aim of Wikipedia is it not?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I dont think we should make changes based on what might please a certain mass of people. Goal should be to remain accurate. Sharif's estimates should be presented in a tone that does not make it seem like it is the authority figure along with conflicting estiamtes by others. That is enough. --Blacksun 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

From the comments I have read in regards to the whole casualty issue. From what I gather, you are willing to beleive Nawaz Sharif becuase he has stated that Pakistan lost +4000 plus troops in Kargil which gives a smile to many Indian wikipedians because of Pakistan's huge loss. Then there is an Indian General, and from the research done by Blacksun, highly credilbe and decorated, he makes the assertion that Pakistani forces fought bravely and they lost between 500-1000 men and yet many Indian wikipedians call him a nutcase and a retard. Nawaz Sharif's number was denoucned by Pervez Musharraf who commanded the mission in Kargil. Why is Nawaz Sharif's casualty number being accepted as the absolute truth without any scrutiny and anyone who has numbers favourable to Pakistan is immediately denounced. There is a lot of hypocracy here. If you are not going to accept the casualty figures given by this Indian General then I am not going to accept the casualty figures by Nawaz Sharif. To most Pakistanis he is a traitor and I will not have a traitor's casuality figure installed as the official figure. I did post the BBC casuality figures and this Indian General and even casualty figures by GlobalSecurity. Also, this article is not written for Bhahart-Raksha or any other Indian Military site. Its written on wikipedia and the only reason that this article became a featured article is because all the Indian wikipedians supported it without caring so much to check the accuracy of the casualty figures or the way this article presents Pakistan. This article does not deserve to be a featured article. There needs to be a way to fix the Casuality issue. I am not nor are the Pakistani people going to accept the lies spewed by Nawaz Sharif as the official truth. --Mercenary2k 4:00AM April 27, 2006

Exactly my point. It seems that the Pakistani people hate Sharif, thus my opinion on creating a section called Casualties Controversy or something similar. If you do not agree with this proposition Mercenary2k, this I ask you to come up with another proposition that we can all agree on. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind it all. I think its the best way to resolve this issue. Lay out all the viewpoints from all sources and let the reader decide. In the War Box, we can put "Disputed and see Casualty Controversy section below" or something. Ya having a section which explains the casualty is the best way to go about this. --Mercenary2k 2:10PM April 27, 2006

I don't have much time now, but most of the points mentioned here are worth noting. Instead of providing indian, pakistani and neutral estimates in the warbox, we'll just sum up the range number of the fatalities, i.e. 800-4000 and provide a detail explanation in the already existing casualties paragraph in the notes section. As a note to Mercenary, I find it ironical that on the one hand, you denounce all your democratically elected Prime Ministers (Sharif and Ms Bhutto) of the past who came up with numbers on the issue as traitors. If you would have read into Musharraf's speech nowhere does he spell out the exact numbers, nor has the Pak govt. ever mentioned official casualties unlike the Indian Govt. So please, there is no need to get excited over this and like I mentioned previously, the offical count is of prime importance and statements from the leaders or ex-premiers of a nation takes precedence over ex-Generals, but it should still be included nonetheless.

And just because you do not wish to read up the sources or face the facts, it is in noway an excuse to denounce the article as being biased. Please provide any controversial statements or figures which have not been referenced properly instead of just trying to accuse the editors. --Idleguy 04:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nawaz Sharif has as much credibility with the average Pakistani as Manuel Noreiga, Ferdinand Marcos, or Nguyen Van Thieu. The casuality figures from leaders may take presedence over generals if they were in the loop when the operation took place, are in power or have stepped down from power. But since Nawaz Sharif was not completely in the loop, deposed in a coup, sentenced to death, and then exiled by the man who planned Kargil in the first place. These factors negate your rationale. Furthermore, in refernce to this article. There are many Indian pictures from flag waving and victory signs but no pictures of Pakistani soliders or the wreckages of Indian planes shot down by Pakistan. Every mention of Pakistan has some sort of negativity attached to it. And those references that show Pakistan in a negative light are mostly Indian articles written by Indians. I can understand that when you wrote and edited the article, there weren't many Pakistani wikipedians who citied concerns for you to modify the article and that you beleived that the lack of criticism towards the neutrality of the article meant that the article is written in a neutral way. But as a Pakistani, when I read this article, it just doesnt sound neutral to me. I am not here to rail against India. I just want a neutral article written where both sides can present their argument and facts are layed out and its left up to the reader to decide from the facts given. The casualties are a major bone of contention and have to be addressed. --Mercenary2k 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the references ARE from neutral sources, or from an equal measure from both Pakistani and Indian sources and I've already painstakingly listed that fact here in the talk pages previously. Please don't make baseless comments (again) when it is still clear that you haven't gone through most of the sources fully.

As far not being "in the loop" I think you should not forget historical facts like, who was the Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Kargil war or who went to the US President to initally gain support and later on avoid a further escalation in the conflict. Just because you, or a group of expat Pakistanis find the figures of a democratically elected Prime Minister as being displeasing, doesn't mean he has lost credibility for the purposes of this article. It is pretty much double standards to take the words of a despot at face value while rubbishing a democrat just because you feel the latter's numbers are too high for Pakistan's liking.

As far as the images are concerned, there are 2 images showing Pakistanis and one of them is from Time magazine and I have already said that anyone can add properly tagged images here or anywhere in Wikipedia. You can also add the images on downed Indian planes to the Operation Safed Sagar article which sorely lacks images. Not everything needs to be bundled into the main article.

Finally, please give me the exact statements which seem to have a negative connotation and one that is not properly referenced and I'd be the first to work on a NPOV improvement for it. Please provide specifics instead saying, Oh, this article looks biased since it shows Pakistan in bad light. It only puts you in bad light. Idleguy 05:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Idleguy, by the way, if you have a picture of wrecked Indian planes then please provide it rather than just complaining and not attempting to fix the stuff you're complaining about. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but just because you do not like certain things as a Pakistani does not make it POV. Most of the article can be supported not only by respected Indian and foreign sources but also Pakistani newspapers. If you have any specific arguments then please feel free to bring it up. --Blacksun 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

seems like it's written by indians, the Pakistani side of the article is also written by indians.

--digitalSurgeon 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please specify instances of POV rather than adding the {{POV}} tag. I'm sure we can work together and fix the article of any POV it may contain. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Plausible deniability.

Unaware Shariff

I have added in the "background" that Nawaz Sharif was unaware of the preparation of the intrusion, and it is an urgent phone call from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, his counterpart in India, that informed him about the situation. With inline citation of a newspaper rewport. IMO, it is significant enough to be included in the artilce. Please see if the info befits the location. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I read that in his biography, Sharif says that he was unaware of the moving of nuclear warheads by Musharaff and was made aware by Clinton, who was disturbed with the situation. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Date

According to the second line, the war ended in June, but according to the infobox, it ended in July. I don't know which is correct, could some knowledgeable editor correct it? Thanks, Pruneau plum 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Format

There are multiple cases of refs before punctuation-refs go after punctuation, and wrong wikidate linking--only full dates like October 15, 2005 should be linked.Rlevse 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing the loose ends. I've corrected them. Also note that the standalone years 1947 and 1971 are wikilinked in the article since they are very important years in the context of South Asian history. See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Additionally July 4 is the only date that is wikidate linked since it is important for a South Asian reader to know that Sharif went to the US on their Independence day. Both are relevant to the context and thus rightly so linked. Hope that helps. --Idleguy 02:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthography

I am standardizing it to South Asian.Cameron Nedland 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Temperature

'From the article: "Summers are cool with frigid nights, while winters are long and cold with temperatures often dropping to −40 °C (−1,023 °F). A national highway connecting Srinagar to Leh cuts through Kargil."

Can someone confirm if this is accurate? The article initially said temperatures of -40C (-40F)...-40F sounds more reasonable to me, not -40C. AreJay 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

how do uneducated people such as urself end up editing? -40 C = - 40 F. do some schooling before to start clicking!!!

AreJay, -40C and -40F both are the same. At -40 both scales converge exactly. You can use google to check the different sites that offer F - C conversion and vice versa. --Idleguy 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Nachiketa REMOVED WHY?

Why was the picture of nachiketa removed and the Indian media picture left? Im removing both pictures till someone does a revert or adds the Nachiketa Image back! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.115.245 (talk • contribs) .

Vandalizing the page is not the way to get the picture back - if the history was examined I'm sure someone could find out why the picture was removed exactly and then see if it could be put back in. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Capilot.jpg is the image, and it seems it was removed by a bot as its copyright status is unclear. Cowman109^Talk 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the copyright status of the image, though I can't find a proper spot to place it - I don't think the name of the pilot is mentioned anywhere in the article, so I'm not sure if it would fit the fair use criteria. Cowman109^Talk 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add the image as im planning to make a new page dedicated to Fl Lt Nachiketa, He is an Indian hero and should be on the page, Also it fits in perfectly in the media section because he was a downed pilot captured by pakistan and put on pakistan national television, Indeed Ft Lt Nachiketa was the samiliar face of the kargil standoff. The least we could do is have a picture and article of him, Also thanks for your positive response 'DarkGreen'. :)

• I think the image would fit perfectly in the subarticle Operation Safed Sagar, until an article for Nachiketa comes about, which is specifically about the air war and the pilots. Idleguy 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir, there is already article of Ajay, Ft Lt Nachiketa is wingman who was downed (engine failure/shot down) and captured by pakistan, they also put him on national television so i think there should be a article of nachiketa and the original picture of him here in the media section. We really need to work on this as a team, Im new here but want to help make positive contribution,.

thank you to everyone.

We can't just put up images just because we like someone. And that too when another image exists that portrays the point, the point being the media coverage of the war. The previous Star news - fair use image - does take care of four things in one image: 1.A TV station's screenshot for illustrating the TV media coverage of the war 2.A reporter covering the attacks on the well known Tiger Hill 3.The use of Indian artillery 4.The reporter herself who became famous. nachiketa's image will only seem to add one dimension, i.e. a downed pilot and some Pakistani editors have expressed concern that there is a higher ratio of Indian soldiers/pilots images. So I would be thinking twice before readding it in this article. However, Operation Safed Sagar could use this image. Idleguy 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I seem to have fixed the problem now myself, thanks to 'Dark green' for updating the copyright status. Problem solved.

from OTRS ticket #2006081010015592

Received this e-mail from someone who received this article on the Daily Featured Article list:

> Thanks indeed for the short write up on the Kargil Conflict. It is 
> informative. You may wish to make one correction. Kargil is Not in Kashmir 
> as the write up says. Kargil is in the state of J&K , that is, Jammu and 
> Kashmir. Broadly speaking , it is in the Ladakh region but is a separate 
> district.

I have invited the e-mail's author to edit the article appropriately or discuss the matter here. - jredmond 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the article does specify in the "Location" section that "Kargil is the only district in the Ladakh subdivision" and goes on to add "Kargil is now in what is called Jammu and Kashmir". But for all practical purposes as well as international references and to maintain NPOV the lead para has to mention that Kargil is in Kashmir. Pakistan calls the Indian state of J&K as IOK(Indian Occupied Kashmir) and it would not be wrong to state that Kargil is in Kashmir. Since the entire region has been referred to and in the UN as the kashmir dispute it would not be incorrect to state that Kargil is in what is generally called Kashmir. Idleguy 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nachiketas page

I have started the bio / stub on Kambampati Nachiketa . Pl feel free to add to the article.

IAF Guru 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nachiketa Image Revert War

Idleguy and someothers have for weeks, possibly months been removing the Fl LT Nachiketa image, Idleguy remarks in the history page 'Any further vandalism will be dealt as such. Any fans of Nachiketa have to realise that the image is shown in 2 different articles that deal with him in depth)'

I find that funny since there is also a page for Barkha Dutt, Any fans of Barkha Dutt have to realise that the image is shown in 2 different articles that deal with him in depth.

Also this isnt the nachiketa or Barkha Dutt specific, its the media aspect of it all, Barkha Dutt because of his coverage of the conflict, and Nachiketa for his POW and televised interview, Both have the same pictures in thier respective articles, both deserve a picture in the media section.

Im re-adding the nachiketa image and leaving the Barkha Dutt image also.

Any further removals of either pictures (Barkha Dutt, or Nachiketa) will be considered vandalism and the respective vandals will be dealt with by wiki.

Thanks

In case you didn't notice, the section is basically about media coverage of the war. The image that contained Barkha Dutt shows various aspects of the war including the weapons, the TV channel logo and the presenter. Nachiketa's image, while useful, doesn't exactly fit the media coverage part (it covers 1 soldier not the war, there is a subtle difference) and the image has a doubtful status too, since it most likely isn't a screenshot as the star news image. If it were a real screenshot then there would have been the PTV logo and the image wouldn't be so crystal clear. And Barkha Dutt isn't a guy, so don't call her a "him". :-) I'm letting it stay for now but I'll get other editors' opinion on this image. --Idleguy 06:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Idgleguy thoes comments are compeletly POV, and in the interests of fairness both aspects of the conflict should be covered, I dont know why Indians are so ashamed of Nachiketa that they keep removing his image, wasnt he awarded a medal for gallantry?

Well it seems 'someone' has removed the image yet again, Like I said Barkha Dutt article contains the same picture that is also on this article, it shows Barkha Dutt in two places one on the Barkha Dutt page and once here, same image each time. Nachiketa image SHOULD be here but someone keeps removing it despite it was already in the article, and there is also the same picture in his specific article.

Im re-adding the nachiketa image and leaving the dutt also, I ask of admins to lock the thread with both the nachiketa image and the Barkha Dutt image until this issue can be resolved amicably without a revert war.

86.131.118.145 07:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)man of peace

I've heard of articles being POV but this is the first time i'm hearing words like a person's comments being POV. So are you going to tag this talk page as "{{NPOV}}"? Lol. That "someone" was a bot. Please go and and request a semiprotection if you want because the issue with that image is more about its license. I've tried to explain that but you don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies on images. Idleguy 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats the big deal about Nachiketas image anyway

Its really no big deal guys - if we want to balance things lets put up an image of Nk Inayat Ali from DD :P

iafguru 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Casuality Estimates

To Mercenary2K - you have been adding the reference from the Bharat rakshak site in the indian estimates section. may i point you that other report of 1042 casualities is more recent and more current than the old article by General malik? Stop reverting the edits. If you want to include the bharat rakshak link, then add it below the existing link. "Estimates" is plural and there can be more than one estimate. The reader can make his own judgement on this. but do not DELETE existing references. jaiiaf 14:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why the statements of nawaz sharif and bhutto are written as pakistani estimates where as they dont even represent pakistan and where as musharraf's statement on casualties is ommitted? Not even India claims that Pakistan lost over 4,000 men then how can we take what nawaz or bhutto saying seriously? I think this is just another case in which what ever looks bad for pakistan is accepted as fact. Mercenary2k 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the casualty box is primarily about numbers. Sharif and Bhutto have quoted a specific number and therefore they merit inclusion, despite your claim that "they dont even represent pakistan" forgetting that they were former elected PMs, twice over. Musharraf's statement is a vague rejoinder at best and so far he has never stated any figures. Despite this his statement is already present in the article under "Pakistan" sub-section.

Regarding "what ever looks bad for pakistan is accepted as fact." the reverse can also be true. if it looks good for Pakistan should it be accepted as fact? Especially when Musharraf's accounts of the Kargil war have largely been rubbished by Pakistani and neutral observers? One can expect some half truths from leaders but Musharraf has repeatedly contradicted himself and the rest of the world, despite evidence to the contrary. Musharraf's recent book seems (the reviews from Pakistan and neutral parties especially[7]) to be a work of semi-fiction being sold under the guise of a memoir. Ayaz Amir calls the book "In the line of Embarrassment" and adds "Kargil of course figures but as victory not defeat."[8] Another example of how Musharraf has used vague phrases to describe details of his "stroke of genius" (as he calls the war) is when he mentions five units of Pakistan army aided by mujahideen tied down Indian Army. Exactly which military unit was he referring to? A batallion, regiment or brigade? Even a patrol/section or platoon is a military unit. Being a military man he should have known better than to use such vague terms. But it is the norm considering that's how Musharraf phrases his casualty estimates with "less than India" being just an example. Does it mean less than india per indian estimates or according to pakistani estimates or his own estimates. Let numbers be told and it can and should be added to the infobox, else it can only be accomodated in the article. Thanks. Idleguy 05:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, where is the proof to back up Nawaz Sharif or Bhutto's numbers?...If India has not incorporated these figures in their official casualty caluclations then its most likely BS and as such does not belong here. Mercenary2k 20:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Let numbers be stated by Mush and it'll be added here irrespective of whether his numbers - like Sharif et al - have proof. Idleguy 05:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And have these numbers that sharif just stated out of the thin air been backed up any foreign military analysis or think tanks. If India thinks that around 1,000 pakistanis died in Kargil then how can the word of Sharif been taken seriously. He just said that to discredit Musharraf and as such does not represent the pakistani position nor has he any authority to rely pakistani casualties and as such has no place on wikipedia for such nonsense. Mercenary2k 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, an official policy on Wikipedia which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As it is now, musharraf's, nawaz's and bhutto's statements on casualties are all in the article. The infobox is for actual casualty numbers not statements. Once Mushy makes a concrete number no matter how low or absurd, it should be included in the infobox. I think you still are yet to understand that basic issue and making a mountain of a molehill. Idleguy 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:V and that does not mean that any BS from overthrown politicans can be put as the figures of Pakistan. Quoting Nawaz Sharif is as absurd as quoting Idi Amin. Until and unless there are some substantative numbers on pakistani casualties, ridicilous BS from Nawaz cannot be accepted. Whether u like it or not. Mercenary2k 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually Idi Amin should be compared with Musharraf since both fall under the dictator category who came to power via a coup. Just because you hate policiticians and call their estimates BS and keep blanking the article to prove your point doesn't make it so. Overthrown politicians or not, the estimates are verifiable and that is all that matters. If anything the sole Pakistani estimate of the casualty section still believes that "India has convinced Washington and London, that Pakistan Army had intruded into Kargil mountain tops, which are within Indian territory. Pakistan has failed to disprove and controvert Indian lies." The article, laughably so, still tries to 'con'-vince that it was only the mujahideen in Kargil despite Musharraf's recent admission that Pak Army was involved. Either he has written the article uninformed about the army's involvement or he wants to cover it up using the feeble excuse of kashmiris, a theory now rubbished by anyone worth his salt. By your own double standards, this flawed defencejournal article that is used as the sole source for Pakistani Estimate on indian casualties must be the one among the chopping line for BS. But of course you have consistently shown you love the military and its generals and believe their word to be the truth, so you'd never do that. Your statements that overthrown politicians should not be quoted because you don't fancy them is ludicrous and against Wikipedia official policy which you still haven't fully read. I guess Adolf Hitler or Mussolini in power are more trustworthy in your opinion just because they wield power and propaganda. Whatever the reason, keep off your personal likes and dislikes from Wikipedia. Any further blanking is only likely to be reported. Idleguy 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure whether you can regard Musharraf's book as a good neutral source anywhere on Wikipedia. I read this website which lists 50 major lies in the book. He even claims that Pakistan had the upper hand in the Kargil War! In any case, Mercenary, don't you think it looks pretty lame to have all these exact figures accompanied by Musharraf's "less than India", one can't go by that in any page, especially relative figures, what if Musharraf thought India lost 20 men, what if he thought India lost 2000, Musharraf's opinion has so often conflicted with neutral sources that we can't exactly quote him as a truthful source. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

having seen the earlier discussion on Casuality issues - I think its is time to start a "Controversy over Pakistans Reluctance to disclose Casualities in Kargil" section. There different links that give both the Pakistani POV, Indian POV and the Exiled Pakistani POV can be given and analysed. jaiiaf 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor Change Made

I have just made a small change to the "war box" namely I have changed the result from 'India re-gains Kargil' to Status quo ante bellum.

Status quo ante bellum simply means that things went back to normal the way they were before the fighting, and is a more official Latin term.

Thanks

S Seagal 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Double standards on casualty figures

Mercenary2k has consistently denounced Shariff and Bhutto's pakistani casualty estimates as BS on the high side, but it is quite surprising that he now wants everyone to believe the low figure by Musharraf as the only authoritative number on Pakistan casualties, without realising that it could equally be termed as BS on the low side by someone not sharing his POV. To use a memoir as source for the state's estimate on casualties just because the present head of the state wrote it is unacceptable anywhere. Unlike an autobiography or biography which are atleast partially backed by sources and double checked for most of the facts, memoirs are anything but a factual representation. I quote WP:RS "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution." A figure added in the last minute to a hindi version of a person's memoirs (which has been rubbished by many in Pak itself) hardly qualifies as an official figure by the state. There has not even been any commission then where is the question of official casualty list by Pakistan?

Another example of the double standard is when he states in the edit summary "if the current head of pakistan, army and the person incharge during kargil says that 357 pakistanis were killed then thats the official position" It is akin to Louis XIV's claim "I am the state" in that Musharraf is the state just because he is the head of the state according to what Mercenary2k has tried to reason. By the same reasoning, Sharif's estimates are equally, if not more official, since he was the elected head of pakistan and the person who was actually incharge of the govt. and the withdrawal during kargil war. I believe Mercenary is taking this too personally regarding the casualty figures instead of letting estimates from the main actors stand. Idleguy 06:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercenary2k has consistently denounced Shariff and Bhutto's pakistani casualty estimates as BS on the high side, but it is quite surprising that he now wants everyone to believe the low figure by Musharraf as the only authoritative number on Pakistan casualties, without realising that it could equally be termed as BS on the low side by someone not sharing his POV.

The reason I have denounced Sharif and Bhutto's claim as non-sense.

1.)They are not in power and both are banned from coming back to Pakistan, and so obviously they are going to give bloated figures of casualties to slime the current head of Pakistan who was in charge of Kargil.

2.)Their casualty claims are almost 3 to 4 times higher than any international, indian estimate out there.

3.)They are univerally hated in Pakistan and as such cannot represnet opinion of Pakistan.

As for Musharraf, he has finally released casualty numbers in Kargil. He was the person in charge in Kargil, he is current head of Pakistan, he is the head of the Army. So his statement is then the official pakistani position. It doesnt matter what numbers Musharraf has given, whether its 30 or its 300 or its even 3000. Where these numbers are going are Official Pakistani Position. There is another section which gives India's numbers on Pakistani Casualties.

To use a memoir as source for the state's estimate on casualties just because the present head of the state wrote it is unacceptable anywhere. Unlike an autobiography or biography which are atleast partially backed by sources and double checked for most of the facts, memoirs are anything but a factual representation.

Again your logic fails you. It doesnt matter how or where Musharraf gave numbers on Pakistani casualties. Whether it was a passing remark, or a speech, or in his memoir. The fact of the matter is that he gave out concrete numbers. Since he is in a unique postion of being incharge of Pakistan, head of Army and the man who conducted the operation in Kargil, he is the utmost authority on the number of casualties that Pakistan suffered in Kargil.

I quote WP:RS "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution."

Thats fine. Thats why there is a section in the casualty box which shows Indian estimates on Pakistani losses. What Musharraf has stated is pakistan's perspective on losses suffered in Kargil.

A figure added in the last minute to a hindi version of a person's memoirs (which has been rubbished by many in Pak itself) hardly qualifies as an official figure by the state. There has not even been any commission then where is the question of official casualty list by Pakistan?

Again it doesnt matter how the figure was published. The fact of the matter is that it was published. And just for your information, that Nawaz Sharif bloated casualty claim had been the official pakistani position until I came and challenged it.

Another example of the double standard is when he states in the edit summary "if the current head of pakistan, army and the person incharge during kargil says that 357 pakistanis were killed then thats the official position" It is akin to Louis XIV's claim "I am the state" in that Musharraf is the state just because he is the head of the state according to what Mercenary2k has tried to reason.

No its more like Napolean saying how many men he lost at the Battle of Austerlitz

By the same reasoning, Sharif's estimates are equally, if not more official, since he was the elected head of pakistan and the person who was actually incharge of the govt. and the withdrawal during kargil war. I believe Mercenary is taking this too personally regarding the casualty figures instead of letting estimates from the main actors stand.

Since Sharif was out of the loop when Kargil occured. Sharif was not militarily in charge of Kargil. Sharif was exiled and overthrown in a coup when he made that remark and did not have the facts or the figures to back up such a claim, its common sense that such a remark cannot be taken seriously. I am indeed taking this issue seriously because Kargil War is a featured Article. If it was not a featured article, I wouldn't care. But how can this article be considered among the best work done by wikipedians when its so blatently biased against Pakistan. Mercenary2k 07:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you have taken this too personally and nothing in the official policy of Wikipedia seems to make any sense in your edits or in your talk, I believe. Being an expat yourself, it is funny that you should make sweeping statements on behalf of all the Pakistanis about their hatred for ex-PMs. Your love for dictators doesn't necessarily mean everyone loves the dictator. The fact that Musharraf has been widely criticized in his memoirs is ignored including the fact that no one makes such a low estimate as musharraf has. Even US Dept of state made an early partial estimate nearly twice as Mushy's. But that doesn't seem to fit in your plan of things and deny - like most pakistanis - anything that is too much to bear. You have still to realise that a memoir (historically flawed at that) isn't a state document and continue to argue based on that misconception. You still have problems differenciating the state from the head of the state despite the example I gave you. While my edits aim to incorporate figures from all the three major guns of Pakistan you seem to have a blinkers on approach when it comes to casualty figures.

As far as I can see you just hate the figure given by ex-PMs. Merely hating the numbers and deleting it because you dislike them isn't the way it works. Maybe it works in Pakistan but not in here. Keep your personal hatred for politicians out of the editing process. Months on end you have cribbed about so called bias, but to this day you haven't provided a single statemenet or figure that isn't taken from reliable sources. It only shows that you are here more to complain than to really help. Idleguy 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Idleguy. Musharraf said India had twice the number of casualties that they announced (ie. 1000) while Pakistan had 100-odd casualties and lost an additional 200 while they were on the retreat after the ceasefire. He also claims that Pakistan had the upper hand throughout Kargil. Didn't India win? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C]

Like I said, you have taken this too personally and nothing in the official policy of Wikipedia seems to make any sense in your edits or in your talk, I believe. Being an expat yourself, it is funny that you should make sweeping statements on behalf of all the Pakistanis about their hatred for ex-PMs.

Maybe you should pay attention to Gallup polls conducted in Pakistan where the popularity of the former ex-prime minister is gauged and instead of these typical broad charges that you seem to make without backing them up with proper facts.

Your love for dictators doesn't necessarily mean everyone loves the dictator. The fact that Musharraf has been widely criticized in his memoirs is ignored including the fact that no one makes such a low estimate as musharraf has.

Doesnt matter if Musharraf has been widely criticized. He is the president of pakistan, the head of the army, and the person in charge during Kargil and as such his statements in Kargil are the official pakistani position on the matter.

Even US Dept of state made an early partial estimate nearly twice as Mushy's. But that doesn't seem to fit in your plan of things and deny - like most pakistanis - anything that is too much to bear. You have still to realise that a memoir (historically flawed at that) isn't a state document and continue to argue based on that misconception.

Again it doesnt matter what the US State Department has said or hasn't said. These different viewpoints can be discussed in the article but not in the casualty box. You are nit picking on these minor technacilites of a memoir which just shows to me how weak your argument is. The fact of the matter is that Musharraf has finally stated Pakistani casualties in Kargil. Who else in Pakistan is a higher authority on Kargil than Musharraf?

You still have problems differenciating the state from the head of the state despite the example I gave you. While my edits aim to incorporate figures from all the three major guns of Pakistan you seem to have a blinkers on approach when it comes to casualty figures.

The reason being that 2 of these guns do not represent the Pakistani people, nor their interest. What facts and figures do they have to asertain such figures. Musharraf is the head of the Army, country and the man who planned Kargil and executed it. He knows the stats on Kargil much more throughlly than these two jokers.

As far as I can see you just hate the figure given by ex-PMs. Merely hating the numbers and deleting it because you dislike them isn't the way it works.

Well as far as I can see, you simply love the ex-PM's and the figures they gave. You even failed to include the remark by Musharraf that challenged the claims by Nawaz and it was I who put it there. What I fail to understand why are you so obsessed with casualty claims given by Sharif as opposed to Musharraf? Maybe because Musharraf gives low casualty figures which does not conform to your ideals on how Kargil was and Nawaz nicely fits your perception of Kargil.

Maybe it works in Pakistan but not in here. Keep your personal hatred for politicians out of the editing process.

Such statements really shows how neutral you are to Pakistan. Again, its not personal hatred but rather but using people who have little to no knowledge about this event and making them the authority figures on this issue and sidelining others.

Months on end you have cribbed about so called bias, but to this day you haven't provided a single statemenet or figure that isn't taken from reliable sources.

I have proved on numerous occassions the sheer bias. From the outrageous number of indian sources to cite claims on kargil, the lack of pictures from a pakistani perspective and making Nawaz casualty claims as the official pakistani casualties until I came and challenged it.

It only shows that you are here more to complain than to really help.

What I gather from your responses that you beleived that you can make wikipedia into an indian dominated forum where biased and unsubstantiated claims can pass for fact. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Mercenary2k 07:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, here's the facts, Musharraf has been criticized world over for making his memoirs more fiction than fact. Including Musharraf's figures as the Pakistani official figures would be a complete violation of WP:RS. If Musharraf claimed that Pakistan is a superpower or great power, it still couldn't be included. Regards. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If Musharraf claimed that Pakistan is a super-power it would not be validated because the world can see that Pakistan is not. But when Musharraf makes a claim on Kargil, on which he conducted, executed and planned. He does become the expert on that issue. And since he is the head of Pakistan and as well as the Army, this puts him in a unique situation unlike other world leaders. An analogy can be drawn of Musharraf stating his losses in Kargil to Napolean commenting on his losses on a battlefield and then stating casualty claims by the exiled family of King Louis. And lastly, why are statements made by Bhutto and Sharif included. They are both exiled, neither have the information to make claims on Pakistan's casualty and this article mentions over and over again that Sharif was kept outside the loop on Kargil and then how can he know how many casualties Pakistan suffered. If India's own claims on Pakistani losses are around 1,000, then how can we take the claim of Sharif seriously to warrant an inclusion with Musharraf. Mercenary2k 08:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

An "expert" on Kargil would have reported it for what it was. As the economist puts the war as hundreds or thousands of "Pakistani fighters who were slaughtered in a humiliating retreat".[9]The story continues to say "Pakistan, not India, was forced to the table by the drubbing it took there." Pakistan's Ayaz Amir states that musharraf turned the kargil defeat into a victory.[10] Your "expert" on the kargil war has been rubbished by many more pakistani and neutral authors that it is ridiculous for you to claim an expert would make such low estimates. Wasn't this the same "expert" who once stauntly maintained that no pak soldiers were involved in the intrusions? I can see where you are coming from on this "expert" issue. Basicaly you decide to quote only his version because it is what you would expect. You expect the lie, he gives you one. I'm not saying that Shariff or Bhutto might be speaking the truth, atleast I don't delete Mussharraf's estimate just because it is more flawed than anything I've read on the Kargil war so far. Idleguy 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont care what the economist or any other magazine puts the casualties at. This is about what Pakistan's preceives its casualties to be. And for that Musharraf commands sole authority over the matter. I can see from your answer that you are neither interested in the truth nor facts but what is the best way to humiliate Pakistan. Mercenary2k 09:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My issue is only on two things. 1) While I haven't removed Musharraf's figures, no matter how low or disputed, you have done the opposite. i.e. remove Shariff's and Bhutto's claim. That itself is indication of who is trying to curtail information in here. Our job is not to see who is right or wrong but to merely report them. We are not journalists or historians but encyclopedia editors who should report on the facts, not get carried away. 2) A memoir isn't an official state report, if that is impossible to grasp then you should read some real scholarly articles and decide for yourself, instead of debating with me. A memoir isn't even on the scale of an autobiography which atleast uses notes and documentation to back statements and numbers. In a memoir, anyone can indulge in rants and raves because of the fact that it isn't by its very nature an authority on the subject. Passing off such memoirs as Pakistan State's official casualty count just because he is the dictator now is ludicrous. Pakistan's PM during Kargil was Shariff and his 4,000 quote should then have more validity because Musharraf was just the army chief then.

I also havent removed the statements made by Bhutto and Sharif as they are present in the remainder of the article but to put them in the War Box as both of them neither represent Pakistan nor do they have enough information to asertain such figures. I removed them from the war box. Your technicial nit picking on a memoir is laughable. Musharraf is still in power, he was commander on the ground and as such is in a unique situation to know how many men he lost in Kargil. If Musharraf's claim is dubious as you put it then why are you giving credibility to sharif and bhutto? Could it be that their casualty figures nicely fits into your thinking that Pakistan lost thousands of men in Kargil without doing even the basic homework to find sources to counter such views and produce an article that is non-POV. Again your rhetoric about dictatorships is laughable. Musharraf is a much more trusted leader than either sharif or bhutto. I know they dont convey that on the India Media, but its true. Sharif was out of the loop, didnt know anything, got exiled and sentenced to death, and you mean to tell me he is going to make statements praising the General and his operation. Its sharif that carries ZERO validity. Mercenary2k 09:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As for your bias claim, no sir, you have not provided a SINGLE statement or number that is alleged as POV. The only issue you have raised then and now is whether shariff's 4,000 claim is credible, which is not even an issue about POV. The fact is it's sourced and follows Wikipedia policy of citing. Lack of images doesn't mean bias, it only means they aren't pictures available and I've spoken about this in the 27 Feb 2006 talk page edit. Search above, nobody is holding you back from adding properly tagged Pakistani images. Yet you act as if I'm running a cabal over here. It is now open for everyone to see in this talk page that you haven't pointed out such biased statements and continue to accuse others generously of forming forums etc. despite your inability to prove the existence of the "sheer bias". Idleguy 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have proved plenty of issues which are POV. Shariff's casualty is POV because you are endorsing it while others have dismissed it as a joke. You dont even have the foresight to understand the political dynamics for sharif to issue such a statement and blindly accepted it as fact. That to me, sir, is POV. Citing something doesn't make it correct. Citations have to be from sources which are reliable. As for the lack of pictures, since you wanted this article to be a FAC, then its your responsibility to find picutures. And when I try to make some changes to make this from an extremely biased anti-pakistan article into something much more neutral, you and your hordes continue to revert my changes. Its as if you have ownership over this article. It is certainly open for everyone to see the utter hypocracy that exists here. This article should have never been made a FAC and the only reason it became one because it got endorsed by other Indian wikipedians. I guess numbers sometimes do makes a difference. Mercenary2k 09:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Statements like "You dont even have the foresight to understand the political dynamics" are snide remarks and a clear violation of WP:Civil (which like most policies on WP, I'm assuming you haven't read)

Apart from the Shariff statement, I see that you have yet to provide ONE single line that is POV here. I would like to see you requote which lines and phrases you have pointed out earlier in this talk page as POV; for if it had been done so I would have neutralised them by now. Either you should reproduce the so called POV lines - which were not backed by reliable sources - that you have allegedly pointed out in this talk page, or else admit that there was no specifics mentioned. A quote is not POV if you haven't read WP policies yet, so Shariff's quote isn't POV by itself. If you are irked at Shariff's casualties because it could be politically motivated, then consider the equal possibility of Musharraf's politically motivated book that tries to pass off Kargil as a victory and your blind faith in the "expert" and his statements. Your pro-POV sees sharrif as lying, someone who has pro-democracy or anti-Mush POV will believe Musharraf as lying or even both as liars. That is the simple fact you fail to realise. The sooner you realise that we can solve this silly issue.

I have provided plenty of lines where there is POV and I even made changes to them in the past but they were immediately reverted. It was me that added Musharraf's counter-claim to Sharif's casualty claim. If this was really a neutral article, you should have done that on your own. There are other major examples of POV such as the entire consequences section about Pakistan. For example this article makes mention about Pakistan's economy falling and then uses quotes from an opinion piece rather than actual data from the Pakistani Stock Exchange. Other is Pakistan refusing to accept its dead and thats taken from Indian Newspapers and the issue about riots again was greatly exaggarated by the Indian Newsmedia so again you are quoting stuff about Pakistan from clearly biased sources. You then quote a disgruntled General in the Pakistan Army but fail to quote Musharraf's take on the war or even the Indian General praising the valor of Pakistani Soldiers. Mercenary2k 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I NEVER removed Musharraf's estimate, while you removed the others from the warbox. Leave it for the readers to decide whose estimates are correct/politically motivated. And to quote your own statement from April 18, 2006 in this talk page above: "Since you don't know what goes on inside the head of Nawaz Sharif and I don't know what goes on inside the head of Musharraf and then its best to put forth both sides of the argument and let the user decide." In the current version, both sides of the argument are given for the user to decide. Another example of doublespeak maybe?

I wrote that in a time when Musharraf hadn't made a statement about Kargil but now he has and as such his statement about the casualties is the official version for Pakistan. He is the head for Pakistan, Army and in charge during Kargil. Bhutto and Sharif do not belong in the same category as Bhutto was neither in power nor did she have first hand knowledge about the casualties and same goes for Sharif. The only reason that you insist that we put sharif and bhutto up there so they can pollute the reader's mind into thinking that India inflicted massive amounts of losses on Pakistan and make Kargil into something which it is not. Mercenary2k 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A memoir will never be called as a state record by any stretch of the imagination. Take a look at any scholarly articles and you'll be hardpressed to find one example of memoirs being used as the state record, especially in the matter of casualties. Tomorrow XYZ may become Pak's leader and his memoirs won't be immediately elevated to the status of Official Record. Shariff's comments by your reasoning would have to carry more weight because at the time of Kargil, he was the head of the govt. not Musharraf who was merely an army chief. He may not have been in the loop initially, but in the end it was Shariff who helped to withdraw the fighters and went to Washington to seek some help. Not Musharraf. Musharraf is NOT the state, nor did he make his figures presented as behalf of the state. Pl understand what a memoir is before jumping to conclusions. Irrespective of who is right, we are not here to debate that. Just mention the facts, don't suppress them. I said I'd include Musharraf's estimate if he produced actual numbers and I have kept my word because it's not for me to decide if he is lying or if Shariff is lying. Just reproduce the facts and do it right.

But this situation is unique as the memoir is written when the man is in still incharge of the army and the country. Sharif's comments do not carry any weight because he made those comments after he was ousted, placed under death sentence and then exiled to saudi arabia. He was never in the loop and as such doesnt have the proper knowledge to forment casualties for Pakistan. Sharif did indeed go to Washington and it was Bill Clinton who commented that Sharif didn't know the whole picutre. Musharraf is the one who conducted Kargil and as such is the utmost authority on the amount of Casualties Pakistan suffered in Kargil. Irrespective as to how the casualty numbers were made available, they have been made available and as such represent the government of Pakistan and thus the official position of Pakistan. I am not supressing facts, and I never deleted bhutto or sharif's claims from the article entirely but from the War Box where they dont belong. Mercenary2k 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, pictures or lack of it, don't really determine a FA. If you can't find an image yourself, don't accuse me for that. It's ridiculous since the TIME image itself was the only one I could find. If you think you can do better, please go ahead and add them with proper tags. It's not as if I've chained you or something. Idleguy 10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will hold you to it. Mercenary2k 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Needlessly complex?

I don't have time to pore over the debate in great detail at the moment, but, off the top of my head: why not simply give a range of numbers in the infobox and leave the details of the various estimates to a footnote or section of the article where they can be discussed in further detail? In other words, the infobox would have "357–4,000+ killed", while the article text or footnote could go into more exhaustive discussion (e.g. "Musharraf estimates 357 killed; his view is considered the official Pakistani one. Benazir and Sharif estimate 3,000 and 4,000, respectively. Indian estimates are ~1,000 killed...") to whatever level of detail you want. This would both simplify the already-too-complicated infobox and make sure that there was sufficient space for getting into the finer points of how various estimates are regarded. Kirill Lokshin 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That was precicely what I intended to do minutes before the article was locked up. However, I'm afraid Mercenary2k might oppose even that idea too. Idleguy 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. I also think Mercenary2k has a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If you agree with something, or think it is right or wrong, is irrelevant. The very first section of the most important policy Wikipedia:Verifiability is called "Verifiability, not truth" - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Also this idea that there is some kind of Indian bias involved is ludicrous - I'm not Indian. -- Stbalbach 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind this idea at all. Mercenary2k 17:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the agreed casualty numbers on the article. Please check. Kirill, Stbalbach, Thanks for your comments. Mercenary2k, Idleguy, Thanks for working this out! - Ganeshk (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we need other Pakistani estimates?

I agree with the Admin's decision to list Pakistani casualties from 357-4000.

But do we need other Pakistani estimates. Can't we just cite 357 and 4000 numbers and remove the clutter ? Mercenary2k 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The agreement above was to cite the number range in the template, and then explain the sources in a footnote. --Stbalbach 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to move all the estimates except for the overall range into a footnote (or, if you think it's of more interest to readers, a section of the article) that can then go into some length on what the different estimates are, how credible they're regarded as being, and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 357 - 4000+ range be mentioned under "Pakistani Estimates", as they are NOT official numbers provided by the State of Pakistan. They are sourced from memoirs, press statements and websites from former and present Pakistani premiers rather than from the official machinery. Everything else is fine and there is already a casualty footnote that can be expanded to accomodate the new developments. Idleguy 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just went ahead and did what needed to be done providing more sources for casualties etc... Idleguy 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards At Work Here And On The Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001

S Seagal 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Hello;

I have noticed that there are double standards at work here and on the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 page. Namely the name war has been changed to conflict by Idleguy.

Lets take the example of this war and the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001.

In Both Instances the follow were the EXACTLY the same:

• No public declaration of war
• No change in borders
• Thousands of troops mobilized on both sides
• Intelligence failures

If the cause is the same, if the reasons are the same, and the outcome is the same, Wikipedia in the interest of neutrality must treat both the same. So this article must remain called a war until the changes are made here and there. We cant call some skirmishes wars that make our countries look good, and conflicts mere border 'spats' ones that make us look bad.

I have not undone the edits until there is a chance to discuss the changes, But I dare say there are certainly double standards at work.

If the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 is renamed a 'conflict', Kargil war must also be renamed a conflict. Indo-Bangladesh Border Conflict of 2001

We could compromise make changes to both articles in the interests of fairness and neutrality. Namely the following:

• The Name of both Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 and Kargil War will be changed to 'conflict'
• The Outcome of both Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 and Kargil War will be changed to Status quo ante bellum.

Status quo ante bellum means no change in border and things went back to normal the way they were.

However one can not make a change here and leave the other article the same, the changes here are just as applicable there and vice-versa.

I have already aswell as Hkelkar changed the result to Status quo ante bellum but it is continiously changed back to 'India regains possession of Kargil'.

It seems some people want to make kargil into a war, and the 2001 war with Bangladesh a 'spat'.

The changes here are applicable there also.

Thanks S Seagal 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

The bulk of the sources clearly reveal that it is called as a conflict or clash. The 2001 conflict is officially denied by Bangladesh Government to this day. See this. Kargil, on the other hand is now an accepted reality by Pakistan, including Musharraf who repeatedly mentions it as kargil war in his memoirs and in the official reports too. “adventurism of its local commanders’’ as stated by Bangladesh, isn't a war by a long stretch of imagination. Use of border troops by India isn't exactly "War". Many other sources used in the articles and elsewhere use the term conflict. See the Chola Incident a similar border conflict betwen india and china.[11] Like i noted in the talkpage there, clash of arms doesnn't translate into a war. Ever the Kargil War is a borderline case of being termed as a war, and the debate of a war vs conflict appears properly noted in the right section with sources.

Status quo ante bellum doesn't apply for every war. Just because it sounds nice and is in latin does not mean it can be used liberally for every war. If you need details on why status quo isn't the right term, you should read the entire article on kargil and 65 war then you should be able to judge for yourself.Idleguy 06:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy,

I must protest in the manner in which you have made yourself, Judge, Jury and executioner. I have asked you repeatedly to discuss your changes on the talk page before making them, No one person has a right to excercise Veto over other newer members.

I have said before that in Kargil there was no official declaration of war. That is the most important point here, There is no 1965 Ayub Khan style of declaration of war, it was a cover operation called 'Operation Badr' and the Pakistan government maintains that it was militants sent infront of Pakistani positions. Even in Musharrafs memoirs he maintains that militants were sent infront of pakistani positions, Besides even before Musharrafs memoirs were realised this article was still named 'Kargil War' not Kargil conflict. So for you to claim that this is a testimony to Pakistans involvement in a 'war' what about the time before Musharrafs memoirs were released and this article was still named as it was?

Also in the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 likewise there was no declaration of war, yet you have found it convient to rename the article that I started writing from war to 'conflict' without consulting me or hkveler who was already discussing the same issue.

Status quo ante bellum is the result of this conflict/war, if this isnt Status quo ante bellum I dont know what is Status quo ante bellum!

I hope we could have some neutral mediation to resolve these issues fairly.

S Seagal 07:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Here are some suggested revisions:

• Outcome of this article and the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 should be Status quo ante bellum
• Both articles should renamed conflicts as there was no declaration of war on either side.
• Musharrafs memoirs should be added to 'Arts' section. Perhaps a nice picture of his book.

As things stand now, Idleguy has made himself the Judge, Jury and executioner, renamed the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 into the Indo-Bangladesh conflict of 2001, left the result of that article as Status quo ante bellum, and reverted the Status quo ante bellum result for this article to 'India regains possession of Kargil'.

In short I feel there is a very, very diliberate attempt to spread dis-information by certain members, It seems they want to make certain events wars that make them look good, and conflicts, and 'spats' those that make them look bad.

Again I hope for some neutral mediation in resolving these linked issues in the interests of fairness.

Best RegardsS Seagal 07:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

• I have to suspect your intentions on this. Given the plethora of sources (leaving Musharraf) that talk about the Kargil conflict as both war and a conflict, it was an editorial decision achieved with consensus among Wikipedia members that this be termed as War. Kargil itself was a close call and among the appropriate debate on the "Conflict vs War" issue is spelt clearly in the notes section, which is the first main note from the very first line at the top of the article. It appears you have not read it.

• I'm just being bold. I'm not Judge Dredd. Nor am I a UNSC permanent member to exercise any "veto". Do not make a mountain of a molehill. TxIdleguy 07:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed Kargil conflict as opposed to 'war' for the reasons mentioned, There can not be double standards here and on the Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 article if you renamed that article 'conflict' then this article likewise must also be re-named 'conflict'. There is no difference between the two events.

Secondly you have failed to explain why you changed the result from Status quo ante bellum to 'India regains possession of Kargil', the outcome of this is very much Status quo ante bellum, in every sense of the term.

Also a picture and mention of Musharrafs memoirs should be added to the media and arts section.

As things stand at the moment, the article is named to the what Idleguy wants, the result is changed to what Idleguy wants, and the article has almost all pictures of Indians, only one tiny picture of any Pakistanis, I dare say this article is highly flawed and highly biased.

S Seagal 07:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

As I see, since a consensus was achieved here over the use of "War", you are the only one disputing it. Linking border fights with conflicts on a larger scale don't really do justice. Memoir isn't art nor is musharraf a media outlet so I'm afraid it would be ludicrous to include in that section; and his memoirs are properly cited where needed in the article. If you find any biased statements or facts not cited with reliable sources, please point them out. Vague accusations here and elsewhere don't help anyone.

btw, I only uploaded 3 pictures of which one was on a Pak soldier. If i have any pics on Pak I'll upload them. I can't sit and photoshop images when I don't have any on pak army. Why is that I'm being requested to produce photos by some here is beyond me. If you have any photos pl upload them with proper tags. If you can't produce yourself, why pester me? Tx Idleguy 08:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have raised a very specific point and that is that the result should be changed from 'India regains possession of Kargil' to Status quo ante bellum.

S Seagal 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Why not go across and term every war (that resulted in little to no territorial changes) article on Wikipedia as Status Quo Ante Bellum while you are at it? That is a very ludicrous reason to tag the entire article as POV. Idleguy 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that you are unable to answer my question as to why you keep reverting the edit from Status quo ante bellum to 'India regains possesion of Kargil'.

I will adde the POV tag until this issue is resolved, like i mentioned before you have made yourself judge, jury and executioner on this article.

S Seagal 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

S Seagal, I don't see what point your trying to make here. There is no reason to use fancy and complicated Latin terms in this article. Unless you can show that this is a mainstream accepted term applied to the conflict. Also Idleguy did answer your questions, and he is right, we agreed to call it "war" based on a consensus, which included a lengthy footnote that provides qualifiers of the term "war" - this problem is not unique to this article, look at Vietnam War for example, this is a generally accepted and widely used practice on Wikipedia. Your unilateral unflexible attitude and attacking Idleguy and putting POV tags at the top of the article makes me suspect of your motives and intentions. This article has gone through the Featured Article processes and has had a lot of eyeballs look at and contribute, this is not a one-man show. -- Stbalbach 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can tell you that amongst many if not most Pakistanis the term "war" is not used, but apparently that opinion has been denegrated to a secondary one instead of a counter-opinion. The only reason I did not raise the issue was because it seemed that it had been decided by the posters and my experiences to the contrary seem to have been invalidated. But please do not assume "because no one else is bringing it up" that no one else disagrees. That's just wrong. As a fresh reader, that is one of the first things I noticed about the article was that it had been given the "indian name" instead of the "pakistani name." Also, it does seem to be something of a "one man show" with regards to idleguy and a number of viewpoints on how this article is presented. He certainly is the most vocal voice here and wikipedia is a medium in which the squeekiest wheel gets the grease, as we all know. Some others of us just don't have the time to sit down and research and post on the topic at hand, but we can tell bias when we see it.

Secondly, ok, forget about fancy latin terms, how about just using something that sounds a bit less pro-India in a conflict that did not end with an official declaration of defeat by any party or in which one country was not destroyed by another? I mean, couldn't it just be stated that "borders returned to pre-existing limits" and be just as accurate, but minus the clearly positive sounding connotations of "India regains". That plus the listing of casualty figures, even they are shown to be disputed casuality figures on one side, would best reflect what was a limited conflict with varrying perspectives on the outcome.--Fawad Siddiqui (gonna get an account soon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.11.141 (talk) 00:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Move the foot note on Pak casualities into main text.

The foot note on the Pakistani casualities should be moved into a new section in the main text itself. There is such ambiguity and confusion on the Pakistani Casualities that it deserves to be a field of study rather than a foot note. jaiiaf 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Indian bias in Kargil War

Shemrez 04:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Shemrez Nauman Afzal

The page has clear pro-Indian bias, and should be reviewed with updated facts as per Pervez Musharraf's autobiography 'In the Line of Fire', which provides a synopsis of this occurence from the point of view of the person who is chiefly blamed with this 'military adventure'.

I agree this article seems more like an Indian wet-dream.

S Seagal 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

• I guess those who complain and crib here have not even gone through the references given, most of which are either from neutral or Pakistani sources. User:Shemrez, if he had read them, would have found atleast a couple of references from Musharraf's memoirs (not autobiography) on casualty figures etc. notwithstanding the fact that most book reviews within Pakistan itself have debunked his version of the conflict. So far, not a single unsourced line exists, nor has anyone come forward to point them in here if they did exist. I think it's time to put up a notice in the talk page saying "Pl point specific unsourced biased statements, else refrain from blank accusations of bias" Idleguy 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

S Seagal, Musharraf reckons Pakistan one the war, do you? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We can only go on facts, As for Pakistan winning or loosing Kargil war/conflict, it seems like a status que ante bellum to me, As for India winning, well what did they win? they captured kargil? it was ceded as part of Shimla agreement I think, not sure.

Besides there is no doubt that Pakistan has won the first two wars, 1947-48, the stunning sept war of 1965, 1971 was a loss, and kargil, siachen, rann of kutch are too small to be called wars.

S Seagal 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

The "stunning war of 65" - what a joke. PAkistan gets beat up each time.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Go and read proper history S Seagal. Not propaganda. This article's sources would be a nice start, if you are "not sure" about anything. Idleguy 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No Doubt?? You need to read neutral news and history sources. To my knowledge, the '47 war ended with India capturing a large amount of territory and Pakistan sufferring more casualties. It's amazing how Pakistan has tended to start the wars, with incursions into Kashmir (47, 65, 99) and India ended up winning the wars (retaking their stolen territory is as good a win as any) . Propaganda in Pakistan is going over the top. I hope you know that India, unlike Pakistan, has stuck to United Nations rules on the LOC and decided not to enter Pak-controlled Kashmir although less lives would've been lost had they done so. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gonig to get into a flame war here, but the first war ended with India taking a large ammount of Kashmir, Pakistan likewise took a large part of kashmir as did China in 1962, But the thing here is that Kashmir was not part of Pakistan when India invaded it, likewise it was not part of india when pakistan invaded it, India was allowed to invade because of the accension by harry singh. Pakistan and India both had British imperialists controlling thier armed forces at that time so it was difficult for either side to fully take kashmir. Thus the result was that Kashmir would be divided by an artificial ceasefire line like Korea.

1965 War was a tactical victory for pakistan, and this is not my view but a widely accepted one, though Both sides failed in thier war aims, Pakistan didnt make any strategic gains by taking Kashmir, but India likewise failed to take Lahore which was its war aim, thus though not a strategic victory, it was most certainly a tactical victory for pakistan. One must give credit to Pakistan for fighting and winning against a country numerous times bigger. The september 1965 war is for pakistan what the Six Day War is to Israel, and likewise the 1965 war is like the Six Day War for india as it was for egypt.

thanks S Seagal 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

You could apply for the post of Propagandaministerium in the Ministry of propaganda, Islamabad, Pakistan. Idleguy 08:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So you dont agree with me? S Seagal 09:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Idleguy, please WP:DFTT.--nids(♂) 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nids, I think IDleguy was correct.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

INDIAN PROPANGANDA

This article is clearly written by Indian propangandists trying to underscore Pakistan’s military successes. NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI WAR PICTURE.

YES, VERY NEUTRAL. LOL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.92.54 (talk • contribs)

Please feel free to add pictures as long as they adhere to copyright policy of Wikipedia. But how does that make the article non neutral? — Lost^(talk) 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Atlantique Incident is now a GA

Just in case anyone is interested, the Atlantique Incident closely linked to Kargil events is now a good article. Idleguy 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Democratically elected governments

I guess India is some sort of democracy, but what about Pakistan? I've seen discussion critical of the Democratic peace theory on the basis that this war was between democratically elected governments. But I haven't heard anything about Pakistan to lead me to believe it is a democracy.

Or does the theory work only for countries that do more than just hold elections? Must there be some additional, essential quality? I'd say respect for human rights like Freedom of religion would be a basic requirement. I mean, just because Hitler or Chavez wins an election of some sort, that doesn't mean they didn't (won't) become dictators. --Uncle Ed 16:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pervez Musharraf labelled Sharif and his Pakistan a "sham democracy". A lot of the constitution had been amended with a baffling 2/3 majority in parliament. The president could no longer dissolve parliament for example. But then the war was started by the military without complete knowledge of the PM, creating rifts between army chief and PM. I don't think it wrecks the DPT. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I have added the template, and in the coming time, I will post more details. Please dont remove the template until the dispute has been settled.
1. Casualties, Pakistani "Estimates" provided by a Biased source, while Indian "Official" figures are posted in comparison.
2. Both sides claimed Victory. The article clearly hints Indian side won
2. Too many Indian images, and under the Pakistani image, the caption appears to be an undermining comment.

More will be posted. Please post here if you wish to work with me to correct this article. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude this is featured article. It has been peer reviewed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kargil_War ) and also has been oncluded on the Wikipedia DVD. It has over 81 references (including Pakistani ones like Sabina Ahmed). Look at the talk page, your concerns have been satisfied already. Additionally do read the sources to verify the claims before slapping OR notices on fetured articles.

P.S You can take this issue up with User:Idleguy who maintains this article. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is reverting and swearing at me, the only thing you do on Wiki? I will talk to someone who is willing to listen rather than people who think they are right all the time. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Nawaz Sharif is Pakistan.

2. International community believe India won in reclaiming territory captured by Pakistani mujahideen.

3. Find the images.

— Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversely is defacing articles that dont fit your rabid nationalist POV, the only thing you do at Wiki? I have created more than 25 article helped write two GA's and founded a Wiki Project. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 07:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist comparing Pro Indian estimates for Pak Casualties with Indian official figures. Indian estimates run up in 10 000. It would be more appropriate to post references to that, now wouldn't it? --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find an Indian who says that then we may even include it. We know a Pakistani Prime Minister who says that Pakistani casualties were about 4000, another who says 3000, then we also include an Army Chief who's claims haven't been backed by numerous people. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And who is backing the claims of Nawaz or Bhutto. Your argument is flawed. The only reason you insist on posting these numbers is because they show Pakistan in a bad light. Which is totally typical of you Mercenary2k 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kargill related quote

Might be significant in this article.
Pakistani source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=63006

Former Air Chief Marshall of Pakistan: "He said that he was opposed to war with India in 1965 and as the air chief, was kept in the dark that Pakistan was going to attack India. "We always initiated attacks on India. We also started the Kargil adventure and our soldiers fought on the pretext that they were Kashmiri Mujahideen" --Blacksun 11:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is BIASED towards the indian point of view!

This is HUGELY biased article. It is totally biased towards the indian point of view and the facts have not been stated accurately. I thought Wikipedia prides itself on un-biasness and objectivity. Well...this article certainly does not support that. I wonder why all corrections to the article are always changed back. There is no second guess as to who initiated this article and who administers it. This article just states what the indians believe...or rather want to believe.

Pl. specify which lines are biased and the facts which you believe to be inaccurate. The entire article is fully cited, including from Pakistani sources. Idleguy 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is filled with factual inaccuracies. Where do i start from? So many people have pointed out various mistakes in the discusion above...but the indians who adminster this article have just ignored them completely. Specially the casualty figures stated are hugely inaccurate. Just to cite some indian websites and articles...and point out some unconfirmed comments supposedly given by some pakistanis does not mean this is an un-bisased article. I mean just simply look at the tone of the article. Any amatuer can see that the article has been written and maintained by an indian. Using words like "victory" just confirms suspicioins. How was there one clear victor in this war? It all depends which standard you use to judge victory. Yes india did evevtually re-claim the territory...which the pakistani forces and the mujahideen vacated themselves...because of international pressure...not because india pushed pakistan back. But because india got the territory back, you can say that india won...according to this standard. But wars are also judged by the fact as to who suffered more casualties. India clearly got defeated and suffered much much more. You could say that this happened because the mujahideen had the advantage of being on higher positions...which are harder to attack and relatively a bit easier to defend. But nonetheless...the mujahideen won hands down if you use this criteria. So why have phrases like "indian victory" been used? 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)cygwin10

Pl. stick to specifics on any contentious lines/figures that miss substantial references, else it's just another baseless argument. The phrase "indian victory" (sic) finds no mention in the article as such when you search for it. Much of the article's sources are actually Pakistani/neutral, have you noticed it? Idleguy 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance....in the 'Aftermath' section there is a line which starts like, "The Kargil victory was followed by the 13th Indian General Elections to the Lok Sabha..." Look closely at the article. And how can you say that most of the sources are pakistani? Majority of the websites cited here are indian websites. An indian website attributing a quote or a comment to a pakistani is not really reliable as far as we are concerned. How do we know of its authenticity. India is afterall one of the parties in this conflict. So what weight would indian websites hold? For example both the sources you have used to justify the bizzare claim of 4000 pakistani casualties, references 5 and 6, are indian websites.12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)cygwin10

This article should have a POV and DISPUTED tag.

This article is clearly not neutral and not factually accurate...as can be seen by the discussion going on in this talk page. Many people disagree with the neutrality and accuracy of this article. So why doesn't the article have a {disputed} tag or a {pov} tag on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.225.179 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pl. see my response above in previous section, to your repeated question and you should be able to know why. Thanks. Idleguy 02:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

no you have not given any real response to the question. rather you just sort of dismissed the question. the argument abvove is correct. most of the websites cited in this article are indian websites. the sites used to justify the 4000+ casualty figure are both indian websites. indianexpress.com and hinduonnet.com are both known hindu fundamentalist sources. give an evidence for your claim from a neutral and reliable source. india is one of the parties in this dispute...so no website of any organization based in india should be used as a reference here. that is a bizzare thing. the same would hold for pakistan.10:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)cygwin10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.225.179 (talk)

The article clearly states which country is behind which estimates. If you want to have this tag up, you need more persuasive objections. El_C 10:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan credibility questioned

Previously Pakistan strictly maintained that it was only militants who fought with India. Now Musharraf agreed that it was Pakistan which started kargil misadventure. Nawaz Sharif claims 4000 killed while Musharraf claims 350 killed?

which figure should taken as standard?

what are wikipedias rules for a nation which changes statements every now & then?

Musharraf overthew Sharif and became a dictator, thats fine. but whose figure is reliable?

Neutrality Of the Article

Hi Guys

This article seem to be descibed (in most parts) from the point of view of one side - India. It definitely carries a "victor's pride" type of tone it throughout. For example: Pictures! - depicting only India's struggle, weapons, flag-raising, PM showing "V" sign, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash sul (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As every article in Wikipedia should carry encyclopedic tone (i.e. - a neutral tone), I think this article needs to be reviewed by some expert(s) in this area - without attracting vandals (e.g. - writing "bad stuff" about Indians for the sake of it).

Could an expert please review the tone of the article to verify the neutrality issue that I have just raised.

Thanks -- Ash sul 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny; when a recent image which I uploaded, Image:Pakistan_army_kargil.jpg, one of the few rare images showing Pakistani soldiers, was listed for deletion, no one so much as bothered to even put up a defence for retaining it. Now, editors who wish to retain such images should stop posting here, and talk about it there for I can only do so much to save images from deletion, especially since I can't be in here 24/7. This is a general note for all Pakistani editors who feel images on Pak side is missing. --Idleguy 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Idleguy - DO NOT Remove tag on this article without addressing the POV issue. I have clearly raised an issue which appears to be quite obvious throughout the article - the Picture referenece was "an example" of the outstanding problem.

DO NOT force what you think should happen upon the enitre reader base. You are by no means the benchmark commentator who's opinion or efforts should be the only one credited - nor should you express your furstration towards the rest of readers.

You are attempting to do the one thing that should be avoiding while editing on this encyclopedic site - START AN EDIT WAR based on India-Pakistan national pride. PLEASE CALM YOUR TONE and try to address the issue for what it is.

I will report you as a vandal if you try to stir up racial/nationalist tension by isolating specific issues to taunt "the other side" - i.e. - Pakistani Editors. YOU MUST BE NEUTRAL WHILST WRITING ABOUT HISTORIC EVENTS ON AN ENCYCLOPEDIC SITE - THIS IS NOT A WAR MAGAZINE!

Once again - the issue appears to be the tone of the article gives out the impression of a one-sided argument. AN EXPERT REVIEW SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO VERIFY THE NEUTRALITY OF THE ARTICLE. -- Ash sul 13:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

All meaningful and cited discussions on the Kargil War are already long over and you may note that it has been peer-reviewed and attained the WP:FA status. Unless you can provide specific lines which are POV and without a reliable source, I'm afraid the other editors on Wikipedia would say the same. Please go through the official policy on NPOV and you'll realise that it's right to remove the tag. General accusations or remarks that it doesn't sound neutral helps no one; and please don't shout (using caps) and then tell me to calm down. :) thanks.Idleguy 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

References

reference item numbered 71 got a problem, please check it. Jeroje 06:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

whole sale changes

Various numbers, including referenced numbers, were changed in the last edit by 202.125.143.65 (Talk). Unless there was a large scale misrepresentation of cited facts, it is a disruptive edit. Kushal^t 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan accepted defeat

It should be noted that Pakistan's ex-pm Nawaz Sharif has accepted the Kargil war as 'a blunder' and 'major failure'. He said it in an interview before departing for London; I saw it in TV. Upon some Googling, this was the best source I could find. This should be included in the article. --60.50.65.106 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Claims by Pakistan leaders & military officials

there are various claims made by Pakistani leaders & former officials about Kargil misadventure. Should we include them in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.161.52 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi, just reverted an edit by Shovon76. There is no doubt that it was Pakistani soldiers who were disguised as militants who invaded Kargil. Proof? Pak awarded two Nishan-e-Haider besides other awards to its troops in Kargil, so its not a POV edit, though it may look like one. AshLin (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely POV and also shows a disturbing pattern of deliberate insertion of incorrect materials. The present version, post my edit, shows that, Pakistan, Kashmiri Seperatists & Foreign mercenaries were fighting against Indian soldiers. A blanket statement, saying that Pakistani soldiers disguised as Kashmiri separatists is definitely a case of extreme POV against the Pakistan and denying the fact, that a section of Kashmiris are fighting the Indian rule. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like we have an edit war on our hands.... courtesy of Shovon, who has, by my count, reverted edits at least 10 times without proper discussion on the talk page, and probably violated the 3RR rule.... Shovon, could you please post your reasons for the edits here, and start the discussion about it please. Blindly sticking to ur view and blasting out anyone who opposes isn't really the wiki-way. And certainly, given the number of reverts made, I think a discussion and explanation is in order.

Another thing, why are we waffling about the Pakistan Army's involvement, even after Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf, Clinton, and indeed, the whole world has admitted it.... the two Nishan-E-Haiders notwithstanding?? We may have apologists for Pakistan here, but even they can't go against facts and well sourced, widely-known information. And the slow and small changes to the language to weasel this page towards indecisiveness is not really a good idea. As for the sources of data, it'd be better to logically evaluate the sources rather than using a big brush to brand them as "blogs" or so. Thanks. Sniperz11_@^CS 11:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I have been accused as an anti Pakistani biased Indian POV Pusher earlier by pro-Pakistani editors and now as an apologist for Pakistan by an Indian editor. Seems I have got it right when it comes to NPOV. For the benefit of the users Sniperz11 and AdityaGupta, here are some links which may be useful - reliable sources, neutral point of view, edit war and three revert rule. After going through all these please come again. I am always open to a discussion, but will always revert an edit which violates NPOV and/or is Vandalism. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe Shovon, I didn't refer to you as a Pakistani apologist, but well, whatever. And yes, I did go through (pretty well) your edits and reverts.... as I did point out, you have done that without so much as a peep.... which is what the talk page is for.... please use it to discuss ur edits and opinions and issues, rather than reverting with extreme prejudice. You are experienced enough to know what the talk page is for, and i wouldn't presume to advise or castigate, as you have suggested... and yes, thanks for the links on the 5 pillars of wiki, which I found useful, but not necessary since I already know it. I would also point out that these links have nothing to do with the issue at hand here, which is ur rationale for the edits, which none of us know anything about yet. Would appreciate if you could expand on that as well... thanks. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 05:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Result does not show the Pakistani surrender.

After the pressure from US, Nawaz Sharif surrendered and withdrew the troops... The result in this article doesn't point this out. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is different from a Surrender mate.... officially, Pakistan withdrew its troops. Its not status quo ante either. So we'll have to just state that it was a "Total Pakistani withdrawal from occupied territories", and let the readers do their own adding. Sniperz11_@^CS 01:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

thx for answering... 96.52.193.72 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

This entire article is highly biased an written from a Pro-Indian point POV. Even the Kashmiri Mujahideen are described as 'terrorists'. This is clearly an Indian POV. However, Pakistan and Kashmiri's view them as freedom fighters. Also, the war is written in a manner which attempts to portray this as some sort of glorious Indian victory. However, Indian achieved nothing but regaining a few remote mountain peaks from the Kashmiri Mujahideen. They did not even manage to cross the Line of Control (LoC) into Pakistan administered territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HotRaja (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kashmiri Mujahideen is as biased as terrorists. At least majority of the world view them as terrorists and not as mujahideen. The Pakistani, Arab, Afghan etc. fighters who took part in Kargil War, are certainly not Kashmiri. So there's a definite reason to add a third category of Islamic Millitants/Foreign Fighters in the infobox. Lastly, the mandate given to the Indian Army clearly asked them not to cross the LoC. Indian Army, in the end, has to work under a democratic Govt. and not as an almighty, independent entity as in the case of Pakistan. They eventually did manage to regain a few remote peaks of strategic importance from Kashmiri Terrorists/Mujahideen, Regular Pakistani Infantry and the Foreign Millitants. Shovon (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are unbiased governments which cite them as terrorists [12] [13] [14] so anybody else's (including your's or mine) is unnecessary. Besides, terrorism is not related to this article - this is about military face-off between nations. Whatever the size or range of incursion, it was completely removed. Hence, request you to remove the dispute tag. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think Pakistan started the war first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinvr96 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The term freedom fighters has been dismissed by neutral nations internationally as been cited in this article.

Indian achieved nothing but regaining a few remote mountain peaks from the Kashmiri Mujahideen Indians regained the peaks from Pakistani Army forces. It is a glorious victory as even the French army, during World War II, saw their victory as glorious. They had regained their nation from Germany. Accept the truth.

They did not even manage to cross the Line of Control (LoC) into Pakistan administered territory.

The answer for this is that India never wanted to cross the LoC. They did not want to infiltrate into enemy territory. Hence India achieved its goals thus you can site this as a victory for India.

Suggestion: Please look into the previous discussion which have been happening since 3 years. All you answers are there. Kursworld (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)KursWorld

INDIA JUST WINS HEART BY MAKING BLOODY FILMS

Hi everybody,this is rabindernath from Amrister living in cuba. In my view after meeting with several people they are against India. As i am from India and i dont like these type of remarks which they pass, when i ask why are you people against they tell me that both the countries had same power but India has only fastest media with which they win the heart in real as they tell me about 1965 war that Pakistan had won India take it for them anyhow media should not go behind the truth...... these two countries had the same power.... the truth and Pakistan had won two and we also won two like 1965 and kargil war Pakistan had won and 1948 and 1971 india has won,,,,,,,,.........thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir, your contributions show that you are not an Indian and you are a Pakistani. Coming to the winners and losers, War is not fought to be won, but it is continuous. In 1948, the war was more of a major riot, i dont see a country as a winner, and both as losers. Coming to 1965, there was a UN Mandate, though India quietly and smartly fooled Pakistan by calling in the UN and capturing the Haji Pir Paas and showing that it got the upper hand. In 1971, though it might be noted that India won, but the truth remains that the Pakistan's failures lead to Indian victory rather than Indian Heroism. In 1999, India regained Kargil and sent Pakistan through the guilt trip, though India didn't gain an inch geographically, but the image of Pakistan was badly hit.96.52.193.72 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)