{{talkquote|General Wajahat further said that "apart from planning military operations, ''General Messervy had a close liaison with the civil authorities. He used to come to the office at half past seven, Brigadier Sher Khan would present the report on the previous twenty four hours and get instructions for the next day.'' Then they would visit the operations room where consultations would continue till 10 a.m. Thereafter rest of the affairs were handled. ''In the evening General Gracey would visit Commissioner Rawalpindi, attired in civil clothes.'' Briadier Sher Khan, GOC 7 Division Major General Tottenham and a couple of other Brigadiers like Brigadier Azam Khan or Brigadier Akbar used to be present. The deliberations would continue till late at night. ''Every second or third day General Gracey used to submit the progress report to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who himself used to come once or twice a week, accompanied by Secretary General Mohammad Ali.'' Once in a fortnight or so Defence Secretary Colonel Sikandar Mirza would pay a visit".}}
{{talkquote|General Wajahat further said that "apart from planning military operations, ''General Messervy had a close liaison with the civil authorities. He used to come to the office at half past seven, Brigadier Sher Khan would present the report on the previous twenty four hours and get instructions for the next day.'' Then they would visit the operations room where consultations would continue till 10 a.m. Thereafter rest of the affairs were handled. ''In the evening General Gracey would visit Commissioner Rawalpindi, attired in civil clothes.'' Briadier Sher Khan, GOC 7 Division Major General Tottenham and a couple of other Brigadiers like Brigadier Azam Khan or Brigadier Akbar used to be present. The deliberations would continue till late at night. ''Every second or third day General Gracey used to submit the progress report to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who himself used to come once or twice a week, accompanied by Secretary General Mohammad Ali.'' Once in a fortnight or so Defence Secretary Colonel Sikandar Mirza would pay a visit".}}
-- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
-- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
:Thanks for the explanation {{u|Kautilya3}}. Working only with the prose of this article leads me to believe the May date is simply the nominal/official entry but not necessarily the first involvement of ''any'' form. In IB discussions such as this I tend to lean toward pruning information out so that readers in search of finer or more nuanced details must rely on the prose anyway. That is to say, I'm fine with this revert and appreciate the added context you've provided here. --[[User talk:N8wilson|N8<sub>wilson</sub>]] <span title="Please ping me in reply" style="cursor:help">🔔</span> 22:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The toolbox info is incorrect as it says that GB was annexed by Pakistan. GB was not annexed, rather it was acceded to Pakistan by the locals. According to various scholars, the people of Gilgit as well as those of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin, Punial, Hunza and Nagar joined Pakistan by choice and the Gilgit scouts willingly fought alongside Pakistan and the princely state of Chitral against the Indian/Dogra occupation. I have decided to delete the toolbox with the statement that GB was annexed because that is a false statement as Gilgit and its neighboring states signed a combined instrument of accession to Pakistan on November 18th 1947. Seeing the pro-Pakistani sentiment amongst the people of Gilgit, it is baseless to call it an annexation, also the fact that the Gilgit Scouts fought alongside Pakistan proves that GB had very strong pro-Pakistani sentiments. On the other hand could the same be said about India in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh? Did it have the favor of it's people? It was India that had annexed two thirds of Kashmir via an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator (Maharaja Singh) which was not favored by it's people. When a dictator accedes the territory that doesn't belong to him to another country without the approval of it's people, that is illegal annexation. India acted on an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator, what gives the right for one single man to decide the fate of millions? Pakistan was clearly the liberator.
See references:
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2010), "Three Forgotten Accessions: Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38 (1): 117–143, doi:10.1080/03086530903538269, S2CID 159652497
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (9 January 2016). "Gilgit-Baltistan—part of Pakistan by choice". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2017. Nearly 70 years ago, the people of the Gilgit Wazarat revolted and joined Pakistan of their own free will, as did those belonging to the territories of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin and Punial; the princely states of Hunza and Nagar also acceded to Pakistan. Hence, the time has come to acknowledge and respect their choice of being full-fledged citizens of Pakistan.
Zutshi, Chitralekha (2004). Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 309–. ISBN 978-1-85065-700-2.
Mahmud, Ershad (2008), "The Gilgit-Baltistan Reforms Package 2007: Background, Phases and Analysis", Policy Perspectives, 5 (1): 23–40, JSTOR 42909184
Sokefeld, Martin (November 2005), "From Colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan" (PDF), The Journal of Asian Studies, 64 (4): 939–973, doi:10.1017/S0021911805002287, S2CID 161647755
Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, I.B.Tauris, 2003
Pakistans Victory
So many Indians with fake claims always talk about their victory in all wars.
But here I will only talk about the topic related war which is 1947-48 war.
They are every where to prove their fake victory.
I have readed the history not only Indian version but Pakistani and natural versions too.
And I'm not going into deep conversations.
I'll make it so simple and understandable.
Pakistan in 1947-48 captured most of the kashmir which india also claims as their territory later,
Now whatever the reasons behind Pakistan captured kashmir and whatever the reasons behind India claiming as whole kashmir as their I'm not going into this bla bla bla...
The point is Pakistan occupied the territory which india claims as their.
So its enough to say Pakistan won 1947-48 war.
First of all Indians need to understand wars causes damage to both sides but India also lost the territories which they claims as their despite having accession of Raja.
In my point of view India lost that war with a great damage,
And Pakistan won. Ali Shah (Markhor) (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Provide multiple WP:RS to overrule the consensus here. Else your claims are irrelevant.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6000 casualties figure
Info box mentions casualties of both sides Indian and Pakistan as 1,104 and 6000 respectively.
The 6000 figure is highly questionable and isn't mentioned in any press release by the ISPR[1]. Presenting a staunch figure seems illogical as the war included many combined fractions and is not well documented in terms of casualty count. Global security[2] is a comparatively trusted source (not the best offcourse) and is neutral.
I propose its mentioning with a change from 6000 to 1500-6000. New section is added due to lack of concensus in an earlier sectionTruthwins018 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion addressed the reliability (or lack of it) for the two sources cited by the OP here. A search and quick scan of the RS noticeboard for Globalsecurity.org does not indicate it is in good standing. The 6,000 figure does appear to be quoted by both sides (per above discussion). Globalsecurity cites this source and at p 571 it gives a figure of 1,500. Unless there are substantial reasons to dispute the source, I would have no issue in amending both the infobox and body of the article to "1,500–6,000", citing the source I have given, in addition to those already cited. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the sources on the internet, and the time of this war, none of the sources can be deemed reliable [3]. The 6000 casualties source is cited by an article of The News [4] doesn't make it certain where the casualty is cited from and seems to be picked on the internet by the writer (probably wikipedia). The best source on the internet is surely provided by the Federal research division of the libary of congress[5] which somewhat passes the neutrality factor aswell. Globalresearch.org has been deemed questionable but why is its quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [6] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar[7] not questioned ?
1,500 certainly deserves to be included in the info box, as a somewhat acceptable term. [8]Truthwins018 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far reaching consensus on quoting of figures 1500-6000 for Pakistani casualties citing this source this source. Would like to know if anyone disagrees Truthwins018 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the existing sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the 6000 figure originates from Indian sources and The News source looks like WP:CIRC. We should label it as an Indian claim, and the 1500 one as a neutral one, as on other war articles. Cipher21(talk) 04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that reliable sources have mirrored Wikipedia does not make it so, and attempts to muddy the waters are unconstructive. Global security org is not a reliable source for war casualties, not to mention the contradiction with other RS. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus for global security being unreliable on RSN or anywhere else. Cipher21(talk) 17:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, after reading through RSN, as well as Truthwins018's and SpicyBiryani's comments above, I have learnt that it is widely cited by RS such as Reuters and The New York Times (as well as numerous articles and books). Cipher21(talk) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As no obvious consensus is reached on global security being unreliable and it quoting figures from this source at page 571, it seems obvious to quote them so far. As Cipher21 and Cinderella157 have mentioned, the info box should be changed showing various figures. I propose figures being quoted as 1500 estimate on both indian and pakistani sides as a neutral claim and 6000 casualties as indian claim. this source source by far is the most trustworthy keeping in view the years of the event and the neutrality of the source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Globalsecurity.org is a web site, not a published work. It is user-contributed, much like Wikipedia. If the information is not well-sourced or signed with a recognizable author, you can't use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
GlobalSecurity.org is not a user-contributed website like Wikipedia. Where'd you get that from? Cipher21(talk) 10:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 you seem to have randomly jumped in the discussion without going through all of it. Kindly go through all to know that global security.org also quotes some other source which seems reputable neutral source at page 571 as quoted by Cinderella157 and the reliability of global security.org has also been discussed and consensus is reached upon by 2-3 users alreadyTruthwins018 (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the India Country Study and globalsecurity.org are identical. So we can assume it is the same information that has been duplicated.
It is just a made-up figure pulled out of hair. For instance, what is meant by "soldiers" for the Pakistani side? The Indian figure, though unsatisfactory, would at least be based on some ground information. I would be fine to label it as "Indian claim". The 1,500 figure is not worth bothering about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added ~1,500 killed to both sides, citing Heitzman and Worden (eds). Cinderella157 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The handbook furnished revolves around a general theme of the country India and touches on the war at issue in passing, with no reference to any source for the casualty figures. Unless better sources are provided, the existing content will stay as is as undergirded by reliable sources. The handbook fails WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the handbook seems pretty reasonable in the case of this event and the sources available. It is the only neutral casualty figure available and also worked upon by the Federal Research Division of Congress. It directly mentions the figures so WP:CONTEXTMATTERS cannot imply. The 6000 casualty figure also has no reference to any source e.g from the ISPR. It is thus that it is available also in the estimated range of casualty figures, although i believe it should be mentioned under a subtitle of indian claimed Truthwins018 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible; you may have comprehension problems, that doesn't preclude others from calibrating a source. Kerberous (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Information in the source neutral source is definetely not impyling WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It would seem to imply if the source was on some other country and mentioning thus the information. The source clearly is on one of the participating countries of the war and under a section on National Security. It also mentions all the other Indo-Pak wars. It is fine to present the source as an estimate from 1500-6000. The 6000 figures also seem dubious and WP:BIASED. Even citation of The News source looks like WP:CIRC as mentioned by Cipher21. No official statementhas been given by Pakistani authorities to ascertain the casualty figure. The 1,500 source is cited here [[1]] and on global security.org which has quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [9] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar[10] including reuters as SpicyBiryani has mentioned earlier.Truthwins018 (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear from any of the sources just what these figures represent (ie the context). In each case, there are "official" casualties of the two national militaries but there are also military casualties that were not officially part of the two national militaries. I would suspect that the lower figures (ie 1000-1500) are the "official" casualties. The 6000 figure is likely the total combatant figure for Pakistan. The total for India might be similarly higher if it were to include the Kashmir state forces etc. This is of course my assessment and counts for naught at the end of the day. We must rely on the sources that we have - as imperfect as they might be. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157, The J&K State Forces were under the command of the Indian Army, and their casualties would have been counted just the same way as the Army's own. This was not the case for Pakistan. All its fighters were irregulars; nobody (in Pakistan) knew how many were fighting or how many had died. They simply didn't keep track. The Pakistan Army itself did fight, two brigades or something. They were in the back and probably provided backup and artillery support. Their casualties would have been negligible. The term "soldiers" used by the source is quite misleading.
The knee-jerk equation of India and Pakistan that this source is using is precisely what destroys its credibility. It shows a complete lack of understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, you make assumptions about what did or did not happen. Your views (as are mine) are irrelevant (ie WP:OR). We have to survive with what we have and report them neutrally. I do believe that the present status does this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The presupposed paucity of sources is not a grounds for lowering the yardstick for assessing sources, especially when the source contradicts the existing reliable sources with a broad-brush. As already enjoined by others before, find a better source for making changes to the casualties, as this one doesn't inspire confidence. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my unexplained revert but it was done by mistake. It has already been explained by Cinderella157 and is definetely inspiring confidence. The reasons have clearly been stated. In this topic, it is only neutral to state it as an estimate of both. Read the above discussion. You changed the article without actually making a point. Opinion doesn't carry weight here. Hope you understand WP:ORTruthwins018 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: But still, you know you are in an untenable position and you don't have a consensus for the revert you made. File an RfC or pursue other avenues but statusquo should be maintained until you get consensus. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasult of RfC
The RfC has now been closed. This was a technical close that the source was considered unreliable, more for the lack of evidence that it is a WP:RS than that the evidence doesn't exist:
... does not show that India: A Country Study is widely cited by reliable sources. Similarly, no one has shown that the authors of the work are themselves widely-cited or accepted experts in their field, and no one has shown that the publisher of the work, Federal Research Division, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is widely-cited in this field (nor has there been any evidence of actual or presumed fact-checking occurring in the publication of this work).
Some post close comments evidence that these requirements can be easily met. [2],[3],[4] My own searches would indicate that the editors (those exercising oversight) are considered eminent in respect to south Asian history and like. It appears clear that the closers rational for making their close could be readily addressed. On the otherhand, the discussion at WP:RSN raised significant concerns with the other sources being used to support the casualty figures reported - ie that none of the sources are adequate for the purpose of reporting casualty figures. Consequently, there would appear to be a couple of courses open from here:
Reopen a WP:RSN thread and provide the evidence that would likely conclude the Country Study source reliable. If it doesn't, then remove material attributed to it.
Leave things as they are, given the likely outcome - ie a new WP:RSN is probably just wasting everybodies time.
Delete the casualty figures totally because none of the sources are reasonably adequate for that purpose.
Find good quality sources to support the article (particularly casualty figures). Whether or not the existing material is deleted in the mean time is a subsidiary question but deleting them is likely to stimulate activity.
Delete the country study figures and nothing else.
Option 4 is clearly the best path but it assumes that such sources do exist and I'm not certain they do since it is reasonable to assume that they would have been found and used by now if they did. There is probably going to be a lot of argument against option 3 - not because it isn't an appropriate course but because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is common sense in preferring option 2 over option 1. Option 5 assumes that nobody is going to advance option 1. Comments on how to proceed please. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
change "the Maharaja unleased a 'reign of terror' on 24 August." to "the Maharaja unleashed a 'reign of terror' on 24 August." Abhaykashyapnvn (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Cinderella157: and @Truthwins018:- Do not edit war. As per discretionary sanctions, you may be blocked from editing this article permanently if you continue this behaviour. If you have been reverted, achieve consensus before attempting to enforce your edits.
I recommend that these edits be reverted till the time a consensus is achieved, if anyone has a counter-view kindly say so. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware or not that you and user:Truthwins018 have reverted a revert twice, attempting to enforce an edit that is currently under dispute and not a WP:CONSENSUS? If I had not been clear enough earlier, I hope that you will abstain from such behaviour in future.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any valid reason as to why your edits should not be reverted till a consensus is achieved?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CapnJackSp, I have not revered anything twice. One should be careful about casting aspersions. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment, "you and the other user" have reverted twice. The statement stands. With clear knowledge that the material was contested, and that it had been previously been attempted to be introduced to the article(and reverted), it was re-instated. You have not yet replied as to whether you have a logical argument why the edit should not be reverted till a consensus is achieved. If you do not have such an argument, it seems a revert would be in order.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CapnJackSp, You appear to be alleging that I have made two reverts in a way that would constitute edit warring (and that another has also). I have not engaged in edit waring. However, I am the editor that has taken a lead in trying to resolve a dispute between other editors. You might then wait until that dispute resolution process has run its course before any action that preempts such an outcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to insinuate that there were two reverts each. I missed that the reverts happened months ago, so theres no issue about the edits. However, generally, it is better to get a consensus when reverted for the first time, instead of reinstating with one line edit summary. Just for future editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CapnJackSp, there have been no edits to this page at all in almost a month. What the heck are you talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CapnJackSp, as you are the OP, can I suggest that you archive this (as the next best thing to a redaction) before somebody here seriously considers your posts here to be disruptive and take further action. Just a thought. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 and Cinderella157: Like I said, I had confused the dates with a different article and realized later that reverts occurred almost 2 months ago. I have struck the claims of edit warring. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, when you open a talk page discussion in future, please include diffs of the edits you are complaining about. You are asking too much of us if you go off ranting without even saying what it is about. I am closing this discussion now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cindereall157's edits
@Cinderella157: I also checked the RSN result and it seems that the source is indeed unreliable. Nobody except you, one user and a sock puppet ever agreed here with that source anyway against numerous editors who opposed the inclusion all the time so I think you are better off moving away from this part of the topic per WP:STICK. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 06:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aman.kumar.goel, there is an open discussion above (#Reasult of RfC). The RfC at RSN was closed for technical reasons: In sum, while the numerical margin against reliability was small, the arguments in favor of reliability objectively did not meet the bar set in WP:RS, which is a requirement for inclusion as documented at WP:V. It is possible that editors may, in the future, bring forward new information about the source that convinces other editors that it meets the requirements of WP:RS; consensus can change. The post close discussion (ping MGetudiant, John M Baker and Tayi Arajakate who contributed there, and the closer Levivich) clearly indicate that the technical reasons for the close could readily be satisfied.
Rather than grabbing the stick by the wrong end and wielding it around, it would be better to contribute to the above discussion to build a consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cipher21 was a sock , we shouldn't be considering his comments anywhere. The RSN discussion (that went against you) still considered the sock's comments.
Result of the RSN discussion was not overturned, and even if it was, you would still need consensus here to include it since you never had one as correctly pointed out here. 11:24, 16 May 2022
From writing above post, rehashing discussion on WP:RSN even after closure and now reverting here, you seem to have qualified for the definition of WP:1AM. I would also advise you that you should indeed drop the WP:STICK. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the entire casualties field in the infobox. It's not the strongest source (imo) but it's certainly stronger than the rest, most of which aren't even adequately independent so there's no justification for solely removing that one. Tayi ArajakateTalk 04:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely. When the Indian military itself admits that it lost over 3,000 soldiers, a source that says "each side" lost 1,500 is being ridiculously naive and ill-informed. Hardly a "strongest source". WP:VNOTSUFF. See WP:RSTERTIARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that the other sources give a figure of 1,104? Tayi ArajakateTalk 15:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All wrong obviously, as is our page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any source from Indian military saying 3,000 dead. The figure of 1,104 killed and 3,154 wounded for India is accurate. I just added good source here. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:
During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.[1]
So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It is possible that all the Indian military writers just reported their own casualties and ignored those of the State Forces. If that is supposed to be reasonable, then by the same count, it would also be reasonable to count only Pakistani Army casualties like the US Federal Research Division did. You can't have your cake and eat it too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of Pakistani troops in position is wrong it's from the 1965 war. Pakistani troops weren't that much well equipped during the Gilgit Baltistan liberation war. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pr0pulsion 123 I uploaded this one which is suitable for this article.
Pashtun warriors from different tribes on their way to Kashmir and Gilgit during the Kashmir Liberation War C.1947-48Xtreme o7 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, as it also appears in [5] - relating to the 1948 war. It seems the Pakistan army is inconsistent in its use of images. - Arjayay (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjayay in their official war gallery, the 1st kashmir war section is accurate. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions the two governors general. That is sufficient. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the governor generals had a bigger role. But somewhere it should be mentioned who the king of each country was. In the pages for World War I and Indian Rebellion of 1857 for example kings or queens were listed.
Ok, your point is valid. Now the next question is why no mention of the king in the article? Given the unique situation, it would be very interesting to know what the king did or did not. There must be some valid source on the topic.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Joooshhh - because this is a change to the infobox, it's possible there's already a reliable source cited somewhere in the article prose. If that's the case please just point me to it and WP:PING me to take a look (or leave a note on my talk page). I'll leave this open a while longer in case another editor cares to review or hunt down a source. --N8wilson🔔 18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@N8wilson: Found this in the article - In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mehndar Valley.[94], the cited source being Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, pp. 65–67. Re12345 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks Re12345. I'm going ahead with this change based on the reference provided above. --N8wilson🔔 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to revert this edit on the grounds that, even if Pakistan troops were not deployed in Kashmir prior to May 1948, the Pakistan Army was fully involved. Here are some extracts from General Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain's talk at an ISPR-organised conference:[8]
"When Quaid-e-Azam was briefed about all this [on or around 27 October 1947], he kept quiet, General Gracey then asked his permission to draw his own plan."
"The first thing after this conversation was selection of suitable officers. officers were picked up from the army. Brigadier Akbar had served with General Gracey on the Burma front and was recommended for Victoria Cross but was awarded D.S.O. due to lack of evidence. A cell for planning on Kashmir was created in Military Operations Directorate under Brigadier Sher Khan. Similarly a branch under Adjutant General was opened which was assigned the job of selecting those officers who had been associated with Kashmir or the State forces. Such officers were sent to assist the Mujahideen and were shown as retired or absent without leave".
General Wajahat further said that "apart from planning military operations, General Messervy had a close liaison with the civil authorities. He used to come to the office at half past seven, Brigadier Sher Khan would present the report on the previous twenty four hours and get instructions for the next day. Then they would visit the operations room where consultations would continue till 10 a.m. Thereafter rest of the affairs were handled. In the evening General Gracey would visit Commissioner Rawalpindi, attired in civil clothes. Briadier Sher Khan, GOC 7 Division Major General Tottenham and a couple of other Brigadiers like Brigadier Azam Khan or Brigadier Akbar used to be present. The deliberations would continue till late at night. Every second or third day General Gracey used to submit the progress report to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who himself used to come once or twice a week, accompanied by Secretary General Mohammad Ali. Once in a fortnight or so Defence Secretary Colonel Sikandar Mirza would pay a visit".
Thanks for the explanation Kautilya3. Working only with the prose of this article leads me to believe the May date is simply the nominal/official entry but not necessarily the first involvement of any form. In IB discussions such as this I tend to lean toward pruning information out so that readers in search of finer or more nuanced details must rely on the prose anyway. That is to say, I'm fine with this revert and appreciate the added context you've provided here. --N8wilson🔔 22:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^"Furqan Force". Persecution.org. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
^"Failures and Successes of Kashmir War: Muzaffarabad Seminar - 27 November, 1990", Defence and Media 1991, Inter Services Public Relations, Pakistan, 1991, pp. 114–125
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Joooshhh - because this is a change to the infobox, it's possible there's already a reliable source cited somewhere in the article prose. If that's the case please just point me to it and WP:PING me to take a look (or leave a note on my talk page). I'll leave this open a while longer in case another editor cares to review or hunt down a source. --N8wilson 🔔 18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Already done Has {{Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars}} for a long time ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)