Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Comments: Comment
Line 265: Line 265:
*'''Inconclusive - See Aftermath / No military conclusion:''' Most of the sources point towards a stalemate/inconclusive result. It would be a gross oversimplification to give weight to a minority viewpoint in academic scholarship that are mostly one liner/non academic partisan sources, and the [[WP:FRINGE]] issues of this approach should be obvious. Although in the interest of consensus among editors and [[MOS:MIL]] policy compliance as noted by nom, just '''See Aftermath''' would also be appropriate.
*'''Inconclusive - See Aftermath / No military conclusion:''' Most of the sources point towards a stalemate/inconclusive result. It would be a gross oversimplification to give weight to a minority viewpoint in academic scholarship that are mostly one liner/non academic partisan sources, and the [[WP:FRINGE]] issues of this approach should be obvious. Although in the interest of consensus among editors and [[MOS:MIL]] policy compliance as noted by nom, just '''See Aftermath''' would also be appropriate.
:Lastly, the repetitive arguments presented above so far for "Indian victory" - to give undue weight to the select few fringe sources in infobox - remain thoroughly unconvincing and refuted in the discussion section below. They also ignore "{{tq|Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded}}". [https://books.google.com/books?id=jjaTAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false] Having a few sources state an upper hand in some way during the war by either India or Pakistan doesn't translate to a "victory/success" for any party, this just demonstrates why the war is generally perceived as a stalemate by independent sources.[[User:Codenamewolf|Codenamewolf]] ([[User talk:Codenamewolf|talk]]) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:Lastly, the repetitive arguments presented above so far for "Indian victory" - to give undue weight to the select few fringe sources in infobox - remain thoroughly unconvincing and refuted in the discussion section below. They also ignore "{{tq|Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded}}". [https://books.google.com/books?id=jjaTAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false] Having a few sources state an upper hand in some way during the war by either India or Pakistan doesn't translate to a "victory/success" for any party, this just demonstrates why the war is generally perceived as a stalemate by independent sources.[[User:Codenamewolf|Codenamewolf]] ([[User talk:Codenamewolf|talk]]) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Indian victory'''. Scholarly opinion is not divided into opposing viewpoints on this question. Most scholars view this favorably. The chief argument here is that the academic consensus weighs in favor of the idea of Indian victory, if we discount the passing mentions (and these sources have been scrutinized). The arguments against it are mostly dubious and vacillate between an ''inconclusive'', ''stalemate'' and a ''see aftermath'', and some of the !votes above juxtapose all these expressions together, betraying a lack of clarity in thoughts and basis in sources. As a participant in the discussions, I considered most of the sources furnished for both of the positions and the attendant arguments. Most scholarly accounts of the war, detailed enough in their consideration of the subject, tended to acknowledge, in one way or another, India's relative successes in accomplishing the prewar objectives it had set out to accomplish, in marked contrast with Pakistan's failures in doing so. Pakistan did not have any material gain accruing to it during the course of engagement with the Indian forces. It retained a third of the erstwhile territory of Kashmir, but which its lashkars had already wrung from the state forces of maharaja (before he acceded it to India, paving the way for the latter's participation in the war) and it did not have within it the Vale of Kashmir, much less the crowning objective of Srinagar, which it warred over.[https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Conflict_Unending/xn_QVYLy6ocC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+raiders+had+alreAdy+managed%22&pg=PA17&printsec=frontcover] India entered much later into the war theatre, and not just arrested the Pakistani advance, but also acquired control over the majority of Kashmir (hosting 72% of its population) which included the valley that it reclaimed.{{paragraph}}Some of the ''see aftermath'' proponents have in discussions pointed to a number of passing mentions stacked up elsewhere to argue that these sources established a divergence of opinions amongst scholars on the war result. Dhawangupta in their comment above refers to an analysis of some of these sources, and folks have scrutinized more of these sources elsewhere on the page. On policy grounds alone, this argument would be discounted, for a source touching on a subject incidentally is by definition inadmissible. Even then, there are important nuances in the use of expressions such as "stalemate", "deadlock", et al, occurring in some of these sources, which they do in a certain context. These then have been misrepresented out of that context by their posters that intertwined it to the war result. The first Kashmir war was fought over roughly one and a half year from October 1947 to January 1949, and most of these passing mentions of stalemate occur in the context of military deadlock that characterized the situation of the beginning of the winter of 1947. For instance, [[Jayanta Kumar Ray]], one of their sources is a good case in point. {{tq|''With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply line, the military situation reached a stalemate; especially because regular Pakistani troops were also joining the Azad Kashmir forces. On 1 January 1948 , India referred the matter to the Security Council under Article 35 of the Charter , urging that august institution to call upon Pakistan to refrain from interfering in Kashmir by aiding and abetting the tribal invaders''}}, Ray wrote on the situation of lack of military progress by either side by the time winter descended (the year being 1947) in her brief consideration of the war. This was misrepresented as Ray's support for the war result being a stalemate! [[Sumit Ganguly]], in his ''Conflict Unending India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947'', tells us that after the relative quiet of winter was the Indian spring offensive of 1948 that accrued it important territorial gains. {{tq|In December 1947, logistical difficulties dealt the Indian forces an important military setback. The principal problem that the Indian forces encountered was a lack of supplies and of adequate high - altitude warfare equipment...Taking advantage of the Indian lapse , the ' Azad Kashmir ' ( literally , ' free Kashmir ' ) forces compelled the Indians to retreat . . In the spring of 1948 , the Indians launched a counter - offensive that led to more direct Pakistani involvement in the war .  Later in the year , regular Pakistani army units entered the fray as the Indian army made important territorial gains .}} Another one of their own sources, Peter R. Lavoy, mentions ''in passing'', in his book on Kargil, that the important mountainous towns of [[Dras]], [[Kargil]] and the Zozila Pass fell in Indian hands only by December 1948.{{paragraph}}Ganguly also observes on the false optimism of Pakistan's establishment that convinced it to war with India over Kashmir, {{tq|Given the disarray of Pakistan's social , organizational , political , and military structures in the wake of Partition, it is hard to understand how any responsible Pakistani decision - maker could have believed that a war with India over Kashmir would result in Pakistani victory}}. <span class="plainlinks">[https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/author/subir-bhaumik Subir Bhaumik]</span>, scholar, writes, "{{tq|The general course of the first Kashmir war went against Pakistani expectations . Pakistan could not bring Kashmir within its fold - neither could it , at that point of time , win the loyalty of the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley . The Pakistani effort lacked centralized operational planning , proper intelligence and , above all , an accurate assessment of the Indian mindset}}". Pradeep Barua, in his critique of the performances of the armies, writes, "{{tq|The campaign in Jammu and Kashmir, the second longest military campaign waged by the Indian army to date, is also one of its most successful. The army's performance reflected the high state of combat efficiency achieved during the Second World War. More importantly, the Indian army's success vindicated the reforms carried out in the interwar British-Indian army. After initially experiencing shock at the strength and organization of the Pakistani- sponsored raiders, the general staff did not panic and flood Kashmir with troops. Instead, it carefully noted the logistical difficulties. As a result, when the Indian counteroffensive eventually opened in early 1948, it was sustained with minor hitches right up until the cease-fire. Despite numerical superi- ority and the advantage of operating close to its supply bases, the Pakistani army failed to make any substantial headway. The inadequacies that char- acterized most Pakistani operations can be traced to their depleted officer corps.}} [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Indian victory'''. Scholarly opinion is not divided into opposing viewpoints on this question. Most scholars view this favorably. The chief argument here is that the academic consensus weighs in favor of the idea of Indian victory, if we discount the passing mentions (and these sources have been scrutinized). The arguments against it are mostly dubious and vacillate between an ''inconclusive'', ''stalemate'' and a ''see aftermath'', and some of the !votes above juxtapose all these expressions together, betraying a lack of clarity in thoughts and basis in sources. As a participant in the discussions, I considered most of the sources furnished for both of the positions and the attendant arguments. Most scholarly accounts of the war, detailed enough in their consideration of the subject, tended to acknowledge, in one way or another, India's relative successes in accomplishing the prewar objectives it had set out to accomplish, in marked contrast with Pakistan's failures in doing so. Pakistan did not have any material gain accruing to it during the course of engagement with the Indian forces. It retained a third of the erstwhile territory of Kashmir, but which its lashkars had already wrung from the state forces of maharaja (before he acceded it to India, paving the way for the latter's participation in the war) and it did not have within it the Vale of Kashmir, much less the crowning objective of Srinagar, which it warred over.[https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Conflict_Unending/xn_QVYLy6ocC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+raiders+had+alreAdy+managed%22&pg=PA17&printsec=frontcover] India entered much later into the war theatre, and not just arrested the Pakistani advance, but also acquired control over the majority of Kashmir (hosting 72% of its population) which included the valley that it reclaimed.{{paragraph}}Some of the ''see aftermath'' proponents have in discussions pointed to a number of passing mentions stacked up elsewhere to argue that these sources established a divergence of opinions amongst scholars on the war result. Dhawangupta in their comment above refers to an analysis of some of these sources, and folks have scrutinized more of these sources elsewhere on the page. On policy grounds alone, this argument would be discounted, for a source touching on a subject incidentally is by definition inadmissible. Even then, there are important nuances in the use of expressions such as "stalemate", "deadlock", et al, occurring in some of these sources, which they do in a certain context. These then have been misrepresented out of that context by their posters that intertwined it to the war result. The first Kashmir war was fought over roughly one and a half year from October 1947 to January 1949, and most of these passing mentions of stalemate occur in the context of military deadlock that characterized the situation of the beginning of the winter of 1947. For instance, [[Jayanta Kumar Ray]], one of their sources is a good case in point. {{tq|''With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply line, the military situation reached a stalemate; especially because regular Pakistani troops were also joining the Azad Kashmir forces. On 1 January 1948 , India referred the matter to the Security Council under Article 35 of the Charter , urging that august institution to call upon Pakistan to refrain from interfering in Kashmir by aiding and abetting the tribal invaders''}}[https://books.google.com/books?id=Nyk6oA2nOlgC&pg=PA208], Ray wrote on the situation of lack of military progress by either side by the time winter descended (the year being 1947) in her brief consideration of the war. This was misrepresented as Ray's support for the war result being a stalemate! [[Sumit Ganguly]], in his ''Conflict Unending India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947'', tells us that after the relative quiet of winter was the Indian spring offensive of 1948 that accrued it important territorial gains. {{tq|In December 1947, logistical difficulties dealt the Indian forces an important military setback. The principal problem that the Indian forces encountered was a lack of supplies and of adequate high - altitude warfare equipment...Taking advantage of the Indian lapse , the ' Azad Kashmir ' ( literally , ' free Kashmir ' ) forces compelled the Indians to retreat . . In the spring of 1948 , the Indians launched a counter - offensive that led to more direct Pakistani involvement in the war .  Later in the year , regular Pakistani army units entered the fray as the Indian army made important territorial gains .}}[https://books.google.com/books?id=xn_QVYLy6ocC&pg=PA18] Another one of their own sources, Peter R. Lavoy, mentions ''in passing'', in his book on Kargil, that the important mountainous towns of [[Dras]], [[Kargil]] and the Zozila Pass fell in Indian hands only by December 1948.{{paragraph}}Ganguly also observes on the false optimism of Pakistan's establishment that convinced it to war with India over Kashmir, {{tq|Given the disarray of Pakistan's social , organizational , political , and military structures in the wake of Partition, it is hard to understand how any responsible Pakistani decision - maker could have believed that a war with India over Kashmir would result in Pakistani victory}}.[https://books.google.com/books?id=xn_QVYLy6ocC&pg=PA19] <span class="plainlinks">[https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/author/subir-bhaumik Subir Bhaumik]</span>, scholar, writes, "{{tq|The general course of the first Kashmir war went against Pakistani expectations . Pakistan could not bring Kashmir within its fold - neither could it , at that point of time , win the loyalty of the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley . The Pakistani effort lacked centralized operational planning , proper intelligence and , above all , an accurate assessment of the Indian mindset}}".[https://books.google.com/books?id=iftjFki3fhYC&pg=PA18] Pradeep Barua, in his critique of the performances of the armies, writes, "{{tq|The campaign in Jammu and Kashmir, the second longest military campaign waged by the Indian army to date, is also one of its most successful. The army's performance reflected the high state of combat efficiency achieved during the Second World War. More importantly, the Indian army's success vindicated the reforms carried out in the interwar British-Indian army. After initially experiencing shock at the strength and organization of the Pakistani- sponsored raiders, the general staff did not panic and flood Kashmir with troops. Instead, it carefully noted the logistical difficulties. As a result, when the Indian counteroffensive eventually opened in early 1948, it was sustained with minor hitches right up until the cease-fire. Despite numerical superi- ority and the advantage of operating close to its supply bases, the Pakistani army failed to make any substantial headway. The inadequacies that char- acterized most Pakistani operations can be traced to their depleted officer corps.}}[https://books.google.com/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA166] [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}


Revision as of 06:28, 11 February 2024

Indian Victory??

The 1947-1948 Indo-Pakistani War is not an official Indian victory. The Indian objective was to repulse the 20 lashkar invasion of Kashmir and reenforce administration in the Gilgit Agency & areas like what is now AJK. Indja failed in this, just as Pakistan failed in securing all of Kashmir. This page recently stated a UN-mandates ceasefire, why change it now? The bias here is obvious. Same with how pages like the Rajasthan Front (Pakistani victory) was deleted. Izaan Iqbal (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Izaan Iqbal, thank you for using the talk page to air your concern about the changes that have been introduced to the article. My observation here is that critiquing a topic of historical interest is the preserve of scholars. And where they remark in the affirmative that one side had better success at accomplishing the objectives it had set out to accomplish, Wikipedia naturally has to reflect the same. That's how this encyclopedia is written. In this case, reliable sources were furnished and affixed next to the information. So the only challenge to it should come from reliable sources as well. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. However, it is a scholarly agreement that the First Kashmir War was a ceasefire, and there was no victor. The Indian government under Prime Minister Nehru, did not push the initiative of declaring Major William General's accession to Pakistan as illegal. The push by those such as Mountbatten & Patel to expel Pakistani forces out of Kashmir did not succeed. Hence, no side was a victor in this war. The Karachi Agreement (1949) enforces such, leaving the choice of Kashmir to a referendum. There has been a recent surge of bias, per-say, favoring Indian perspectives on Indo-Pakistani conflicts. As I stated earlier, the Rajasthan Front article was deleted, the Rann of Kutch conflict was changed from a Pakistani victory to a ceasefire, however Pakistan was in a favorable position by securing the necessary posts to apply pressure on India. But since Harold Wilson negotiated a ceasefire, thus changing the result to a simple "ceasefire", why isn't that logic applied here? Hence, I request the article return to the result being a UN-mandated ceasefire. Izaan Iqbal (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned by this edit by Capitals00 that changed the result parameter to Indian victory. I would note that it was previously United Nations-mediated ceasefire. The previous entry against the result parameter did not comply with MOS:MIL nor does retaining it as a dot point in the present version. What is written (who won) should reflect the consensus of good quality (academic) independent secondary sources. It should also reflect the body of the article (eg the Aftermath section). It doesn't. There are three sources cited to the result. The third source (K. Shoup) could best be described as a text book and consequently a WP:TERTIARY source. The second source (Jaffrelot) fails verification in that it is not saying that India won. It is detailing the consequences for China if there was an Indian victory in Kashmir. Wayne Ayres Wilcox is reasonably a source we can rely on but one source does not make a consensus among scholars (plural). While I have not attempted a search of sources, it would surprise me if the consensus of academic sources was not so unequivocal as Wilcox and generally more circumspect. Yes, we can add Wilcox to the Aftermath section but we need to poll other sources on this question and present the various views with appropriate weight. I would forecast that the result will be less than conclusive and suggest that the See Aftermath section will be the most appropriate of the permitted responses (per MOS:MIL) to be used in this particular case. The sources cited are not sufficient to claim an Indian victory at this time. In the mean time, I have changed this to See Aftermath section pending further discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: "That war represented a defeat for Pakistan. Hoping to conquer Kashmir, the Pakistani leaders had sent their best troops into battle against the Indian army. Military victory proved beyond the means of the smaller state, though it was by the mid - 1960s a militaristic regime."[1] By cold war historian Daniel R. Brower.
Military expert Praveen Swami has described how Pakistan failed,[2] and it was a "defeat of Pakistan in 1947-1948" war.[3]
"Pakistan lost the war. There was a handful of regular army officers sprinkled among the tribesmen, whose military campaign disintegrated into orgy of looting and plundering." By Kathy Gannon.[4]
"Pakistan lost all three wars, which is a major source of humiliation for Pakistanis. The first war (1947-1948) was fought over Kashmir, a predominately Muslim region that remained in India when India was portioned into two states. The war failed to secure Pakistan's sovereignty over the region as it left the majority of it under India."[5] By Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan.
"Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir." By Farzana Shaikh, published by Oxford University Press with regards to Rawalpindi conspiracy.[6]
Talat Ahmed agrees with the above source that it "was based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir".[7]
Given all these thoroughly reliable sources, I have expanded the aftermath section and will change the infobox to support Indian victory. Capitals00 (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian victory?

Note this sub-section was moved here per this edit in order to keep the discussion centralised in one section. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the result was never "Indian victory" and it is changed recently by of course the Indians, Pakistan captured nearly 85,000 sq km of Jammu and Kashmir and the result is "Indian victory"? Is this a joke? Wasn't this war inconclusive as neither Pakistan was able to completely capture the state nor India recaptured the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan. 182.181.156.17 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you India controlled the whole Jammu and Kashmir that it must have "recaptured the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan" in order to win the war? When India entered in the war, a huge portion was already captured by Pakistani tribesmen. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The war was conclusive. Jammu and Kashmir ceased to be an independent country. India and Pakistan partitioned the state. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My previous post was to say that there should be an objective review of the sources regarding the result and that the aftermath section should summarise such a review. The result of this suggestion was to find and cite multiple sources for claiming the result in the infobox to be an Indian victory even though the war was terminated by a UN cease fire. In summary, these would assert the victory because Pakistan had not captured all of K&J. We now have a link to Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Result field which discusses not just that war but also the result of this war. It presents several sources that would assert the result here was inconclusive. Only presenting sources that support one particular view is not neutral. From the sources, India's entry into K&J was initially successful against the tribal uprising but, on formal involvement of Pakistan's military it was considered that they could not sustain the previous successes. Consequently, India petitioned the UN to mediate a ceasefire. Pakistan agreed on the basis that a plebiscite was a condition of the ceasefire. Pakistan agreed to several mediated proposals for a plebiscite but these were stonewalled by India. Ultimately, the plebiscite has not been implemented. The fate of K&J has not been resolved between the two countries. It has remained a simmering point of contention between the two countries and a cause of subsequent wars over the territory.
I have been intending to amend the aftermath to reflect this but I have a bit much on my plate at the moment. Anybody else is welcome to take up the task. Looking at the sources, there is clearly more to this than can be reasonably represented as being an Indian victory. With an adequate aftermath section, MOS:MIL would indicate that the result should be see Aftermath. In the mean time, I would suggest that the status quo (ie UN ceasefire) might be best even though it is not supported by MOS:MIL. It is at least, undisputable and supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable proposition is that the article should continue to say "UN-Mandated Ceasefire" as per the scholarly consensus but should also reference "See Aftermath" as you proposed to show the dominance one side held over the other. This is better than coming to a highly disputed conclusion that one side had total victory over the other. MrGreen1163 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot do that. See my comments above. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can do that, unless you straight up deny the UN-mandated ceasefire. This is an incredibly reasonable proposition as to resolve this due to this debate raging on ever since you edited this page. Last time I checked the scholarly consensus of a widely researched war just doesn't change 75 years later with cherrypicked elements of a minority opinions to for some reason show this as the majority scholarly consensus. My proposition is incredibly reasonable as to resolve this issue and to prevent elements of bias in this article, showcasing all assessments of this war. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Victory: an act of defeating an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition." (Oxford Languages)
"Upper hand: have the advantage over someone or something" (Oxford Languages)
There is a clear differential between victory and upper hand. The Indian army did not gain complete victory against the Pakistani army in this war, as evident by their literal failure to secure Gilgit Baltistan and only even having some success on that front by successfully defending Leh. Pakistan also failed to achieve its wanted objectives in areas such as Srinagar and Chamb, but this doesn't warrant an Indian victory. Its evident both sides struggled, and the United Nations mandated a ceasefire before even further escalation in the Spring of 1949 could occur. This is like arguing the War of 1812 was a British victory due to it having the upper hand at the time peace was signed. See MOS:MIL. "Used for all conflicts and combat operations, such as battles, campaigns, and wars. The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result"." See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Utilizing the upper hand in terms of military losses does not warrant a victory for one side. See WP:Cherrypicking. See WP:NPOV. " If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.". MOS:MIL mandates you to adhere somewhat to my proposal. This is a highly contentious topic with multiple differing opinions, and the denial of the majority scholarly consensus is appalling. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An official ceasefire should not be translated into "ceasefire" but who had upper hand at the time when the ceasefire was initiated.

Comparison with 1812 war is irrelevant because there was no territorial changed involved in that war between the two main parties (US and UK).

"Victory" is decided by the reliable sources. Do the existing sources support the "victory" parameter in favor of India? They absolutely do. But do you have any sources that describe the outcome as Pakistan's victory? Ratnahastin (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few sources state Indian side to have an upper hand during conflict does not mean all sources agree for this outcome. Reading the relevant UN-mediated ceasefire agreement would be useful in this regard. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what sources say and since there was a coup attempt in Pakistan, after the UN intervention, due to Pakistan's defeat in the war, it would make no sense for you to simply rely on the UN intervention. You can find sources describing how this was not a victory for India because we have reliable sources that described how it was a victory for India. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Rawalpindi conspiracy by the coup, then that's speculation by you, because its reason was not "Pakistani defeat" but the acceptance of UN ceasefire by Pakistani government.
Also, in the infobox the mainstream academic views are included, which is that the war was ended by a ceasefire agreement, not by an Indian victory. Even the article notes this to be the cause of the ending of war. India failed its objective of gaining control of whole Kashmir region as well, and thus there is no reason to change the outcome on the basis of a few sources, as it violates WP:NPOV. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my speculation but that is exactly what several scholarly sources stated as discussed above.[8][9] US did not achieve its goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Gulf war but it would never mean that they were not the victor of the war. To say we should ignore these sources only because you are saying otherwise will not happen. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user who edited the article to an Indian victory has agreed with the assessment that the war was solely a UN-mediated ceasefire. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Capitals00) MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only said I am fine with reviewing consensus. I still support adding Indian victory on infobox. Don't falsify my comments. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources provide no preview, no quote neither page. Also, where did I draw parallel with Saddam Hussein? This parallel is not even a good one, as the purpose of First Gulf War was not to overthrow Ba'athist regime but to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this saying "Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir." While this is saying, "based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir".[10] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the resolution in the ANI, may you revert the edit to the edit published before Capitals00 on November 10th? The other editor only changed the result not the article content which is not complicit per MOS:INFOBOX. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute is only over infobox, not the rest of the content. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No? The whole dispute was over the outcome of this war, which is included in the article. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should better focus on the result parameter that why it should not mention Indian victory. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was already decided upon per the resolution as mentioned above. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal conclusion is WP:OR. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The user not having consensus is now WP:OR? MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which "resolution" are you talking about? Consensus is formed with policy based discussion and your objection have no connection with the policy based discussion. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you yourself not agree on the current result in the article? "Then I don't have any issue with the revert and reviewing the consensus on talk page.". MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not based off of my "personal opinion" considering 7 users have reverted your edit changing the result to an "Indian victory" and the discussions in this talk page objecting such a result, that is consensus. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the result from an Indian victory to a UN-mediated ceasefire.* MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said I don't have problem with the revert and "reviewing the consensus on talk page". I never said I don't support removal of Indian victory. Talk about who has sensibly disputed the result parameter until now and you will find nobody has. Capitals00 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 users who reverted your edits are not those who disputed the result parameter? I even originally proposed that under "UN-mediated ceasefire", it should state, "See aftermath", as per MOS:MIL, which is mostly in effect right now. Therefore, I do not see the point of this debate considering the current parameter mostly aligns with MOS:MIL, and you can add "See aftermath" below "UN-mediated ceasefire" as per the original proposition, which showcases India's upper hand at the time of the ceasefire strategically. Thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siachen conflict also resulted in a ceasefire. It doesn't mean it was not a "victory" for India. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has stretched too long for convenience of uninvolved observers and most of it, dare I say, has strayed off the course to a digression on who reverted whom on what, which isn't helpful. There is a proposal for revising the result to reflect the increased support for Indian success in the war in academic sources. It is not at issue that a UN brokered forced a formal cessation of the war. But reading the sources make it clear that one side had better successes in accomplishing prewar objectives in the military engagement, as the ensuing disproportionate portioning of the erstwhile Kashmir territory between the two belligerents exemplify too. Cinderella157 makes the observation above that "India's entry into K&J was initially successful against the tribal uprising but, on formal involvement of Pakistan's military it was considered that they could not sustain the previous successes." But some of the Indian successes against the Pakistani backed invasion was after the said involvement of the Pakistani forces. The distinction is also not a valid one. Indeed, Pakistan was involved all along. The Pashtun tribesman that warred and descended to rape and plunder had unfettered support from Pakistan. It is the Indian forces that entered the war at a later stage after the Poonch's declaration of independence impelled the maharaja to seek Indian intervention and put pen to paper on the Instrument of Accession. India salvaged Srinagar and progressed further north. The sources do not trivialize this aspect of the war, neither should we by occluding it from the infobox. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial appreciation of sources doesn't make either side a victor. The war was conclusive, India itself went to the UN for a ceasefire. War Wounded (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir was neither part of India nor Pakistan when the war started. Till the time India came into the scene in the aftermath of Jammu Muslim massacres and Poonch rebellion, the regions that are now known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir had already come under Pakistani control. Little change occurred at frontlines during 1948: Pakistan secured Skardu while India gained control of Kargil and Kashmir Valley. India's objective of gaining control of whole region failed, and so did Pakistan's. This was a stalemate as the previous version stated, and the fact the India was the first to go for UN-mediated ceasefire should not be ignored as well. Even today India controls only roughly half of the Kashmir region. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
India did not went for a ceasefire but for the UN resolution. India had captured Kargil on 25 November. The war continued until the ceasefire was proposed. The first condition was that Pakistan will withdraw its forces, and it was Pakistan who withdrew first. Don't create bogus stories to defy scholarly sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the editors seeking for the change in outcome to start a separate RFC below instead of edit warring and going into circles. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you still haven't provided any scholarly sources to dispute Indian victory, as such your suggestion for RFC fails WP:RFCBEFORE. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A previous RFC by user Fowler&fowler on the talk page of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 mentions scholarly sources disputing the result of the First Kashmir War, feel free to look into it. Ukiyology1 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources say anything like "assessment that India won the war is incorrect". You can find many sources which will not mention Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was Indian victory but you will find none which would dispute the fact that India won the war. Same goes for this 1947-1948 war as well.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a RFC for a major change, which cannot be done with a simple talk page discussion, is the way to go for any one with genuine wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. So, it is better for you and other editors disputing the result to either start it or go for dispute resolution. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But where is the "dispute"? Just saying things like "let scholarly sources say what they want but I don't like the war to be treated as Indian victory" cannot be considered as a dispute. It is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources say anything like "assessment that India won the war is incorrect". There are several sources presented at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Result field that describe the result as inconclusive. A link to that discussion was posted on this page on 25 November and was included in my post of 2 December above. They express an opinion that the war was not won by India. There is not a clear consensus in the sources that it was an Indian victory. The sources are divided. Furthermore, there is nuance to why some sources would call this an Indian victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same can be discovered about just any war. If the war result was inconclusive then why nobody calls it Pakistan's victory but Indian victory? There is a case of differing views among sources which can be found about just any war but there is no specific disagreement over India's victory. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result parameter is not a binary choice of Indian victory or Pakistani victory. Please see MOS:MIL and the templates documentation. There is specific disagreement over India's victory because there are sources which also call the result inconclusive. WP:NPOV and MOS:MIL is telling us to discuss these views (usually in the aftermath section) and to use the see Aftermath option for the result parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wars end in ceasefire, which is not a big deal but when there is nobody specifically disputing that India won this one then why we should? It is that clear. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong in stating that no source disputes Indian victory. See the sources at previous RFC regarding first and second Kashmir wars[11] which state it to be a stalemate. Clearly we can't put it in the lead when there is no academic consensus over the result. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on, credible historians and political scientists like Stanley Wolpert and Sumit Ganguly state UN ceasefire to be the cause of ending of war, just like what happened in Tashkent Declaration, not an "Indian victory". India's objective of controlling whole region failed as well.
So, WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour is evident from the conduct of editors who don't give any regard to what majority of academic sources state, and just want to change the result as they like. If these editors still want to continue this, they should do what I have suggested above. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting those sources. First source says "The council also called for a cease-fire in Kashmir, to begin on 1 January 1949". Second source says: "The first part called on the governments of India and Pakistan to agree on a cease-fire within forty days." They are not treating ceasefire as outcome of the war but only stating that it happened. If anything, these sources debunk you previous claim that "India was the first to go for UN-mediated ceasefire". Those who describe the result of the war are often noting that India was the victor, and because India had upper hand at the time of ceasefire. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said the ceasefire was the cause of ending of war, and these sources state it as such. If you misinterpreted my reply then the fault lies with you.
Neither they "debunk the claim" of India approaching the UN before Pakistan; that's what sources as well as article states. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point either. The first Kashmir war wasn't the only war that ended with an armistice even in its time. Indeed, wars typically end the same way or with some sort of treaty. That doesn't preclude the observers or the scholars from considering the intricacies of the engagement, war events, extent of successes or lack of it, and yes, victory and defeat. And given what we know of tbe war, It is inarguable that India ended the war on a better note. It controlled two-thirds of the princely state of Kashmir and, by extension, 72% of Kashmir's population. When sources bring out that India won it militarily, the infobox should reflect it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that most wars end in armistice, but in case of clear victory for either side, the subsequent treaties explicitly acknowledge so. That was not the case in the aftermath of first Kashmir war. UN resolution did not recognize superior military position of India. My point was Pakistan retained what it had captured, as did India. That was not a clear victory for any side. See also 20 or so academic sources which were presented at an earlier RFC regarding 1947 – 48 and 1965 wars and have been linked by Cindrella157. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was an armistice in the Russo-Georgian War too but the article unequivocally adumbrates the victory of Russian forces without there been an explicit acknowledgement thereof in the agreement. And that is one amongst the many examples that exist. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 did not have within its remit an obligation to critique the results of the Kashmir war. It concerned itself with the larger political dispute over the territory. Pakistan retained a third of Kashmir which it had wrung from the state forces of maharaja and it did not have within it the Vale of Kashmir which it warred over. In contrast, India gained control of the two-thirds or the majority of it which included the Vale of Kashmir it warred over. That itself is exemplifying which of the two ended the war in a position of strength vis-à-vis the other. Additionally, by inviting the UN's attention over the political dispute, it entrenched its legal claim over the entirety of the Kashmir territory. The recurring handwaving to the RfC of the 1965 talk page is unhelpful, for it has no bearing here. Indeed, Wikipedia's entry on the 1965 war enunciates the converging opinions of various scholars on India's upper hand in the war notwithstanding a ceasefire that ended the war. The sources also do not touch on the same things. The first of the lot, Paul, T. V. (2003), India in the World Order: Searching for Major-Power Status notes India's superior war gains before transitioning to a passing mention on the Kashmir dispute which is political in nature. Snedden makes a passing mention on the war in appendix, Sisson writes not even a complete line, Batra touches on the ceasefire aspect in passing. Better quality sources have already been furnished to undergird the idea of Indian victory in the war. And they are also numerous. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the example you cited, there was a clear territorial loss from one side (Georgian) to another (Russian). Now compare this with the war under discussion. Was Kashmir a part of either side when the war started? Well, the answer is no. Was Pakistan the only side to suffer loss of territory? Again, one has to acknowledge that the region of Baltistan came under Pakistani control only by August 1948 after capture of Skardu, well during the coarse of war. Loss and gain of territories happened on both sides. Also, you are wrong in suggesting that the RFC did not apply on this article. It clearly mentioned that both 1948 and 1965 wars were stalemates. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that requires separate RFCs for similar topics. If anything, these sources prove that there does not exist any sort of academic consensus for the supposed Indian triumph. Ignoring them and changing stable version on the basis of a few sources is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. As Toddy1 mentioned above, the only agreed result is that the state was partitioned among Pakistan and India. I'm pretty sure you can find many examples too where the result of war was stalemate, not a victory/defeat. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do your homework before scrawling replies and thereby cluttering the discussion only for the sake of replying. There are no "20 or so" academic sources for gainsaying Indian victory in first Kashmir war you handwave to, nor an RfC as a matter of fact even on the parent subject of 1965 India Pakistan war, much less this. It was a discussion where the OP posted a bunch of passing mention sources throughout the lot for the Kashmir war which remained undiscussed throughout the discussion. But as shown above, none of it is actually sticking. Capitals00 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vast majority of the academic sources state the war to be a stalemate. In addition to the sources linked by @Cinderella157: I found more than a dozen WP:RS stating first kashmir war to be a stalemate after a little effort, and I'm sure you would have too had you tried to find. It is you who has been invoking a hypothetical consensus since past many months for changing the result. You agreed to obtain the consensus only after your claim was rejected at ANI. As observed by @Fowler&fowler: that is sheer revisionism. If you still disagree and are willing to push this further, held an RFC for it. That will save my and other editors' time from being wasted.
Also, the previous RFC with a now blocked sock was not just a "discussion", it was a standard consensus. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Academic sources don't engage in "revisionism". There was no "RFC" and it involved no "blocked sock". It was indeed just a "discussion" with no validity on this article. Your selective WP:CANVASSING with the hope that someone else will carry over your misleading discussion is nothing but WP:DE. When you don't have any answer against the concerns raised about your misleading claims other than citing a non-existing dispute that solely depends over your WP:IDONTLIKEIT then you are supposed to drop the WP:STICK.Ratnahastin (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should visit it again and find what was the editor consensus there, and who got blocked as sock. Also, you should watch your tone. The two editors pinged are very much involved in the recent discussion regarding undiscussed changes. Your rest of accusations also make little sense, and may well fall under WP:PERSONAL. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was the editor consensus there, where was the RfC conducted and concluded, and who got blocked as a sock, and what are thier relevance to this discussion, and how do they preclude the discussion here @Sutyarashi? If you're willing to simply rehash your erroneous assertions even after they have been refuted by a number of editors, you need to forswear handwaving and affix the attendant evidence to demonstrate that what you rehash has some underlying substance to it lest your repeated handwaving to a nonexistent RfC and an extraneous "editor consensus" is construed as being in the realm of incomprehension or worse purposeful gaslighting. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editors agreed on restoring the version which stated the result to be stalemate/inconclusive. Infact, the agreed version remained stable for next four years till Cinderella157 replaced it with See Aftermath section couple a days ago.[12] The sock I was talking about was Aman.Kumar.goel. However, I understand that their sockpuppetry is not directly relevant to the discussion. The relevance is that the sources presented there do call both wars to be stalemate. Though I agree that discussion may not be applicable here.
I hate repeating it over and over again, but we do need a new consensus for changing the stable version here. Helding an RfC would be the best option. Nevertheless, WP:ONUS lies upon you for proving how mainstream academia views the result of war as a clear Indian victory and not a stalemate. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to show us which of the editors "agreed on restoring the (said) version" of this article and when did that take place here. As for the sources "presented there", they have been already considered and found lacking in substance on the Kashmir war or touching on other extraneous aspects of the war, not on the idea of Indian victory in the war. If you now confess that the said discussion or the said user's sock puppetry has no relevance or application to this discussion, you should simply stop harping on it. Repeatedly enjoining us to seek a consensus and assume the onus in the midst of a discussion is belittling, unhelpful and a red-herring. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided more than enough academic sources describing the war as stalemate, and getting ended by a UN-mediated ceasefire, not an "Indian victory". Given the quality of sources for the supposed Indian victory, it is obvious mainstream view is that the war was a stalemate. I'm willing to spend further time over it only if the discussion proceeds in some constructive way. The many years-old stable version can be changed only by a new consensus, and the editors wishing the result infobox to be changed should really either start RFC or go for dispute resolution. Though I doubt that their efforts are going to be fruitful. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that again, that wars end in ceasefire, which is not a big deal. Victor is generally the belligerent that gained more in the war. Is there any doubt that India gained less? This is why enough academic sources state India is the victor. The outcome of this war, as noted by few users above is not limited with UN ceasefire but also repercussions such as Rawalpindi conspiracy which makes it clear that the war was a defeat for Pakistan. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there does not exist enough academic sources for an Indian victory. Most do call the war to be a stalemate. See sources for stalemate at article. I did not add more sources due to citation overkill. If anything, Indian victory in the war is a minority view.
However, now I agree with you that Infobox should not state ceasefire as result. It should be either replaced with Stalemate or See Aftermath Section. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're brushing aside other people's views by hook or crook but in a manner that seems perfunctory. You haven't critically engaged with your own sources to evaluate their relevance before handwaving to them. For example, Surinder Mohan is touching on the implications of the political dispute over the Kashmir territory, incurring from the deadlock over the territory, not the notions of victory and defeat in the military engagement. Kennedy's quote has been misrepresented. The quote is part of the assessment of Roy Bucher's report to Nehru at the time of the war, not something Kennedy independently observes. The other sources are hardly more than a one line passing mentions on the Kashmir war, the ilks of which Wikipedia takes a dim view of, especially when better quality sources (Indian victory) have been furnished to us. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:PERSONAL before making claims that I'm brushing aside opinions of other people by hook or crook. It does not really seem that you have bothered to check the sources for the supposed Indian victory before rejecting the references for stalemate, which are by far much more reliable. Kulke & Rothermund nowhere state that India won. New Zealand Defence Quarterly is not reliable enough to be cited. Brozek and Hoontrakul don't even provide complete sentences, and worse, they are not even authoritive enough regarding the 1947 Kashmir war or South Asia in general. You should either focus on improving the references which support that POV, or leave the issue of determining the reliability of the sources for some third party. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has actually cited Kulke & Rothermund in the discussion. So telling you are inaccurate with your assessment is not getting WP:PERSONAL. Reliability of sources is evaluated on dictates of policies, not on personal ideas about authoritativeness, and you should not be telling anyone they should not evaluate your sources.Ratnahastin (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are a bit off in your reply. I hadn't cited Surinder and Kennedy in the talk page discussion, either. I was talking about the references cited in the Aftermath section. Sure, the reliability of the sources is determined as per WP policies, not our personal ideas. But at the same time one should, if they are really adhering with WP:NPOV, evaluate the references supporting their POV on the same basis at which they reject others.
That's why I told them to either re-evaluate the sources which they think to be high quality enough, or wait for some neutral party to determine the reliability of sources stating the war to be a stalemate or victory in this context.
And I really wish if this pointless discussion had not gotten so prolonged. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you had added those two sources to aftermath while I was not the one to add Kulke & Rothermond. The sources that I had mentioned can be found above at 07:56, 13 November 2023.
If this discussion is so "pointless" then why did you join it in the first place? Capitals00 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was evaluating the sources supposed to support to notion of Indian victory in the aftermath section. As for the sources you have provided above, your first source does not specifically deal with the Indo-Pakistani conflicts or the first kashmir war. Praveen Swami is not discussing the 1947 war in depth. Kathy Gannon's book deals with Afghanistan conflict, while Herb & Kaplan's book deals with a general overview of the nationalism across the globe. Even Talat Ahmed and Farzana Shiekh actually discuss Rawalpindi Conspiracy case, not the Kashmir war. Per WP:CONTEXT, we need sources specifically evaluating the war in depth instead of making passing remarks. Indeed, none of these sources analyses the war in detail or even wider Kashmir conflict.
On the other hand, there are sources dealing with Kashmir conflict and Indo-Pakistani wars which state the war to be a stalemate. Sumit Ganguly, Lavoy, Surinder Mohan and Ankit, Rakesh, who actually provide a detailed account of war and Kashmir conflict, consider it a military stalemate. Fair, C. Christine, Gardner, Cheri, Cheema & Cohen, Sprague, Jayanta Kumar Ray and Sisson & Rose are also much more relevant in the South Asian context than Brower, Gannon or Kaplan. Also, given that most of these academic sources are published by university presses, they are likely to be of higher scholarly value.
I called discussion pointless, because there is no academic consensus over the result of the war. There is no reason for consistently disputing the result box. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Praveen Swami has excessively discussed the war, more than your sources put together.[13][14] Same with Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan.[15] Your analysis of the sources is outright misleading. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Herb & Kaplan don't even deal with the Kashmir conflict, and hence are unreliable per WP:CONTEXT. The fact that you consider a single reference more credible than 15 stating otherwise shows that you only want to push a POV regardless of its merit.
Also, you need to stop edit warring. The ANI discussion clearly said to restore the article as it was before the disruption started. You also need to avoid false edit summaries. The statement was not evidently there for years. It was not there before November. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the links I have provided instead of repeating yourself. If you haven't read it then read this. They have discussed the war in lengths where as most of your sources are passing mentions. As for my edit summary, it was accurate. When I had read this page last time (before taking Wiki break in September 2021), the lead did say "most neutral assessments agree that India was the victor of the war ".[16] This is also supported by the version from 2017.[17]Ratnahastin (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

This has become an inappropriate discussion fork of the discussion immediately above. There is no consensus at present for the requested edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2023 (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.

By changing the result to Indian Victory a previous RFC held here is being refuted. To change the result a new RFC should be held, till then the result should be reverted back to this revision as it complies with the aforementioned RFC. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:6865:FDB9:935A:F004 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. See discussion above. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is not an RFC. A change like this needs approval from the community and only RFC can do that. So my point stands. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:E8B8:71B1:C68A:65B4 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing an Indian defense analyst, a few sources in a minority that disagrees with the loud majority that this war was a UN-Mandated ceasefire and had no victor is basic bias. India's failure to repulse the 20 lashkar invasion and undo Major William Brown's accession to Pakistan is not a victory. This war was a stalemate for a reason. The discussion above is not an RFC as previously stated by another user. The edit by the user Capitals00 stating an Indian victory is in violation of ./MOS:MIL. It is expected of you to revert it, otherwise your bias due to nationalistic reasons is obvious. The edit to an Indian victory does not reflect the consensus of good quality, academic, sources. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No RfC happened on this page. No violation of MOS:MIL has happened. Your whole message is misleading just like that. See WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Friend Aman you were a part of the said RFC and you know that this RFC was not only for the 1965 war but for both 1965 & 1947-48 Indo-Pakistani War. @Fowler&fowler: Sorry for the ping, you proposed that RFC can you please clear the situation here and tell if that was for the both war pages or not. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:8928:EF41:AB0C:F668 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring an RfC on this page I'm referencing the RfC the user mentioned ./Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Result_field. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2023 (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.

Indian nationalist revisionism

I have neither the time nor the heart for stooping so low as to acknowledge Indian-nationalist revisionism in this article's lead by opposing it, but you will understand why Wikipedia has become a joke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't name and shame anyone - but after citing multiple books per sentence and wasting hours writing a paragraph, only for it to be deleted by a petty nationalist revisionist prevaricating with a thesaurus to compensate for the lack of sources and susbtance in their own arguments, it really does get tiring editing over here. At the expense of certain people's fragile ego and obsession with "insulting the enemy" rather than building an encyclopedia, this entire project is being turned into a joke.
There needs to be a change - perhaps most urgently in the consensus and other similar systems - in South Asia related articles owing to the sheer numbers of POV editors, their sockpuppets, and off-wiki collaboration involved. And even that sometimes isn't enough - recently, a serial sockmaster (who even gained ECP!) was blocked after years of POV-pushing, bullying, proxy usage, and gaslighting others into believing they did otherwise.
I'd suggest a shift in policy to give RS far more, or absolute weight, relative to the opinion held by the largest number of editors. Solblaze (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

Indian victory is unreliable to add in this page as many sources, people, and simple facts show pakistan as won but the same is for the other side so i request you to instead add it as no clear winner Pajeetspotter (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please state your changes in a clear X to Y format as described by Wikipedia:Edit requests. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

Please change "Indian victory" in the result to "UN-mandated ceasefire" and "See aftermath". The topic of the result is highly contentious as evident in the talk page, and the current result was only changed recently and facing mass crticism. The current result fails MOS:MIL and when the user who made the edit was confronted, he simply ignored the message and made a minor edit after the confrontation, making it evident he ignored it. This topic is highly contentious and the citing of a military stalemate with one side having the slight upper hand as a total victory is incorrect and a fallacy, and the updated result has faced massive contention with multiple people criticizing. I request that after "UN-mandated ceasefire" be "See aftermath" to align with MOS:MIL, and show the situation of both parties at the time of the ceasefire. MrGreen1163 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As an extended confirmed editor, you do not need to make an ECP edit request. Either make the change yourself or comment in the section "Indian victory" above. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2023

Please revert to this revision. The current version aftermath section says the war was an Indian victory. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:3C12:E75F:41C5:83A8 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No valid reason has been provided to remove reliably sourced content. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

Noting the guidance at MOS:MIL, the template documentation and the Aftermath section of the article (version as at opening the RfC), should the result be: a) Indian victory; b) inconclusive; or, c) See Aftermath section. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at WP:RSN here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at WP:NPOVN here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I do not condone editors moving the posts of other editors (made as responses) from the comments section to the discussion section per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. However, if this is done, it should be made in a way that is totally transparent and preserve the continuity of the discussion - noting that the post was moved and where it was moved from (idealy in small text and at both places [where the post was originally placed and where it was moved to]). The moved text should note to whom the post was originally directed. Please correct any such moves accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to this note of user:Cinderella157 by user:MBlaze Lightning posted at 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) has been moved to the bottom of the discussion section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Comments

  • See Aftermath (As nom) There are sources which describe the result as both an Indian victory and as a stalemate/inconclusive. The war was ended by a UN mediated ceasefire rather than being fought to a military conclusion. There is nuance as to why this might be considered an Indian victory for which the infobox is unsuited. More importantly, there is a conflict of opinion in sources as to whether this was an Indian victory or inconclusive (as indicated in the Aftermath section). In such a case, MOS:MIL and the template documentation would indicate that See Aftermath is the most appropriate course to adopt. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:MIL gives voice to the guidance in the template documentation regarding populating the result parameter. The guidance given is made in consideration of core policies: WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (including WP:WEIGHT). It is a fact that sources are cited in the article for both an Indian victory and for inconclusive/stalemate. Taking the sources at face value, the consensus of sources is divided and the prevailing WP:P&G is patently clear that we are bound to use the see Aftermath option (or omit the result from the infobox). Those that would argue an Indian victory would invoke WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and that 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. The assertion is that [all] sources reporting inconclusive/stalemate only do so as passing mentions and should therefore be discounted en masse.
For such an assertion to be substantiated, there would need to be a detailed assessment of the sources in question presented to establish the premise in each case and that such an assessment is available to be subjected to scrutiny. Where an assertion is claimed, the onus rests with those making the assertion to substantiate it. No such assessment has been presented. The assertion is unsubstantiated opinion. Furthermore, any broad generalisation is refuted by just one exception - such as Alastair Lamb (Incomplete Partition: The Genesis of the Kashmir Dispute 1947–1948, Roxford Books, 1997) as noted by Peacemaker67.
In case there is any doubt, the question posed by the RfC specifically linked to a version of the Aftermath section at the start of the RfC and the sources cited at that time. Since then additional sources have been added (see here). There are twenty odd sources listed that would support an inconclusive/stalemate result. The question to be answered is whether there is a substantive credible argument with actual evidence to discount all sources that would report an inconclusive/stalemate result? This is an incredible proposition. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath per nomination and the various guidelines/suggestions mentioned. Two facts are clear: some sources describe an Indian victory, and some sources describe an inconclusive result. Thus, to preserve WP:WEIGHT, see aftermath is clearly the best choice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconclusive; see Aftermath Had Kashmir (a Muslim-majority region) been a province of British India as opposed to a region the British had sold to a Hindu ruler a full century earlier, it would have either gone entirely to Pakistan (as had Sind) or partitioned into districts of Muslim-majority (the Kashmir valley, Gilgit, and Baltistan) going to Pakistan and non-Muslim (Ladakh and Jammu) going to India per the convention established in the Partition of India. Early in 1947, there was disquiet, and later upheaval against the Hindu ruler, in the western district of Poonch. Pathan tribesmen (of the same ethnicity as the Poonch rebels) infiltrated from Pakistan and were later backed by Pakistan army irregulars. They quickly took Gilgit and Baltistan, and a large part of the Valley. The Indian army was eventually flown in (after the ruler acceded to India rather hurriedly). The Indians did drive the infiltrators out from most of the Valley, but G-B remained with Pakistan. The Indians went to the UN (requesting a cease-fire) in part because they were worried that their unacclimatized army might lose ground in the Kashmir winter. You can read about this in Kashmir. I don't think anyone seriously calls it an Indian victory. Most people don't call it an "India-Pakistan War" either, only the "First Kashmir War," but such are the numbers of India-POV editors on Wikipedia these days that very little NPOV content on India survives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Changed vote to "See Aftermath" only. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that there are 17 sources, most scholarly ones, that judge a stalemate and only six old and poor quality ones that interpret an Indian victory. See my note in the Discussion section and the list in Aftermath. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath (with a link to the Aftermath section). If sources are divided between Indian victory and inconclusive we should not put Inconclusive; see Aftermath because there is not an academic consensus on the outcome being Inconclusive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand we can't put "Inconclusive" there because some sources do indeed call it Indian victory. But can we put "Disputed: many scholars say stalemate, while others say Indian victory"? VR talk 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely uninterested in the opinions of editors on this matter. What matters is the consensus of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of what has been written by Indian and Pakistani authors on this topic is written from the point of view of their own side, and in some, the bias is clear. Many of the sources listed are military sources from one side or the other, and should just be deleted, along with the material they purportedly "support". However, a large number of reliably published scholars have observed that the war was at a stalemate at the time of the ceasefire on 1 January 1949 at which time both sides were exhausted and convinced they could not make significant territorial gains over the other, and neither side had won an overwhelming victory or managed to control all of Kashmir. Pakistan stopped India from capturing all of Kashmir, and India failed to do so. An example of this view include Alastair Lamb in Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990, which (quite unbelievably) is in "Further reading" when it should be a key text. However, the current footnotes 122 to 138 all support this view. Yes, there are some sources, a few of them reliable if they are taken in context, that say India won, but Wikipedia does not pick winners, we reflect what the sources say, and they are divided, despite what some partisan editors may have said on this page and elsewhere. The closer should look at the !votes carefully. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The credibility of several of Alaister Lamb's claims is quite dubious, and he has been accused of ignoring facts that contradict his findings by his academic peers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one is going to make such claims, it is always good to substantiate them. Such a criticism is not consistent with the precis of reception at Lamb's article for Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990. Regardless, Lamb is only one source out of many. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out information that was present in the article helpfully linked by the OP themselves, so I didnt think it necessary. However, you can go through these - [1][2] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article's section on Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990 (as I indicated above). The "note" being made here paints with a broad tar brush as if it is the only colour used from the pallet.
Tinker ... notes that his findings will not be accepted by Indian authors ... Prem Shankar Jha... tried to provide a detailed critique of the contentious aspects of Lamb's treatment of the Kashmir dispute,[3] although David Taylor points out that while providing alternative readings on some points, Jha does not manage to entirely refute Lamb.[4] Srinath Raghavan credits Lamb with discovering that Kashmir's Instrument of Accession was most likely signed on 27 October 1947, after the Indian troops landed in Srinagar, rather than 26 October, as official Indian history maintains. However, he states that in his later work, Birth of a Tragedy, Lamb "overreached" by claiming that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir never signed the Instrument of Accession at all. He conveniently overlooked other letters where the Maharaja mentioned having signed accession.[5]
One academic peer has observed that Lamb (in a later publication) overlooked certain letters unrelated to Lamb's assessment of the result (the issue here). Another would critique Lamb's work, though not altogether successfully. Nothing is said as to whether this critique goes to Lamb's assessment of the result. Reading the section in full indicates that Lamb's work is generally well received by his peers. Slinging mud indiscriminately in the general direction of a target is not at all helpful. There is nothing to be garnered from this, that Lamb's assessment of the result (the pertinent issue here) is significantly and specifically disputed by his peers. Regardless there are also a number of other sources that would reach a similar conclusion while some other good quality sources would reach an alternative conclusion (that this was an Indian victory). Herein lies the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your charecterisation is more than charitable. The critique was not that Lamb accidentally missed some letters, but that he ignored them since they were contradictory to his views (with some other criticism also, that was skipped in the ... portions of your comment, about his partisan writing). This is not the only instance where Lamb has made such far flung claims - With his other works also being questioned, in large part, due to his fairly open dislike of the Indian government that is apparant in his writings.

Leo Rose called the book a "special pleading" rather than a scholarly work, which presents the Chinese position extremely well. Lamb points out rightly that China had never ratified the Simla Convention which contained the definition of the McMahon Line but he dismisses the question of whether the British and Tibetan governments were competent to conclude the agreement. Rose also notes that Lamb seems annoyed at the fact that the authorities of independent India do not follow the British imperial line, which he terms "out of place".[15]

Parshotam Mehra, calling the two-volume work a "herculean effort", nevertheless labels it an "outright partisan attempt at demolishing the Indian case and thereby lending countenance to, and buttressing, the Chinese claims." The historian in Alastair Lamb is "fairly sound", he says, but frequently departs from being a historian to a "factionist".[8] Mehra's own later work, McMahon Line and After was judged by Leo Rose to be "more balanced and less advocative" than Lamb's.[16]

There is a lot more to add to the article on Lamb itself, which glosses over many citicisms from the works it cites as praises of Lamb. This is cited to say he was a leading historian, but glosses over the text, which also states

Alongside his impressive scholarship, Lamb was an advocate of sometimes outlandish conspiracy theories (or what his friends would call hobby-horses). He was also prone to waspish asides which diminished the authority of his writing.

Lamb once told me he was ‘firmly convinced’ that Nehru and the Kashmiri nationalist leader, Sheikh Abdullah, were half-brothers. While he was more cautious in his published works, he gave some hefty nudges in that direction. “Nehru saw Sheikh Abdullah almost as his political twin,” Lamb declared in Birth of a Tragedy: Kashmir 1947. And just to rub in the insinuation, he commented that “some aspects of the Nehru-Sheikh Abdullah connection have yet to be explained satisfactorily – it may well have involved more than shared political opinions”.

Of the accession document by which the Maharaja of Kashmir belatedly signed up his princely state to India, Lamb caustically observed in Birth of a Tragedy: “There are well informed people who deny that any such document ever existed.” So we have another conspiracy theory – that Jammu and Kashmir’s last princely ruler, Hari Singh, never actually put his name to the Instrument of Accession.

Certainly, not everything that Lamb wrote was a lie (else he wouldnt have people praising his work) but it is certainly not a shining beacon of scholarship as the OP claimed. And if this is the quality of the "best" sources, indeed their numerical strength can be brushed aside. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory - Of all options, "Indian victory" is the most accurate assessment because Jammu and Kashmir was a disputed territory and India managed to gain over 67% of the territory as well as more than 70% of the population as noted by the scholars; "In the first Kashmir war, India occupied two-thirds of the disputed territory and Pakistan was clearly defeated during its first war with India."[18] We must also note that "the ceasefire came at a time when the Indian forces had the upper hand"[19]. Long term effects should be also counted; "The war for states had not only ended in Indian military victory but had given its leaders enormous self-confidence and satisfaction over a job well done. The effect of the defeat in Pakistan was no less important but was completely negative."[20] Nobody says that the war was a victory for Pakistan because Pakistan lacked advantages in comparison with India, that's why "inconclusive" makes no sense to me. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory per above. According to reliable sources, if there was any "victor" in the war, then that was India. Those who state that the war was inconclusive are mainly passing mentions and they haven't refuted the fact that India was the victor. It has been commonly held that "Pakistan has fought and lost four wars with India (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999)". [21] Wikipedia should state the same. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory. There are no two ways about describing the result of the Kashmir war or diverging perspectives in academia that some have made it out to be here (and dare I say perfunctorily)  in order to force a see aftermath result (which would be a necessary prerequisite to occlude the idea of Indian victory). The very first issue that is manifest is that the attendant sources for gainsaying the scholarly support for Indian victory result have not been brought out directly here which precludes a editorial scrutiny of them. Whatever sources that have been indirectly handwaved to (and not cited directly to weigh in favour of options c or b) in earlier discussions as being sprinkled in discussions elsewhere were when considered (vide the discussion  in the first thread), including Paul, T. V., Snedden, Sisson, Batra, Surinder Mohan, Kennedy (and one need only ctrl+f each to look over the same) did not stand up to scrutiny.) They all: a) fell into the rubric of passing mentions, and some so laconic as being a mere sentence chunk, b) touching on various aspects of the subject like ceasefire and the nature of political dispute, which is completely extraneous to the result of the military engagement. The sources have to be specifically reliable for the statement being made for them to be considered reliable, and this was conveniently given a short shrift to.
There is no divergence in academia on the results of the war as the numerous sources regarding India affirmatively on the question exemplify. It's the political dispute that has reached an impasse, and that's what the scholars observe in their brief consideration of the dispute. But that has also not precluded scholars from exploring the military successes accruing to India (which was the better of the two sides) during the course of the war. At the proclamation of the ceasefire, India stood in possession of the two-thirds of the territory of Kashmir and five-sevenths of its populace. Together with that, Pakistan had suffered 3x casualties than India. "Indian victory" is purely valid. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath Even if the context and the quality of the sources supporting the claim of Indian victory is ignored, it is very clear that still majority of the academic scholarship states the conclusion of war as Inconclusive/stalemate. Treating both as if they have equal academic support is giving undue weight to the former. Ideally the result box should mention it as a stalemate; if it cannot be done, then it should state See Aftermath with link to the section. Ignoring these academic sources and promoting a minority POV is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I still cannot comprehend the cause of this lame dispute, which has been running on since past half a year by now. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that the editors pushing the POV for an Indian victory are demanding "higher quality sources" and pretending that their demand is still unfurnished, completely ignoring that 11 out of 17 have been published by University presses (Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, Michigan, Pennsylvania and others) and 16 out of 17 are in whole dealing with the Indo-Pakistani conflict and Kashmir war. That is nothing but mental gymnastics to somehow prove that they are not credible enough, with at the same time being unable to show how so.
    One just has to take a look at the sources present at the Aftermath section to verify which sources are of higher scholarly value and relevancy than the other. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory. There is a cogent case that is made out for an Indian victory by scholars actually writing on the war. The preponderance of sources writing on the result (ex set 1) bear out the veracity of the proposition. The opposing sources of equal quality and quantity have not been forthcoming. None should presume to broad brush cast aspersions of partisan !voting on one set of !voters where there are legitimate rationales based on what the sources are saying and what they are not. Likewise, the insinuation that there are somehow partisan sources with nationalistic affiliations used remain unsubstantiated by the original posters. Indeed, it's this kind of unsubstantiated generalizations that do not impress or help the discussion. No one has quite yet demonstrated that there is indeed a conflict in the sources on the result to adopt a see aftermath. Of the sources being alluded to, editors in the discussion below bring out that one set is passing mention, and the other mischaracterized as supporting a position they do not even comment on. And the only rebuttal or lack of it forthcoming is a personal remark on editors that they are not neutral enough to dissect their sources. This suggestion of a scholarly clash on the result is thus neither borne out nor substantiated. Editors' opinions indeed hold no sway in Wikipedia discussions and all consensus must be reached on the basis of observations occuring in reliable sources. This is truism. But instead of writing truism, it would be persuasive of posters to actually post the sources that could establish the conflict in sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Resonse by Fowler&fowler moved to discussion section by Raymond3023. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory - India has been treated as the victor because it had militarily advantage when the ceasefire was announced and Pakistan accepted the ceasefire or else they would have lost more. A Pakistani journal, from Pakistani Army itself, describes that very well by noting: "The Indians had also been successful in effecting a link up with Leh, headquarter of Ladakh Tehsil. These two advances in Novembere - December 1948 caused the loss of huge areas of liberated territory in Poonch sector as well as Northern Areas. The loss in terms of public and army morale was, however, incalculable . There was every danger of another exodus of refugees of "at least five lakhs of people" from Poonch area alone . Sardar Ibrahim, in his book, Kashmir Saga , says: Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposition, if we had to agree to a ceasefire, we should have done it a little earlier. At the time of this agreement, so far as the provinces of Jammu and Kashmir were concerned , we had lost most of the territory in a very brief period. If we had not agreed to the ceasefire , we probably would have lost the rest of Poonch, Mirpur and Muzaffarabad ... If we had lost every inch of territory on this side of Kashmir our bargaining position would have been reduced to nil. I can say with certainty that conditions were so dangerously unfavourable, that it was quite possible that we might have lost whole of the territory." This, I think, adequately explains the true military position and Liaquat Ali Khan's consequent consent to agree to ceasefire."[22] Given all that, there is no issue with stating "Indian victory". ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath (Inconclusive/Stalemate)

Princely state of Kashmir on paper acceded to India regardless of ground situation and it being a Muslim-majority however India failed to secure the whole territory which it claimed as theirs and a large part of it went to Pakistan and is still held by it as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. In no way it can be called an Indian victory! at all and the fact that India was the one to approach UN for ceasefire though victors usually don't. Academic sources need to be evaluated on the basis of their weightage and there are more sources which call it Inconclusive/Stalemate and should be mentioned accordingly. War Wounded (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indian victory: Per MBlaze Lightning and Dhawangupta. Wikipedia must adhere to the scholarly consensus on this subject, which favors an Indian victory. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian Victory - The sources are clear that the pakistani forces failed to acheive their objectives, and the Indian army captured the vast majority of the territory in contention orior to the ceasefire. If necessary, the nuances can be explained in the "Aftermath" section. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath/ Alternative: No military conclusion, essentially per Peacemaker67 and per Nom. My impression is that many of those favouring an Indian victory kind of seem to stray into the WP:SYNTH part of Wikipedia:No original research. Lectonar (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory - No source says that the war was a Pakistani victory, but there are enough academic sources to say "Indian victory". There are some sources that say 1948 Arab–Israeli War was a "stalemate" but it has been mentioned as Israeli victory on Wikipedia. This war should be only concluded as Indian victory on infobox. Azuredivay (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory - If there are contemporary academic/scholary sources assessing the result of the conflict as an Indian victory, or as a Pakistani failure, or a Pakistani defeat, then it should be noted as an Indian victory. EkoGraf (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath/ Inconclusive/No Military Conclusion per Peacemaker67 and Lectonar, the majority of academic sources characterize the outcome as inconclusive or a stalemate. The reliability of sources supporting an Indian victory is in dispute. This situation is comparable to conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq and the Korean War, where similar sources favor one party's victory. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aftermath/Inconclusive We don’t present disputed viewpoints as facts for a simple reason. The notion of victory is WP:FRINGE at best, as it departs from the mainstream and prevailing view. For decades, we’ve had scholarly literature on the objectives of the war and for years, we’ve had sources present in the article attesting to the factual outcome of the war. Nothing concrete has emerged in that time to suggest a change in history. Mar4d (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconclusive or See Aftermath - per the arguments and the references provided by F&F above. Bryan Fearless (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Bryan Fearless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Indian victory. This is quite clearly the view predominant in most contemporary scholarly sources focusing on the Kashmir war. Refer for example to India, Pakistan and the Secret Jihad, The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947-2004 by the eminent authority on Kashmir Praveen Swami (2006). Swami is unequivocal in writing that the war was a debacle for Pakistan[23]; and that its establishemnet drew its salutary lessons from the military defeats of the 1947 and 65 wars.[24] When such categorical commentary is presented by scholars, there does not remain grist for us to dither? Additionally, the opposing arguments have been discursive and bereft of substantiations. They say that aspect of the result is foreclosed in the event of a ceasefire, which is preposterous. Then they make a case of dispute in sources using passing mentions, which is essentially drawing a false equivalence by juxtaposing reliable sources with those that aren't reliable for this subject. Then they bring out the nationality of the handful(!?) of the scholars to discount all of the sources, which is such a non-serious, broad-brush and parochial utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking basis in policy. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconclusive - See Aftermath / No military conclusion: Most of the sources point towards a stalemate/inconclusive result. It would be a gross oversimplification to give weight to a minority viewpoint in academic scholarship that are mostly one liner/non academic partisan sources, and the WP:FRINGE issues of this approach should be obvious. Although in the interest of consensus among editors and MOS:MIL policy compliance as noted by nom, just See Aftermath would also be appropriate.
Lastly, the repetitive arguments presented above so far for "Indian victory" - to give undue weight to the select few fringe sources in infobox - remain thoroughly unconvincing and refuted in the discussion section below. They also ignore "Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded". [25] Having a few sources state an upper hand in some way during the war by either India or Pakistan doesn't translate to a "victory/success" for any party, this just demonstrates why the war is generally perceived as a stalemate by independent sources.Codenamewolf (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian victory. Scholarly opinion is not divided into opposing viewpoints on this question. Most scholars view this favorably. The chief argument here is that the academic consensus weighs in favor of the idea of Indian victory, if we discount the passing mentions (and these sources have been scrutinized). The arguments against it are mostly dubious and vacillate between an inconclusive, stalemate and a see aftermath, and some of the !votes above juxtapose all these expressions together, betraying a lack of clarity in thoughts and basis in sources. As a participant in the discussions, I considered most of the sources furnished for both of the positions and the attendant arguments. Most scholarly accounts of the war, detailed enough in their consideration of the subject, tended to acknowledge, in one way or another, India's relative successes in accomplishing the prewar objectives it had set out to accomplish, in marked contrast with Pakistan's failures in doing so. Pakistan did not have any material gain accruing to it during the course of engagement with the Indian forces. It retained a third of the erstwhile territory of Kashmir, but which its lashkars had already wrung from the state forces of maharaja (before he acceded it to India, paving the way for the latter's participation in the war) and it did not have within it the Vale of Kashmir, much less the crowning objective of Srinagar, which it warred over.[26] India entered much later into the war theatre, and not just arrested the Pakistani advance, but also acquired control over the majority of Kashmir (hosting 72% of its population) which included the valley that it reclaimed.
    Some of the see aftermath proponents have in discussions pointed to a number of passing mentions stacked up elsewhere to argue that these sources established a divergence of opinions amongst scholars on the war result. Dhawangupta in their comment above refers to an analysis of some of these sources, and folks have scrutinized more of these sources elsewhere on the page. On policy grounds alone, this argument would be discounted, for a source touching on a subject incidentally is by definition inadmissible. Even then, there are important nuances in the use of expressions such as "stalemate", "deadlock", et al, occurring in some of these sources, which they do in a certain context. These then have been misrepresented out of that context by their posters that intertwined it to the war result. The first Kashmir war was fought over roughly one and a half year from October 1947 to January 1949, and most of these passing mentions of stalemate occur in the context of military deadlock that characterized the situation of the beginning of the winter of 1947. For instance, Jayanta Kumar Ray, one of their sources is a good case in point. With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply line, the military situation reached a stalemate; especially because regular Pakistani troops were also joining the Azad Kashmir forces. On 1 January 1948 , India referred the matter to the Security Council under Article 35 of the Charter , urging that august institution to call upon Pakistan to refrain from interfering in Kashmir by aiding and abetting the tribal invaders[27], Ray wrote on the situation of lack of military progress by either side by the time winter descended (the year being 1947) in her brief consideration of the war. This was misrepresented as Ray's support for the war result being a stalemate! Sumit Ganguly, in his Conflict Unending India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947, tells us that after the relative quiet of winter was the Indian spring offensive of 1948 that accrued it important territorial gains. In December 1947, logistical difficulties dealt the Indian forces an important military setback. The principal problem that the Indian forces encountered was a lack of supplies and of adequate high - altitude warfare equipment...Taking advantage of the Indian lapse , the ' Azad Kashmir ' ( literally , ' free Kashmir ' ) forces compelled the Indians to retreat . . In the spring of 1948 , the Indians launched a counter - offensive that led to more direct Pakistani involvement in the war .  Later in the year , regular Pakistani army units entered the fray as the Indian army made important territorial gains .[28] Another one of their own sources, Peter R. Lavoy, mentions in passing, in his book on Kargil, that the important mountainous towns of Dras, Kargil and the Zozila Pass fell in Indian hands only by December 1948.
    Ganguly also observes on the false optimism of Pakistan's establishment that convinced it to war with India over Kashmir, Given the disarray of Pakistan's social , organizational , political , and military structures in the wake of Partition, it is hard to understand how any responsible Pakistani decision - maker could have believed that a war with India over Kashmir would result in Pakistani victory.[29] Subir Bhaumik, scholar, writes, "The general course of the first Kashmir war went against Pakistani expectations . Pakistan could not bring Kashmir within its fold - neither could it , at that point of time , win the loyalty of the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley . The Pakistani effort lacked centralized operational planning , proper intelligence and , above all , an accurate assessment of the Indian mindset".[30] Pradeep Barua, in his critique of the performances of the armies, writes, "The campaign in Jammu and Kashmir, the second longest military campaign waged by the Indian army to date, is also one of its most successful. The army's performance reflected the high state of combat efficiency achieved during the Second World War. More importantly, the Indian army's success vindicated the reforms carried out in the interwar British-Indian army. After initially experiencing shock at the strength and organization of the Pakistani- sponsored raiders, the general staff did not panic and flood Kashmir with troops. Instead, it carefully noted the logistical difficulties. As a result, when the Indian counteroffensive eventually opened in early 1948, it was sustained with minor hitches right up until the cease-fire. Despite numerical superi- ority and the advantage of operating close to its supply bases, the Pakistani army failed to make any substantial headway. The inadequacies that char- acterized most Pakistani operations can be traced to their depleted officer corps.[31] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 108, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
  2. ^ Jha, Prem Shankar (1996), Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563766-3
  3. ^ Jha, Prem Shankar (1996), Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563766-3
  4. ^ Taylor, David (1999), "Prem Shankar Jha: Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History (Book Review)", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 62 (1): 167–168, doi:10.1017/s0041977x00018048, JSTOR 3107438, S2CID 162256215
  5. ^ Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 108, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7

Discussion

  • Abhishek0831996, In your second source you are wrong in suggesting that somehow having upper hand translates into an Indian victory. Of coarse Indian military had advantage as their opponents were un-trained tribal militia. But there is no room for treating these two terms as synonymous. The rest of the two sources are not dealing with the first Kashmir war or even, the Kashmir conflict. We cannot take their claim at face value when majority of other sources suggest otherwise.
    Also, you have conveniently avoided addressing the sources which actually deal with Kashmir conflict and Indo-Pakistani wars and state this war to be a stalemate. Sumit Ganguly, Lavoy, Surinder Mohan and Ankit, Rakesh, who actually provide a detailed account of war and Kashmir conflict, consider it a military stalemate. Fair, C. Christine, Gardner, Cheri, Cheema & Cohen, Sprague, Jayanta Kumar Ray and Sisson & Rose are also equally reliable for the South Asian military history, if not more, than Wilcox or Arshad Ali.
    If anything, these academic sources prove that there is no sort of academic consensus for Indian victory which you are trying to portray. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No I never said that "upper hand" means victory. I only stated that source to mention how India had advantage at the time of the ceasefire. If I were to find passing mentions like your sources then you will easily get outnumbered.
    It has been already discussed that while a good number of academic sources say it was an Indian victory, nobody appears to be rejecting this fact with proper analysis. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty obvious that calling of result by academic references as inconclusive or stalemate is outright rejection of "this fact" of the supposed Indian victory. So, I'm not sure how can you draw the conclusion that nobody appears to be rejecting this fact with proper analysis. Also explain how these sources are just passing remarks while the sources supporting your claim aren't. If anything, most of these sources actually state so after in-depth study of war, unlike the ones stating it to be a win for Indian military, which are more in nature as passing mentions. If you can find better sources specialising in the Kashmir conflict for your claim, you should do so.
    Sutyarashi (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. Passing mentions are not proper analysis. I have already evaluated your sources in the original discussion and flagged my concerns with your use of them. The fact you elect to simply rehash them without critically engaging with them doesn't help the discussion. Take for instance what Jayanta Kumar Ray has observed and how you are misrepresenting him as offering support for your contention when he is simply considering different things in a different context. With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply line, the military situation reached a stalemate; especially because regular Pakistani troops were also joining the Azad Kashmir forces, he writes before transitioning to the political nature of the dispute and the UN handling of it. Ray does not observe on the war result, but on the lack of military progress by either side by the time winter descended. Which isn't true completely either, as Peter R. Lavoy, whom you cited too, tells us in his book on Kargil that Dras, Kargil and the Zozila Pass only fell in Indian hands by December 1948. But that is a different matter and besides the point. Scholars critiquing the result of the military engagement would cater for aspects of disproportionate territorial expansion accruing to India in consequence of the war. The point is clear that you don't quite have or shown the scholarly support for your contention as you otherwise believe. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In your this analysis of the source, you have discussed only J. K Ray. Even in it, you are completely ignoring that he had been discussing the war for past several pages. Of coarse, the conclusion of the war would be stated only at the end. The lack of military progress, by very dictionary definition, is a stalemate, not a victory. You are wrong in concluding that somehow he's simply considering different things in a different context. If he transitioned to the UN handling of the war afterwards, that does not discredit him either. Indeed, India had itself brought the issue to the UN. I'm not sure how you are going to reject his conclusion on such flimsy grounds. Also, I would be rather glad if you can spend some of your precious time, just like I have been doing, to prove how all of these sources provide only a passing remark, and on what basis they should be considered more reliable than the ones furnished by editors supporting Indian POV, like this, this, this or this, when they don't are not even related to the topic under discussion or even devote half a page for war?
    Or alternatively, you can stop pretending that the mainstream academic view is Indian triumph, when it is very clearly not the case. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to recapitulate my observations on your sources interminably just because you don't get it. Jayanta Kumar Ray's is not an observation on the result of the war as the context makes it clear. There is the similar case of misrepresentation with your use of Ganguly who doesn't aver in the context of the war result. None of your other passing mention sources have stuck hitherto so it's really not on me if you are unable to convince us by regurgitating the same argument again and again. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case, you should leave the matter to decide what these sources mean by calling the war of 1947 – 1948 as inconclusive or stalemate to some uninvolved editors. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you "find the passing mentions," and list them here, @Abhishek0831996: I don't mean back-alley publishers in the vicinity of Ansari Road, Old Delhi, but high-quality internationally-recognized scholarly publishers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all RfC participants: There were 14 sources in the "Aftermath" section that judged the war to have ended in a stalemate and only six old and poor quality ones that discerned an Indian victory. As many sources in the first group were stacked under one index at the end, that lop-sided contrast was not apparent to a reader. I have now unstacked the list and added three more in the "inconclusive" group, making 17 in all. Please do not stack it again until the conclusion of the RfC, unsightly though it might appear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I bet I can easily bump up the "inconclusives" to 20 or even 25; this is that lop-sided. I'm surprised that the valuable time of competent WPians is being wasted by India-POV-pushers who had dickered with the original "inconclusive" in the first place. May I also request that the sentence "Numerous analysts state India emerged victorious as it successfully gained the majority of the contested territory." (sublimely nonsensensical) be removed at once from the lead paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said there are 17 high quality scholarly sources that have judged the First Kashmir War to have ended in a stalemate or inconclusively. There are six poor quality, and also old, sources that describe the result to be an Indian victory. I have no idea what you are talking about. Vague generalities can get you only so far. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, much more than "6 sources" have been presented for "Indian victory". Nobody is measuring "who has got more sources". Now if you reallly believe that passing mentions or the sources that put minor focus on this war should be counted then it would be very easy to find dozens more sources (just like most of those "17 sources") for saying Indian victory in the war.[32][33][34] Its not difficult to find them.Ratnahastin (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to explain how these sources are just passing remarks, when they devoted dozen of pages to the first Kashmir War? Snedden's and Ganguly's books actually entirely revolve around the Kashmir conflict. They analyse it in as much detail as possible. Continuous harping by you or other editors is of no value when you can't defend these claims.
Now, coming the sources you presented, Your first source is not reliable in the South Asian context. It discusses US foreign policy, and the statement (Pakistan lost all of its war) is of no value in this regard. Your second source, The Global Rise of Asian Transformation suffers from the same issue. It was written by an economist, not a war analyst. As for your third source, I mean really? You seriously think that some aeronautics related journal which allows only a snippet view is as much reliable as the WP:RS University presses published sources? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone really has an obligation on them to WP:SATISFY you on your already refuted contentions and when you don't bat an eye when such "explanations" are made. And they have been restated a fair number of times. Ganguly, who like the rest of the of sources you have misrepresented, doesn't say the war ended in a stalemate. He uses the expression in quite a different context as Jayanta Kumar Ray that military deadlock in January 1948 occasioned the Indian PM to refer the dispute to the UN. Fighting didn't surcease in the early 1948. Hell, it raged on even as the UN considered the issue. Kargil, Dras, Zozila fell to India as late as December 1948. Ganguly concludes himself, After a period of further negotiations and continued fighting during the autumn , a cease - fire finally went into effect on January 1 , 1949. And this is really a short adumbration he's lifted entirely verbatim from Devin T. Hagerty's South Asia in World Politics[35] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, but the fact is that none of you have actually refuted those sources on firm basis. None of these call the war victory for India. None of the source I have misrepresented, no matter how much you disagree with what they state. And I would prefer some neutral party instead of you to deduce what they might mean by calling the war as inconclusive or stalemate.
On the other hand, none of you tried to answer my objections over the sources for an Indian victory. If you are not going to show how they are WP:RS or how sources for stalemate are just a bunch of passing mentions with no value to be cited, you can't just randomly apply WP:SATISFY on me. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I don't have to be a "neutral party" in your perception either to offer my evaluation of your sources. Comment on content, not on the contributor, as you should know by now having invoked WP:PERSONAL quite a fair number of times on this page itself for others. I see fair number of rejoinders on your charge on some of the sources you flag for issues and you actually have had no rebuttals to them. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi:, I recommend that you not respond to the Thesaurus-driven English of MBlaze Lightning and others that is essentially without content unless some kind of lame parody is their goal. After this RfC has ended, you should take all of them to AN for disruption and ask that they be topic banned from South Asia-related topics broadly construed. Engaging them now will only put off the non-involved editors who might be thinking of weighing in. You should vote yourself and explain your vote and then resist the temptation to engage these disruptive editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the very perfect ways to get WP:BOOMERANG. You should frown upon your WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try. I've never in 17 years on WP been the object of a boomerang. Keep writing Thesaurus-driven English ("you should frown upon ...") and you'll hasten your end on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi: Please also keep WP:Civil POV pushing in mind. This seems to be the latest tack of India-POV editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin: Please list all the "passing mentions" of an Indian victory here so we can test the hypothesis that there are "dozens more" of them. Please note that need to have internationally recognized scholarly publishers. I am serious. Very serious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Raymond3023 moved from comment section. Moved by Raymond3023. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have edited nothing related to Kashmir or India-Pakistan wars and you write long-winded turgid prose about everything but WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, or WP:TERTIARY. So why does you vote carry any weight in this RfC? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, @Raymond3023:, are the eight sources that mention an Indian victory: [137] A. Ali, "Pakistan's National Security Approach and Post-Cold War Security," 2021; [27] Wilcox, "Pakistan-The Consolidation of a Nation," 1963; [140] New Zealand Defense Quarterly, 1999; [141] Brozek, "War Bellies: The Critical Relationship Between Resolve and Domestic Audiences," University of Wisconsin-Madison, Unpublished PhD Dissertation (Isn't it shameful that it is left to me to describe this correctly, and not give it a bogus ISBN?); [142] Hoontrakul, "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics, 2014; [143] Brower, "The World in the Twentieth Century," 1988; [143] Kaplan, "Nations and Nationalism," 2008; [144] Hughes, "My Enemy's Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics," 2012.
    Please tell us how many here are "scholars actually writing about the war." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have significantly discussed Indo-Pakistani War of 1971,[36] 2016 Indian Line of Control strike,[37] and more related subjects. If you cannot assume good faith then at least you need to stop being wholly deceptive.
You must read WP:BLUD and stop badgering everyone who is commenting against your POV. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are both talk pages. You've made 2 talk page edits in one and six in another. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure they have jumped into RfC just to simply regurgitate what other editors sharing their POV have stated before, without even checking these supposedly high quality sources, as did another editor with no prior history at this discussion and a now indeffed troll.
And I doubt that they can ever prove that how these sources are relevant or even WP:RS. I rebutted these before,[38] And even during my replies above. Have been still waiting for them to answer the objections. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi you are the one rehashing and regurgitating your trope of "high quality sources" without any critical engagement with the said sources of yours, which have been scrutinized and found to be passing mentions or worse misrepresentations by three editors in this very thread. I am yet to see you say anything other than "I would prefer some neutral party instead of you to deduce what they might mean by calling the war as inconclusive or stalemate", which to me was flat-out demeaning. The very purport of an RfC is to solicit opinions of uninvolved editors, and if such participation irks you, you perhaps need to take a break from this page and introspect. I happened to be the first responder to the attempted sabotage by the trolling sock[39] and also the guy to report him to AIV[40]. @Ratnahastin was the person to correctly identify his sock lineage at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Observer1989 which ultimately incurred him an indef. Your insinuations of guilt by association thus betray a complete absence of AGF and thoroughly disagreeable. Weigh your words before you write stuff about your fellow Wikipedians and refrain from inneundos. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MBlaze Lightning, have you been "critically evaluating" the sources being presented for the POV for Indian victory too? If not, then sorry, you are not a neutral party. That is definitely not to de-mean you as you are saying; I used it in the meaning of uninvolved/third party. (As I did above).
All of the sources for stalemate have been published by reputable publishers and authors. 16 out of 17 entirely deal with the Kashmir conflict and South Asia. Compare this with the kind of the sources supporting the notion of Indian victory; the contrast will be apparent on you. If you still think some of them have been misrepresented, feel free to remove them. But at the same time please evaluate the other sources per the same standard, and get them removed too. They are not passing mentions any more than the ones for the other POV.
Moreover, I have been avoiding discussion here, because it is very clear that one side wants to ignore there exist academic sources calling the war inconclusive. It is only that the editor essentially repeated same kind of argument (The opposing sources of equal quality and quantity have not been forthcoming. ) which has been repeatedly rebutted, and which I found necessary to be pointed out.
Also, I would be very happy if the three editors in this very thread can answer my objections over the sources they are presenting, because none of them have done so. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wrong in casting aspersions of lack of neutrality on me in lieu of rebutting the points on policy grounds which is actually what matters in a discussion. Your insubstantial charges of the other side's sources being as facile as yours has been disproven numerous times as diffs like this demonstrate. While you have had no rebuttals to those, you've taken to rehashing the same points in the hope that some of it beckons to the uninitiated. Your contention then that there are somehow two wrongs that make a right is a fallacious one with no merit to it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which reliable sources? Please examine my reply to Raymond3023 below. Would you like me to have your sources put under scrutiny at WP:RS/N? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157 I think the bigger question here is why admit of back-and-forths in the thread that's earmarked for !voting when there is an accompanying discussion thread to ensure a continuity of the discussion. The way you have structured this RfC by earmarking separate threads for both !voting and discussion does create a common-sense expectation that the participants should broach and discuss their points in the thread earmarked for it. The back-and forths in the !voting would have the unenviable effect of encouraging badgering and derailing from the RfC itself which is not what we want when we are soliciting outside opinions. Having said that, I do agree on the need to ensure transparency and scrupulousness in handling moves of other users' responses and your suggestion is apt in this regard. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlaze Lightning: If you do not rewrite this in the kind of English you use in your content contributions, e.g. Vikram Batra, I will soon pose both lexical and syntactical queries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that I have replied to the reply. Therefore you cannot change it above. Please rewrite it below if you choose to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond3023, you would state Likewise, the insinuation that there are somehow partisan sources with nationalistic affiliations used remain unsubstantiated by the original posters. I am the original poster of this RfC. Please state where I have made such an insinuation herein or redact the statement as inaccurate. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not about you but some other "original posters" (plural) who are having such views about the sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere I have claimed anything like that. I had only provided accounts of very involved entities and a Pakistani defence journal to make it clear that whatever I am stating is a established fact accepted by all sides of and outside the dispute.--❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 06:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you like, @Pravega:, to take your sources to WP:RS/N and let them decide their worth? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context on the greater share of sources used for an inconclusive/stalemate result, one may refer to the threaded discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#Indian_victory? where folks considered the said sources and found them mostly to be referring to the war topic in passing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is interested in raking up old arguments. Here's an open challenge for you @MBlaze Lightning: As the First Kashmir War was fought 75 years ago, it has made it into books. Why don't you list all the books that mention the Indian victory in passing and let us be the judge? They have to be scholarly though and be listed here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler Being scholarly or published by a reputed publisher is just one of the criteria for identifying reliable sources. It alone doesn't render a source reliable for something. There are other factors that assume greater significance and consideration. Indeed, what may be reliable for its principal topics need not necessarily be reliable for facts it refers to in passing. And that's enshrined in the policy, which is categorical in this regard and leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. Sources that mention the war in passing provide no underlying detail or context about it and cannot thus be drawn on for insights on the war result. I'll just leave you here with an example that exemplifies why passing mentions, even from scholarly publications, can show an erroneous understanding of just about anything that deviates from their principal topics. At a similar RfC at Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_3#Survey_(What_was_the_outcome_of_the_Battle_of_Chawinda?) that sought editors' inputs on the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda, similar passing mentions were brought out as saying Pakistan won the battle of Chawinda. One amongst the sources cited for it was Spencer C. Tucker, an eminent historian on military histories, who merely recycled an old correspondent's report from the wartime that said Pakistan is the victor in the battle. (written in the present tense). Here's what Tucker in another edition and in his own words observed about this battle, On September 6, however, India sent some 900,000 men across the border into Pakistan. Superior numbers soon told. In one of the largest tank battles in history, the Indians defeated the Pakistanis at Chawinda (September 14– 19) and reached Lahore, claiming to have destroyed 300 Pakistani tanks in the process. An erronerous observation even for the detractors of Pakistani victory in the battle. So instead of repeatedly badgering others to engage in the same pointless exercise as you, you can come clean on your rationale for going against the dictates of the policy which would perhaps induce understanding in others about the hitherto unclear merits of your contention. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please list all your sources, those with an in-depth treatment and those with passing mentions, and let us be the judge, without your commentary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @MBlaze Lightning: Can you write your comments in clean comprehensible English? If you don't I'll infer that you and your cohorts here are using an obsolete, Thesaurus-driven style as a kind of private joke. In other words, you are not only engaged in obfuscation but are being disruptive. I have noted above that you have not used this stilted style in your main content contribution, Vikram Batra. I have called you out on this before on some other pages; Talk:Narendra Modi was one, I think. Pinging some administrators @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your demand is very strange. There is no issue in having a rich vocabulary and distinct but easily understandable writing style. However, you are clearly engaging in WP:CANVASSING and WP:BLUDGEON.--❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was rich. I said it is archaic and obsolete, and often riddled with malapropisms. Please don't play Wikilawyer here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wise to WP:Civil POV pushing Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the closer I note that in the "votes" above, there are claims that the academic consensus favours "Indian victory". This is clear misrepresentation and not based on the facts, as has been demonstrated above by several editors. The quality and number of the reliable "uninvolved" (ie not Pakistani or Indian) sources that support a nuanced outcome of a stalemate leading to a ceasefire far outweigh largely "involved" sources that state it was an Indian victory. There are also a few sources that are mere "passing mentions" by sources that are being used to support "Indian victory" that do not demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the conflict. I usually work in an area where there is a lot of civil and uncivil POV pushing (Yugoslavia in WWII), and this smells a lot like the former. Good luck with the close. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacemaker67's appeal to authority that their experience of working elsewhere allows them to cast aspersions on editors working here is outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour and an attempt to colour the perception of the otherwise uninvolved closer when they're failing to substantiate their claims or engage with others over what they rehash. Can Peacemaker67 point us to a single "involved" sources, much less "largely", that has been cited to support contentions about war results, for it is looks nothing but a trumped-up red herring that they do not substantiate. No one here has used accounts of involved sources for either of the aspects but scholars that have thoroughly critiqued the war (in the case of Indian victory). The fact thay Indian victory sources are not passing mentions is the reason why there is the argument in the first place for an academic consensus for the position. On the contrary, every single source for a "stalemate" that has been provided is a passing mention or a passing mention with editorial misrepresentation. Peacemaker67 himself relies on Alastair Lamb in his comment despite this source is not a reliable source (see reviews) for India-Pakistan conflict. Peacemaker67's cursory remarks betray a sense of prejudice but the closer should not attach significance to it as they are baseless to boot. Regards, Azuredivay (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who claims that Lamb is a fringe source on Kashmir should be ignored by the closer. The non-Indian reviews at the link describe Lamb's work in glowing terms, as do the wider reviews not mentioned there. The above personal attack points to the prejudice of the editor responsible. The level of POV pushing on this talk page is going to end up at ArbCom shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Not just this page, but some others also. If you take them to WP:AN or somesuch, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"non-Indian reviews at the link describe Lamb's work in glowing terms, as do the wider reviews not mentioned there" and it does not matter what is the race/ethnicity of the review. What matters is that Lamb claimed made a number of shocking claims such as no accession of Jammu and Kashmir was ever signed,[41] and these views are clearly fringe views not supported by any scholarly sources. Azuredivay (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Indian Ministry of Defence produced an official history of the war, which was completed in 1969, but not published until 1987. The official history does not claim that the war was an Indian victory, it says that the war ended in a cease fire. Pages 372–375 discuss the issue of an Indian victory. Page 372 says There is a feeling among some Service officers, as well as a section of the civilian population, that India should not have accepted the Cease Fire or any Cease Fire Line, and should have pressed on to liberate the rest of the territories of J & K State. It is argued that the liberation of the remaining territories of J & K was only a matter of a few weeks, and the political decision to have a Cease Fire robbed the Indian Army and the Royal Indian Air Force of a quick and decisive victory in J & K. These opinions are widespread enough to demand notice, and some senior officers who took part in these operations have also urged a discussion of this matter in this detailed history of the operations in J & K. The conclusion on page 375 was: The enemy could not be defeated decisively by local action within the boundaries of J & K. For decive victory, it was necessary to bring Pakistan to battle on the broad plains of the Punjab itself; the battle of J & K, in the last analysis, had to be fought and won at Lahore and Sialkot, as events brought home in 1965. So, if the whole of J & K had to be liberated from the enemy, a general war against Pakistan was necessary. ... rightly or wrongly, the government did not decide to have a general war with Pakistan.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty conclusive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1: The problem with official histories, which have not been peer-reviewed, is that had the Pakistani history judged an Indian victory, and our interlocutors used it to claim game, set, and match, we would (rightly) have said, "It is not a reliable secondary source." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above quote provided by Toddy1 is actually about Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, not this 1947-1948 war. Azuredivay (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay's comment is not true. He/she should read the official history, History of Operations in Jammu & Kashmir 1947-48. I gave the page references.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, of course it was peer reviewed before publication (just like the many volumes of British and American official histories of both World Wars were peer reviewed). It is worth contrasting the official history of the 1947-48 war, with the official history of the Indian invasion of neighbouring Hyderabad in the 1948, Operation Polo - The Police Action Against Hyderabad 1948; page 119 is particularly splendid, comparing the rate of advance of the Indian Army in Hyderabad with that of the 1940s German Army in France, the Soviet Union, and Africa, and the Allied armies after El Alamein. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are peer-reviewed, it is by other government officials in India's defence department, not independent scholars as they are in a journal or scholarly press publication. That is why they are considered primary sources, more in the nature of official archives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Best sources says The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. That is precisely the process official histories get in countries such as Britain, the United States, and India.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they haven't not been reviewed in the standard journals of the subject of interest. You are welcome to ask at WP:RS/N Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • EkoGraf, and if there are contemporary academic/scholarly sources also assessing the result of the conflict as inconclusive or a stalemate, how do/should we deal with these? Do we just ignore them like they don't exist? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georgethedragonslayer, Then they make a case of dispute in sources using passing mentions, which is essentially drawing a false equivalence by juxtaposing reliable sources with those that aren't reliable for this subject. Then they bring out the nationality of the handful(!?) of the scholars to discount all of the sources, which is such a non-serious, broad-brush and parochial utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking basis in policy. No body has denied that there are some good quality sources that would assert that this is an Indian victory. The issue is that there are also good quality sources asserting that the result was a stalemate or inconclusive. To assert that all of these sources are only making passing mentions is a broad-brush utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking substantiation. Repeating it over and over does not make it true. Unsubstantiated assertion is no substitute for evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a broad-brush utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking substantiation if its mostly true. Out of the many sources claimed to support stalemate, many are poor quality (like Lamb) or are passing mentions (Ankit, Rakesh; Mohan; Gardener; Sisson and Rose; Jayant Kumar Ray; Ganguly; Lavoy and Sprague are all either one liners/one paragraphs with many taken from books only tangentially related to the topic, and these are 8 sources out of the 10 that have been actually provided. One other is inaccessible, and Fair, while slightly more detailed, is still not as comprehensive as the sources provided for "Indian victory"). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 20 of some of the highest quality sources on Kashmir (many of which I have collected) that judge the war to have ended in a stalemate. That it was a stalemate was further evident in the motivations offered for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by right-wing Hindu nationalist assassin Nathuram Godse. Gandhi's last fast (or hunger strike) in January 1948, said Godse, was the act of a traitor. The fast in fact, i.e. from Gandhi's viewpoint, had the goal of pressuring the Government of India (especially its determinedly anti-Pakistan and occasionally anti-Muslim deputy prime minister Sardar Patel) to part with the cash assets that India owed to Pakistan, legally and morally, by the terms set down in the Partition of India. Patel had been holding back the money for he feared that it would give Pakistan the resources for purchasing arms. Only a stalemate and not a defeat could have been turned around by a simple influx of cash. For a defeat results in a breakdown of order, both social and military. By the time the cash was paid, the matter had been taken to the UN.
    As for the sources that judge a military victory, please take them to WP:RS/N and ask user:SamuelRiv there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grave mistake in Infobox image

I think we're making a grave mistake here as the second image at the infobox is stated as Pakistani troops while multiple sources have stated this image to be of airlift of Indian troops. Should we amend this? Request clarifications over this before someone again makes a mockery of Wikipedia using this (presumed) mistake by the community. TIA Pg 6475 TM 15:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pg 6475: From where you have read that this image is about airlift of Indian troops? I see the added URL is not working. Azuredivay (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troops at Srinagar Airfield
27 October 1947
Official Indian Air Force on X
Indian-Army-landing-in-Kashmir-in-1947
Before Pathan Raids
#Oct27: Delhi Flew 800 ‘Dakota’ Sorties To Srinagar in 15 Days In 1947, says Sinha
Indian Soldiers Land in Srinigar
The First War After Independence – The Saga of Bravery and Sacrifice
Sadly enough, the following article wrongly mentions the image as Pakistani soldiers, citing WP as source, and, ironically the same article shows an image of an Indian Dakota in an another image within it.
A Dark Chapter Of Kashmir’s History: The Day When Pakistan Plundered The ‘Paradise On Earth’
This image is highly popular in Indian culture, and the aircraft in the background is an Indian civilian Dakota. Pg 6475 TM 16:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is in the Indian official history of the war published 1987, History of Operations in Jammu & Kashmir 1947-48, facing page 1. The caption says The First Fly-in. Indian troops landing on Srinagar airfield.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

The page lead make a claim that Numerous analysts state India emerged victorious as it successfully gained the majority of the contested territory meanwhile the aftermath section says that Numerous analysts state that the war ended in a stalemate, with neither side obtaining a clear victory. Can someone fix this obvious conflict?. 103.244.173.34 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in the lead regarding the outcome

Given the RfC, the current edit warring in the lead is disruptive editing. Discuss it on the page thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948&oldid=1206105195"