This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
You seemed to change the result of the Battle of Hussainiwala to "Pakistan captures Hussainiwala". The enemy retreating from the village with the invader achieving its objectives is a victory. The reversion seems like a poor excuse and POV pushing. Please be mindful that this encyclopedia promotes a neutral point of view, which I have been improving on myself. Thank you. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"By the night of December 4th, the resistance offered by the 15 Punjab was hopeless, as the Pakistanis had secured the Dipalpur Canal and the headwaters, and Hussainiwala was bound to fall. In order to prevent the complete extermination of the 15 Punjab, Lt. Colonel Shastry retreated from Hussainiwala." I mean come on dude. The POV pushing here is obvious. MrGreen1163 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I did include an additional source and excerpt that explicitly mentions victory. Thanks! MrGreen1163 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I did include an additional source and excerpt that explicitly mentions victory. Thanks! MrGreen1163 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrGreen1163: Given your pointy argument elsewhere over "Indian victory", it is clear that you know what constitutes as "victory" when it comes to its mention on infobox. You should not use your own analysis per WP:OR and let the source explicitly say if it is a "victory" or not. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an additional citation that explicitly mentions victory. Thank you. MrGreen1163 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it seems you removed it again. Here I'll get the source for you. https://www.dawn.com/news/1161922 "The Indian version of the battle admits defeat as given in The Liberation Times and quoted in the book: “Pakistan troops attacked the (Hussainiwala) enclave at last light on 3rd December and had overwhelmed the Indian troops [...] The fighting raged [...] till the morning of the 4th, when some troops were still holding out from the last floor of the Kaiser-i-Hind memorial. As the position became precarious, the remaining troops were ordered to withdraw from the enclave on the night of December 4th. Our losses were 99 killed and missing.” However, for the 41st Baloch regiment, the joy of a hard-won victory disappeared when the news of the ceasefire on Dec 17 struck them like lightning." If there is speculation of bias, here is the original book in which this article was reviewing, where the quotation in that excerpt originates from.
The Battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: The 1971 War
(WAR)
By Lieutenant Colonel (Retd) Habib Ahmed
Oxford University Press, Karachi
ISBN 978-0-19-906472-4
306pp.
There are references in this book further to back this assessment as well as a quotation from the "Liberation Times" to provide an Indian perspective on these events. MrGreen1163 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A book review is not a reliable source for this information. See WP:HISTRS. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I would like to throw in my two cents.
The report seems to be from the Oxford University press, which indicates some weight in words. It also covers the Hussainiwala battle specifically. The scholarly historiography backs the fact that it was a Pakistani victory regardless. You’ve also said that book reviews aren’t reliable, but the WP link you’ve sent clearly states book reviews to be reliable, on point 7 under Reliable sources for weighting and article structure on Wikipedia:HISTRS. Under this, the book review clearly states a Pakistani victory, so it should most definitely be classified as a Pakistani victory.
Not only this, but it seems pretty self explanatory that this battle in itself, is a Pakistani victory. The Pakistani short-term objective was to take Hussainiwala, and that they did. I’m not sure what else could be a victory. Nonetheless, my previous point still stands.
However, the wider Operation Chengiz Khan is a certain Pakistani failure, but this isolated battle was not. Therefore, it should be reverted to Pakistani victory. Just like how the previous two editors did. VirtualVagabond (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for the book review point, I meant point 6. VirtualVagabond (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not "most definitely be classified as a Pakistani victory". That is WP:OR. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)
Just because one editor is blocked, you still don't get to falsify the source in your favor. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
