Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

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

/Archive 4 September 7, 2009 — 22 August 2011

Contents

Edit below this line[edit]

Or preferably use the 'new section tab' on the page top to post your message. AshLin (talk) before printing the articles please check the refferences. it is clear from videos, books, living persons of that war, or anyother resorce that pakistan not only won that war but also occupied some area of india, which definitely was returned back after cease fire. the credibility of this article is very poor. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.36.35.230 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

To prove its air superiority, PAF put its entire fleets on show for inspection after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have been able to annihilate the tiny PAF to prevent such displays.

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [1]</nowiki>

Based on the accounts of a dogfight in one Indian and Pakistani source below, copied cut & paste from the cited sources, I had made the following edit which is as follows:

In an unusual incident, an [[Indian Air Force|IAF]] Gnat after a dogfight with F-104s, turned back from the Indian border, landed at an abandoned Pakistani [[airstrip]] at [[Pasrur]] and was captured by the Pakistan Army.<ref>[http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html "1965 War, Chapter 3."] ''bharat-rakshak.com.'' Retrieved: 4 November 2010.</ref><ref name="Run… It’s a 104">{{cite news|title="Run… It’s a 104."|url=http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html|newspaper=Jang News|author=Air Commodore M. Kaiser Tufail}}</ref>

This has been reverted by User:TopGun. I invite User:TopGun to discuss where my edit was incorrect except that perhaps the F-104 was unable to actually dogfight in this encounter.

AshLin (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As my reverting edit summary stated, there was no dogfight with 104s. I've read the references for that and you are free to confirm. One of the 104s just crossed the arena a few times and didn't even engage. So that statement is not correct (though you now may be acknowledge that?).
Now about landing. The Indian pilot did not stay up and engage the incoming 104s, and chose to land instead after making the mistake of going the wrong way (back towards Pakistan). Whether or not he had problems with his aircraft (which too are debatable) he did land because of the incoming fighters as the second reference shows. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Your construing of the landing because of F-104 is original research. In the Indian source, the reason was equipment failure because of which he got lost. In the Pakistani account, the Gnat was seen to show bizarre behaviour by turning back from the IB and landing at a deserted strip for which no reason was given. I am reverting the concerned part of the edit only. If you still feel that it is POV, let me know and we can proceed to take the opinion to WikiProject Military History where some pilots can give us a neutral interpretation. BTW he was captured by Pak Army not PAF. AshLin (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that; the army captured him on the ground indeed. The phrase is not original research, rather based on the citation. Even if we take it that the approaching 104s were not the reason of landing as per the pilot's claim, there are still some issues with your recent edit. 1) The phrase does not tell, by missing the detail, that the 104s caused the Gnats to egress and rather implies to a unaware reader that they were engaged in a dogfight too. 2) The equipment failure should use the word "claimed" rather than "reported" as it was only the pilot's claim. You are an experienced editor, you know better than reverting the reigning version while the discussion is on going. There's no rush. For now, I'm correcting the stated issues. As for forcing down the plane, 104s were one of the factors even if we take the claim to be correct. This is per pilot's own claim:
"If there was any hope of making it back, the Starfighters snuffed it."
I'll try to make a neutral as possible addition of that along with correcting the issues stated above. If there are objections we can discuss here or further take it to an appropriate noticeboard (Though I'm a bit busy on some other articles and will help from my side to quickly finish this here in a neutral way). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the edit 3RR warning. A friendly gesture on your part. Where do we go with this? My view is that the Starfighter was irrelevant to his landing. He turned back just when he was about to be safe, came back and landed at Pasur - the reason his instruments failed and he was lost, he mistook Pasur for an Indian strip. Even Tufail Kaiser does not mention anything about any PAF pilot being even vaguely responsible. I think in this case, there is insufficient evidence that the Starfighter forced him down. The pilot's claim is not from an Indian source and as such is an if-then i.e. even if he could have tried he would not have succeeded, which is very different from the assertion that "Starfighters forced me down". My suggestion - keep it conservative, keep the starfighters out. It would be obvious to anyone that you would be over-reaching in this case ie stretching the facts a little farther than they can go, a tendency which all of us should guard against. Your call on this. AshLin (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think editwarring and adding POV content like "he was under the impression that this was an abandoned airfield in Indian territory" is helping your case here. Nor was it a friendly gesture on your part to edit war after I offered full cooperation. I've previously seen editors claiming they had not been warned for the editwar, so my warning was fully called for since it is your third revert. You've also changed the sentence's context from the previous evaluation sentence. This is clearly a WP:POV edit. One can only assume so much good faith. The last version was strictly as per the source and as per the pilot's own claim, Indian source or not - it was his unrefuted claim and his POW interrogation report (which you have provided below). It is an extra ordinary claim that you make. He was into a dogfight well into Pakistani airspace, and minutes later he assumed he was at an Indian airfield? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion in all good faith, I think you are over-stretching. The pilot was not actually forced down by F104s as per both accounts of the dogfight, both Indian and Pakistani. The pilot's apprehension that even if he tried he thought he could not get away is not relevant to what happened. His instruments failed, he saw a disused airfield, thought he was across the border and landed. And at dogfight speeds at such close proximities to the border, yes, it is quite easy to make this kind of mistake. Such a drift from the first encounter site has been recorded in WWII Battle of Britain dogfights with much slower aircraft. But that is besides the point. The F-104s did not force him down. Perhaps we need to take this to a dispute resolution to get external advice on this issue. AshLin (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
My (last) edit was not claiming that 104s forced him down. The edit was strictly sticking to the source and letting the reader decide. You, however, have given a POV statement that he had assumed it to be an Indian airfield. You also need to have a better understanding of dogfight since they don't take place at high speeds but rather low. Your claim is still extraordinary and seems to be later made by the Indian sources after the war. Also, it is important since he has been quoted to have mentioned that. You don't have to decide if-then for yourself. You just put in article what the real world sources tell. Remember we are not debating on the real world facts but on what the citations are saying. You've not addressed the change in the start of the sentence. Whether the Gnat was forced/coerced by the approaching 104s is one point of the debate but there's no dispute here on the fact that all the Gnats egressed due to their arrival which is very much in context with the whole paragraph and the previous revision was just fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued[edit]

Okay, in good faith, you have offered to collaborate, let us see where we can agree/disagree. Taking your version as a starting point.

Yet it zoomed into an on going dogfight between Sabres and Gnats, at supersonic speed, successfully breaking off the fight and causing the Gnats to egress. An IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the Pakistan Army. The pilot claimed that most of his equipment failed and even if he could get some chance on that, the star-fighters snuffed it.

  • Issue 1 - The Starfighter proving inadequate in close combat was an opinion developed after this conflict not before. The "Yet it zoomed.." is POV imo. At that point of time, the Starfighter was not an inferior aircraft to the Gnat under any circumstance and was feared for its speed and missiles, your source says "Run, its an F-104." Imo this should be removed. There is no need for downplaying the F-104.
  • Issue 2 - Direct contradiction between two sources.
Pak version - The pilot claimed that most of his equipment failed and even if he could get some chance on that, the star-fighters snuffed it.
Ind version - Sikand’s Gnat was low on fuel, and over unfamiliar territory, and after some flying Sikand found an airfield and in a foolish decision decided to land there. Sikand was under the impression that this was an abandoned airfield in Indian territory.

How do we resolve this? AshLin (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. To start with, "yet" can be used for past tense in this context regardless of when the opinion was developed. For example, "yet it had". So that won't be a problem. The reason I added this to the context was that 104 is being evaluated here by an opinion and its performance should be written in context to it (regardless of when the opinion was developed). This would only be fair to the aircraft and per WP:WEIGHT. Next, there's no implication here in my version that Starfighter was an inferior aircraft - infact the only thing saying that was the opinion piece of the Air Commodore. About the source, do you want me to remove the source for its title? Or to remove the title, "Run, its an F-104", from the citation? I don't think that any of last two can be done since WP:NPOV applies to Wikipedia and not outside sources, not to mention that it will destroy the bibliography of the source. Correct me if you meant something else.
Addressing the second issue, I don't think there's a contradiction. Both sources tell the pilot's version as the same. That is, he told the same thing to Pakistanis when he was a POW and to his comrades when he went home. Just the airfield being Indian is an extraordinary claim in the Indian citation. Also, the Indian version does not contradict the obvious approach of 104s and also has it in the text. Yes, I want the article to be neutral, if you want to add the claim about Indian airfield, that can be added too (maybe?). But the way for that would be proper attribution as we can not say that for a fact. It could be added in like, "Later in (year) it was claimed by so n so that Sikand thought it was an Indian airfield and decided to land there." I am still (not strongly) opposing this suggestion of my own as well for now - giving it just to ease things up, ie. there are possibilities and work-arounds. If you think this is fair enough, I am willing to discuss.
There are some issues with the Indian source. It wrongly attributes a claim to the Pakistani pilot who in even in the Pakistani source is quoted to be surprised at the landing and he reached late since he was scrambled during the fight. Mirza was the one who actually entered the fight. Further more, it doesn't mention that the 'first' shoot down of Gnat was actually not credited as the plane was flown back, crash landed with no further damage and images released. Infact even the Indian source does not confirm that the kill was made rather only states that the aircraft's wing appeared to have disintegrated and it went into an uncomfortable dive and then the source claims a kill. Jung news is a mainstream media source while the Indian site is a military consortium which is expected to have some bias. There are certain inconsistencies in the Indian source in comparison to the news source as well as on its own. On those basis, the extraordinary claims can simply be disregarded. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasons greetings to one and all. Will continue this discussion in the New Year. AshLin (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

so called Independent sources derived from India[edit]

The air losses section is maligned with misleading information claiming that independent sources are being used when clearly Indian writers have created this information and presented it as "neutral" I propose using legitimate neutral sources not Indian pov sources painted as "neutral" 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you bring some for a start and then debate on it? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe that section should be left empty Indian sources cannot be regarded as neutral with any conflict with India and vis versa 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you verified who the cited sources are attributing the claims to in the "neutral" column? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" Indian sources list[edit]

Chowk a blog with hardly any credibility is being used as a legitimate source to portray India having won the air war

Singh, Pushpindar (clearly and indian writer and an indian perspective on the war

D. R. Mankekar again and Indian writer with a title of "Twentytwo fateful days: Pakistan cut to size"

How on earth people get away with portraying this one sided sources as "neutral" is beyond me86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I've not gone through it yet, but at the first glimpse, I see a Pakistani officer's interview, incase he said that, there are chances for that being taken as a neutral claim. As for the website "chowk.com"'s own authenticity, it sure looks like a blog - you can post it at WP:RSN so that neutral unrelated editors can have a review of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The pakistani officer never stated India shot down more planes this is another example of twisting sources for a certain pov and the pov pushers get away with this because they know pakistani editors wont bother checking it 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If that is the case you can boldly make changes to them as well as give the correct figures here with quotations (referring to them in edit summary) so that there's no point in anyone reverting you. I've not reviewed any of the citations from that table but making bold edits will also get you bold reverts which you'll have to explain to, so change only the content which you have verified to be factually incorrect per the sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. the synopsis of this book states "indias struggle with china and pakistan" doesnt sound very neutral to me depicting India as a victim from 2 nations 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:PAFF-86s.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:PAFF-86s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoting an addition of content.[edit]

I added content in the 'Aftermath' section, that I had come across a long time ago. Please read and provide feedback whether it should be placed there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickzlapeor (talkcontribs) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a separate section just for this letter and even the incident in the war article is undue. See WP:WEIGHT. You might want to see the 65 airwar article which already states this fact inline in due weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"But the incident relates to this war, and it shows the differences in thinking of the people from 1965 to now (possibly as an aftermath to incidents happened in that year)." Nickzlapeor (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, got it. Nickzlapeor (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Ofcourse it relates to this war.. I was the one who added it to the main airwar article. If you want to add it inline here in the airwar section it might be fine.. but that article is for the details of the airwar... here it just has a summary with respect to the war in general. If you want to further detail it in the airwar article, that will be good enough. My revert was a bold revert to your bold edit, sorry if you got offended. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


Iran Support[edit]

Without any discussion in the talk page, a few months ago someone seems to have added a "Supported by Iran" to the "belligerents" section in the infobox. There seems to be absolutely nothing in the article about military support from Iran. The article makes a one line claim saying that "Pakistan received 'substantial support' from Iran, Indonesia, and China", and cites a Library of Congress article, when the cited article itself claims that the support was only political (i.e.: by most definitions, NOT substantial in a major war). The infobox is supposed to provide a summary of the article, and so I propose removing the Iranaian support reference unless someone can substantially elaborate on what military support pakistan recieved from iran (or any other country). Any objections? Kas1234567 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a source there on which you don't appear to object and instead on the content not well covered in the article. Feel free to make or suggest the improvements instead of asking to remove what is already done according to a source. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2012[edit]

The page does not contain important information on the total number of combat aircraft with India. According to the memoirs of Indian General, India had 625 combat aircrafts in 1965. For details, please follow the link:

"The Indian Air force had an approximate total of 90,000 men and 625 combat aircrafts in 1965". Page 40.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=PZ62tP_5a2AC&pg=PA40&dq=total+number+of+fighter+aircrafts+india+1965&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kJ_hT_a_HcfTsgbktO1x&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=total%20number%20of%20fighter%20aircrafts%20india%201965&f=false

Citation: Kathpalia, P. (1986). Mission with a difference: The exploits of 71st Mountain Brigade. New Dehli: Mehra Offset Press. p.40

Another citation, which confirms these numbers is provided below:

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=PKvmgfHewHcC&pg=PA45&dq=india+combat+aircrafts+india+1965&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZaXhT--sDYyTswbtq5Bx&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=india%20combat%20aircrafts%20india%201965&f=false

"The Indian Air Force, with a strength of about 625 aircrafts and a total of 90,000 men, has been considerably expanded and modernized since 1965." p. 45

Citation: Palit, D. K. (1998). The Lightning Campaign: the Indo-Pakistan War, 1971. New Delhi: Lancer. p. 45

Raindata (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

After a few more edits you will be a confirmed user and should be able to change it yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BATTLE OF PHILLORA EXCLUDED[edit]

I am surprised that how battle of phillora one of the major tank battles fought in Pakistani Territory in which Indian Army won a decisve victory destroying 66 pakistani tanks at the cost of mere "3 INDIAN TANKS" has found no mention on this page. On the other hand the suspected "CHADWAIDA BATTLE" which has many doubts as no independent source confirms it further pakistani dont posses even 10 destroyed tanks on the other hand INDIAN ARMY PUT ON DISPLAY 100 PAKISTANI TANKS IN KHEM KARAN AND 58 PAKISTANI TANKS IN PHILLORA.

I hope that BATTLE OF PHILLORA will be given the space which it deserves as destroying 66 Pakistani tanks in one day is no mean achievement(PAKISTAN HAS BOTH NUMERICAL AND QUALITATIVE SUPERIORTY IN TANKS WHEN THE WAR STARTED STILL IT LOST MORE TANKS) 122.161.183.79 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)




Tanks losses also doubtful[edit]

As we all know that pakistan lost atleast 300 tanks(US was ally of pakistan in 1965 and its desperation to lower its casualty is well know further its support in 1971 is out in the world). We displayed 100 tanks in khemkaran , 58 in phillora in short INDIANS DISPLAYED 158 tanks of pakistan on display then how is it possible that only 200 pakistani tanks was destroyed on the other hand pakistan dont show a single INDIAN TANK(it has shown folland jet but no tank this raises suspicion) on display.


I think we need to have discussion that "CAN WE ACCEPT US SOURCES AS NEUTRAL SPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW THAT US WAS A HARDCORE PAKISTANI ALLY AND ITS OPEN HEARTED SUPPORT TO PAKISTAN IN 1971 IS EXPOSED BY MANY WRITERS INCLUDING US AUTHORS".

We must remove US from NEUTRAL sources reason this contradicts the fact that they openly supported pakistan throughout 1965 and 1971 and it was only in 1990s that when INDIAN ECONOMY boomed then US started supporting INDIA over Pakistan(Kashmir issue is a point where US maintains that no foreign country has anything to do with it hence supporting INDIA's stand). ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV for a better understanding of neutrality and reliable sources. Also do not write in caps we can still read what you write. The current version is well sourced. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


Size of both Armies and airforces[edit]

In july 2011 i had edited the number of troops,tanks, aircrafts,artillry using verifiable sources acceptable to both Indians and pakistanis. but i would request editors that to find out the actual number of Indian troops on the western front as the entire Indian armiy's strength was 7 lakh out of which a large amount of soldiers would been posted on chinese and east pakistani borders.. i hav tried to hunt for sources but sadly none of the great authors (a.h amin,harbaksh singh pradeep baruah) hav mentioned this, i once asked a indian army veteren about the size and according to him indian army had 450,000 only on the western front..i tried to find proper sources but could find none, so i would request others also look into the matter.Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


The tank losses extremely biased[edit]

The Indian tank losses are exaggerated at atleast 175 tanks this means some Pakistani wants to believe that even more than 200 Indian tanks were destroyed. And the Pakistani tanks losses are put at minimal 200 tanks. The original source is US library which i dont consider as neutral at all considering the fact that US was a supporter of Pakistan. The losses dont reflect the fact that Pakistan lost almost all major battles of "Khem Karan", "Phillora","Burki" and even at Chawinda according to pakistan general himself pakistan lost 34 tanks(india claim 57tanks) on the other hand Pakistan exaggerate its claim to 120 tanks(India accept only 29 tanks) more importantly at Khem Karan and Phillora Indian army put on display some 100 tanks at khem karan and 58 tanks at phillora then how is it that pakistan losses are mere 200 and Indian losses "Atleast 175" a complete lie.

Spencer C Tucker one of the most renowned military historian puts pakistan losses at 300 tanks(Indian claimed 494 tanks) and Indian losses at 150 tanks(Pakistan claimed 290tanks).


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=N481TmqiSiUC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=pakistan+tank+losses+1965&source=bl&ots=O9UCZHbyUs&sig=-oILZn-csKxRzDXKPkNF3-dGEPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rZsOUPWhENHirAfzuIDoBg&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=pakistan%20tank%20losses%201965&f=false

All the Indian editors plz focus on this the neutral losses are represnted by US figures which i think are biased and further Spencer C Tucker is also one of the most renowned historian , even Stanley Wolpart and Jeremy Black made it clear that at the end of war Indian Army has Twice the number of tanks(Pakistan started with more tanks when war started).

All the Indian editors must raise this issue as some pakistani editors think that by peddling lies they will win the 1965 war.


ARIHANT SUB (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)



http://www.google.co.in/webhp?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=of+Pakistan+casualties+ranged+%22anywhere+between+10000+and+14000.18+Besides%2C+475+Pakistani+tanks+were+estimated+to+have+been+destroyed%2C+disabled+or+captured&oq=of+Pakistan+casualties+ranged+%22anywhere+between+10000+and+14000.18+Besides%2C+475+Pakistani+tanks+were+estimated+to+have+been+destroyed%2C+disabled+or+captured&gs_l=serp.3...45002.45002.4.45261.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.2SJ6e6FM8ks&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=79f5683b01ec3981&biw=1280&bih=586


Pakistan Rawalpindi source confirm that pakistan has 475 tanks destroyed,captured or damaged(300 tanks were destroyed or captured rest 175 were repaired by paksitani army).ARIHANT SUB (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


http://www.google.co.in/webhp?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Military+Circles+in+Washington+concluded%2C+on+the+basis+of+post-war+information%2C+that+Pakistan+lost+200+tanks%2C+with+another+150+put+of+action+but+recoverable&oq=%22Military+Circles+in+Washington+concluded%2C+on+the+basis+of+post-war+information%2C+that+Pakistan+lost+200+tanks%2C+with+another+150+put+of+action+but+recoverable&gs_l=serp.3...20464.20464.0.20677.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.JX8TkVIiROM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=79f5683b01ec3981&biw=1280&bih=629

200 tanks were destroyed but the fact that US sources are biased as they dont give figures that some 115 pakistani tanks were captured in good condition by Indian army hence its clear that Pakistani losses are above 300 tanks , indian loss dont exceed 150-200tanks(when damaged tanks are included).ARIHANT SUB (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


What is going on here?

All Indian editors are either banned to edit here or banned forever?

A sad state of affairs on Wikipedia.

List of Indian editors who have been banned or left Wikipedia after long edit issues with biased editors or issues with even those foreign editors who know nothing to begin with, has resulted in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.67 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edited air losses[edit]

Made it 75 losses, citing the official history from the Indian Military. This is was discussed 2 years ago (and several times before that), and consensus was reached (scroll up to the talk item "Edit request for air losses", so it should have never been changed. If you feel this is incorrect, please discuss here, before changing it. Kas1234567 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of national claims[edit]

I think that this articles's casualties side should limit with the neutral claims, not the nationalists claim, because that way we may even need to agree that Iraq won the Gulf war. Capitals00 (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

neutrality of article[edit]

this article is not neutral and writen by indian point of view King2k (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

this article is not neutral and writen by indian point of view and is biasedAhsan szabist (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please elucidate your concerns. Faizan 06:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

this article is mostly based on the indian version of war.it does not contains the sufficent point of view of pakistan about the war its results and consequences .hence it should be eddited to represent the point of view of both countriesAhsan szabist (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC) the author of the page is requested to edit the page to remove one sided point of view.it has been previously requested but no action is done on previous posts Ahsan szabist (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Ahsan, you can let us know about your own versions, or once if you are able to edit these articles, you can edit them, and we will review your edits, let you know. Capitals00 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014[edit]

In the section 'Pre War Escalations' the last sentence "...and the operation ended unsuccessful." I believe should end: 'and the operation ended unsuccessfully.' for it to be grammatically correct. Alee1900 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donecyberpower ChatOnline 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree[edit]

I am totally disagree with this article because this article not showing what is reality ? please shutdown this article or correction this article because people of world read wrong about this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.136.55 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

TANK BATTLE OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN 1965: When Indian army invaded Lahore and captured many check posts, a huge tank battle was started between Indian army and Pakistan army, Pakistan army got success in resisting Lahore and pushed Indian army towards the border. After Indian army's withdrawal Pakistan army got a series of tanks that Indian army left behind in Pakistan. In Kashmir, Pakistan armed forces entered Indian occupied Kashmir and captured some nearer areas such as khemkaran and captured 40 square kilometer of Indian hold territory of Kashmir. When Indian army attacked Sindh to capture it, both forces fought a huge tank battle and India got some success in the beginning, but after that Pakistan regained control over its check posts. After resisting Wagah check posts Pakistan entered Rajistan suddenly to capture it, Pakistan captured a small area of Rajistan. This war is one of the smallest wars that was fought between two countries, it was ended after 17 days.

INDIA PAKISTAN AIR WAR OF 1965: In 1965 war, after a huge tank battle both countries used their air forces and navy. India began to use its air force first and after that Pakistan air force also used its air force. Both countries claimed over each other about the losses. The losses are unclear.

TASHKENT DECLARATION It was an agreement that was signed by Indian Prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan in Uzbek, USSR in which it was written that India and Pakistan will stop the war and Pakistan will pull back its forces from captured areas of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaharyar.121 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Causes of war[edit]

I have seen that in the article operation gibraltar is considered as the only reason for the start of war. Why the event which happened in Rann of Kutch is not considered as one of the reason of the war. The first air battle also happened over rann of kutch, so it should be given equal importance. War was started by both nation but mentioning of operation gibraltar as the only reason will make Pakistan the starter of war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerefx (talkcontribs)

Zerefx, please see WP:BOLD and make the changes you suggest. If another editor disagrees, they will revert your change as per WP:BRD so as to discuss. Make sure to use a neutral point of view and reliable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

3 Jat[edit]

3 jat division which crossed the BRB canal were halted and pushed back as they were not reinforced. [[1]] 5.36.203.216 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indian Express Group[edit]

Clearly a reliable source, you don't require a specific attribution. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Kargil district[edit]

The attack by Indian forces in Kargil district is not mentioned. When Skirmishes in Rann of Kutch was going on, India attacked Pakistan in Kashmir in Kargil district and were success full in occupying it [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.55.38 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Independent sources[edit]

Can any body add these source these source in Neutral assessment, they are from neutral media like Telegraph, The Guardian, The observer

http://postimg.org/image/9kf42nmf1/        
http://postimg.org/image/ijhwdn26b/         
http://postimg.org/image/uyf0htc5j/  5.36.192.193 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Good sources. Let us find them in the archives. Faizan (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Just the last image is visible—TripWire talk 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if the sources are found in the archives, I am not sure how useful newspaper articles from 1965 are when we have a whole lot of modern scholarly analyses on the war which already take into account all of the views expressed in the past. Amitrochates (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I always prevent Pakistani editors from POV pushing, but if they find a valid source, then one must accept it. 1971 war is the only war where India was able to defeat Pakistan. And Indians and Pakistanis must understand the difference between Battle and War. Pakistan casualty was higher in 1965, but considering India's population compared to Pakistani population, the Pakistani casualty should have been much higher in 1948, 1965, and Kargil to say India won. Sometimes two neutral reliable sources maybe contradictory and at that time we need to add both statement stating their sources, even if they are opposite in claims. Cosmic  Emperor  06:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no "they" here, Wikipedia is one community. I am concerned with the validity of sources presented, not with POV of any kind. Quoting historical newspaper articles sets a bad precedent. Newspapers revise there own reporting of facts as a story progresses and do not have the luxury of hindsight which scholars do. For all we know (I can dig up a few instances if you wish), Guardian itself might have changed its own narrative on the dispute through the decades. That is why for historical events, scholarly sources are the best guides. WP:NEWSORG echoes this with "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." (emphasis mine). FWIW, the TIME magazine quote in "neutral assessment" is problematic too. I see no use of newspaper/magazine articles written in 1965 except as historical relics. If someone wants to add images of TIME magazine and Guardian articles from 1965 in neutral assessment I have no issues with it. Amitrochates (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015[edit]

i want to edit beacause there are many things that are told lie in this story

Rana Bilal Javed (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are more Indians on wiki than Pakistanis so the result is clearly seen on such article[edit]

India is a brave country pak lost all wars against her Indian army has no match in world for her braveness.this is what all Indian Pakistan war related articles at wiki says.--Balti sahib (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have anything of substence to say, or is this just nationalist whining?65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015[edit]

| strength1=700,000 Infantry[2]
720 Tanks[2]

628 Artillery[3]

| strength2= 260,000 Infantry[2]
406 Tanks[3]

552 Artillery[3]

  • 72x105mm How[3]
  • 234X25pdr[3]
  • 126x155mm How[3]
  • 48x8" How[3]
  • 72x3.7" How[3]
  • POK Lt Btys[3]

| casualties1=Neutral claims[4][5]

Indian claims

  • 45-55 aircraft lost [9]
  • 822 km2 territory lost[10]

Pakistani claims

  • 8,200 men killed or captured[10]
  • 110[11]-113[10] aircraft destroyed
  • 500 tanks captured or destroyed [10]
  • 2602,[12] 2575 km2[10] territory gained

| casualties2=Neutral claims[4]

Pakistani claims

  • 19 aircraft lost[11]

Indian claims

  • 1600 men killed or captured [10]
  • 43[14] -73 aircraft destroyed [10]
  • 300 tanks destroyed [10]
  • 1920,[15] 1078 km2 [10] gained

Deanconnor (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Air Commodore M. Kaiser Tufail. ""Run… It’s a 104."". Jang News. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f Rakshak, Bharat. "Page 15" (PDF). Official History. Times of India. Retrieved 14 July 2011. 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r SIngh, Lt.Gen Harbaksh (1991). War Despatches. New Delhi: Lancer International. p. 7. ISBN 81-7062-117-8. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h Thomas M. Leonard (2006). Encyclopedia of the developing world. Taylor & Francis. pp. 806–. ISBN 978-0-415-97663-3. Retrieved 14 April 2011. 
  5. ^ "Indo-Pakistan Wars". Archived from the original on 1 November 2009. 
  6. ^ Tucker, Spencer (2004). Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 172. ISBN 978-1-57607-995-9. 
  7. ^ a b Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP, 2003. ISBN 0-7735-2639-0. 
  8. ^ a b Johnson, Robert. A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947. Reaktion Books, 2005. ISBN 1-86189-257-8. 
  9. ^ "Official History of IAF in 65 War" (PDF). Retrieved 27 July 2012. 
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i O' Nordeen, Lon (1985). Air Warfare in the Missile Age. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 84–87. ISBN 978-0-87474-680-8. 
  11. ^ a b 1965 War: A Different Legacy: ALL THINGS PAKISTAN. Pakistaniat.com (1965-09-06). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
  12. ^ 1965 War. Pakistan army (2009-09-01). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
  13. ^ Tucker, Spencer (2004). Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. p. 172. 
  14. ^ The Sunday Tribune – Spectrum. Tribuneindia.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
  15. ^ Rakshak, Bharat. "Page 22" (PDF). Official History. Times of India. Retrieved 14 July 2011. 

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015[edit]

Please change (Para 2) "most neutral assessments agree that Pakistan had the upper hand over India" to "most neutral assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan" as per the assessment provided in the article itself. Anshul.kumar111 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015[edit]

Among the Commanders and leaders on the Pakistani side should be Major General Nasir Ahmed Khan. He was the Commander of the 1 armed division that captured khem karan 39.33.202.49 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done He's the first commander listed under the Pakistani side. Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015[edit]

please change BGen A.A. Malik (24th Army Infantry) to Major General Nasir A. Khan (G.O.C 1st Armed Division) 39.33.202.49 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015[edit]

Major General Nasir Ahmed Khan (G.O.C 1st armed Division) who faced Lt. Gen Harbaksh singh and Major General Gurbaksh singh in battles of khem karan and asal uttar is not listed among the commanders of Pakistan Army 39.33.202.49 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Some time pictures tell the whole story[edit]

Please visit the link in which pictures tell all of the story of large scale terriyory confiscated by pakistani forces in Rajhistan sector( Kishengarh etc), Kasur sector, chamb jurrian sector Kashmir and Rann of Kutch sector. War ended in stallemate because Pakistan didnt succeeded in its objective i-e capture of Kashmir while having upper hand in terms of catured enemy territory.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

International newspapers clippings[edit]

Please visit the [3]

[4] The Australian News Paper

[5] reference from another international news paper

[6] reference from another international news paper

[7] reference from another international news paper

[8] reference from another international news paper

[9] reference from another international news paper

.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadkhaliq (talkcontribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015[edit]

The Sonu (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015[edit]

I want to add following references from international news papers on the indo pak war 1965 that will increase the credibility of the artile

International newspapers clippings[edit]

Please visit the [10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

Hammadkhaliq (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done as WP:LINKFARM and WP:NPOV - you are trying to promote one side in the dispute - Arjayay (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Some More International Newspapers headlines[edit]

So the story isnt that as being portrayed by my dear friends in this article. Wikibaba1977 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Maps please![edit]

This article would benefit enormously from the addition of maps shewing the course of the war, and the positions and territories occupied by the parties at the time of the ceasefire. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In Short[edit]

In Short we can Say that at the end Indian army ran away and Pakistan win the War — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxw098 (talkcontribs) 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No, not really. Sorry to hurt your little Paki feelings65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
No we can't there are news sources which said this but per WP:OR we can not add them.
@ IP What were your feelings about Lahore ? HIAS (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015[edit]

In 1965 war Pakistan has only 42 tanks it was totally wrong written, total numbers of tanks Pakistan is having now a days is also rational to this figure. This was biggest battle of tanks from Indian side. Pakistan has no tanks actually. Reference: Handling of Tanks in Indo Pak Wars Thehasan7 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the source you cited has multiple references to Pakistani tanks. The current figure in the article is also cited. Cannolis (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Biased Sources[edit]

Following sources under the heading The War are biased and cite official Indian claims. In Short these should not be in article or Pakistani point of view should also be highlighted.

  • The Tribune, Chandigarh, India – Opinions
  • Army cries out for a second railway line between Barmer and Jaisalmer. Hindustan Times (2009-12-17). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
  • Delhi plans carnival on Pakistan war- Focus on 1965 conflict and outcome
  • Modi govt plans 1965 war carnival
  • The Story of My Struggle By Tajammal Hussain Malik 1991, Jang Publishers, p. 78 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaba1977 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE[edit]

@Ghatus: Please Elaborate your concerns about [17].

User is engaged in an edit war on page Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 within same contents since two days 1 2 3 and do not want to discuss on talk page. Its clear violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. BTW per WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. 1965 war was not Indian Victory. Since many sources discribe the war as Pakistan Victory, Indian Victory, Draw, Stalemate and Inconclusive so there is source contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence per WP:BALANCE. So I have to undo your revert per WP:BALANCE . HIAS (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kautilya3:, @Faizan: Sorry for the delay. I was busy in some works. So, here the point is whether a pic of Pak Army capturing a fort in R'stan should be inserted or not in addition to the existence of a similar kind of a photo already in the specific section.

  • First, India-Pakistan land capture ratio in '65 war was 3:1 in favour of India. And, the final result was stalemate with India having the upper hand. This is more or less accepted by all.(Third party sources) So, weightage of texts and images has to given accordingly keeping these basic facts and figures in mind.
  • Secondly, WP:UNDUE says " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
  • Further, WP:BALASPS says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." And, WP:FALSEBALANCE says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
  • Before the insertion of the pic, (by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara) the weightage was 1:1 as far as the images were concerned in that "The War" section regarding "enemy land capturing". But, with the insertion of the pic the weight has gone to 1:2 in favour of Pakistan. It violates both historical facts & reliable sources and WP:NPOV.
  • Finally, Images are more powerful than texts. And, they are used many a times to create a false impression. Hence, the picture should be removed. By the way, Hitch Hicking Across Sahara inserted the pic abruptly and it was on him,(not on me) to get consensus. Ghatus (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that DUE weight should be respected in all forms. However, the weight here is not measured by how many of images of each side should be included. The images should be basically based on their relevance to the content. If the content respects DUE weight, the images will also respect it. So, let us talk about the relevance to the content, i.e., the text describing the progress of the war. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This means that if i insert the required text supporting capture of kishangarh fort, which to my knowledge happens to be hundreds of miles inside india in rajhastan sector than would it be acceptable? Wikibaba1977 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for an answer from you guys. And i am sure if i insert more images supported by required text and references than it will be removed also because in this article only one`s point of view is highlighted under the pretext of neutral point of view.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Pak-India Land capturing ration was 1:3 (WP:RS). So should be the number of images in the article " for or against" the countries. However, this article follows (I don't know why) 1:1 ratio. But, insertion of the Pic would further make it 2:1, just giving the opposite impression as against reality. Hence, following WP:UNDUE, the pic is removed.Ghatus (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara and Ghatus: This article is under discretionary sanctions. Further reverts may result in protection and/or blocks. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And Why is that I have so many neutral references to add. This is totally unfair.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wikibaba1977: You are not barred from adding references or content. You are only barred from edit-warring, which you just did by reinstating your edits without talk page discussion. You also neglected to leave edit summaries for your edits. This doesn't bode well. Your best best to explain here the reasons for each of your edits, and you should aim to arrive at a consensus before reinstating edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view (NPOV)[edit]

This Article is in violation of NPOV.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

  1. Your Pic violates WP:UNDUE.
  2. Your text violates WP:RS.Ghatus (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
your revert violates NPOV.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV NOTE[edit]

This article is a mess because it contains many NPOV violations. The war was over in 1965 but internet warriors are still fighting it on Wikipedia. Indians are the clear victors in this war of self serving quotes. WikiHuda (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision by Wikibaba1977 ![edit]

Well Kishangarh Fort which was fell in pakistani hands is mere 11km inside Indian Territory and comes under the total 50km2 land captured by pakistani forces around khemkaran or either desert sector during the initial stages of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and this has been well mentioned numerous times in the 1965 war article., (For example: See Neutral Assessments]] ! Not only this, that POV addition of Wikibaba1977 is mere a copy and paste of This Wiki Article all this Wikibaba1977 added despite been knowing that an separate article exist on that particular topic ! There are such numerous kinda articles in Indian Favour exists such as Phillora, Burki and there's nothing mentioned in the 1965 article even when such articles covers enemy territory captured in triple digits km2 (or either way above 100km2) because the total land on particular area such as Sialkot or either Lahore front covers all such kinda battles in 1965 War article and separate articles on battles exists on wikipedia ! And the image re-added by Wikibaba1977 which was deleted previously and the reason was well explained by User:Ghatus "In accordance with WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:NPOV as the total land capture ratio of India-Pakistan in 1965 War was 1920km2/540km2 = 3.5:1 [Neutral View]] And According to Indian Assessments it was 3,900km2/322km2 = 12.1:1 MBlaze Lightning (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive number of quotes?[edit]

Do we need all those quotes in subsection Neutral assessments? --Mortense (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016[edit]

124.155.252.39 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Shah Alam statement should be excluded[edit]

The Shah Alam statement is from an Indian Publishing Source and written by an India-educated author. That does not make it a neutral source at all. Imagine if we started quoting Pakistani authors on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be neutral at all.

After all on the Bangladesh Genocide page my quotations of Qutubuddin Aziz's books were called unreliable simply because it was written by a Pakistani author and published by a Pakistani press. The same standard needs to be applied here.

Also there is no need for the The Guardian/The Observer's quotes (in praise of the Pakistan Air Force's performance) in the Neutral Assessments section to be excluded. They are after all neutral newspapers from that time period. Here are images of these articles.

File:The Observer's Article on PAF's performance.jpg
The Observer's Article on the PAF's performance/1965
File:The Guardian's Article on 1965 Indo-Pak air battle.jpg
The Guardian's assessment of PAF performance in 1965

TalhaZubairButt (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no bar on the nationality of authors. Both Indian and Pakistani authors are allowed. However, what matters is whether they are reliable, which means that we can establish that they are reputable and scholarly, and the publishers have a reputation for fact-checking. The Shah Alam book is copy-righted by the author, which is an indication that the publisher is not taking responsibility for it. For this reason, the statement should not be in the lead. It might be considered for the body if the author is known to be well-qualified. (I myself don't know anything about him, and the book doesn't give any information about it.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@TalhaZubairButt:, If you want to add anything in the neutral assessment section, bring a sourced ( WP:RS) quote as we can ascertain neither the authenticity of a newspaper cutting (which can easily be photoshopped) nor an out of context headline.Ghatus (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The cropped images are photoshopped. Please cite reliable sources if you want to add anything in neutral assessment section! Beside, Pakistan was the member of the SEATO and CENTO and thus received full support from the western world who were against the U.S.S.R and India. Here's a quote from rbth. :::

*Western bias: Pakistan Victorious screamed the headline in The Australian, dated September 14, 1965, followed by this intro: Pakistani forces have repulsed a massive Indian armoured assault in the greatest tank battle since the African desert campaign of World War II. *The Australians media were, at worse, liars or, at best, parroting a lie. In fact, everything about the report was false. Firstly, the greatest tank battle since World War II was the Battle of Asal Uttar where the Indian Army destroyed Pakistani 70 tanks. India also captured 25 tanks which were abandoned by panic stricken Pakistani soldiers in the face of withering Indian fire.

Secondly, the greatest tank battle of World War II was not in Africa, but in Kursk, Russia, where the Red Army hammered the Germans. This is an instance of the Anglo-American media not wanting to acknowledge Russian military superiority.[1] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is necessary as this article also uses "Western sources" abundantly.Ghatus (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the wrong information published by "The Australian" dated 14 Sept. 1965 regarding Chawinda battle and nothing else. Cheers! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First, for our Indian friends, Encarta was not a reliable source, and now The Observer, The Australian and The Guardian are bad too when they dont push their POV. Sir, almost all of the neutral assesment section if from western sources, half of which can be termed as being 'exaggerated' if one goes by your understanding, so let's not go there.—TripWire ʞlɐʇ 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Shivam Vij[edit]

Shivam Vij is no historian. And,it's an opinion piece, no WP:RS on history or military matters. Ghatus (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shivam Vij who writes for but is not limited to huffingtonpost, Express Tribune, CS Mmonitor is not reliable?? What you want to say is that every info in this article is ONLY from what you like to call historians? Or do you want to suggest that a writer/journalist pens his opinion without carrying out research? Till the time you come with a better excuse, I'll humbly state that info is going to stay in the article.
And why would you remove the info from Neutral assessments section which is still under discussion above? That, sir is what you called WP:DE when removing sourced info in your editTripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It's your edit, thus it's on you to gain Consensus here not on us. Beside, this made it clear that he is mere a journalists and a blogger who writes for opinion websites, and not a historian ofcourse! Beside, this is an opinion piece. It's his own OR! Provide a WP:RS, WP:BESTSOURCES and gain consensus first or this will be considered disruptive. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet
Everybody today, including historians is a blogger. Dont make blogging into a crime. As regards 'mere journalist', well you are no one to distribute certificates so as to which journalist's info should be included here. Like I said earlier, if you want we can remove all info from journalistic sources from the article and leave just the 'historian' part. Lastly, as regards gaining consensus, what else do you think this section and the one above it is doing on this talk page? First you rebuffed an authentic and well-read 'source' (Encarta) as unreliable, now you have started targeting individuals too?!
Why is it that info from an everyday website like Bharat-Rakshak which has no reputable people on its panel becomes reliable for you, but news/info website like DW, Express Tribune and Huffington Post and people who write for these are not reliable? —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
What are Vij's credentials or qualifications to write on military history? What are his experiences or past researches on military history? He is just a blogger on "every issue" under the sun- from JNU to Rock Bands. The source clearly is not WP:RS. Wikipedia can not accept edits which violate WP:VERIFY , WP:ATT and falls under WP:FRINGE also. As per WP:ATT,

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Ghatus (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you understand that you are arguing and debating here about the inclusion of info sourced from Shivam Vij BUT indulging in disruptive editing by reverting info being added to 'Neutral assessments' section (my edit summary cleary mentions that) which has nothing to do with Shivam Vij? With 1999 edits, and 1 years and 9 months on Wikipedia and the fact the way you throw WP policies at other editors you are not as a such a 'newbie' as you like to claim, and hence this attempt to game the system must be deliberate, right? Having said this, a self-revert would be in order.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

E-Punch[edit]

Ghatus Were your comments; "rubbish and unverified PoV pics are removed.If you continue to do this,the consequence will not be pleasant" while making a WP:POV edit a threat?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 13:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It just tells what is the logical conclusion of WP:DE. You can take it as you like it. None actually likes to bite the newbies , but there is a growing tendency to game the system.Ghatus (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A decision is needed[edit]

I am tagging cool headed editor Kautilya3 and administrator RegentsPark to end this impasse.

TripWire and FreeatlastChitchat want to add two quotes and one pic in the article .

The two quotes and one Image
  • The Observer gave praise to the Pakistan Air Force's performance.[1]

    One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds. Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air power, expected an easy air superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, factor of the whole conflict.

File:Main-qimg-f94b3c5066ce02c1d3869358cda5023e.jpg
The Australian Newspaper on the Battle of Chawinda, September 1965.
  • The Guardian also published a piece in praise of the Pakistan Air Force's performance.[2]

    Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.

References

  1. ^ "The Observer". 12 September 1965. 
  2. ^ "The Guardian". 24 September 1965. 


Now, the problems are

1)There is no way to ascertain if those two quotes are true or not and the image is doctored or not because neither any link nor any secondary source is provided. As we all know that quotes and images have magnifying and multiplying effects in article, unverified primary sources like these are not only non-WP:RS but a means to put forward PoV.

2) As per WP:ATT,

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

3) We do not know the context of those quotes ( IF true???) nor the subject matter under the headline. Without knowing the background and its acceptance or rejection in secondary sources , how one can add them as quotes in an out of context situation?

4)The quotes and image contradicts almost all scholarly secondary sources and a perfect example of WP:FRINGE with over-weightage, even if these primary sources be established as verified which is very hard to do.Ghatus (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


My position has always been clear. Only WP:HISTRS should be used for historical information. If the scholarly sources don't cover such issues, we shouldn't cover them either. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Kautilya3. 51 years have passed since 1965 and we shouldn't be using news sources from that period when there has been ample time for reliable academic sources to discuss the war. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The issues of sources apart, my memory is indeed that Pakistan had air superiority. They were flying latest fighter planes donated by the US, whereas India was flying home-made planes or outdated Soviet imports. But the dependence on America also meant that Pakistan didn't have staying power. Sooner or later, it would have run out ammunition and parts. India conceded [to the ceasefire], but on political, not military, grounds: it could have sustained the conflict and turned the stalemate into an outright victory.[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No one achieved air superiority independent historians contrary to what two country claims. see Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, both sides claimed victory in the air war but the conflict was effectively a stalemate. Even though Indians were flying outdated planes like Vampire but most of their loses were on ground while most of the Pakistan loses were on air. The little gnats were nicknamed sabre slayers and per most of the neutral historians gnat was credited with atleast 7 kills against the sabre. 115.184.68.228 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Okay so I hadn't been following the discussions here but I wanted to add that I added these newspaper excerpt (unaware of Wiki rules) and on the basis that I saw an excerpt from TIME in the neutral assessments section. So if these newspaper articles can be excluded on the basis of Wiki's source rules, TIME' excerpt should also be removed.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly.Ghatus (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

new section.[edit]

Arguments of banned socks

Pinging Kautilya3. Though almost all the neutral references available states: At the end of a bruising 22-day war, India held 1920 square kilometres of Pakistani territory while Pakistan only held 550 square kilometres of Indian land.

There has been some WP:FAKE addition in the lede in recent past by a sockpuppet user WikiBaba1977 (already banned); However, some analysts claimed that Pakistan held 1600 square miles of Indian territory in (1300 of it in the dessert).[51][52][53][54]" Well, not by analysts, this is pakistan claim. Let me explain!

  • The first refrence (no.- [51]) given (can be seen here) is a tertiary source which itself have reference no. [62] (haqqani 2005-pg-49) to back it's claim.
  • Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim. Use of word likewise made it clear.
  • Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that.
  • Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!
  1. Husain Haqqani is a pakistani expert/journalist and he represents pakistan's views, so it should be counted in pakistan's claim.

Some more reliable references to back my claims, these sources clearly states India held around 1,920km² land and lost around 500km² land, In addition these sources also mention pakistan claims.

  • Air warfare in the missile age- By; Lon O. Nordeen (book can be seen here)- Pakistan said its forces gained control of 1,600 square miles of Indian territory and lost 450 square miles of its own.28 The actual.
  • Confrontation with Pakistan- By; Brij Mohan Kaul (book can be seen here- Pakistan claimed to have occupied about 1,600 square miles of Indian territory and conceded that India had occupied 450 square miles of its territory.
  • Indian Armed Forces Yearbook Front Cover- By; Indian youth., 1969 - (book can be seen here)- On the eve of the cease-fire, India was in occupation of nearly seven hundred square miles of Pakistani territory. ... However, Pakistani claims to having occupied some 1,600 square miles of Indian territory in Rajasthan were declared a ...
  • 50 Years of Indo-Pak Relations: Chronology of events, important documents ... -By; Verinder Grover, Ranjana Arora (book can be seen here); 24. .... An official spokesman of the Government of Pakistan disclosed that while the Pakistan armed forces held 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, Indian forces held only 450 square miles of Pakistan territory.

Thus, I'm gonna remove it from the lede! If anyone disagree with me, Feel free to re-add it in Pakistan Claim section in the infobox! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 09:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Argument (by MB) Response(by TW)
The first refrence (no.- [51]) given (can be seen here) is a tertiary source which itself have reference no. [62] (haqqani 2005-pg-49) to back it's claim.
  • First, Ref - [51] is not a typical tertiary sources because a tertiary source is defined as "an index and/or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources", which Ref - [52] is not.
  • Second, Hussain Haqqani or his book are indeed reliable sources this gentlemen is not known to be a pro-Pakistani writer as his anti-Pakistan stance is well-known. He is at daggers with Pakistani military, is/was against sale of F-16s by the US to Pakistan - in short the guy is a persona-non-grata in Pakistan. No one who actually knows Mr HH can say that his views represents Pakistani POV or favours them. Instead, his writings are rather used by Indians to support their claims against Pakistan.
Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim. Use of word likewise made it clear.
  • If, in the same article, an Indian source (Reference no [47]) published in an Indian website (The Telegraph India) by an Indian writer (Sujan Dutta) can be used to support the Indian claim/text of "The Indian army was in possession of 758.9 miles² (1,920 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory", I wonder why cant a Pakistani source be used (in the same article)?
  • BTW, (Ref - [52]) is not based on Pakistani claim as (Ref - [52]) is a book[1] written by Col J Francis (Retd) - an Indian Army Officer of Maratha Light Infantry! MblazeLightening, why are you (deliberately) misleading other editors?
Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that. Another lie! Ref - [53] i.e page 80 of the book India's Foreign Policy indeed support the info it cites. Here's the link.
Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself! As mentioned in response to the first argument. Dont believe me, just read the Wikipedia article on Husain Haqqani and you'd know how pro-Pakistani he actually is. Against you are just twisting the facts, Mr HH is the most vocal opponent of Pakistani military and ISI. Below are a few excerpts from his Wikipedia article:
  • The Wall Street Journal described Haqqani as "a hostage" while he was in Pakistan and published an interview with him from the Prime Minister's house in which he outlined why he was hated by Pakistan's intelligence services and Jihadi groups.[2]
  • Michel Hirsh, writing in The Atlantic, described Haqqani as "The Last Friendly Pakistani" towards the US[3]
  • Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, has been a consistent supporter of Haqqani, calling him "The Hardest Working Man in Washington" and criticising Pakistan's military and security services[4][5]
  • Simon Tisdall of The Guardian called Haqqani "an instinctive ally of the west" and attributed Memogate to the ambassador's difficult relationship with Pakistan intelligence service.[6]
  • His critics in Pakistan describe him as a sympathizer of the Indian lobby in the US[7].
  • Haqqani has been vocal against the sale of F-16 fighter jets and AH-1Z Viper helicopters to Pakistan. He testified in the US Congress in December 2015 stating that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan would only lead to their usage against India,[8][9][10] The Indian government also opposed and protested against the proposed sale of 8 F-16s to Pakistan.[11]
  • Pakistan's Senate Defense Committee blamed him for working with pro-Indian lobbyists in Washington.[12]
MBlaze Lightning you have already subject to sactions that "you may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month", so as a friend I suggest you tread carefully.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@MBlaze Lightning: When you open a talk page discussion, you need to wait for consensus before making edits. Husain Haqqani is of course Pakistani, but he is also an American academic and scholar and so he is a reliable source. But I haven't been told the precise reference that is being talked about. Please do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think MBlaze is right. The paragraph of Haqqani (p. 115) starts with: Official propaganda convinced the people of Paksitan that their military had won the war. The figures that follow, 1600 sq. miles of Indian territory and 350 sq. miles of Pakistani territory, look a lot like such "official propaganda." If the figures were independently obtained, Haqqani gives no indication of how. Given that this is not a book on military history, I don't think we can place much value on these figures. -- 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I waited for more then a day but no on replied so I was left with no other option but to make changes in the article. And I do not see any reason why I should reply to TripWire. I've explained everything in my first comment with multiple WP:RS references. All tertiary sources figures are either based on Haqqani reference or Pakistan official propaganda's figures while Page 80 or anyother page of ref 53 doesn't say anything regarding pak claims. If anyone thing I'm wrong, this might clear his/her doubts. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet
MBlaze Lightning First you tried to rubbish Hussain Haqqani by saying that it was a tertiary source; you were educated on the same. Then you tried to rubbish him by claiming that he is a Pakistani so he cant be reliable; you were then given a reality-check on this that he is also an American. Then you were also informed that apart from Haqqani, the same figures are also given in Indian and other RS, which you had earlier tried to rubbish as Pakistani sources. Having said that, I am just concentrating on the info given in the book by Col J Francis (an Indian whom you mistaked as a Pakistani) and the book India's Foreign Policy. Second, as regards to reply to me; well sir, you are not bound to, but you sure are supposed to get consensus before to go on a disruptive-editing spree. Now how you do that without replying to me or anyone at this talk, I am not sure. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 11:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When did I said Haqqani is a unreliable source and a tertiary source? Lol Please Go and read my comment carefully before replying! I was referring to this source as being a tertiary source and cite Haqqani reference to back that 1600 sq mi. claim and yes haqqani is a Pakistani and Haqqani claim is based on OFFICIAL PROPOGANDA FIGURES OF PAKISTAN. Go and read references I cite in my first comment and where this source states Pakistan figures of territory gained? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet
Oh yes you did. When you first mislead the editors by saying "Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim." and then also said that "the book is written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!" you implied that HH, being a Pakistani (must) be unreliable. This aint rocket science sir. And I will request you again to read what a Tertiary source is.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 12:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
MBlaze might have used wrong terminology; not a big deal. The point is that the sources that were inserted into the lead were all derived from Haqqani, and Haqqani doesn't say where his figures come from. There is a possibility that they represent the "official propaganda," in his own words. So I am afraid this source don't settle anything. It would need corroboration from other independent sources. I think we are wasting a whole load of time on fruitless exercise. There is no clarity on the territory gained/lost, and all of it was given back. So, why don't we put an end to this and move on to more useful things? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I couldnt agree more. This isnt the first time MblazLightening has indulged in contentious editing. Mistakes can be made, I make them too, but defending them mindlessly is not worth it. Also, how does "India's Foreign Policy" and Col Francis' book quote Haqqani as its source? Because it does not. We cannot remove an info sourced from 4 different sources, can we? I have amply explained earlier in that elaborate table each of the sources is indeed RS, and not tertiary, biased or fake as being claimed and pushed by MBlazeLightening.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 13:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This source only states Pakistan CLAIMED 1600 sq mi land and Col Francis also derived from Pakistani Figures since it's an Pakistani Govt figures And you just cannot favor one source over the others! I didn't mislead anyone, Even Kautilya understands what i am trying to say. What i mean by those word is that those figures are derived from haqqani refrence and i never said haqqani is not WP:RS or tertiary source. I was referring to his (Haqqani) claims which are basically derived from pakistani figures. I provided multiple refrences for it can be seen in my first comment. And You cannot add Pakistani figures (WP:UNDUE also) in the lede just below the neutral assessments to suit your own point of view or per WP:BALANCE I will or Someone else will had to add Indian Govt. Figures of 3900km2 land gained and 322km2 land lost which are only mentioned in the Infobox. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 17:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

Funny. Must go through WP:NOTTRUTH. Also, i dont know from where did you arrive at this 'Pakistani propaganda figure' thing. Sir, if 4 x RS are saying something, Wikipedia will accept it, your opinion on the matter or if you think it is false/propaganda or just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT wont change it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Short Stories from the History of the Indian Army Since August 1947". 
  2. ^ Mira Sethi (21 January 2012). "The Weekend Interview with Husain Haqqani: A Hostage in Pakistan - WSJ". WSJ. 
  3. ^ Michael Hirsh. "The Last Friendly Pakistani". The Atlantic. 
  4. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg. "The Pakistani Army Wins a Battle Over Husain Haqqani, but Continues to Lose a War". The Atlantic. 
  5. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg. "Ambassador Haqqani: 'I Am a Pakistani, I Will Die a Pakistani'". The Atlantic. 
  6. ^ Tisdall, Simon (23 November 2011). "Husain Haqqani's downfall becomes Pakistan's latest political football". The Guardian. London. 
  7. ^ "The Magnificent Delusions of Husain Haqqani - The Express Tribune". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 2016-03-25. 
  8. ^ "F-16 jets US plans to sell to Pakistan will be used against India: Husain Haqqani". The Express Tribune. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2016. 
  9. ^ “Civil Nuclear Cooperation with Pakistan: Prospects and Consequences, Written testimony by Husain Haqqani, US House of Representatives, retrieved 2016-01-21.
  10. ^ "US aid to Pakistan will be used against India: Husain Haqqani - The Economic Times". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2016-03-25. 
  11. ^ "India calls U.S. envoy, protests F-16 sale to Pakistan". The Hindu. 2016-02-13. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2016-03-25. 
  12. ^ "Senate body wants govt to counter pro-Indian lobby in Washington". pakistantoday.com.pk. Retrieved 20 January 2016. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016[edit]


Replace "Aircrafts" by "Aircraft" (several places)

Sipder (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016[edit]

In 1965, Pakistanis really whipped India's rear end.

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation September 15, 1965. [1]

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue. [2]

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991 [3] 65.92.77.199 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)