Talk:Muhammad Mahmood Alam

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

Official Kills Figure[edit]

Strange that PAF itself do not make the claim of 5 kills in 30 seconds and give mm alam credit of 11 kills. Will change that if nobody objects Adityang (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Adi Adityang (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This has been cited in reliable sources. There's no evidence of which kills are awarded to Alam by PAF and is made clear that those in those 30 seconds have been inclusive per reliable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry...cited sources are themselves conflicting. Official PAF (source 1) gives 5 kills and 2 damages in total and 3 kills and 2damages on 7th sep. and makes no mention of 30 sec etc. IMHO, article needs to be modified to reflect this. "Sqn Ldr M M Alam in his F-86F Saber, chasing one of the five hunters, he shot during the 65 war. Intercepting an attack of six Hawker Hunters on the morning of 7 September, Alam blew their “tail-end Charlie” with his Sidewinder. As the rest five Hunters broke left in front of Alam’s guns, he performed a well-documented feat of gunnery by shooting four of the Hunters in rapid succession destroying two and damaging two. So far, he remains the top scorer in the Indo-Pak Sub continent." - taken from PAF site. Do you agree?? - Adi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityang (talkcontribs) 13:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no conflict and we have more reliable sources all in agreement of him shooting down five hunters. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand... more reliable source than PAF official claims? For all that I know, it is the respective AFs that award the kills. Hence, by definition, one can not have more reliable source than PAF (for Pakistani POV). If you concur that PAF doesn't support what is written in the article, I will change it to reflect so. We can very well add what other sources say in the regard, but main focus should be on official source. -Adi (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Adi
PAF's source does not contradict the books cited... though it does not clearly mention each kill. The book by Fletcher cites the confirmations by formation members. Airforces award kills by either gun camera footage or by confirmation from formation members. The current information is correct and cited. You are advised to review those sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read the text copied from PAF website (or go check there). It clearly states he is awarded only 5 kills. I am quoting again - "Sqn Ldr M M Alam in his F-86F Saber, chasing one of the five hunters, he shot during the 65 war.....". Now, when PAF itself says 5, I dont want to put some third party source. By the way, does the source say confirmed kill? AFAIK, the source itself says and I quote " Admittedly, confirmation of Alam's claims has been difficult to obtain, despite close-range observation of his encounter by several PAF pilots, and some gun camera evidence. Nearest of these observers was his wingman, Fg. Off. Masood Akhtar, who, protecting his leader's tail, clung like a leech throughout the action". So, tell me how to proceed. -Adi (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi
This is what PAF states:
"Squadron Leader Muhammad Mahmud Alam emerged from 1965 War as Pakistan's top scoring fighter ace. The picture shows him in his favourite F-86 F-35-NA with the victory tally marked on the aircraft (Nine kills and two probable). Squadron Leader Muhammad Mahmud Alam, Commander of No 11 Squadron in 1965, was already a notable leader and highly experienced pilot. He also excelled in gunnery competition as a skill that without a doubt contributed greatly to his becoming the first and the only jet ace in one mission."[1]
There are many more sources that are also citing the kills. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So PAF official site itself contradicts. I would rather include this (saying either 5 or 9) than citing secondary (non-official) sources-primarily. But 2 things still not sourced, 5 hunters in 30-sec (clearly contradicted by PAF) and world record (who keeps the record?). I think it would be better to remove 30-sec claim or may be add this in separate new section and try to source world record to substantiate (or reword as so and so claim as world record) -Adi (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You still didn't get it. PAF does not contradict it... instead PAF only mentions the kills in general. You should read WP:RS. Secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources generally. The 30 second claim is also cited by a reliable source. You need to review the sources. You're hard at hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry say that you are mis-representing the facts. As per WP:RS, primary source is M M Alam. Secondary source would be others, including PAF, who are in position to verify his claims. None of the other "reliable" sources did any research, they just cited "primary source" verbatim, hence by your own definition are not reliable. The sources themselves admit the data are not reliable. For eg John Fricker says - " Admittedly, confirmation of Alam's claims has been difficult to obtain..." and this is not mentioned in the article. Also, what about world record thing?? who/which authority keeps tracks and has certified it as world record? Please clarify the points than indulging in wiki lawyering or doubting my personal abilities, I am sure which policy of the wikipedia is against it. If there is no source about who has awarded the record, I will reword the article to note that.-Adi (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Adi
I disagree with you.. you've not fully checked the Fricker source and I advise you to verify from there. The author has mentioned the kills without citing the primary source as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

MM Alam's sources are a bit of a tightrope laced with original research and official citations and a collaboration of the two by some reports. But it is true that he is considered atleast in PAF as a air ace, though it is disputed in India. That has to be mentioned cuz without that context, it would appear that a certain Sitara-e-Jurat has an article without mentioning why he needs one in Wikipedia. Because he is claimed as an air ace, the article needs to state with sources thus.

The source from BR (though not the best) does point that it uses Official Indian history on the war as its source. Please read carefully. This isn't original research, though it appears it is a borderline case.

P.S. It appears the previous talk section has gone because of an improper move. There were some information regarding the controversial kills in that talk. Idleguy 06:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Skies' POV[edit]

Freedom Skies the article states claims and counter claims of both sides regarding to M.M. Alam. Your problem seems to stem from the fact that you only want to refer to one side's sources when tackling this topic. If you have some better and possibly neutral sources then we will welcome them. Otherwise this borderline vandalistic behaviour isn't going to cut it. Red aRRow 11:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue with some sources is that they do not qualify as reliable. The case here is that we do not have an official PAF source stating the claims. What we have are secondary sources stating what PAF claims, which are not themselves reliable, and which do not cite their own sources. -- int19h 13:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


I think when it comes to Pakistani military, PakDef and Defencejournal are taken to be the most credible and closest to the official Pakistani POV, if not the official POV. Similarly from the Indian perspective Bharat-Rakshak is the one which is usually relied upon. Here both PakDef and DefenceJournal carry articles written by retired PAF officers. The article by DefenceJournal has a complete list of references at the bottom of the page. As is the case with most India-Pakistan military articles on wikipedia...I think it is best to state both sides of the story and let the reader to judge/further investigate on their own. I am sure Idleguy agrees with me on this. The one by PakDef is written by an F-104 Starfighter pilot who claims to be an eye witness. Thus the amount of claimed kills from Pakistani POV cannot be deleted from the articles on the ground of unverifiable sources. The other 3 articles do seem to be kind of un-official accounts of his private life. However these can be cross checked by a simple google search e.g. M.M. Alam Road in Lahore is mentioned in the wikipedia article on Lahore.
As for him being a bachelor and enjoying reading books...I don't know how those things can be referenced other than from online sources ?? (maybe some book)? Red aRRow 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting removing the info on kills and the ace status, merely rephrasing it so that it is not claimed to be the official PAF position (or finding reliable sources explicitly stating that it is). -- int19h 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think when it comes to Pakistani military, PakDef and Defencejournal are taken to be the most credible and closest to the official Pakistani POV
They're just private individuals who wanted to say something and found a website to say it on. Their credibility has yet to be endorsed by any media organisation at all.
I think it is best to state both sides of the story and let the reader to judge/further investigate on their own.
It would be nice. Both sides mean India and Pakistan, right??
The thing is "Pakistan" does'nt claim that he is an ace, the private Pakistani websites do.
I am sure Idleguy agrees with me on this.
I think he prefers the compromise version.
The one by PakDef is written by an F-104 Starfighter pilot who claims to be an eye witness.
My sentiments exactly. A Pakistani national who convieniently claims to be an eyewitness. Of course, the private websites got hold of him before the government of Pakistan and the Inter Services Intelligence authorities and got the exclusive scoop where the entire state machinary failed.
I'm not willing to go into his books and the spartan lifestyle etcetera. This is wikipedia not Maxim Magazine.
Freedom skies 10:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be over eager to discount the accounts given on PakDef and DefenceJournal. When it comes to Pakistani and Indian military there are few or no official sources available online. As I have said before PakDef, DefenceJournal and Bharat-Rakshak are the ones which are closest to the official military of Pakistan and India given from the fact that a lot of officers of the armed forces of both the countries contribute to the articles in them. So as far as this article is concerned they are reliable and verifiable enough. Red aRRow 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to Pakistani and Indian military there are few or no official sources available online.
And I thought the government of Pakistan website actually existed. I also thought reputable institutions like CIA World Factbook 2006, Pakistan Military Guide from GlobalSecurity.org or BBC Pakistan Military Through the Ages actually had anything at all to do with the Pakistani military whatsoever. How very stupid of me.
Freedom skies 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said before there are no or few official sources available, which means there are NO or FEW sources which belong to the Pakistani or Indian military/government and have the time to be actually engaging in useless debates over who has a bigger member. As I have said PakDef and DefenceJournal are credible and verifiable sources, just like Bharat-Rakshak where a bulk of contributions are from serving or retired military personnels. The claims of both sides are listed in the article and as such there is no room for blind jingoism. Red aRRow 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said before there are no or few official sources available, which means there are NO or FEW sources which belong to the Pakistani or Indian military/government
Correction. Plenty of sources are available on Indian and Pakistani militaries. Institutes like Brookings, are specialists in this field.
NO official source claims him to be an ace, leave alone verify it. Where has the Indian government called him an ace ?? Where has the Pakistani government called him an ace ?? Where is the BBC's opinion on this ?? Are you trying to prove that only a bunch of private websites know about MM Alam and the Govt of India, the Govt of Pakistan and the BBC never heard of him being an ace?? ??
have the time to be actually engaging in useless debates over who has a bigger member
Find time then, unless you answer all the questions regarding your edits on Wikipedia you abuse your privilages as an editor. I'll do you a favour and see that it does not happen. Work hard and find citations. Wikipedia is not a place for original research and is not your personal soapbox. Claims have be met with reason and argued out with other editors.
As I have said PakDef and DefenceJournal are credible and verifiable sources
Unfortunately "As I have said" does'nt cut it.
Accepting your personal opinion would be original research.
The claims of both sides are listed in the article and as such there is no room for blind jingoism.
In case you don't accept the neutral version I have another version for you. It's sourced by the way.
Freedom skies 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

Besides http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm which was written using official sources, I would suggest the PAF Official histories like John Frickers Battle for Pakistan, and History of Pakistan Air Force 1947-87 to form enough basis for Alam's claims. jaiiaf 04:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

it's a private Pakistani website which has nothing to do with the government of Pakistan.
It uses profane language like "The Hunters seemed to fly across Alam’s gunsight like a gaggle of geese, and he obliged repeatedly, four times in all. "
It's a fraduelent underground source which will not be allowed in an enclyclopedic article.
Find official sources, BBC sources or sources from respectable media. The very reason your article is being reverted is because it's based on stream of underground Pakistani websites.
I am sorry but Puspindar Singh's Fiza Ya is an underground source? I can also cite the official "History of Pakistan Air Force" Saga of Courage and Honour" , their official history which mentions that. jaiiaf 14:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Freedom skies 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Books are banned by "Freedom" since they don't cut it. An Official pakistani site, as he requested, also seem to fall mysteriously under original sources. To top it, he has the power to say "rejected" as if he has done a peer review of the sources provided. Yet he keeps a version of Vayuspace which in itself confirms the 4 kills of Alam as a counter to the 5 claim of PAF official history. Sadly, even official versions don't seem to convince the user who has neither gone through the books nor the official websites. Idleguy 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I might add that the book cited was written by the same guy who wrote the Vayu Magazine article. I agree with Idleguy, why are you revertig back to that version? Dont let nationalism blind your judgement. jaiiaf 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that's good citation. Kudos to the guy who put it there. Instead of the pulp fiction garbage that was pushed earlier, this definitely clinches it. Grammer cleanup might be needed though. Freedom skies 15:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to add one more thing to it :-
12:08, 28 October 2006 Idleguy (Talk | contribs) (rv. I think reverting to a nonsensical version, especially when an official pak resource has been provided flies in the face of Wikipedia policies and ur own set of rules in the talk pages)
I kinda missed it. Given the past, I thought it was another revert to the underground sites which claim to be privy to the official records. Sorry for the oversight.
From my POV the official citations were still missing and reverting back to a version based on underground websites is something I cannot allow.
Now that the official citations are provided, it's a whole different story. Freedom skies 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

M. Shahid Alam[edit]

We certainly don't need sarcasm here. M. Shahid Alam is a notable scholar and his brother, and it will not hurt if his link is included in this article. Thanks --Falcon007 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be included, just because he is MM's brother. Idleguy 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
See also section was not a big deal. I could have argued with you regarding this but see no reason to push this. I hardly come to "all rights reserved articles". But anyway enjoy. --Falcon007 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:M M Alam.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:M M Alam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Really?[edit]

According to this "MM Alam not just lied on the unbelievable incident of shooting down 5 hunters in 5 seconds, he also ran away from battle when he met Flying Officer P.S Pingale flying a Hunter. While MM Alam covered his cowardice by claiming shooting down two Hunters, one with gun and second with sidewinder, Flying Officer P.S Pingale was on record saying “No Missiles were fired – First he (MM Alam) opened up with guns and when we crossed over and I turned, he was already flying straight and away trying to get out of fight.” Flying Officer P.S Pingale also says “……. You know when you are young and you are in fight and all gung ho, you want the other fellow to put up a fight, you don’t want him to runaway…..So he ran away from the fight. I still recollect my thoughts at that moment, ‘this is not right; look at this fellow he is gone away!’” Read the whole incident in Page 255 to 261." Please factor in both sides of the argument before deityfying anyone. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse, like all PAF pilots he knew they were begging for mercy. India beat the hell out of them, it was embarassing. India proved that if need be, it can shoot down the whole of the PAF in 5 minutes, assuming the PAF are brave enough to take off... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.7.78 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} MM Alam did not fight against Pakistan in 1971. Why is it mentioned there? Please change it to correct.

SirDard1 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to verify.  fetchcomms 01:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

I removed it; there wasn't a reliable source to say that he did.  Chzz  ►  01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

{{r

Service with the Pakistan Air Force[edit]

The end paragraph of the section is not reflecting the source provided. Source [5] never gives any pretext on why he was relieved of No. 5 command. It also says he was removed from staff college on "absurd" pretext. IMO, absurd is not false. Also, article does not detail his services till retirement. I had altered to these but it was reverted for what so ever reason. I will revert back if OK (fear some revert war). Main thing is, the section is incomplete and factually incorrect as it stands now. -Adi (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi Adityang (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1) You've been reverted by Bbb23 because it is not ok. 2) Pretext means that the reason was incorrect... what you say is self contradicting. Bbb23's revision was just a bit more concise and avoiding WP:BLP issues --lTopGunl (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, why it is not OK? I have not contradicted, for I did not remove/change the word "pretext", I have retained the same. I only removed "false pretext" to "pretext". Again, incorrect and false are not synonyms in this case. What about other points? source given clearly says he was removed from staff college, not from his command. No reason given (false pretext or anything else) for his removal. So, I am reverting back. Please put false pretext if you want. Do not start wiki lawyering. I have not put anything judgmental/slandering or untrue, but only his career path (that too from the existing source). However, I would be glad to know exactly which clause my edits violated. Lets keep up wiki policy on being bold. Hope you understand. -Adi (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi
I'll let Bbb23 explain his reverts, but you should know that when you say 'pretext' it already implies false and your current argument doesn't stand. There's no wikilawyering here... those edits were made after a concern was raised at WP:BLPN. You on the other hand seem to know the policy and I find it hard to assume that you don't have another account. If you do, you should reveal the relation on your userpage. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted some repeatedly inserted commentary that the subject was not involved in the Bangladesh Liberation War. I've also changed wording to keep WP:NPOV. JFHJr () 07:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This was not repeatedly inserted (only reverted!) but you also reverted to earlier incorrect statements. Removed mentioning of his removals from command. Please explain (factual inaccuracy - he was never removed from his command under any pretext. it was from staff college). Nowhere there is a connection (direct, I mean) between his removal and personal feud with top brass (very POV and inference from source but let us leave the inferring thing to readers and state only facts). Also, why his non participation in combat duty in 1971 war is POV? it is mentioned in the source itself. Are you saying cited source (source 5) is POV biased?? Request you to undo edits in these cases as I have been warned for edit warring. -Adi (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi
I think that is fair that Bbb23 explains his reverts, along with JFHJr. Also, please do not assume something that I am not. Although my user ID is new, I have been contributing to wikipedia since 6 yrs. I was afraid of 1 more username and password. -Adi (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi
I see now. My apologies re college. I still think false pretext adequately describes the event under BLP guidelines. So far, consensus appears to support that. If you'd like to be more specific about what the premise was, or reword the service record to emphasize removal based on that source alone, I suggest you bring a thread at WP:BLPN. Perhaps contributors there will agree with you, and your view will be the ultimate consensus. That's worlds more productive than approaching 3RR. No comment on accounts as long as you're not socking. I hope you settle on this one :) Cheers. JFHJr () 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair and square. Thank you. -Adi (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Adi

Basis of Indian dispute of claims[edit]

The basis of indian dispute of the claims is currently vaguely and possibly inaccurately worded, ("some such reason") which would lead one to dismiss the same. I have some reason to beleive that the cited sources (Fiza ya, others) may not be in accord with the actual wording of the wiki article in that respect. If anyone can verify the same, or provide a more neutral/different phrasing, I request them to do so. My attempt to clarify the indian claim on basis of a reputed source (bharat rakshak) seems to be chancing the risk of a revert war and I would rather throw it open to more authoritative sources The intent is to provide a clear basis of what each side believes, based on accurate depiction of reputable sources and leave it to the reader to decide or dig furthe.

For more information, the history of the page and history of talk here Talk may be referenced.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barath s (talkcontribs) 09:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 

Gun Camera Footage[edit]

I doubt the claim that PAF didn't made the gun camera footage public. The Nordeen's book (Air Warfare in the Missile Age) also has images from Alam's gun camera. --SMS Talk 14:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitara-e-Jurat citation[edit]

Reference no. 2 gives M M Alam's sitara-e-jurat citation from Pakdef. I highly doubt it is official citation (as it says "world record even today" and stuff like that). Also, I think this particular website is non-reliable as per wiki. Can anyone confirm and provide Alam's official citation for SeJ? Else I will remove the source from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityang (talkcontribs) 10:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is not really good with inline citations, instead of simply removing un tagged content look for it within the citations provided. There's a good reason it will be in most of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

MM Alam got a bar to sitara e jurat, too. The article is really poor in providing information and using unreliable language eg "world record" as listed above. The citations provided do not support this (as far as I could check). I do have a quote of his official citation, (it was linked in a specific version); however it was hosted on a site (flickr) that is against wikipedia policy. Barath s (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

I propose the article on the road named for Alam be merged here, the raods only notability is form Alam and notability is not inherited. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: There are sources for road's own notability other than that from it being named after the Pilot. There is already a reliable source present in the article and many more can be found. Merging an article about a road into a BLP is completely inadequate. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This road is well notable itself. A simple Google search or Google news search results in hundreds of pages that don't even mention after whom this road is named and why? These result mostly talk about this road being a commercial hub of Lahore. --SMS Talk 21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm removing the merge tags since the consensus is clear to keep them separate and there haven't been more comments since a week. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced/Incorrect Kill Figures[edit]

Article claims 5/6 hunters downed by MM Alam but the source mentioned doesn't give the details. More over, it has factual inaccuracy like Sqdrn Ldr A.B Devayya belonged to No. 7 Sqdrn and was flying Hunter (his sqdrn was No. 1 and he was flying Mystere)[1]. Somebody please correct or it will be corrected by me (I will remove unsourced claims).

-Adi (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Adi

Inaccuracies along the lines of the above are repeatedly persisted with and reverted to, despite edits. The article does not therefore appear to be balanced. These edits need to be cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barath s (talkcontribs) 14:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Shaun dave[edit]

User Shaun dave is making disruptive, non-neutral, unreferenced, POV edits to the article. In his two edits, he termed Alam's killings as "lies" and has placed numerous question marks. This is not a forum dear. Faizan (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muhammad Mahmood Alam. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 08:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional External links[edit]

Retired Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Tufail of the PAF is an aviation historian, having written Great Air Battles of Pakistan Air Force. He gives an account of this under Speed Shooting Classic : http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2008/11/speed-shooting-classic.html The Bharat Rakshak article http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/1161-Koshy.html also specifically addresses these claims, drawing on numerous citations. I suggest that archive links of each be linked as references.

Barath s (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Blogs etc ongoing edits[edit]

Blogs are not reliable sources and are therefore avoided in articles. Please do not add Blog sites.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree that blogs are no WP:RS (tho rbth is an tertiary source) but why are you removing WP:RS references and instead of discussing it on talk, you violated 1RR (can be seen here) that was imposed on you (on me also but I didn't) yesterday? I provided references for S. Sajad Haider statement, you removed that too? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no excuse to remove reliably sourced content. Also, Bharat Rakshak is an WP:RS per Wikipedia, go and check it on WP:RSN. And, please stop adding WP:FAKE contents just to suit your point of view! Your sources only say per PAF claims that Alam destroyed 5 Indian aircrafts, etc. So how does this become verifiable? One needs to provide evidences like proof of wreckage, captured aircrew, gun-footage camera of shooting down the adversary, serial number of the aircraft and names of pilots (names provided by the fricker and PAF were also incorrect per Indian account), etc and it's on PAF to prove their claim but PAF has provided no/or incorrect evidences to back their claim. Beside, from where you see gun-footage camera of alam's jet in this source? PAF has not yet revealed the gun-footage camera of Alam's sabre jet[1] these are mere close observation images from different angles have nothing to do with the claim. See this. In addition, this source only shows images of Folland Gnats fighting against the sabre and F-6 engaging against the Indian Su-7. It doesn't take rocket science to go and click on the preview button of the source and have a insight of it before making FAKE CLAIMS.

You clearly violated 1RR, please go and do a self-revert (you will be reverted by tomorrow, anyway), or I will have to report at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 19:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC) this],

References

this issue cannot be verified for any modern source, so the only way is to correct the Alam 5 kills claim. This can be sourced and is verifiable, while the original war propaganda claim is not, not even from PAF sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The 5 kills is debunked (even for the sources cited[edit]

Kaiser_Tufail is a retired high rank ufficial of the PAF and an Historia, as he has even a wikipage here, evidently he is known for something. Differently than some PAF fans that absolutely take as Alam having shot down 5 Hunter in that famous battle, no matter how bad this is sourced (basically is a myth well debunked), he states CLEARY that:

-the only 3 shot down were: Kacker (27th Sqn), Bhagwat and Brar (7th Sqn). Jog and Chouldry (27th) were just DAMAGED.

Right?

This is mentioned even in this article on Defence Journal: http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/wars.htm

And is replied in Tufali own (well documented) blog.

So what the hell makes some PAF fanboys so deaf respect to the so called 'verifiable' sources? This cannot be supported by ANY fact except the PAF war propaganda. And if even an HIGH UFFICIAL and HISTORIAN of Pakistan agreed to that, so what kind of support that war claim still has? I found ANY, except some outdated and poorly researched old sources.

It's time either to call Tufail a LIAR, or change the '5 kills in 30 second' claim. That is, just a claim, like many other made in any war. UNSOURCED and UNSUPPOPTED by any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Mahmood Alam. 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) 19:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Subjective wording in Lead and pov[edit]

I still do not understand why some user (Mblaze) insists we add pov to the lead when independent sources also corroborate the information this is pure pov pushing and will not be tolerated. If you have a argument discuss it here rather than adding contentious material to an articles lead to fit your agenda. Meranashraf4i (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Do the "independent sources" confirm the number of kills, or confirm that the claim of that number of kills was made? There is a difference. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)