Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the article doesn't cite reliable references . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.71.10 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Prognosticca?

I'm very impressed that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was able to supply so much information about a battle that happened in 1965. Those are some mad prophecy skills.

(If some spoilsport has removed the {{1911POV}} tag since I wrote this, please forgive the lack of entertainment provided by this comment.)

--Specrat (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

hahahaha.... good one ......

I have removed it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

muslims and communists reject wikipedia

i hav been studying wikipedia for the last 1 yr. simultaneously i hav also been studying pakistani and indian sources alonge with some neutral ones. theres a huge difference! indian claims r loud hailing supported by pictures of just 3 battles asal uttar,jarpal and longewala which they mention again and again to mak others believ their victory and wiki follows suite under estimating chummb,jurian,chawinda,sialkot,khemkaran,kushtia,lahore etc. the same is the case with communists who r constatnly targetted. plz pakistanis and arabs and communists leave this wikipedia its a non-neutral heavily zionist and indian biased site. its no encyclopedia.anyone can mak a page of wikiedia. and for wikipedia keep on propagating zionist and indian claims btw u cant re write history, we r arent tat spineless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.5.25 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:ChawindaBattel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChawindaBattel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Adsurd

This is a complete absurd change that has been recently made to the article. The battle of chawinda indeed ended in a pakistani victory and lasted from 13-21 september and not 17 september. A neutral reference of Steve j zaloga is given not prefrence against an indian leader's personel war diary. Making such changes is a mere intellectual murder and very poor will to accept reality. It was a battle and not "kabhi saas bhi baaho thi" serial. Calling it vandalism is a joke since improving articles in wikipedia were perhaps appreciated. thank you. 175.110.189.207 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your comment here. The matter has been thoroughly checked by editors from various books, the operations in the Sialkot sector and Chawinda continued till 22 Dec (i.e. the calling of cease fire). Even Zaloga does not claim that it was a pakistani victory. Zaloga says that both sides suffered heavy casualties in the war. Please recheck your sources again before you make such claims. Thanks. Regards. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

decisive victory

There are some users who r trying to minimize the extant of pakistani victory by adding point less terms like "tactical pakistani victory and strategic stalemate" ...

Dude... u know wht decisive victory is ? its to gain ur objectives.

Pak army halted indian advance and tht was the main objective of 25th cavalry and 1st armoured division sent as reinforcement.

Mission accomplished and a decisive victory gained, indians stopped all offensives at sialkot sector (they couldnt afford more such losses for the time being) and were further pushed back in operation wind up.

As for providing a neutral site as a reference for operation wind up, then its a matter of fact that indo pak battles arent famous enough to gain attention from western sites so there is no point of a mention of an operation of 1965 battle in western (i.e neutral ) sites.

why dont u provide me some thing saying operation wind up was a spam and was never successful ???

provide me a reference againt it or just accept it untill u find one to challange it. dont just verbally challange thing on the basis of indian propaganda.

if you disagree we can have a third opinion. which will be final.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Decisive victory means total and complete domination of enemy forces. In Battle of Chawinda the most Pakstani forces were able to do was to tactically halt Indian advance but beyond that the battle had turned into a stalemate and no side was able to advance much further into others territory. The Pakistani forces never completely dominated the battle and till ceasefire was called Indians still retained much area they had captured.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

here is an indian site [1] which talks about superior pakistani position in chawinda at cease fire time, but also criticize general ayub khan of not launching operation wind up in time. but it never says that the operation was a failure, though it an indian site.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a Pakistani site and only provides Pakistani version of conflict. Also criticism of general ayub khan by even almost all Pakistani sites show that the Operation wind up was launched too late to make any major difference.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

you are actually mixing things up, dont mix battle of chawinda with war of 1965,

As you said decisive victory means a complete domination upon the enemies, so u r ur self supporting a decisive victory terminology for pakistani victory at chawinda.

Look, things are simple.... india attacked sialkot sector on 6th september, pakistan counter attacked at khem kharen sector on 8th september, which was halt at patton nager (assal uttar) on 10th september. Pak retrieved its 1st armoured division from assal uttal and transfered it to sialkot sector to counter indian attack. This reinforcement hold the lines for a while (at battle of phillora ) then retreated to a defensive position at chawinda on 11th september. Then battle of chawinda started, (which was clearly a defensuive battle). the sector was reinforced by pakistani 25th cavalry etc and all indian attacks on chawinda sector were repulsed with heavy losses untill indian army at tht sector became unoperational left its all offenvies.

Now tell me at the specific battle of chawinda who was dominating ???? didnt pak army achieved its most valuable objective of halting indian advance which was aimed to cut off pak supply line by capturing Grand trunk road ???

Did pak army achieved its objective or not ? yes they did, they were dominating them at tht sector therefore they launched operation wind up, otherwise indian could also launch any such operation in khem kharen sector after assal uttar but they avoided tht and rather concentrated more on strategic sialkot sector, assal uttar technicolly was a tactical victory but strategic stalemate as indians didnt tried to roll back the lost territory.

As for the fact tht operation wind up was launched too late, then dude, try some calculations, chawinda reached its climax on 22nd september and cease fire was declared on 23rd september, wht could this operation can hv done in one day even if indians regard it as unsuccessful. Atleast pakistani army launched an operation to roll back lost territory, indians even couldnt do tht khem kharen. This clearly shows the superior paki position at sialkot sector, they were confidant enough to star a wind up operation.

"As for neutral sites, you know tht i know it as well tht there is no neutral site on inter net covering 1965 war's tactical maneuvers. So forget it, either stop writing these article in detail or decide things from common sense using third opinions from other non-subcontinental users.

I may sound to u a pro-paki and unbaised, the same u sounds to me as a matter of fact, but try thinking logically apart from patriotism.

If you still disagree fell free to invite a third opinion, but till then observe status quo, do not change the article result from decisive victory to whatever.... as u r the one to challange this pre-mentioned statement so burden of prove lies on you, not me.

I am reverting back ur edits to last version of the article before ur arrival, so plz dont engage in an edit war otherwise discussing issues here are meaning less. I assume good faith and expect from others the same.

Regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the the word "decisive" it looks like you do not know the difference between decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory. I would like to quote the meaning of these terms. Firstly decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict. Secondly tactical victory is a victory in which the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor. Finally strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor, and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war.

Now if you have understood the difference between the terms, you would understand Battle of Chawinda did not influenced the result of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. On the other hand Battle of Chawinda was cut short because of ceasefire which was already scheduled. Thus it was not a decisive victory. Secondly it was not strategic victory as the Battle of Chawinda did not necessarly disturbed the India's ability to wage a war and only 14% of India's frontline ammunition had been fired in the whole Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and India held twice the number of tanks as Pakistan.Thus both nations could have continued the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. In-fact Pakistan was in a worse state when ceasefire was called as Pakistani Army had used close to 80% of its ammunition. It was though a tactical victory for Pakistan as losses of the India outweigh those of the Pakistan. Also regardless of what you think the fact is India still controlled most of area it had captured till ceasefire.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

first of all i told you not to revert my edits untill dispute is resolved, avoid edit warring plz or u wanna get blocked ?

Any ways, you r again mixing battle with war, as nepolian said once some time u lose the battles but win the war, i.e a particular battle have little or some time no influence on the actual results of the war n some time it determines the whole future of the combatants.

In case of chawinda, india failed to achieve their objective on the other hand pakistan achieved all its objectives. It was due to chawinda that 1965 war reached the stalemate or else india had upper hand after asl uttar. And as you gave the defination above, decisive victory is the one that influences the result of the battle, wht else contributed to stalemate of 1965 war other then chawinda ?? wht else ?

playing with words wont help, accept the logic.

and u r requested not to revert my edits this time, keep the status quo until we hv reached consensus. I hope u know the WP:TRR policy of wikipedia.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

1965 war reached the stalemate not because of Battle of Chawinda but rather because of international pressure from USA, UNSC and Soviet Union. India accepted it based on report given by Gen. Chaudhuri of Indian Army to Indian Prime Minister. Pakistan accepted because shortage of ammunition after USA stopped supplies. Battle of Chawinda did not affect results of Indo-Pakistan War of 1965.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All the sources (neutral) says tht before cease fire both had already reached a stalemate. Ammunation story isnt true, atleast no neutral source mentions it and indian sources not worth reading as they are obviously biased, same is the case with pak sources. So try reading some independent scholarly works on the battle, if there was no chawinda, indians would have captured grand trunk road (main objective of their attack on sialkot sector as u know) and pakistan would be in a humbled condition.

So it was chawinda that gave pak a come back in the war after its heavy loses in assal uttar. And obviously i am following ur own defination, according to which decisive battle is the one tht have a great influence on the ultimate result of the war. so accept it, according to ur own defination u hv declared chawinda as a decisive victory for pakistan.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

lets try an inverse hypotheses. Tell me wht would have happned if pak had lost chawinda ???

I am waiting ......

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The ammunition story on battlefield might or might not be true on battlefield but definitely a report regarding was given to the then Prime Minister of India Gen. Chaudhuri which then formed the basis of decision making process of India regarding ceasefire. This report was based on halting of arms supply by US and UK which were India's main supplier at that time and not on results of Battle of Chawinda. Then there was also the pressure of International community as a whole specially US and Soviet Union. Also as India was leading the Non-Aligned Movement it gained little support from any of the P-5 nations which had veto powers to block UNSC resolution and ceasefire.

On Pakistan side the embargo by US only major weapons supplier to Pakistan had drastic effect on Pakistani leadership physiologically as well as on ground in terms on amount of ammunition available. This coupled with the knowledge of India's larger arsenal made Pakistan more than happy to accept ceasefire.

Now regarding inverse hypotheses, if pak had lost chawinda and India had gained control of grand trunk road, the UN resolution would still have passed a mandate for ceasefire and would not have been vetoed by any of P-5 nation. India could not have been able to disregard it specially when it was facing arms embargo from all it's weapon supplier nations as it would also have meant a UN peace force being deployed apart from isolating India internationally.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thus the war would not have dragged on even if Pakistan lost Chawinda and ceasefire was eminent.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i am talking about the results of war, would it be a defeat for pakistan if pak had lost chawinda ??? indian army would have had a clear superiority by dividing the pak supply line in to two half, wht would have been the result of war then ??? a stalemate or an indian victory ?

n for ur info cease fire dont contribute to the result of war, result of war are decided on strategical gournds not political, cease fire and all political negociations can hv effect only on long term consequences of the battle (tashkant agrrment in case of 1965 war for instance ) but it never conrtibute in the results in terms of a simple definations tht we are discussing here, victory, decisive victory or strategical/tactical victory. So get ur points clear first it will help u later in ur answer.

cease fire hv nothing to do with war results, see for example arab isreal wars, all had cease fire and in all of them isreal came out victorious, so leave the cease fire story here once for all

Now tell me, if pak had lost chawinda wht would hv been the result of the war ? indian victory or stalemate ??? explain ur asnwer with lofical facts plz.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what kind of Indian victory did you expect pak had lost chawinda. Give me your point of view and answer the same question "what would have happened if pak had lost chawinda ???".

Talking about Israel non of their wars were won by a single decisive victory in one battle but through a series tactical and strategic victories. I don't understand your point in quoting Napoleon ('some time u lose the battles but win the war') or talking about Israel winning wars without decisive victories. Wars can of course be won without decisive victories. In fact most wars specially in modern times are actually won without decisive victories. You actually are proving my point that the war of 1965 ended without a battle in which a single side gained total victory forcing the other nation to end conflict.

Read about decisive victories of past like Battle of Hastings, Battle of Waterloo or Battle of Gettysburg which lead to defeated side in desperate situation and being forced to accept surrender and were decisive only because the defeated side either lost a luge chunk of their forces or their leadership in form of their king. None of the things happened in chawinda.

Fighting in huge numbers and one side achieving their objective does not make a battle decisive if the looser still has the ability to strike back. Even the greatest battles like Battle of the Somme and Battle of Kursk in which one side achieved all their targets are not considered decisive because it made it made little impact towards achieving end of war as a whole.

In fact Battle of Chawinda was much like Battle of the Somme and Pakistani Army halted Indian offensive much like German Army had stopped Allied advance. Despite not achieving a break through at Somme the Allied forces still possessed the resources and will to fight. Similarly if Indians did not achieve a break through at Chawinda. India still possessed the resources and will to fight and war could have dragged with eventual defeat of Pakistan had ceasefire not been imposed.

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

lolz first of all i strongly recommand you to read some neutral material, your discussion seems one sided, a pro-indian. If u wish to write on an encyclopedia u gotta be neutral observer not an emotional fundamentalist, no offense.

You r continuously diverting from the main discussion, which is to prove/disprove that chawinda was a decisive battle. You gave a definition in start, according to which a battle which have a great impact on the final result of the war is called the decisive victory.

But then u r going againt ur self by not calling chawinda a decisive victory.

U r probably intentionally ignoring my point, of which u virtually dont have an answer.

Let me explain u in a mathematical manner.

Indian victory at assal uttar gives india +10 points and gave pak -10.

Pakistani victory at chawinda gave pak +10 and india a -10 point.

So whts the grand total ??? its 0.

Had pak lost chawinda, it would have got -10 again and india would have got +10,making a grand total equals to india=+20, pak=-20. and result of the war (irrespective of the cease fire, which hv nothing to do with war's result) would have been a clear indian victory at the time of cease fire.

chawinda gave pak +10, and it was the point equaling battle, which stabalized pak's position and according to an indian author Pradeep Barua in his book The state at war in South Asia pg.192, indians were forced to abandon all offenses on tht front on 21st september (not 22nd my mistake !), one and a half day before the cease fire, in the mean time pak launched operation wind up and got control of some land tht was lost to indian offensive on tht front before ceasefire was officially launched on 23rd september.

So chawinda was the battle tht equals pak's points to tht of india's, making the 1965 war a stalemate at the time of ceasefire.

now things are clear, it was decisive battle of chawinda tht gave pak an upper hand other wise if pak had lost tht battle india would have had a clear cut superiority.

it was chawinda tht helped in giving a grand total of 0.

So according to ur definition, chawinda had a great impact on the final result of the war, and thus was a decisive victory of pakistan.

As for ur hypothesis tht india would have won, if the war had dragged on, then its quite funny to have such views, when indian were decisively defeated on their offensive at sialkot sector and when they were not in position to even roll back khem kharen after their victory at asal utar. LOGIC my friend !

as u failed to logically answer my previous question, Now i ask u a new question,

did chawinda had an impact on the final result of the war when ceasefire was signed by both combatants. ???

if u fail to answer even this question then u will fail, u gonna hv to repeat ur semester again :).

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems you still don't understand the concept of decisive victory. Wars are not fought and won based on math. I told you to at least read about some great battles (Battle of Hastings, Battle of Waterloo or Battle of Gettysburg) so that you at least get some idea of what is considered a decisive victory but it seems you did not read them. I again request you to go through them at least once. If you read them you would understand the defeated army either lost their leadership(Battle of Hastings) or lost huge part of their army forcing them to surrender. Moreover in Battle of Gettysburg article there is paragraph if even Battle of Gettysburg could be considered a decisive victory.Read that carefully.

The whole concept of +/-10 is absurd. According to you for every battle or skirmish fought in a war must be given points on a 10 point scale based on amount of force used and the result is declared based on the sum of the number of victories or losses. I must remind you in this way each and every skirmish could and would have an impact on the result of war. So are you you saying every battle in 1965 War was decisive because they all could all be given some positive or negative number. Also if you are counting

Indian victory at assal uttar gives india +10 points and gave pak -10.

Pakistani victory at chawinda gave pak +10 and india a -10 point.

So according to you Assal Uttar was also decisive as, if India had lost it India would have gained -20 points. Actually both these victories and all other battles did make an small impact on result but such victories which have to be added up to get result are considered tactical.

On other hand a decisive victory is a single victory after which the victor need not care much about his opponent and the opponent is forced to accept surrender. So did India accept ceasefire based on result of Battle of Chawinda?? The answer is no. The ceasefire was called because of international pressure and UN Resolution.

As for 'if the war had dragged on' India had not started the war and had crossed International Border to relieve it's forces from sudden launch Pakistani offensives of Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam and stop them. The unprepared Indians with limited forces had brought the war to a standstill. The Pakistani Army which had planning and preparing for these offensives for a long time had in turn been pushed back on many fronts. If the Indian forces located deep inside India which were being rushed to front had reached the front they would definitely crushed Pakistan Army. Also this assessment is not My Hypothesis but rather neutral assessments by United States Library of Congress Country Studies, TIME magazine and other neutral authors. Visit [2] for more details.

Also I ask againWhat kind of Indian victory did you expect Pakistan had lost chawinda?? apart from childishly giving points. Explain how situation would have changed on ground.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All right let me quote some of famous battles of history which fall in various categories(tactical, strategic and decisive) along with their eventual impact on war. You can decide Battle of Chawinda falls into which category

Type Name Result

Tatical Battle of the Somme Germans halt Allied Advance

Strategic Battle of Kursk Russian halt German attack and destory large amount German resources

Strategic Attack on Pearl Harbor Japanese destory large fleet of US Pacific fleet

Decisive Battle of Hastings Eventual end to Anglo-saxons rule in England

Decisive Battle of Waterloo Eventual end to Napoleon's rule

Decisive Battle of Gettysburg Eventual end to Confederates rule

Decisive Battle of Singapore Eventual end to Allied control in South East Asia

As you can see Battle of Chawinda did not bring eventual end to anything. The Pakistani forces at most halted Indian advance making it tactical.So according to me

Tatical Battle of Asal Uttar Indian forces halt Pakistani Advance

Tatical Battle of Chawinda Pakistani forces halt Indian Advance

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

lolzz u focused too much of ur precious time on points stuff, dude a simply answer for u, points were given to pitch battles only, not skirmishes.

and dude by saying ...a decisive victory is a single victory after which the victor need not care much about his opponent and the opponent is forced to accept surrender. you are changing ur own definition of decisive victory. how many definitions u gonna give to prove ur point ??? first u said tht battle should have impact on final result of the war, then u said enemy forces should be so badly crushed tht they lost power to fight and now u r saying tht they should be defeated to such a extant tht they will accept surrender. Make ur mind first, which defination of urs u wanna follow.

According to ur first definition, chawinda was a decisive battle as i have discussed in my all above posts.

According to ur second definition, chawainda was still a decisive battle as indian army virtually became unoperational on sialkot front due to their heavy losses and ceased all offensives almost 2 days before the cease fire.

According to ur 3rd definition, the matter of surrender would have been decided if the battle had dragged on, at least on sialkot front indians were in worst condition....

As for tht so called neutral assesment, then dude its a matter of fact, certain people and publications have their sympathies with certain sectors, for instance if the same report would have been published by Al-Jazeera News, the assessment would have been totally different.

As for un-prepared indian troops, lolz u kidding me ? they attacked international border of their hostile neighbour and were still unprepared ? Keep in mind indian troops were 10 time larger then pak's army. and as for ur's interesting discovery tht main indian troops didnt reached the front to fight pak, dude !!! battle dragged on for 17 days and ur troops were still not their on front ? wht a brilliant excuse my friend, wht a great mobilization abilities of a professional army tht it need more then 17 days to reach the battle grounds lolzz.

any ways i urge u to please stop asking weird questions to me and stop mixing up battles with wars. And next time u reply, try answering my questions first,

Did chawinda's victory had an impact on the final result of war, a day before the ceasefire ?

Wht would have had happned if pak had lost chawinda ?

Would the result of 1965 war had been still a stalemate if pak had lost chawinda ?'

Now take ur time and reply logically, try squeezing our discussion to these three points or it never gonna end if u kept beating about the bush, no offense, peace.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude first read about the list of battles I have given to know what is considered to be a tactical, strategic and decisive battle. Read something about military history every battle has a lesser impact on overall war but very few single wars force the end of war and defeat of a nation. These are the ones which are called decisive victories. Let me reply to your questions and you reply to mine.

Did chawinda's victory had an impact on the final result of war?

Every battle effected the result of war including Battle of Asal Uttar, Operation Gibraltar, Operation Grand Slam, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Lahore but no single battle resulted in end of war. All battles gave the winner an edge in discussions in Tashkent Declaration which came out as result of war.

What would have had happned if pak had lost chawinda?

My point of view - If pak had lost chawinda and India had gained control of grand trunk road, the UN resolution would still have passed a mandate for ceasefire and would not have been vetoed by any of P-5 nation. India could not have been able to disregard it specially when it was facing arms embargo from all it's weapon supplier nations as it would also have meant a UN peace force being deployed apart from isolating India internationally. I have copied the reply given above which you did not seem to notice.

Would the result of 1965 war had been still a stalemate if pak had lost chawinda ?

UNSC would still have passed a mandate for ceasefire and would not have been vetoed by any of P-5 nation. This would have stopped the war.

How many definitions u gonna give to prove your point ???

Read decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory with examples. They are one and the same.

stop mixing up battles with wars??

The list I gave you is of decisive battles that changed the course of wars of different wars. You seem to be stupid enough to assume them for wars and still have not read about them even after my repeated telling you to read them.

neutral assessment??

US and US authors and publications have been and are Pakistan allies. Assessment by them that Pakistan would have lost is probably true.

Al-Jazeera News??

1)I don't find Al-Jazeera saying anywhere that Pakistan would have won. 2)Al-Jazeera probably sympathies with Al Queda. This shows that it is expert in accepting and spreading propaganda.

they attacked international border of their hostile neighbor and were still unprepared ?

Read [3]To stop of divert Operation Grand Slam India definitely had to do whatever they could at any resource at their disposal even if it meant attacking unprepared.

battle dragged on for 17 days??

Most Indian and Pakistani soldiers live deep in villages and it takes 15-30 days to call them to bases and then to move them to front. Pakistani Army offensive in South Waziristan takes 3-4 months to plan and prepare even today.

Now you reply to my questions

What kind of Indian victory do you expect Pakistan had lost chawinda??Explain how situation would have changed on ground?

Did you read about the list of battles I gave you?

What is your definition for decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory?

Give some examples of decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory apart from the ones I have given?

Battle of Assal Uttar and Battle of Chawinda both were fought with same force and same results. So why and how do you think only Battle of Chawinda was decisive victory?

Did other battles like Battle of Phillora,Battle of Lahore not make similar impact on results of war?

Why do you think assessments by US library, authors and publications are not neutral while US is Pakistans ally?--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

lolzzz you said it takes 15-30 days to call them to bases and then to move them to front. haha... its not medieval ages that it took that much time to concentrate force dude wake up !

And who told you pak operation againt waziristan took 4 months of preparation ??? do you mean it took them 4 months to concentrate forces to attack waziristan ? hahaha....

Tell me one thing, why are you still haninging with the UN ceasefire ? i told you not to mix battle with war, chawinda was a battle it had its own result that had nothing to do with ceasefire.

Things are simple, if pak had lost chawinda, the result of the 1965 war would have been indian victory as the result of arab-isreal wars are isreali victory irrespective of ceasefire.

I dont understand why bring ceasefire again and again in the discussion when result of war isnt ceasefire, its rather a stalemate or indian/pakistani victory. Ceasefire is a resolution not a result if u try to understand it in its original sense.

Now try giving answers of my questions with out talking about ceasefire, as Decisive victory also defines the term as in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side.

And you know [4] this sources says indians stopped all offenses on 21st and their 1st armoured division was withdrawn. Pakistan did utterly overwhelmed the indians at chawinda therefore they confidently launched operation wind up, but in assal utar, though indians defeated pakistan, but they were not in condition to roll back their lost territory. Logic

Now chill !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

and one more thing, you have no right to ask questions to me, as you are the challenger and burden of prove lies on you, not on me. So you are obliged to answer my questions.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you have very little knowledge about military history and military terms. I gave you examples and tried to make you understand what constitutes by directly comparing them to famous battles in history but your lack of knowledge, biased approach(As you think only Pakistani victory constitutes a decisive victory while India victory at Asal Uttar is not while both were fought under similar conditions and results were similar as well) and inability to learn has brought the discussion to a deadlock. You can bring in a neutral third party who has some knowledge about military history and military terms to end a deadlock. So either you could request a neutral editor on wiki noticeboards or I would do it. Waiting for your reply.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok ... i will apply for third party opinion. If, due to my busy schedule i couldn't apply with in a days from now, then you go ahead and request it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a "decisive" victory, I added a reference to an article of GlobalSecurity.org. -- Rattusdatorum (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Break

Hi. I've removed this listing from 3O because the conversation and the article are basically untouched. If either of you feel that strongly about it, I would recommend listing this page on any of the following Wiki projects: military history, Pakistan, or Indian history. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the battle

there has been repeated attempts by by TopGun (talk) to change the results [5] and [6] beware of wp:3rr discuss before reverting, the result is cited NPOV and perfectly correct. The result is for the battle of Chawinda in which there were multiple offensives from both sides. The battle ended on 22 due to the ceasefire. dont revert without proper citations, just on the basis of your wp:OR--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read this: [7] --lTopGunl (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read and the result is correctly stated and cited in the article after my edits. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you read it, according to UplinkAnsh: "Tatical Battle of Chawinda Pakistani forces halt Indian Advance". The other user is even on the further side of this. And then there is me. You are the only one adding that result. The consensus is unchanged, and rather with me being another editor for this result, you are completely out weighed. You should self revert now and focus on other articles. Read WP:PRIDE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

again you are indulging in reverts made without a consensus? . you yourself have quoted a phrase and then you go on to add words damaging the neutrality ? zolga clearly states that both sides suffered heavy losses what is the logic of addding "successfully" ? when the phrase "Halt Indian Advance" gives the same info in clearly following wp:NPOV. the edit by Uplinkash was correct. and i have corrected the place of citation --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the citation from teh news you just added follows the neutral phrase halt indian advance as there were heavy losses on both sides. i expect you to self revert following wp:NPOV --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Successfully" is adverb to the halt (which did take place) and not to all the details that happened. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

article is biased

the article is only giving indian info. indian losses r told as 120,tats not a neautral source this was told by maj.gen.rajinder singh sparrow commander indian 1st armd. division. secondly a single pakistani armd.regt stands at 40 tanks so how did the indians destroy 44 tanks out of 40 of 25th cavalry. indian losses were 200 tanks destroyed and even the foreign journalists visiting the rejion had no doubt to this. the battle ended in no tactical stalemate as the indians completely withdrew across the ceasefire-line and the battle in all terms ended in a pakistani victory. the role of the PAF is also nt discussed. the article is completely silent abt pakistani gains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.1.245 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that u do more research on indo pak war...this article is indeed baised as it shows pakistani perspective..120 tanks were claimed destryed not by rajinder singh sparrow, they were claimed by pakistan as told by steve Zaloga in his book'The M47 and M48 Patton tanks By Steve Zaloga, Jim Laurier ISBN 1855328259, 9781855328259 pg.35.' A pakistani tank regiment does not have 40 tanks but has 44 tanks, indian tank regiments have 45 tanks.. on the first day of the battle chawinda was defended by not only 25 cavalry but by 22 cavalry and 10(guides)cavalry and a total of 132 tanks against Indias 200 tanks...India claimed 29 tanks lost and 41 damaged which were repaired after the war.Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i find no source which says tat 25 cavalry was supported by 10 guides and 22 cavalry on the first day of the battle of chawinda. GOC 6 Armoured Division Major General Abrar Hussain now firmly resolved to make the final stand at Chawinda.Abrar made the following readjustments on 12th September:- (1) Remnants of 11 Cavalry to collect south of Chawinda (2) 25 Cavalry to move forward to Chawinda (3) 14 FF to move to Chawinda (4) 24 Brigade to move to Chawinda (5) 14 Para Brigade to move to Zafarwal from Pasrur......... and all this happened on 12th not 8th wen thebattle began. i dnt see any point tat 25 cavalry was supported by 10 guides and 22 lancers! instead brig.abdul ali malik asked lt.col.nisar ahmad khan CO 25 cavalry to do "something". Nisar immediately ordered tank squadron (B Squadron) commanded by Major Ahmad (originally from Guides Cavalry and an extremely brave leader of men) to advance in an extended order towards Charwa the reported point of enemy breakthrough!After tasking one of the squadrons to advance towards Charwa Nisar alerted the remaining part of the regiment to move towards Chawinda. At 0730 hours Nisar sent another squadron (A Squadron) towards Tharoah on receiving reports that Indian armour was seen opposite Tharoh area. At 1130 hours Nisar sent ‘A’ Squadron to area west of Gadgor.In short by 1200 hours the whole of 25 Cavalry was deployed three squadrons in line abreast opposite the Indian 1st Armoured Brigade leading the advance of the Indian 1st Armoured Division........ what proof hav u got tat 25 cavalry was supported by 10 guides and 22 cavalry on the first day. and zaloga? ill dig his "neutral" claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.126.58 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Result of Battle was Ceasefire

Stop Adding Successful to the Result of the battle without proper source, as of now the source only says that the battle had ended due to ceasefire. Do not edit war and restore false version. unless you have proper sources to back up your claim. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. Sources say that Pakistan successfully halted the Indian advance and that a great many Indian tanks were destroyed in the battle. It is regarded successful from that point of view. I think TopGun, who has been active here, might be watchlisting this. We'll wait and get his perspective on the issue too. I am saying this taking into account the discussion between you and TopGun above as well as the extensive discussion in the decisive victory thread at the top of the talk page. You may not enforce your version until there's an agreement reached here. Mar4d (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If the source currently used says the battle ended in a ceasefire then so should the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mar4d That arguement is pure WP:SYNTHESIS --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, India failed to achieve the objectives. Read my previous replies to you again. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither did India fail nor was Pakistan successful because Battle of Chawinda Ended due to Ceasefire,(as mentioned in the sources). Now as I see you have no source to offer in support of your Synthesis so either do a self revert or I am reverting to the correct version myself. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

allens source does not say Pak victory, The was no earlier consensus, and I was waiting for a better source and there is none. as discussed on talk . Stop reverting without discussion. Now you have changed the content to Pakistani victory ? without even properly sourcing. Kindly refrain from this--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• @DBig: The source is very clear as far as Indian performance/losses in the battle are concerned. Kindly refrain from reverting without further discussion. Btw, John Fricker is not a "Pak-based author". One more thing, the ceasefire came after Pakistani forces halted the advance, so please stop putting the ceasefire as the first bullet point in the "results" and relegating the sentence "Pakistan successfully halts Indian advance" as second bullet point. That makes the chronology sound incorrect. Mar4d (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• DannyDoesia is an obvious sock of Nangparbat, I have reverted his usual edit warring can someone please post a source which says this was a victory and not a stalemate. Darkness Shines (talk),

• DS all the sources say that both sides suffered losses here and the article has a source that clearly states during the operations a Ceasefire was called, and no clear victory or defeat was claimed by anyone, but Mar4d is arguing without any source and by the basis of his WP:SYNTHESIS showing no concerns for WP:V--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Although India almost succeed, result section of the infobox just say that UN mandated ceasefire. Please be consistent. We are talking about the result, and the result was that there were no permanent territorial changes. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You've appeared on too many articles I edit recently and I suspect that either there's some off wiki canvassing or that you are following my edits, in either case I'll have to report you as I see a pattern. In case you are editing in good faith and that I'm not right, please be more careful so that your edits do not even appear to be hounding. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Result

• India captures Pakistani territory
  
• Pakistan halts Indian advance.
  
• UN mandated ceasefire.
  

This seems pretty much neutral and also follows chronology, Although the prime result always lies at the top. as in other battle pages. Please discuss what you disagree in the above and please give sources without WP:SYNTHESIS this is a Military history article not an essay --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Right I have found two sources, neither of which can be claimed as partisan. This one says the tank attack failed but fighting continued with infantry and artillery until the ceasefire. And this one says the battle was inconclusive. I recommend the info box say stalemate based on these sources.

Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

+Or ceasefire as Big suggests. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks DS for helping the discussion with some more sources, good to see people contributing and backing up their claims with sources rather than talking in thin air, edit warring unsourced content and claiming non-existent victory --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• User:TopGun stop edit warring your version into the article without a consensus here--DℬigXray 07:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made two reverts on the issue with an interval of days, it is uncivil to make such accusations, you're then one who has got more than 5 reverts to your favoured version here. Take heed. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Given no sources being presented claiming victory for either side, and sources which say the battle only ended with the ceasefire policy dictates that is what goes in the results section of the infobox. The consensus is clear, the infobox has to state what the source state. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• @TG can we see some refs for Pakistani victory first ? before you tell other to take heed ?

@DS Agreed, I have done an extensive review of a lot of sources and this version is supported by all of them. --DℬigXray 05:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have added an academic source accompanied with a quote which gives a perspective on Pakistan's relative success in the battle. Also, the part about "India captures Pakistani territory" was not a permanent result, hence its inclusion in the infobox is debatable. Mar4d (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your source does not say pakistan halted the advance, it is certainly not in the quote provided. You also removed two academic sources provided by me which say the battle was a stalemate and ended only with the ceasefire, you are engaging in OR, again. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact two of the sources used are of no use. [8] is an obituary and the opinion of one person. [9] This one says the battle was indecisive. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make misleading comments, I did not remove anything apart from Bharat Rakshak (and as far as I know, you did not add Bharat Rakshak) which cannot be considered NPOV or reliable here. As for the quote, yes it does, read the reason for which the ceasefire occured; it is by a neutral author and credible. Btw, the Global Security and The News were not added by me as you claim, they've been there since the start. Mar4d (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fricker does not support what you reverted to, you are misrepresenting the source. I never said you added the other refs, I said one does not support what you used it for the the other is not reliable. The obituary source should in fact be removed per wp:rs Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

globalsecuritywas misrepresented as supporting Pak halts India while the article clearly stated it was stalemate, another source misrepresentation--DℬigXray 16:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• India captures Pakistani territory was the result of Battle of Chawinda is a sourced result and has to be included irrespective of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, THis is also needed if you think that "halting Indian Advance" is a result of the battle that needs to be mentioned in infobox. I will still suggest keeping only "UN mandated ceasefire" as that was the important and final result of the battle. --DℬigXray 11:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So far no source has been presented that states that the Result of Battle of Chawinda was victory for pakistan, all the sources say it was stalemate. The 2 sources that are now supporting Pakistan halts.. as a result of Battle is source misrepresentation and WP:SYNTHESIS as they do not say so. "UN mandated ceasefire" is the only result that needs to be placed on the result of Infobox. as per the historical books as well as neutrality.--DℬigXray 19:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

John Fricker's quote

India-Pakistan: 'Battle For Pakistan - The Air War Of 1965" by John Fricker Published by Ian Allan Ltd, 1979 ISBN: 0 7110 0929 5

• History of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war from the Pakistani viewpoint. - http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/biblio/airwar/airwar1.htm

An expert analysis with comprehensive text, written with the cooperation of the Pakistani Air Force. - http://biblio.co.uk/books/250672802.html

Fricker was an Author hired for glorifying PAF. Fricker's "only" source were PAF records and interviews of PAF pilots wwhich clearly makes it a Pakistani View not a Western view. Moreover the quote is completely biased wp:PUFFERY towards Pakistan as evident by the words in in his comment that you have recently added. self revert that POV quote. --DℬigXray 11:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a completely biased source. I suggest that we should revert the article to its original form and request it's full protection. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal opinions to have a constructive discussion, keeping in mind that this is not a forum. Allegations like "he was hired" don't help. He is a western author and his book fulfills WP:RS, that meets the criteria well enough. If you want to discuss WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV, let's start with Bharat Rakshak. @Vibhijain: I wonder what you mean by "original form". Mar4d (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant this. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Vibhijain: Very funny. Mar4d (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Fricker is a neutral and reliable source and please don't accuse an author of international repute, unless you have some proof. --SMS ^Talk 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have already shown above why John Fricker is Pakistani source and That he is severely biased is also evident by his quote, which has no place on Neutral wiki articles--DℬigXray 14:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not shown or proved anything. This discussion is moot. Unless you have any valid reasons (that excludes personal opinion/WP:OR), the article will be reverted to the previous version. And as far as bias is concerned, I have already said, let's start with Bharat Rakshak. Mar4d (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dont mislead the discussion. Mar4d had the view that Fricker being a western author is a neutral source, I have shown the two sources (in boxes) that prove that Fricker's book is infact a Pakistani version of the war, not the neutral book as claimed.--DℬigXray 16:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fricker is puffery? Lol. You were rebutted on the very same thing by your own mentor back in November. Thought you to be a person who learned from his mistakes. See WP:RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

war Result

ohhhh...!!!! OMG "Pakistan halts Indian advance" I'm pretty sure this line have been written by some fan,father of Dr.Coop or i must say Chawinda residence. Please change it,from -Disruptive to Even-handed 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is written by pakistani, even 120 tanks is not confirmed because pakistani dont have any evidence to show that they destroy or capture even 10 indian tanks on the other hand india put on display in KHEM KARAN almost 100 pakistani tanks that were destroyed or captured hence this 120 tanks is definitely a fake claim, they dont have any "PHOTOGRAPHIC OR VIDEO EVIDENCE" ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

not a single independent source confirms this absurd 120 INDIAN TANKS theory apart from pakistan seeing the past record of PAKISTANI CLAIMS its clearly bogus otherwise how is it possible that INDIA DISPLAYED 100 PAKISTANI TANKS DESTROYED IN KHEM KARAN but pakistan didnt display any of the so called "120 INDIAN TANKS"(note they have showed follant air jet on display) hence its extremely doubtful and further INDIAN ADVANCE WAS NOT HALTED INDIAN ARMY PUSHED PAKISTANIS EVEN BACKWARDS it was UN ceasefire which stopped them from capturing LAHORE AND SIALKOT.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2012

171.76.31.8 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your request is? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Section on Result

Some editors have been promoting one particular author to claim that Pakistan held up to 1600 sq. miles of Indian territory and India held around 200 sq. miles of Pakistani territory at the end of the hostilities, whereas the commonly accepted figures are almost the opposites. This piece of misinformation has been inserted in many other articles too. Can some third party editors check the reliability of the sources? Thanks in advance. Shovon (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Results and Territory held

Some editors are pushing agendas by adding claims by only one author into this article,regarding who won the war and who held how much territory while neutral claims are exactly opposite.Even the Wikipedia article on 1965 war says that India held more territory than Pakistan.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965

sunny.......... 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox edits

We cannot say that Pakistan "won" this war, just like we cannot say that India "won" the 1965 war. TopGun should rather check the source again, it doesn't say anywhere or claims about India losing those many tanks were neutral claims, but they were Pakistani claims as per the quotation I had provided in the edit summary. Pinging WikiDan61 as well who had reverted these kinds of edits before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's the battle Pak won, the infobox is not talking about war... secondly, do not ping users that you think share your point of view just to refuel a stale editwar started by a blocked sock puppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your calculation of tanks to decide who won is WP:OR. We say what the sources say.. and a neutral source is present in the infobox that was further verfied by Nawabmalhi. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't said that the losses of tanks assess who won or who lost. I have only said that the claims about Indian losses were Pakistani claims, not neutral claims as per the source.

For long time, we didn't presented this non-reliable source, then why we have to do now? Read WP:BRD. A newspaper, especially when it is outdated, it should not be used for sourcing the events where expert view is required. There was no victory for Pakistan since UN mandated the ceasefire. Nawabmalhi probably had no idea, but it can be easily confirmed that how it was not a neutral claim. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious citing BRD to me, because you were the one who made the bold edit, and got reverted... so BRD applies to you. It is not BRRD. Anyway, outdated? That seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It was and is a neutral source; a party not involved in the conflict. Or would you rather cite only the sources that talk about the ceasefire and synthesize them to state the fact that the war was a 'draw'? We are not talking about the war here. This result is of the battle only, not the war at large.. which is still concluded as ceasefire. Just FYI, a war usually consists of many battles and for it to be concluded as a draw usually it makes sense that each side won some of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a new edit by Zerefx that was reverted by WikiDan61, so WP:BRD applies on every controversial changes that have been added without consensus even when they were reverted. Seems like WP:ILIKEIT, since you can accept an outdated, non-scholarly newspaper for claiming the Pakistani' victory but not accept the scholarly sources that would state it as a 'stalemate'. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to get acquainted with WP:CCC. The edit you made was the first edit in every way as this was settled. Plus, socks were involved which really takes away the credibility of those reverts (during the past). Now you independently reverted in the version by a blocked sock, which means you take full responsibility of the content you re-add. Hope that makes the situation clear.. since you are not reverting anymore, I don't see the point of discussing this as I'm quite clear in trying to familiarize you with the way it is done. Again, stalemate is for the war, not the battle plus we have multiple WP:RS to back the victory claim in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Anything before 0ctober 2014 could be labelled as a WP:SOCK version? I don't think so. How many socks there were, and who was the sock?

Newspapers are not definitely reliable sources. You can read WP:NEWSORG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can vouch for Pracharak0 and his IP to be a sock... will you please atleast own the edits you reverted in after a month of the article being in that state? Or would you apply BRD from the first version of the article? BRD is a repeating process (read the essay)...! There are multiple RS to support the claim. WP:NEWSORG is also satisfied as the reference is not making an analysis, rather reporting the victory. Emphases on 'reporting'... something that newspapers do and are reliable for. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RSN

Check WP:RSN#Newspaper sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RSN volunteers clearly call them WP:RS.. hopefully you are satisfied now. But don't take the content dispute over to RSN as they are not aware of the context... the stalemate references are not about this battle in specific, but the war. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of 3/3 comments. First one only analyzed the other 3 references and deemed them to be "reliable", second one said that the source is on borderline and it can be used only for writing that "Pakistan claimed victory", something we already did.(read the last sentence of article) Third one said that these sources must not be used. Where you have seen somebody who claimed any of these two sources, and image and a newspaper to be WP:RS? Now since it is only a representation of what a military commander, a WP:PRIMARY source had said, how it can be considered as a reliable source? It was a UN mandated ceasefire. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but you are WP:COATRACK-ing the discussion by introducing the results for the war. "They are reliable sources" is the first reply you got... the rest of the discussion is not related to RSN rather to the results. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't talked about the first two, he only talked about the other 3 that I had also mentioned, he probably thought that I was only talking about the other 3 references. I needed to re-edit[10] my original message, just for repeating that I am actually concerned about the credibility of these 2 references that were introduced by Nawabmalhi along with other factual errors. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stick my oar in. Whilst, without looking at detail at the 5 sources mentioned in the RSN, I'm happy to accept them all as reliable, they are not all suitable. I've commented on the 3 books there, but thought I add my comments on the suitability of the papers here. The first is likely suitable, although it'd be better to see the whole article. Also, it's dated 14th (so presumably refers to 12th or 13th) - that's before the start date in the infobox, so the infobox dates for this battle needs work. All that said, we're 50 years on now, so there must be better secondary sources out there which would avoid the pitfalls of relying on primary.

The second is not suitable, as it's merely quoting the Pakistani commander. Again, there's the date issue..

The aptly-named Peacemaker67 has linked to two sources [11] and [12], both of which seem to be more the sort of thing this article needs. The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar), making the case that both sides could successfully defend but were not good at conducting armoured attacks. Likewise, the first is pretty clear that the Pakistanis won (pp.108-9). Now, whether that's a major, minor or just plain victory, I'm not sure, but it's a victory. Bromley86 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the talkpage, it helps alot keeping us two going in circles here about the RSN discussion. Now that all the sources are reliable, atleast we can say that the RSN has achieved its purpose and that this is the right venue to have a single discussion about the dispute? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They are particularly supporting the previous summary that "Pakistan halts Indian invasion", but not more than that. There was no particular victory as per these sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also check Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#Result_of_Battle_was_Ceasefire, formally discussed about The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks, that suggests it as a "ceasefire". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What they were once supporting was the doing of sockpuppets... the original summary added with the sources can not sensibly be anything other than 'Pakistani victory' as assuming good faith, I can not blame the non socking editors of source falsifications (except for the ones who changed this to that version and yet keeping the sources that said it was a Pakistani victory.. that seemed like vandalism to me and that's how the socks were caught in the first place). I doubt that old discussion matters (WP:CCC) as that version was not in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Check [13] Sources doesn't seem to be using terms like "victory" or "lost", but "ceasefire", so if they considered the result of the battle as ceasefire, it seemed right. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know about that discussion because I was a part of it... the user DS has is also a sockpuppet (just to point out the level of disruption on this article) and the discussion does not discuss the current sourcing and is not relevant. For the book, ofcourse it talks about the ceasefire, that was the result of the war... it misses to give the result of this battle. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

While none of the sources refer it as "victory" to Pakistan. Now are you done? Whether DS is a sockpuppet or not, it doesn't change that the relevant sources consider the result as "Ceasefire" or "Inconclusive",[14] have some competence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So, The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks. See the concluding paragraph for that section where the book uses the word defeat.[15] The other cite uses the expressions "routed", "forced to withdraw" and "heavy losses"; these are not good things to happen to your side![16] Add to that, this source (page 232), which uses the expression "thrown back".[17] Bromley86 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That is only supporting for saying that Pakistan halted the Indian invasion, they had "defeated" with small force(unclear if he is referring to India or Pakistan), however when the author explicitly referred to the battle, he considered it to be a "ceasefire".[18] If they had "forced to withdraw", it was actually effected by UN mandated ceasefire. Heavy losses occurred on both sides per these. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The highlighted text in your linked source does not say "the battle was considered to be a ceasefire" in any wording. It simply says the battle continued till the ceasefire. So that's pure WP:SYNTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to add the main reason behind it, it clearly meant that there was no victory. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That derivation of the 'main reason' is your personal analysis and not stated by the ref, rather thanks to Bromley86, we now have a clear cut citing of the reference you are talking about calling it an Indian defeat. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting. It is not clarifying who's victory it was in Battle of Asal Uttar or Chawinda, because it was an Indian victory during the Battle of Asal Uttar.

Actually 25th Cavalry may have defeated the 62 cavalry, although it is not specified, but if you are talking about the whole battle, then it clearly states about the results, that we have to use. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bromley86 is the one who said it, so both of us are getting it wrong? the ref [19] clearly says India defeated Pakistan at Asal utar and Pakistan defeated India at Chawinda. You are not even disagreeing with it in your comment as I did not talk about Asal utar. Refer back to WP:SYNTH for the update of your comment (had an edit conflict but I already answered to that). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are getting it wrong because the author is particular about the forces and that they won against the "clumsier foes", He's not talking about the whole battle of the conflict, as he already did that before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Foes' refer to each other at the respective battles and the rest of the text is about tactics. It is clearly pointed out as a defeat... where as your analysis is your own derivation from the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talking about a particular group of military is not enough, he was only talking about the 25 Cavalry, not the whole military. He is not saying that "Pakistan defeated India" or "Pakistan won this battle", like you are assuming. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a clear citation to battle outcomes of both battles using the tactic of using smaller formations. The term 'defeated' isn't just used for a single unit's actions if the battle is concluded otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It could be clearer than that, but it is not. So claiming it as a "victory" as a whole is just out of context. He was only talking about 25 cavalry. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There are further sources in the article clarify that, and your source does not call chawinda a stalemate... let's leave it at that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They really don't. I didn't really supported the Stalemate, but the original WP:CONSENSUS based results, that had to be "Pakistan halts Indian advance." And "UN mandated ceasefire." This is not just a single issue with the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1) The current sourcing clearly backs what it sources... 2) they were not being discussed in that discussion as far as I remember... this is the 3rd article you've joined up to restart a stale edit war (by socks) and it doesn't seem to be edited by you before. So you might want to stop fueling editwars (or apparently following other editors through their contributions history, I've already had my fair share of that - though I don't imply that you are doing it, but you do appear to be) before you point me to competence on simply pointing out the scope of a discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring to a former stale version is not an edit war. We have probably confirmed that the 2 new sources must not be used for claiming results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:EW; any revert amounts to the EW concept (whether in part or as a whole), other than the fact that its not my place to tell you what an editwar is as you appear to have been editing since some time now. All I wanted to ask was not to do this as it will reflect bad and these things will add up to nothing good. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Since none of the new sources have been accepted and no other sources are supporting any of the similar result, there should no issue in reverting to version before Nawabmalhi. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• [20] is just about the specific brigades and their use of equipments, it may be mentioned on the article that 25th Brigade defeated its foes, but that would be the end, it cannot be used for assessing any main results. Twentieth-Century War and Conflict: A Concise Encyclopedia notes that there was an ongoing battle until the ceasefire, it would mean that there were no particular results, whether India won or Pakistan won. Another source, http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8183&Cat=13 pointed the Pakistan's resistance and supporting the 2nd line, but not the first. VandVictory (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone the reason why I am ignoring you is that with all do respect it seems as if you are continuously trolling the Chawinda page, for lack of a better word and I donnot time for that. Now if you want me reiterate TopGun I will. You donnot need to provide a link to the Source/reference it is just a good practice because it allows other people interested subject to access it and also helps in its verifiability, but its not necessary. Ask youself:

• What does stalemate mean? and does retreating and not completing an objective after being pushed back a stalemate?
• What source or reference have I even brought even one source to prove that proves their was a stalemate?
• Would there really be any point for India to sign the Takshent Agreement if she could even hold the pakistanis in Chawinda, especially looking at is victories in the Lahore Front?
• Is my patriotism clouding my judgement?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi It seems like you are the one busy in misrepresenting the source and WP:TROLLING in order to make something that is beyond the WP:POINT. It has been already clarified that none of your unreliable sources can be used for claiming the results as one of the article has only represented a military commander's view and other one is just an image hosted on a selfpublished unreliable blog. The way you have plastered the article with the one sided view of a Pakistani commader is clearly disruptive. Last stable version[21] represented result as "Pakistan halts Indian advance" and "UN mandated ceasefire". For stalemate, that I don't actually support, it was a globalsecurity source[22] that was used, per discussion as seen in archives. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OZ, seems like you do not read the links you use... WP:POINT does not refer to an explanation of the term point... it is about completely something else; disrupting wikipedia processes to illustrate a point that you had to make probably about wikipedia, an event or for a content dispute. Secondly, there's no consensus on the fact that the references are not reliable. They are all reliable only some editors want to use different sources that could make an analysis (but we are not making an analysis and do not have the WP:BURDEN to bring any analytical sources). So just for the sake of the argument.. if I remove the link to the image (and leave the source itself there), what will you have to say..? Because the same source will still be present and your argument would be gone.. so it seems like you are focusing your citation dispute on something that is not a source. On your last point, the last 'stable' version was the current one since the last month (before you came here to revert it back), so any version before the current has no standing and you will have to fully own what you revert to (esp. that socks were involved reverting to that while falsifying the sources). In the end, even the reference you are giving is calling the battle a defeat while calling the war a stalemate. You should drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be bothering only if at least one of your source had claimed that "Pakistan won this battle". So far it had been proven here or in RSN that your image source is unreliable and other one(Canberra times) can be used just for referring the commander, but not the results. Thus you are engaged in WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and using a WP:FAKE reference that is found no where other than this page. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, you have presented none, just like you couldn't 2 years ago. Now I would wait for some more hours before I will restore the version that had WP:CONSENSUS, none of these new edits that have only plastered article with a WP:PRIMARY opinion had. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be pretty awesome if TopGun could prove how the Australian newspaper item is genuine and not photoshopped, especially as it is hosted on a Pakistani blog. OccultZone is right, I couldn't find any source which out-rightly claims Pakistani victory...halting India doesn't mean Pakistan won a major victory.....that's the greatest misinterpretation you could ever see ƬheStrikeΣagle 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the burden to give you the sources. All on you to read the sources, go get the original print paper. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well you or anyone can also photoshop and claim this war as the victory of "the United States". But how you will prove that the source actually exists and it has been recognized by a WP:RS? WP:SOURCEACCESS is possible only for those sources that have some existence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The proof for sources is in themselves that they have complete citation info. The date, title and source name is present. That's all one needs to cite something or to verify independently. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now it seems like a fictional reference, since it is published on a unreliable source. The report is not referred anywhere outside the en.wiki or some social networking, totaling 5, but all unreliable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is published by an RS newspaper. Some one copying the paper because now it is in public domain doesn't still make them the publisher. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following the course of this, umm, discussion, but OccultZone has a point here. Although The Australian is a reliable source, it's only reliable if someone has either seen the article or if someone has a reasonable expectation that it hasn't been altered (say if the article title is referenced in a book). The former is unlikely, the latter I've not been able to find. And, as I said, we're far enough on in time that we should be able to find reliable secondary sources (although that was pretty damn hard when I last looked). Bromley86 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted by just everyone else, there is no WP:RS available for claiming Pakistan's victory. I have removed the claim, "Major Pakistani victory", since it was supported only by a primary source and a dubious image. I have also removed the commentaries of a commander that were presenting only one side. If anyone has further issues with it, kindly take this to DRN or any other board. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for making the change. Stop editwarring. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Except you and Nawabmalhi no one else seemed to have agreed with a WP:PRIMARY and a WP:FAKE source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given you the complete details of references. Go ahead and verify them for your own sources. It is clear that you could not achieve the consensus to make any change since the time you came here to restore a sock version of the article. Unless you have clear cut consensus, it is editwar that you are engaging in by forcefully adding your favoured version. I don't have more time to waste on this if you will keep going on with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's time to drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean fake details? Falsely labeling stable version as a "sock version" just for falsifying sources cannot be justified. It is just you who is sticking to these fake references. Have some competence, and read WP:RGW, you are trying to right great wrong. Current version is obviously full of primary one sided junk. Of course you would prefer it, but others have clearly stated that they don't. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have an SPI with concluded evidence for that and I gave you the date / title / all verifying information of the reference. So stop making personal attacks and accusing me of using a fake source because I gave a scanned image as a courtesy. Probably shouldn't have cared to add a scan of the source. The best possible verification you have at this moment is from me. You should better focus on disproving the reference by finding a copy of the same source and checking the content rather than making personal attacks at me if you are so intent. Also, don't expect any replies if you can't discuss civilly without relying on accusations and attacks in face of admin concluded SPI and complete references. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How it would justify the use of WP:FAKE and WP:PRIMARY references? You are talking about everything else except proving that where and when, other than this page, this WP:FAKE reference has been used by anyone else. It is fake because it is just an image with no reference outside this article. Also why you are adding the one sided claim and commentaries of a Pakistani commander? A WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

More issues

Since the above issue is not the only issue with the article, I have found some more.

• On the battle, "Realising the threat, the Pakistani Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik rushed his Brigade to Chawinda.." and not found in any of the sources mentioned below.
• Quotes: "He ordered his staff officer to break communications with the higher headquarters..." "We advanced all day in short bursts, from cover to cover. The Indians ....." are not found anywhere, except 3 second-hand hostedWP:SELFPUB blogs that have copied this en.wiki article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The article's been a mess and subject to long standing vandalism. I'll try to look in the history if any good sources were removed or check out the web. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

[23] was the version that had WP:CONSENSUS and probably last stable version, although it had a dubious reference("Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory") that could be found nowhere except this page, now that is something we can replace with the Canberra times and attribute it as "Pakistani commander had claimed the victory". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian is not a dubious source. You've been told that. There's no such thing as consensus version, see WP:CCC. It seems like you do not even have access to the sources in the article and are only calling them dubious because you can not access them. Go to a library and read the source (it's a 50 years old print newspaper source so ofcourse it's not online). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a dubious reference with no reference outside, it could have been easier to find since it is making a exceptional claim. First it would be the Australian's site itself, but evidently there is none, just search the title anywhere else. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do we depend on a newspaper cutting for an old war coverage? Is there no coverage in books? Then, very likely, it is not something of importance to be covered in Wiki. If the claim is exceptional and yet we do not have any other reference to it, it is perhaps inaccurate/fake. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Book coverage is present too and has been presented on talk. The news paper is not the sole source and is backed up by scholarly sources. OZ hasn't even verified it and has started assuming bad faith about it. I've just added yet another book source with quote. Kind of WP:OVERKILL there but he still doesn't even want to verify. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not even a single sentence from any book would justify this claim, and there are no scholars who claim that Pakistan won this battle. [24] Only says that 25th Cavalry defeated their opponent, it doesn't speak about the battle which included more than just 25 Cavalry. According to the same book, result was a "ceasefire".[25] Thus apart from using WP:FAKE sources, you are also involved in misrepresenting sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire is the result of the war as compared to the battle which the book, and I quoted, calls it a defeat for India along with numerous other sources present. As per you, all the sources in the article are fake and you have only your own WP:OR alone to challenge them. Please stick to talking about the content not the editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Before that sentence, why he mentions 25th cavalry and 17th Poona horse that faced each other only in the Battle of Chawinda? Why he mentions "in the fighting" and why he mentions Chawinda in the next sentence where he mentions that result was a ceasefire? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference specifically states the Indian attack was broken up by 25th cav and anti-tank teams. In the part I highlighted it mentions defeat for India by word. That makes enough claim of Indian defeat at the battle. In the next sentence where you claim ceasefire, the sentence clearly talks about after this battle given that both sides had had heavy losses, until the ceasefire there were no more battles rather skirmishes or artillery fire. It is utterly clear that the ceasefire is the result of the war here and this battle being the last one still didn't completely stop the fighting rather minimized it. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

He was only talking about the Battle of Chawinda in those paras. If he was talking about the whole war, then the "44 tank losses" that he mentions are the actual Pakistan's loss of the whole 1965 war, right? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There's something known as chronology. He moves on from the battle and talks about the ceasefire as both sides had had heavy losses at asal utar and chawinda and they didn't go for major attacks after chawinda. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't since he was just talking about the battle of Chawinda in that particular paragraph, not the whole war. Also check [26], result was inconclusive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do you think the statement cited in infobox, "Major pakistani victory" is valid ? Shrikanthv (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per initial sources and my explanations in above sections. It is a "Pakistani victory" atleast, in any case. Bromley86 states "both of which seem to be more the sort of thing this article needs. The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar)". All sources linked in the infobox state a Pakistani victory, where as one that of Canberra Times further calls it a major Pakistani victory. Another user, Nawabmalhi has also explained above about the clear cut indication by the sources. As I explained before, the links of scanned copies of sources are given as a reference. Furthermore, the sources that talk of a stalemate speak about the 65 war not this battle in specific to have been stalemate.. this battle was a Pakistani victory with the war as a whole resulting in ceasefire. I will also add that this was the stable version of the article before a sock started reverting it, then another user started reverting to the sock's version a month later of being on this version yet again. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - [27] is a WP:PRIMARY source, a one sided opinion of a Pakistani Military commander.

• [28] is an image that can be described as a dubious reference with no recognition outside this en.wiki article.
• [29] has no mention of victory of this battle, only a mention about a cavalry regiment named, "25th Cavalry".
• "Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965" has no mention of victory. It mentions that Pakistan was able to "halt" Indian invasion in the battle, which is somewhat different than victory.
• Result was a "Ceasefire" or "Inconclusive".[30][31] These edits were made very recently. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Having read the article on trove.nla.gov.au and nativepakistan.com [which is a Wordpress site]. All the Google books seem to beeither a passing mention or no mention at all. Besides, how is it a 'Major Pakistani Victory' if there was a ceasefire? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are not nativepakistan.com or trove.nla.gov.au, they are just hosting courtesy links to the online copies.. the sources are The Australian and Canberra times both are RS news sources. Secondly, the war can have a ceasefire with many battles credited to each side. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

But it is just an image on a unreliable self published blog with no reference outside this en.wiki article. Canberra times had only released the statement of a Pakistani military commander, which is equivalent to WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated earlier by me and person above, the one hosted at the Trove is written from one POV which makes it a Primary source, and the second one [which isn't loading] is not a reliable source. If it is a 'host' why is the same not got trhu the Web Archive? Why is it not hosted on some Digital Archive? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Image of the original newspaper is not needed as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. The citation information needed is complete and are not otherwise on web because the sources are from before the 'internet' but I'm reiterating it here for the purpose of noting the point for this RFC. Secondly, both sources conclude it as Pakistani victory and not just give statements. Other than that I'll note to the closer here to include the above sections for the purpose of summarizing the consensus so that me and OZ do not have to rehash our discussion here again about our difference of opinion on the sources. See also WP:POVS. All sources have POV and it has nothing to do with their reliability or correctness. Infact it is the job of secondary sources to have a perspective unlike NPOV tertiary sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS is for working references, not for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TG, You don't seem to get the point that I am making. Why is the image not on some reliable archive like the AU NLA trove? Those are also archives for stuff that came up 'before the internet'. --Rsrikanth05 (talk)

Simply because the whole newspaper of that date is not available on the internet (if it is, we can just verify it and be done with it)... welcome to the real world. All print sources are not available on the internet and there's no burden on me to bring them to the net as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. The burden on me was to give the verifying information (date title etc of the source) which I have, you will have to verify from a print archive. If you have more questions about the sourcing, you can read above section as I feel I've answered the related questions there and I'll only be repeating the same otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Indian defeat" - the sources linked by Bromley86 are those I found, in fact the only ones I could find that were not written by an Indian or Pakistani, which I have dismissed because I consider them to be to close to the events. The first is a wider work, the second an Osprey book very much limited to some of the tanks involved and the ways the two sides employed armour. The first source (Orton) is a better one, although published in New Dehli, the publisher seems reliable to me, and it states that "India's 1st Armored Division... was forced back by the Pakistani 6th Armoured Division at Chawinda and was forced to withdraw after suffering heavy losses...". Now, in anyone's language, that indicates a reverse for the Indians. Given an Indian-published book might reasonably be suspected of some bias towards India, its statement that the Indian attack was defeated is a pretty robust one. Added to the description in the Osprey book, I think "Indian defeat" is better than "Pakistani victory". It was after all, the defeat of an Indian attack, rather than some triumphant victory by rampaging Pakistani forces. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Despite that source indicates no victory or defeat and mentions hardly 10 words about this battle, it can be supportive for the former, "Pakistan halts Indian advance" [32], but I even doubt that since it has mentioned only a single division and we have got other better sources for the highlighted outcome. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• @Peacemaker67: Orton' is not even a WP:RS, check the p. 118, it is copied from en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't view the page.. is it possible that en.wiki copied from there? As books that copy from wiki say it in their book summary... didn't find anything like that [33]. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That book is from 2010 and copied from the Kargil War article that was also copied to other en.wiki pages[34](2006 revision). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere, fast. Sorry about the distraction with the wikibook, they are getting harder and harder to pick, although I admit I didn't look very hard. The only third party RS I am aware of is the Osprey one, are there any others? I see some reference to The Australian, it is the national paper, and at that time would have been a highly respected masthead. It certainly would be RS. I would dismiss the "involved" sources that appear on face value to have been written by Pakistani or Indian military officers. The Osprey book indicates that Chawinda and Asal Uttar were two sides of the same coin, demonstrating that both sides did better in defensive tank battles than in offensive ones. In offensive operations, one side usually has the initiative and is trying to achieve an objective, and the other is attempting to thwart them. In most cases where the defending side is successful, it would be best described as a defeat for the attacking side than a victory for the defensive side. Thus Indian defeat. There are exceptions, but this looks to me like a classic example. I might, as an aside, mention an approach I have used where a short description in an infobox has been hard to achieve consensus on, have a look at Operation Trio. I'm out. Enjoy! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That reference to The Australian seems to have no existence other than a image that is hosted on a selfpublished blog. A link to Aftermath or writing it as Inconclusive[35] or ceasefire[36] can be the solution. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No source(other than the dubious image hosted on a Pakistani blog) mentions about Pakistani victory, forget Major Victory. The term major and victory have been self-proclaimed because Pakistan halted India......halting someone is different from defeating them and they are NOT interchangeable. ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• [Redacted sock comments]
• Support if anyone wants is more comfortable Indian defeat rather than Pakistani Victory I am OK with that aswell although the terms mean the same thing. Now turning to 18 does quote Pakistani Commander as OccultZone mentioned but it also gives its own assessment that the Pakistanis won and shows good journalship by specifying that Pakistani claims of the number of Indian Tanks destroyed. Now for some The Australian Newspaper is not on any digital archive currently, this is most likely due to the fact that Newspaper which is still running and probably has some sort of claim on it. This newspaper reference was not added recently and all I did was provide a online link for its viewing. The fact that you cannot view it online does not make this source invalid. Also please examine these Indian sources aswell:

• Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization By Stephen P. Cohen, Sunil Dasgupta pg. 1971
• With Honour & Glory: Wars fought by India 1947-1999 By Maj Gen Jagjit Singh pg. 36

First source compares Chawinda to Battle of Asal Uttar, where India is on the recieving end, while the second source says the attack could not succeed and provides reasons for failure.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• An image that is hosted on a self published blog is dubious as anyone can draw a image that has no reference outside this page. [37] has no mention of victory or defeat or anything nearer to it. Your other source[38], actually a- WP:PRIMARY one only mentions "did not succeed", but it doesn't means that there was any defeat. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The first source likens the battle of Asal Uttar(a major pakistani defeat) to what happened to the Indian forces at Chawinda. And please explain how it is iconclusive or a stalemate if we know for a fact, everything else set aside, that the Indians failed to accomplish any of their objectives like take Chawinda, cut supply lines etc, and Pakistanis completed their objectives by holding Chawinda and halting Indian Advance..--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Talking about a single cavalry regiment is not same as talking about the overall country' position. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case that unit represented India in the Battle of Chawinda, so yes it does.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not close to it, but very different. Picking out same source and adding URL to it has no special effect, the source will be still considered as misrepresented one if it has been misrepresented. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: After taking a glance at the sources, I cannot figure out that the term Major is supported on a wide scale except The Canberra times. I think the best way is to reach a consensus; I suggest the term should be The largest tank battles and Pakistani Victory. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no source like "Canadian times", if you are talking about Canberra times, it can be described as a WP:PRIMARY. The source you have mentioned has no support for your proposed inclusion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone, I think we should not be gaming the system, multiple sources support that; I am not going to bombardment of the sources here. Please follow and figure out, you are an experienced editor; no need for mentioning rules, as you know already. It is not necessary the sources should be online---In any shape, reliable sources are accepted, cited sources has published date and years. If you have concerns about reliability, please go to the reliable sources notice board.Justice007 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Justice007, but that's exactly what you are doing. At first you couldn't even read the source[39] yet you have claimed that this source claims victory of Pakistan, although it is not. Read WP:FAKE, an image that has been uploaded on a unreliable self published blog should not be treated as a source. Anyone can draw image and upload just like it had been discussed on both WP:RSN and here, what we require is the reliability of that image if it has been recognized by any WP:RS. Can you find a mention of that report anywhere outside this en.wiki article? Also considering finding me "multiple sources support that", so far none do. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

It is only referring to a Pakistani Military commander, check WP:PRIMARY. They are unreliable source for these contested claims. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

We have only got a 49 years old statement of Pakistani military commander, which is indeed unreliable for the information. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because we cannot state the results as either 'victory' or 'defeat'. None of the provided sources have stated any one of these terms. After checking each, there is a major issue with 2 of the sources, while other 2 have been misused. Due to the issues with these sources, I have further tagged them. VandVictory (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Not it is only about the validity of the result 'Major pakistani victory', as these references are being misused, they must not look completely legit. VandVictory (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Can you name the reliable sources in place of naming other en.wiki editors? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest you consider the instructions on how to use the results parameter in the template being used. Bolding by me.

this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

(Hohum ^@) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" can be sourced.[40] Other options aren't available. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

Can this even be considered a valid vote? Seems like a sock. Not taking any names but the comment has left a good clue as to who it is. IPs only edits are edit warring in this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's tagged. The closer is usually an admin experienced enough to pick out the argument from the SPAs correctly (don't know if dynamic IPs count as SPAs though), I wouldn't worry about it. Same goes for the 15 revert editwarring of VandVictory. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Stating that it is a "major" victory needs more sources. That it was a local, tactical victory seems to be true, but it also seems to be true that the effect of the battle was made moot by the UN-brokered ceasefire. Stopping a far superior force is in my opinion a success. The Banner talk 14:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: As per the recent source misrepresentation highlighted by FIM and Strike Eagle, I have also restored some of the maintenance tags and also tagged them appropriately as per the concerns that have been raised here. None of the policy says that you cannot tag the contested claim during the RfC. Only matter is the dialogue, that is being discussed and it hasn't been changed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

• Support: After taking a look at the sources and adding some other academic and the mainstream newspapers sources; I created a new section, on both side views in accordance to the neutrality was deleted by the editors who reject the wiki rules without valid reasons. As the rules; the photo copy of such reliable sources is not needed. The citation of the date and name is enough as the cited sources of the academic books to thousands of other wiki articles are not available online. That are also accepted as the reliable sources. I have no doubts of the sources. The editors are free to interpret what they want as personal interest rather the wiki rules.Justice007 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of the WP:RS suggest it as a victory of Pakistan at all, not even near. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: by the standards of military history science, it would be both a Pakistani strategic and tactical victory, and that's confirmed by the reliable sources. However, I'm not so invested in the controversies; just offering a third opinion. Also, the personal attacks repeatedly being made by OkkultZone such as in this edit summary are unconscionable. Shrigley (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• You are incredibly wrong about that, better if you stay on the topic and tell if you can you find at least one reliable source? All of the 4 that had been added along with that unfounded statement are either misrepresented, primary or dubious/non existing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

He is not wrong look at the sources:

• Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..."
• Zaloga compares Indian 1st division at Chawinda to Pakistani 1st division at Asal Uttar and how they were defeated by smaller forces
• Cohen and Dagupta also compare Asal Uttar and Chawinda and call it a debacle.
• And then we have the newspapers which also clearly support Pakistani Victory --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Still there's no mention of "victory".
• Fricker says that Pakistan had halted the Indian Invasion
• Zaloga says that result was a ceasefire
• Cohen and Dasgupta haven't even discussed any results or outcome of the battle.
• A newspaper telling WP:PRIMARY view and an image(dubious reference) are not reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are 100% right that is why a ceasefire is listed in the result section as one of the results. The Pakistani objective was to halt Indian invasion and Pakistan successfully did that is why Fricker called it an Indian blood bath and Zaloga calls it an Indian defeat.The Canberra Times reports the victory while The Australian does the most clearly (I donnot think is dubious like you because the source was on Wiki before I found a picture on a blog and by the way it is found numerous other places on the internet aswell) Please be reasonable:

If someone is saying it is a Indian blood bath, others are calling it the Indian version of the Battle of Asal Uttar, and Zaloga is saying it is a defeat, dont you think that this means the same as victory?--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are only explaining with a single sentence without mentioning victory or defeat, it becomes redundant for result parameter. Zaloga is talking about 25 cavalry not about the nation. Fricker is not claiming whether there was a defeat or victory, he seems to mention the result as ceasefire numerous times.

It is dubious reference as long as it is not mentioned anywhere else, apart from this en.wiki article.

Read WP:SYNTH. We cannot add your original and unfounded analysis. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not done any synthesis, you on the other hand you look at one line and ignore the other please read what WP:SYNTH is before accusing others. It is not synthesis if you say that blood bath or defeat means the same thing as victory. If you want to write Indian defeat instead of Pakistani victory, no one has a problem with that because they mean the samething and are interchangeable. Now we donnot need to even use the newspapers with the references from the books, but again the Australian does not need to be online to be considered 'real' since we know that The Australian existed in 1965 and was published everyday. If the reference was discovered through the blog that would be different. I already explained that since the Australian is still running and it seems they have some rights over the archives that is why it is not available online.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is beyond both synthesis and original research when you are misrepresenting the source. How a page no. can be used for claiming Pakistani victory when it is only talking about a cavalry regiment? Show me a dictionary that says "blood bath = defeat". A source does not need to be online, but it is required that a source has to be mentioned somewhere outside a en.wiki page, and it has to be a WP:RS, otherwise it is a dubious reference and must not be used. None of your repetitive explanations are compelling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My explanation are repetitive only because your rebutted arguements are repetitive and please read WP:Synth before throwining the word around. Zaloga is talking about both 1st division(India) and 25th calvalry(Pakistan) and fought; 1st division(India) was defeated at Chawinda so it does represent India as a Nation at Chawinda. Now when Fricker says Blood Bath which makes India go to UN, Zaloga says it is a Indian defeat against smaller force which results in a ceasefire, Cohen and Gupta call it a debacle and compare it to Asal Uttar, the Canberra Times says it is a victory, The Australian(we are not going to agree) says it is a major victory I donnot need to misrepresent the sources to say it is an Indian defeat or Pakistani Victory.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As none of them claims any "victory", you are still misrepresenting sources and claiming that you are not doing it? Now how many times you have to repeat yourself and never read(WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) what others have told you: it just speaks about your incompetence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary misrepresentation of references and policies

Please read WP:CIV and WP:NPOV, to be honest I donnot know if I am amused or annoyed by your Personal Attacks and Accusations. I donnot know how any of these sources even vaguely indicate inconlusive result or stalemate, infact completely contradict your point of view, and most editors who have commented seem to agree that it is a Pakistani Victory. So please donnot tell me I am misrepresenting the sources unless you want to tell that to everyone else aswell, I am assuming Good faith and will try explaining my point of view on the books again: 1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'. 2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Each source has serious issues and they had to be evaluated before they were used for surprising results. Sources make no claim and only a Pakistani military guy seemed to have claimed victory. It was endorsed by any secondary source? Saddam Hussein had also claimed victory over allied forces in Gulf War. This conflict was largely affected by a ceasefire. నిజానికి (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read:

Fricker, John (1979). Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. University of Michigan: I. Allan. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-71-100929-5.

The ceasefire was the result of the battle.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That was really uncalled for. నిజానికి (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• re-word: as a nominator would suggest something like "thwarted Indian offensive" Shrikanthv (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was "Pakistan halts Indian Invasion" before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Both sides suffered heavy losses and ceasefire was the final result. Victory could have been possible if opposing military had to retreat, in some cases it is disputed but here it is pretty clear that results could be just as important as outcomes. SamuelDay1 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

What difference does that make? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Both the Indian and Pakistani side(s) suffered losses and it was not a victory for anyone because it ended in a ceasefire Luxure Σ 06:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate removal of the section

• You cannot remove the section with your personal rules, content is well sourced. Justice007 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's removing anything by personal rules. Stop complaining. What you have added clearly comes under the results section and doesn't merit a separate section. I don't still understand why would you would want to add the result of the whole 1965 War here and make a block quote about it. Please clarify. ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source, unfortunately, does not say what you seem very much to want it to say. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Justice007: Given that you are misrepresenting source, you also seem to be confusing this battle with the 1965 war, the battle was clearly declared as ceasefire according to the source you are using.[41] If you are going to claim the victory of Pakistan on this whole war, consider using Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 for that. However, I am very sure that the amount of sources and scholarship concerning these results are more supportive towards the "Indian victory" than "Pakistan victory". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

J007, one of your userboxes says I try to do the right thing. If I make a mistake, please let me know... we are!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Please don't make any further reverts. The additions are bound to be removed soon by anyone, thanks to the misinterpretations and selective additions.... ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Check. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the sources, I have given both views of the sources per WP:NPOV, while you are ignoring that. Lets the other editors view on that dispute, I do not think your description fall under NPOV.Justice007 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Justice007: you are misrepresenting a source for claiming the Pakistan's victory of 1965 war, and not to mention your unexplained removal of maintenance templates. Clearly those sources are dubious, primary, and misrepresented, you cannot even use some of them anywhere on the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are multiple sources currently in the article for the Pakistani victory claim in infobox. Whether or not it should be there is to be decided by the RFC. Adding failed verification serves no purpose and is blatant continuation of editwar because 1) The editors adding 'failed verification' do not have access to the sources they are tagging and they have not verified the sources to be able to add that tag 2) RFC will conclude this anyway as RFC is not only considering the statement to use in the infobox but also the validity of the sources. With that said, all the sources in the infbox call it a Pakistani victory or Indian defeat. The best way is to follow WP:BRD and restore the version that was protected before the editwar and discuss and change per consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:MOS, the infobox shouldn't contain inline citations. And the of those it does, they none of them claim a so-called major victory- as opposed to the sources being misrepresented again- and in fact the only honestly sourced claim is that of the UN-mandated ceasefire. Do I detect a hint of nationalistic POV-pushing here? I hope not... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It should contain citations if the claim is controversial. I don't care what way it is phrased.. one of the sources said Major so I changed it to that long before this editwar while a sock was reverting it to something completely different without even changing sources. If the consensus of the RFC is just to leave it at "Pakistani Victory" I don't mind that either. And please WP:AGF. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. Ask everyone to assume good faith but don't bother doing it yourself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't if you don't want to, but don't assume bad faith either: WP:AOBF. No point in debating it but it's appalling that you would talk about me instead of content. Don't discuss editors here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• If considerable issues have raised about the sources, there is nothing wrong to template them, but it is actually appreciated so that the readers can have better idea about the dispute. None of the policy says that you cannot tag the contested claim during the RfC. Result parameter remains untouched. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC is inclusive of discussion on sources, you just joined the editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn, here we go again. Please read the discussions in the RfC section above. Again. And again. The problems with the sources have been detailed. -zzzz. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted Malformed RfC removed]

And if someone keeps reverting each other, I'll simply take it to WP:RPP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Maintenance templates

This is 3rd time when maintenance templates have been removed for no better reason.

Looking at the result parameter once again, the current sources can be evaluated as follow:-

1. [42] :- was already tagged with {{failed verification}}, because there is no mention of victory or anything close to the term.
2. [43] :- newly added but still not supporting the result parameter, can be removed.
3. [44] :- was already tagged with {{failed verification}} and the tag was removed without any appropriate explanation.

Maintenance templates are required as the statement is in discussion. If there are issues with the above, write down. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[45] is hardly a sentence. I agree that new ref should be removed and rest requires retagging. Like I have told before, there are serious issues with the refs. నిజానికి (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary misrepresentation of references

This has been already being extensively discussed above, but I will repeat it as a formality: 1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'. 2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. Please note you did not discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before adding the maintenance tags. For more detail please refer to the above discussion or feel free message me on my talk page.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Tags shouldn't be removed until the issues with these references have been sorted out. Since if the reference is primary, it cannot be changed, it should be either tagged or removed. Same with few others that are being misrepresented by Nawabmalhi. VandVictory (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@VandVictory please donnot misuse the Collapse Template and please stop acting like this is a battleground. If you disagree with me tell me how I am wrong. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Those references fails to verify any term like 'Pakistani victory'. VandVictory (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding the tempelate and tampering with what I wrote. You have constantly edit warred on the page for whatever reason instead of positively contributing and accuse others of doing so. please read WP:EDITWAR--Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are still making the unnecessary arguments. VandVictory (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• Which policy says you cannot tag the sources that are used for the statement in question? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear SawTooth, you don't need consensus to add tags..please read the policies thoroughly once... ƬheStrikeΣagle 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure review

Above closure is currently being discussed. Check WP:AN#Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)