Removal of context about the start of the war (in the name of edit warring?)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An edit was made regarding how the war started: Tribesmen had invaded Kashmir because of Muslims being massacred (some of them also had family ties to Kashmiris who were being massacred). They didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Kashmir for no reason. You can check the exact wording of the edit for yourself. Initially, the source for that information was this article. Within less than an hour Kautilya3 removed it, claiming the source was not a good one.
Going by what feedback was provided, I provided a source in accordance to what requirements were set.
However, within one minute, Kautilya3 reverted it it yet again, despite there being a reliable source, now with the reason of edit warring. The reason the first edit was removed was due to what Kautilya3 claimed was a bad source and justified complete removal of the information. However, even with a source that fits requirements, Kautilya3 almost instantly reverted the edit, and then proceeded to place the blame me for edit warring.
I'd agree the first edit being reverted, but I fail to understand why the second one being reverted in the name of edit warring from me is justified, as the only issue brought up with the previous edit had been solved with a reliable source. Wouldn't attempting to paint Pakistan as a plain aggressor by removing mentions of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir which led up to the war not be considered neutral?
I understand Kautilya3 is an Indian and we all have our biases, whether we realise it or not. So why not bring it up on the talk page for discussion instead of instantly reverting the edit that you disagreed with and engaging in edit warring?
Sorry, I hadn't noticed at first that you had used a different source. So my edit summary didn't mention it. Nevertheless, this source is not great either. It is a research paper (a WP:PRIMARY source), from Korea - not known for expertise in South Asian affairs - published in some cornerplace journal, by an author about whom nothing is known, propounding his own theory of why the war happened. Does this sound like something that belongs in the infobox?
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Xeed.rice, this page is on discretionary sanctions (as it says so in one of the banners at the top). You need to be confident that you can obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits before you decide to make them, and you need to explain your rationale clearly in your edit summaries.
Why did you change the images in the infobox? What makes you think that the images you installed are in the "public domain"? And where did the upper image come from? It is not in the website you mentioned as the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Khan of Mong
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Kautilya3 Thanks for the edit. I am not sure why this is considered inappropriate. It is from the official regimental history of the AK Regiment and provides some details about the agents in the battle. We can debate if this is state propaganda or not, however, this is what is reported by this official document. As I have suggested, we can qualify this statement with 'According to Pakistani official military sources', and therefore not commit to the veracity of the statement. This approach has been adopted throughout this article and I am not sure why in this case it is not a valid one? (Extendon (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)).
Official histories are WP:PRIMARY sources. They should be used cautiously and only when WP:SECONDARY sources cover them. On the Khan of Mong page, I have cited a secondary source which completely disagrees with the official history. So the official history should not be used. (By the way, it is not "Pakistan's official history" but rather "Azad Kashmir's official history". Pakistan never wrote any official history of the war, as far as I know.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Thanks for the clarification. I agree this is Azad Kashmir's official history and I also agree that the secondary source might be disagreeing with this (though I have yet to read this to confirm, I will take your word for it). How about we provide both sources and clarify that 'according to Azad Kashmir's official history ... however, this is contested by other historians who claim that the real action was carried out by Pakistan's PAVO Cavalry". I think this would provide the level of caution that you suggest, as well as clarify any speculation around this topic. I am personally aware that Khan of Mong is commonly known in the AK as the 'Fath-e-Mirpur' so this would be a good opportunity to clarify that the claim may not be entirely correct. I think completely censuring the official history because a secondary source disagrees with this might be extreme in this case.(Extendon (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC))
Sorry, it would be WP:UNDUE. The purpose of this page is to describe how the war happened. You should not even be touching it unless you have a solid WP:SECONDARY source on the war. (It is not just "contested" by other sources, it is entirely debunked.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 OK. I accept the point and agree to keep this point out. However, I have two further points on this section that we should consider. 1) if we consider the secondary source to be correct, namely that 'most of the action was carried out by Pakistan's PAVO Cavalry' then it is pertinent to the mechanics of the battle and should be mentioned here 2) if the scope of this section is purely on the mechanics of the battle, I don't see why we should have the subsequent statement about the atrocities carried out after it('women committing suicide/being sold in brothels'). It seems to have little to do with the mechanics of the war and unnecessarily introduces a judgemental tone in the narrative. I would, therefore, suggest we include the statement about PAVO Cavalary so that it does not appear as if the tribals executed the operation completely independently, and remove the subsequent statement about the treatment of women, which I believe is already treated in the 1947 Mirpur massacre section. Would you agree?
Request to Protect article as "Semi protect" or "Extended confirmed protection"
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To prevent vandalism, I am requesting to change the protection to Extended confirmed protection or least Semi protect.❯❯❯PravegA=9.806:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Requests for page protection need to be made at WP:RfPP. Moreover, page protection is normally applied only if excessive vandalism/disruption occurs. If not, we just need to watch and revert. That is life over here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Dubious LEAD revisions
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mehtar10, You have been WP:edit warring over dubious revisions to the lead. Your first source is a letter by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used. The second source is a book plagiarising Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It seems that this article which is cited as a Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one. The article was published in 2014, while India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace was published in 1998, 16 years earlier. The claim of 6000 Pakistani soldiers killed originated from an Indian source.
It seems like the author of the The News International article just wrote whatever casualty figure they could find, and since there is no figure other than the Indian claim, they ended up writing that.
So I don't think labelling the figure of 6000 killed as a Pakistani claim is correct. I cannot find a Pakistani source other than this article that supports these figures.
SpicyBiryani(talk)17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Researchgate is a social networking site while GlobalSecurity has been deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. This is a Pakistani source and supports the figures. I would really like to know why you removed this source on this edit and labelled the figure as "Indian claim". At times the figures are not believed differently by either sides, but they have mutual agreement. For example, India and Pakistan both agree that 1971 war saw more than 93,000 surrenders. I guess the same is the case here that's why you are seeing "Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one". Your personal research does not carry weight here. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source, while your random article from 2014 is? GlobalSecurity is widely used across Wikipedia. Its founder, John Pike, is a leading expert on defence. There's an entire page on the website dedicated to the praise it has recieved. It is cited by NYT here and here as a source on US military history, here by Reuters, here, here and here by The Washington Post, here by CNN, and in multiple books, such as:
Moreover, it is cited by some 23,200 articles on Google Scholar.
Secondly, you are yet to produce an official statement by Pakistan regarding the casualties from this war. The assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here. SpicyBiryani(talk)15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Result field
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Isra2003memon, you have been inserting "Pakistani victory" in the result field using your WP:Original research arguments. I am afraid this is not proper. Only facts mentioned in reliable sources can be added to Wikipedia. Given the contentious nature of the topic, multiple reliable sources would be needed to decide the result field. Please provide reliable sources for the content, or self-revert it. This page is covered under WP:ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3, you are an Indian and you are making changes on this article to make your country of India appear in a better light. You should not be making changes on a Wikipedia article that favor your country which includes fake statements that are made to make you happy. All sources should be provided before you make such changes and your stance should be neutral and apart from your personal opinion. I noticed that you made many changes that alter history to favor India. Please refrain from using your personal perceptions and your pro-India opinions when editing articles.
You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live HelpIRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access to the channel.
Toolbox info is incorrect
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The toolbox info is incorrect as it says that GB was annexed by Pakistan. GB was not annexed, rather it was acceded to Pakistan by the locals. According to various scholars, the people of Gilgit as well as those of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin, Punial, Hunza and Nagar joined Pakistan by choice and the Gilgit scouts willingly fought alongside Pakistan and the princely state of Chitral against the Indian/Dogra occupation. I have decided to delete the toolbox with the statement that GB was annexed because that is a false statement as Gilgit and its neighboring states signed a combined instrument of accession to Pakistan on November 18th 1947. Seeing the pro-Pakistani sentiment amongst the people of Gilgit, it is baseless to call it an annexation, also the fact that the Gilgit Scouts fought alongside Pakistan proves that GB had very strong pro-Pakistani sentiments. On the other hand could the same be said about India in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh? Did it have the favor of it's people? It was India that had annexed two thirds of Kashmir via an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator (Maharaja Singh) which was not favored by it's people. When a dictator accedes the territory that doesn't belong to him to another country without the approval of it's people, that is illegal annexation. India acted on an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator, what gives the right for one single man to decide the fate of millions? Pakistan was clearly the liberator.
See references:
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2010), "Three Forgotten Accessions: Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38 (1): 117–143, doi:10.1080/03086530903538269, S2CID 159652497
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (9 January 2016). "Gilgit-Baltistan—part of Pakistan by choice". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2017. Nearly 70 years ago, the people of the Gilgit Wazarat revolted and joined Pakistan of their own free will, as did those belonging to the territories of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin and Punial; the princely states of Hunza and Nagar also acceded to Pakistan. Hence, the time has come to acknowledge and respect their choice of being full-fledged citizens of Pakistan.
Zutshi, Chitralekha (2004). Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 309–. ISBN 978-1-85065-700-2.
Mahmud, Ershad (2008), "The Gilgit-Baltistan Reforms Package 2007: Background, Phases and Analysis", Policy Perspectives, 5 (1): 23–40, JSTOR 42909184
Sokefeld, Martin (November 2005), "From Colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan" (PDF), The Journal of Asian Studies, 64 (4): 939–973, doi:10.1017/S0021911805002287, S2CID 161647755
It is an unknown author and the short 1 page article has numerous errors:
He implies that "Kashmir and Jammu" were two kingdoms!
These kingdoms supposedly "opted independence", which is doubtful because there was no declaration of independence.
The Pakistani forces apparently entered Kashmir "under the guise of quelling tribal rebellion in the southwest region of the kingdom". No they came in support of the rebellion!
The British government was apparently still "involved" because Mountbatten "agreed to provide transport aircraft". In the first place, Mountbatten was a constitutional head of state, not a representative of the British government. The British government was not involved. In fact, it severely criticised the decision! Secondly, the transport aircraft, were Indian civilian aircraft, not Mountbatten's aircraft.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Ironman993, you added this bit to the lead: On 22 October 1947, amidst Pakistani fears of the Maharaja potentially acceding his Muslim-majority princely state to India (the war was launched).
On the face of it, it is true that Pakistan had such fears. But you can't make it look like a justification for the war. The Maharaja was at liberty to accede to whichever dominion he chose, according the 3 June Plan that was accepted by both the sets of leaders. Jinnah is on record as having explicitly acknowledged it. (I can dig up quotations for you, if you would like.) And let us also note that Jinnah accepted the accession of a Hindu-majority state prior to this, i.e., Pakistan had secular pretensions at this stage.
Secondly, the Maharaja could not have acceded to India without the support of Sheikh Abdullah. And Abdullah was open to negotiation with Pakistan. But Jinnah refused to negotiate with him![1] So just "fears" don't cut it. This is a WP:POV edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Historically the justification of the war was because of concerns that the Maharaja would accede the state to India. The Maharajah earlier had dismissed all his pro-Pakistani politicians and on 11 August, he dismissed his pro-Pakistan Prime Minister, Ram Chandra Kak, and appointed an Indian retired Major Janak Singh in his place. This was very alarming. On the same day, the Jammu Muslim Conference wrote to the Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan warning him that "if, God forbid, the Pakistan Government or the Muslim League do not act, Kashmir might be lost to them". So yes there were ongoing fears that the Maharajah would accede the Muslim majority state to India and because of that we could safely say that was the justification. Sheikh Abdullah represented the valley not the entirety of Kashmir, he also supported Congress of India, so his support for India would not have changed anything because he was just one politicians, the vast majority of Kashmiris who were Muslim did not favor the states accession to India. A plebiscite should have been held regardless of the views that individual politicians held. Earlier India had illegally annexed Hyderabad and Junagad on the basis that they were Hindu majority. If we are to apply the same logic here, then why should a Muslim Majority Kashmir go to India? It should go to Pakistan just like Hindu majority Hyderabad and Junagad went to India.
Further on, it was just not Pakistan who had fears of the Maharaja acceding the state to India, after all it was the Jammu conference that had initially wrote letters to the then PM Liaquat Ali Khan warning him about a possible accession to India. That said, the majority of Muslim Kashmiris did not favor the states accession to India, many Muslim Kashmiris fought against Indian occupation forces during this war, as such India should have never accepted the accession and should have stood by a plebiscite. In conclusion the justification for the war is entirely based on the fact that the Maharaja was planning to accede to India due to all the revolts and uprisings he was facing in his state. The removal of his pro-Pakistani politicians with pro-Indian also hinted the fact that he was planning on acceding to India if not immediately, some time later on down the road.
India had annexed Hyderabad even though the Nizam Osman Ali Khan chose to remain independent. Why did India invade Hyderabad when the Nizam chose to remain independent? Now you question why Pakistan invaded Kashmir? The answer is simple, the Maharaja was planning to accede the state to India and there were concerns of it due to his inability to control the Muslim revolts and uprisings in Kashmir.
Even for the sake of argument, if the fear of Maharaja's potential accession to India was not the crux of Pakistan's concern in the war, even then Pakistan is fully within it's rights to invade Kashmir just like how India had invaded Hyderabad and Junagad on the basis they were Hindu majority. Pakistan entering Kashmir on the basis it was a Muslim majority state shouldn't be surprising considering the fact that India did the exact same thing when it invaded and annexed Hyderabad and Junagad. Ironman993 (talk)
References:
Jha, Prem Shankar (March 1998), "Response (to the reviews of The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947)", Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 36 (1): 113–123, doi:10.1080/14662049808447762
Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India 2010, p. 103.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 (talk • contribs)
The lead should be a summary of what is already in the article main text. It should not have separately sourced points which are not in the main body. Also, please sensibly indent and sign your messages. (Hohum@) 23:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Ironman993, please focus on the issue at hand (not Hyderabad or Junagadh), and use WP:RS to back up your assertions. Also, avoid WP:SOAPBOXing, like speaking of "rights". Wikipedia does not argue, or pronounce judgements; it only provides information based on RS.
The Muslim Conference letter you mention (have you read it actually?) doesn't ask Pakistan to invade Kashmir. It was only seeking negotiations or perhaps political pressure, because Jinnah at that time had a non-interference policy. But Muslim Conference was not the only party in the state. National Conference was the other. Sheikh Abdullah led the National Conference. In order to acquire Kashmir, Pakistan would have needed to negotiate with both of them and buy their acceptance. But Pakistan refused to negotiate with Abdullah. I have provided an RS for that. So it is not as simple as "Maharaja and fears". Pakistan chose to use force instead of political negotiations. The agency rests with Pakistan. It wasn't "fears". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Did India negotiate with Osman Ali Khan before they invaded Hyderabad and massacred 200,000 Hyderabadi Muslinms? You claim that Pakistan chose force, did India not use force in Hyderabad? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 (talk • contribs)
Yes, India did negotiate for almost year and give an eventual ultimatum to Hyderabad. But that is not relevant here. And doesn't give you a license to do anything here as you please.
I have already added wording to explain Pakistan's motivations as scholars describe it. Nothing more is needed.
The source that you are repeatedly citing has nothing about the issue. It is a WP:FAKE citation. Even worse, it is a lousy FAKE citation, as I have explained in the section below. Persistent with this WP:BATTLEGROUND editing will get you into trouble. You have been already informed of ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Ironman993 You have been specifically told to focus on the issue under discussion. Not doing so, in spite thereof, may be interpreted as a sign of comprehension problem, or worse, a deliberate attempt to digress from the topic at hand. You must endeavor to touch upon the key points raised in the discussion if you wish to achieve consensus for your edits. You can begin by first grasping the issue, and then let your understanding define the direction of your comment. Lastly, sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ and make sure they are written clearly so you do not flounder trying to read your own writing. Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
And here is the letter from J&K Muslim Conference itself, reproduced in large parts:
Plus also all other political directions at that time. Nothing here points to any need for the Government of Pakistan to launch an invasion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of at least one reference
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947 says on page 19 ...it is hard to understand how any responsible Pakistani decision-maker could have believed that a war with India over Kashmir would result in Pakistani victory. That's not referencing Pakistani victory. In the absence of a full quote from the other claimed reference, I have removed the claim entirely. I have also removed the result from the lead entirely pending discussion on how it can be phrased properly. ] The result of the war was inconclusive. However, most neutral assessments agree that India was the victor of the war is an absurd construction. If most neutral assessments agree that India won (and looking at the quotes provided that does appear to be the case) then it wasn't inconclusive. FDW777 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
INA being moved to the other side
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Before the INA was present on Indian category, why was it moved to Pakistan? Instead of INA shown under Pakistan category, it should be British Indian Army not INA. INA was purely a India thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I suggest some kind of reframing. Once INA fell, many INA veterans chose to be employed (both formally and informally) by regional armed forces and local militias - I am certain that some INA veteran had fought for JKSF. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The GHQ Azad was run by INA veterans, with supervision and funding from Pakistan Defence Ministry, as well as supervision by the Pakistan GHQ in Rawalpindi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion
In the "Territorial changes" section, the infobox states, "Pakistan controls roughly a third of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India controls the rest (Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh"
However, this wording, as well as its source, refers to the present boundaries of Kashmir, rather than the changes that took place as a result of the war.
Shouldn't it say something along the lines of "Pakistan gains control of/captured roughly a third of Kashmir, whereas India retained the rest" ? Cipher21(talk)13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I called it hair-splitting. The territory that is currently under Pakistani control was never under independent India's control. So, why should we distinguish one from the other? What was under whose control when the conflict began? When did the conflict begin? There are a whole bunch of imponderables that you seem to think are obvious. And, where is an RS that says anything about these matters? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
And, to make it worse, Pakistan didn't "gain" it. As per the UN resolution that Pakistan accepted, those areas are to be administered by "local authorities", not Pakistan. This is a whole big boondoogle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I won't narrate the whole war - you can read the article for that - but the vast majority of territory Pakistan captured (such as Gilgit, Skardu, Baltistan and other areas in Ladakh) was captured after the state became part of India on the 26th of October, 1947. The article already goes into great detail about this, backed with plenty of RS. So yeah, I think it's accurate to say Pakistan invaded and gained control of these areas, while India defended the rest of the state.
A UN resolution is just a resolution. It doesn't have reality bending powers. The UN resolution says that Pakistan should withdraw its forces from its portion of Kashmir (implying it already controls it), and should hand over power to local authorities - which hasn't happened. Pakistan also agreed to UNSC Resolution 80 which calls for both sides to withdraw their militaries. That doesn't mean neither side controls any territory in Kashmir. Cipher21(talk)11:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
[1][2][3][4][5]. Again, the article makes it quite clear Pakistan was the one who invaded the state and India defended it. There's no need to cite more sources in the infobox when this fact has already been established in the article.Cipher21(talk)17:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers are only reliable for news, i.e., current happenings that they can observe and report. They are not reliable for history. Papers like India Today and Eurasian Times are probably not even reliable for news. How can you possibly cite a source that uses terms like "illegally occupied"? The first source is a copy of Wikipedia. Are you serious at all?
WP:NEWSORG does not state that newspapers are unreliable for history. In fact, the article already cites BBC in the "territorial changes" section of the infobox. The last source in the above list states India defended Kashmir from Pakistan: "The Indian army defended Kashmir against Pakistani aggression." (p. 324)
Anyway, here are some more RS:
Ghosh, Partha S. "An enigma that is South Asia: India versus the region." Asia-Pacific Review 20, no. 1 (2013): 100-120 "The 1947-48 war led to an outright loss for India in territorial terms (Pakistan captured more than two-fifths of the state..."
Wani, A.A., Khan, I.A. and Yaseen, T., 2021. Article 370 and 35A: Origin, Provisions, and the Politics of Contestation. In Society and Politics of Jammu and Kashmir (pp. 53-77). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. "… The Union of India was the official name of the country between independence on August 15, 1947 and the establishment of the Republic … This was followed by a war between India and Pakistan in which Pakistan captured a significant portion of Kashmir"
Panwar, Nidhi. "Roots of insurgency in Indian Jammu and Kashmir-A review." International Journal of Social and Economic Research 6.3 (2016): 78-104. "… When the fighting stopped, India was in control of two-thirds of the entire territory of the State of J&K, including the prized Kashmir Valley. Pakistan gained control of Azad Kashmir and three provinces in the north-west which together made up one-third of the State."
Khan, H.U., 2020. China, the emerging economic power: options and repercussions for Pak–US relations. International Politics, pp.1-26. "The foremost clash between the two countries is over the state of Kashmir, which has resulted in a war in 1948 in which Pakistan captured one-third of the Kashmir state..."
Singh, N., 2012. How to Tame Your Dragon: An Evaluation of India's Foreign Policy Toward China. India Review, 11(3), pp.139-160. "During the 1947 conflict between India and Pakistan, Pakistan captured certain areas of Ladakh... "
It's evident that Pakistan invaded the state (and "captured" or "gained" territory"), while India was the one defending it. The infobox's territorial changes section should reflect this. Cipher21(talk)08:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Noting the history of the wording: The initial wording seems to have been "took control of" for both India and Pakistan. In 2013, an IP editor changed it to "conquered" for Pakistan and "retained" for India. At that time, the article did not even credit Pakistan with the invasion. Towards the ed of 2016, Ghatuschanged it to "controls" on the grouns of NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I can see why Ghatus would want to change the wording. The IP editor did not cite any additional sources for their changes, and instead left the same old BBC citation. Logically, Ghatus would change the wording to match the BBC source - although it refers to the present day boundaries in present tense - to maintain NPOV.
However, unlike the IP editor and Ghatus, we have quite a few RS to work with - and that too, sources which actually address the topic at hand instead of describing the present day boundaries of the region. Cipher21(talk)17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Despite all this big talk, you have very little to show for substance. See WP:EMPTYASSERTION. Dubious arguments, devoid of merit, and which revolves around your own conjectures based on cherrypicked fragments from a handful of sketchy and cherrypicked sources do not inspire an ounce of confidence. You have not shown a single reliable source that remotely undergirds what increasingly looks to be an artificially concocted wording that flies in the face of WP:NPOVas this simple Gbooks search crystallizes. Ergo, I do not see a good reason to tamper with the present wording which conforms to NPOV and is borne out by the preponderance of sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Ironic for you to speak of cherrypicking when you have ignored every single source above as well as the entire discussion. See WP:IDHT. Your Google search yields results stating things along the lines of "India was left in control of two thirds of Kashmir." You cannot discard multiple WP:RS and other editors' opinions for no reason but the fact that you oppose them - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT - and this sort of behaviour will get you into trouble at ANI. Cipher21(talk)15:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
You are the one failing to get consensus for your edits in this case. I was talking about "preponderance of sources" than isolated instances. You are free to bring your behavior up for a review on ANI. Not one of your unreliable source use the word retain. Your sources include a tangentially related book passing one liner on 1947 war written by a Pakistani professor lacking requisite credentials which you had cherrypicked big time. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
All of the above reliable sources - both Indian, Pakistani and neutral - say Pakistan invaded the state and gained territory, while India defended the it. The results of your Google search state India was left with of 2/3 of Kashmir. Cipher21(talk)06:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Cipher21, what the sources say is fairly tangible, and that reflects in our phrasing too. Your personal convictions and conjectures are far from convincing, and there is not a chance that you will convince folks to sympathize with the same should you continue to regurgitate your miscomprehension and mischaracterize what other people or sources say. They also signify that you do not appreciate our core content policies, even after being advised to peruse the same. It doesn't help that you persist in being none the wiser. Wikipedia does not publish original research, nor is this a platform to ventilate revisionist viewpoints that have no basis in reliable scholarly sources. Learn the ropes and acquaintance yourself with the core content policies, as folks will not make allowances for long. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Cipher21, I have looked through your sources, but I am afraid they fail the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS test (except for perhaps Partha Ghosh). The sources must have substantial coverage of the topic in order for us to take their judgements at face value. Since these sources are each about something else and state something about the war in a cursory fashion, we can't be sure that theirs is a considered position. All we can say at best is that there is some reasonable group of scholars who are ready to think of the result of the war as a "Pakistani capture", well-informed or not.
Partha Ghosh's view is quite something else. The paper is about Great Power issues, and is so full of opinions that pretty much anything in it would have to be attributed on Wikipedia. It seems weird to include the 1947-48 war in any considerations of "Great Power" discussion, because India had just come out of colonial rule, was mired in extreme poverty, and was still dependent on Britain for a variety of things (including arms and supplies, and military officers). The 1947 war was not an all-out war, as everybody knows. It had the limited objective of driving out the "raiders" out of Kashmir, and even for that it faced still opposition from the British officials and the British government. The British pressured India to reach a negotiated settlement, and accordingly India took the issue to the UN. Any large-scale military operations after that were entirely ruled out. Talking about a win or loss in this situation is entirely inappropriate.
Coming back to the issue of whether it was "Pakistan" that captured the one-third of Kashmir, I am afraid we need an admission from Pakistan to that effect. And it would need to provide evidence too, because as far as we know it was various kinds of irregulars (local populace revolting, state force members rebelling or random militias raiding) who did the fighting and Pakistan was only providing them support in terms of money, arms and military leadership where needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Maps
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Being decorated for gallantry is not a ground or criterion for inclusion of a company commander in the parameter concerned. That would simply open the floodgates to even more entries. The relevant guideline for the same is set forth in the military conflict infobox documentation page and the same specifies as a general rule that the parameter should, if at all justified, enumerate one by one the names of only a handful of prominent or notable commanders, the upper limit being 7, which the article already outstrips, though that cannot be construed as giving you a free pass to preposterously clutter the same even further. This rationale was already made clear to you in my edit summary; it is quite another thing that you didn't (and still haven't!) get it or simply choose to be self-willed and intransigent. When you don't understand something someone told to you, ask that they elucidate the same or put it another way, rather than take recourse to WP:EW to make others acquiesce to your edit howsoever preposterous or problematic the same maybe. Many people, and that includes me, have enjoined you to make yourself acquainted with the policies and guidelines for partaking in editing Wikipedia in a constructive spirit, but it seems that you have taken no such advice on board at all, and continue to ride roughshod over and take liberties with the same. Know that such conduct is not ordinarily condoned for long. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
One former coordinator of MILHIST (and an admin) writes, As far as commanders are concerned, the instructions currently specify that the field should include "the commanders of the military forces involved" and that "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed"; but defining "commander" and "prominent" more precisely has intentionally been left to the subject experts for each particular topic. The end result needs to be helpful to the reader; beyond that, trying to develop a one-size-fits-all rule to things like this doesn't strike me as a particularly useful thing to do.
I don't think we can include him. The infobox field is meant for people that determine the higher direction of the conflict. Of course, some people come in purely by virtue of their rank. But neither of the criteria applies to Col. Thapa. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thapa was in charge of Skardu, which isn't some random small town or village, but a major city - the largest in both Gilgit-Baltistan and Ladakh. The Siege of Skardu was more than significant enough to warrant his inclusion. For reference, Iftikhar Janjua and S.M. Anwar are included in infoboxes (while other commanders of higher ranks are not) for their roles in the Battle of Chamb and Operation Dwarka , both of which are less significant events than the fall of a the largest city in the region. Cipher21(talk)16:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the infobox is to provide an "at a glance" summary of the article and is an adjunct to the lead in this respect. Consequently, as for the lead, it should reflect and sumarise the content of the article body. Per the template documentation: Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article. In its present form, it does more to confuse rather than aid the understanding of the reader. The article itself gives a very superficial summary of the war itself, which is supposed to be the primary topic of the article. It gives no perspective of the scale of the engagement. Back to the infobox, all of this flagcruft is about as useful as bunting at a football match and is quite inappropriate. More to the point, about 80% of the leaders on both sides are only mentioned in the infobox. Their mention is not supported by the article at all and should be struck from the infobox. Just because a reference exists does not mean that it should be included. Further, in the case of K. M. Cariappa, their contribution to the war (according to the article) was to change the name of an operation: Operation Duck, the earlier epithet for this assault, was renamed as Operation Bison by Cariappa. This is a war that was presumably fought by corps or even army sized formations. IAW the template documentation, these are the sort of commanders that might be listed, along with the national leaders - political and military. To the matter of Thapa, at least he gets more than a passing mention but he is hardly in the league of generals. If the sources (and subsequently the article) say that he had a pivotal role in the outcome of the war, he might rate a place. They don't. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
That's my point. Thapa and Skardu are given significant importance in the article and are mentioned many times, more than people already in the infobox like like K. M. Cariappa.
In the Kashmir Valley the tribal forces continued attacking the Uri garrison. In the north, Skardu was brought under siege by the Gilgit Scouts.[113]
The Kashmir State army was able to defend Skardu from the Gilgit Scouts impeding their advance down the Indus valley towards Leh. In August the Chitral Scouts and Chitral Bodyguard under Mata ul-Mulk besieged Skardu and with the help of artillery were able to take Skardu. This freed the Gilgit Scouts to push further into Ladakh.[115][116]
The Pakistani attacked the Skardu on 10 February 1948 which was repulsed by the Indian soldiers.[118] Thereafter, the Skardu Garrison was subjected to continuous attacks by the Pakistan Army for the next three months and each time, their attack was repulsed by the Colonel Sher Jung Thapa and his men.[118] Thapa held the Skardu with hardly 250 men for whole six long months without any reinforcement and replenishment.[119] On 14 August Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army[120] and raiders after a year long siege.[121]
Again, I will reiterate the fact that Skardu was an important city and the largest in the region. For an example of what RS say, Brown, William (2014), Gilgit Rebelion: The Major Who Mutinied Over Partition of India, Pen and Sword p.268 states Skardu was attacked because Gilgit could be threatened from there. Cipher21(talk)04:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
You miss my point. In a "war" a Lieutenant Colonel is too far down the pecking order to be considered a "prominent or notable leader" per the advice given at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. However, if there were a case for his inclusion (that his contribution was exceptional to the outcome of the war), it would be clearly evident from the article. It is not (notwithsatnding your quotes). As I have said, the article gives a very superficial summary of the war and further, it is not supported by sound subordinate articles. Also, the article waffles in the lead-up, where it too could be supported by sound subordinate articles. My significant point is that efforts should be directed at improving the body of the article (and subordinate articles) rather than arguing over such a matter. Get the big things right and the rest will follow naturally. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Infobox bloat
Following from the main discussion, I have removed some commanders from the infobox with this comment: Fixing infobox bloat. RM commanders whose inclusion is not supported by mention elsewhere in the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarise the article. This was reverted by Kautilya3. The infobox should and must reasonably reflect the body of the article. What goes in the infobox should naturally follow the article. It doesn't. My edit addresses only one of the many issues with the infobox. There is a similar issue with combatants and an issue with flag icons which, at the very least, are inaccurate. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
When the article is well-developed, yes, the infobox would reflect the body. But you know that is not the case. Any list information should be reasonably complete. So, if you think any entries should be removed, that needs to be discussed.
For my part, I think "Kashmir Singh Katoch" could be removed. I haven't seen any information that he was a commander. -- 12:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)
Of the "commanders" I have culled from the infobox, none of these appear to have any mention in the body of the article at all (let alone in the actual war). Any list information should be reasonably complete is not an accepted/acceptable argument under guideline or policy. Indiscriminate information is a disservice to the reader. The advice is to limit the list to the prominent or notable leaders. This is a "bloated" list and the article does not show at all why those deleted are prominent or notable. The course is to improve the article. It is not to retain that which is "poor" just because it exists. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ONUS doesn't say anything of the kind. Longstanding content remains until CONSENSUS changes. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. And that is a policy.
I don't see anybody making a case for anything except for lecturing people on policies. None of them contributed a word to the article either. All the entries that were removed were reasonably well-sourced, and the sources do explain what role they played. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Cinderella, her version of the infobox is much better at getting the most important info across to the reader. (t · c) buidhe22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not seeing a consensus for inclusion. Lack of mention in an article is reason for removal but mention itself does not establish reason for inclusion. There does appear to be a consensus for reduction rather than expansion of this field. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So many Indians with fake claims always talk about their victory in all wars.
But here I will only talk about the topic related war which is 1947-48 war.
They are every where to prove their fake victory.
I have readed the history not only Indian version but Pakistani and natural versions too.
And I'm not going into deep conversations.
I'll make it so simple and understandable.
Pakistan in 1947-48 captured most of the kashmir which india also claims as their territory later,
Now whatever the reasons behind Pakistan captured kashmir and whatever the reasons behind India claiming as whole kashmir as their I'm not going into this bla bla bla...
The point is Pakistan occupied the territory which india claims as their.
So its enough to say Pakistan won 1947-48 war.
First of all Indians need to understand wars causes damage to both sides but India also lost the territories which they claims as their despite having accession of Raja.
In my point of view India lost that war with a great damage,
And Pakistan won. Ali Shah (Markhor) (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Mistaken complaint
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.
@Cinderella157: and @Truthwins018:- Do not edit war. As per discretionary sanctions, you may be blocked from editing this article permanently if you continue this behaviour. If you have been reverted, achieve consensus before attempting to enforce your edits.
If you read my comment, "you and the other user" have reverted twice. The statement stands. With clear knowledge that the material was contested, and that it had been previously been attempted to be introduced to the article(and reverted), it was re-instated. You have not yet replied as to whether you have a logical argument why the edit should not be reverted till a consensus is achieved. If you do not have such an argument, it seems a revert would be in order.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
CapnJackSp, You appear to be alleging that I have made two reverts in a way that would constitute edit warring (and that another has also). I have not engaged in edit waring. However, I am the editor that has taken a lead in trying to resolve a dispute between other editors. You might then wait until that dispute resolution process has run its course before any action that preempts such an outcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It was not my intention to insinuate that there were two reverts each. I missed that the reverts happened months ago, so theres no issue about the edits. However, generally, it is better to get a consensus when reverted for the first time, instead of reinstating with one line edit summary. Just for future editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
CapnJackSp, as you are the OP, can I suggest that you archive this (as the next best thing to a redaction) before somebody here seriously considers your posts here to be disruptive and take further action. Just a thought. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, when you open a talk page discussion in future, please include diffs of the edits you are complaining about. You are asking too much of us if you go off ranting without even saying what it is about. I am closing this discussion now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
6000 casualties figure
Latest comment: 2 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion
Info box mentions casualties of both sides Indian and Pakistan as 1,104 and 6000 respectively.
The 6000 figure is highly questionable and isn't mentioned in any press release by the ISPR[1]. Presenting a staunch figure seems illogical as the war included many combined fractions and is not well documented in terms of casualty count. Global security[2] is a comparatively trusted source (not the best offcourse) and is neutral.
I propose its mentioning with a change from 6000 to 1500-6000. New section is added due to lack of concensus in an earlier sectionTruthwins018 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The previous discussion addressed the reliability (or lack of it) for the two sources cited by the OP here. A search and quick scan of the RS noticeboard for Globalsecurity.org does not indicate it is in good standing. The 6,000 figure does appear to be quoted by both sides (per above discussion). Globalsecurity cites this source and at p 571 it gives a figure of 1,500. Unless there are substantial reasons to dispute the source, I would have no issue in amending both the infobox and body of the article to "1,500–6,000", citing the source I have given, in addition to those already cited. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Going by the sources on the internet, and the time of this war, none of the sources can be deemed reliable [3]. The 6000 casualties source is cited by an article of The News [4] doesn't make it certain where the casualty is cited from and seems to be picked on the internet by the writer (probably wikipedia). The best source on the internet is surely provided by the Federal research division of the libary of congress[5] which somewhat passes the neutrality factor aswell. Globalresearch.org has been deemed questionable but why is its quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [6] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar[7] not questioned ?
1,500 certainly deserves to be included in the info box, as a somewhat acceptable term. [8]Truthwins018 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the 6000 figure originates from Indian sources and The News source looks like WP:CIRC. We should label it as an Indian claim, and the 1500 one as a neutral one, as on other war articles. Cipher21(talk)04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Saying that reliable sources have mirrored Wikipedia does not make it so, and attempts to muddy the waters are unconstructive. Global security org is not a reliable source for war casualties, not to mention the contradiction with other RS. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, after reading through RSN, as well as Truthwins018's and SpicyBiryani's comments above, I have learnt that it is widely cited by RS such as Reuters and The New York Times (as well as numerous articles and books). Cipher21(talk)18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
As no obvious consensus is reached on global security being unreliable and it quoting figures from this source at page 571, it seems obvious to quote them so far. As Cipher21 and Cinderella157 have mentioned, the info box should be changed showing various figures. I propose figures being quoted as 1500 estimate on both indian and pakistani sides as a neutral claim and 6000 casualties as indian claim. this source source by far is the most trustworthy keeping in view the years of the event and the neutrality of the source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Globalsecurity.org is a web site, not a published work. It is user-contributed, much like Wikipedia. If the information is not well-sourced or signed with a recognizable author, you can't use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
Kautilya3 you seem to have randomly jumped in the discussion without going through all of it. Kindly go through all to know that global security.org also quotes some other source which seems reputable neutral source at page 571 as quoted by Cinderella157 and the reliability of global security.org has also been discussed and consensus is reached upon by 2-3 users alreadyTruthwins018 (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The wording in the India Country Study and globalsecurity.org are identical. So we can assume it is the same information that has been duplicated.
It is just a made-up figure pulled out of hair. For instance, what is meant by "soldiers" for the Pakistani side? The Indian figure, though unsatisfactory, would at least be based on some ground information. I would be fine to label it as "Indian claim". The 1,500 figure is not worth bothering about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The handbook furnished revolves around a general theme of the country India and touches on the war at issue in passing, with no reference to any source for the casualty figures. Unless better sources are provided, the existing content will stay as is as undergirded by reliable sources. The handbook fails WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
No, the handbook seems pretty reasonable in the case of this event and the sources available. It is the only neutral casualty figure available and also worked upon by the Federal Research Division of Congress. It directly mentions the figures so WP:CONTEXTMATTERS cannot imply. The 6000 casualty figure also has no reference to any source e.g from the ISPR. It is thus that it is available also in the estimated range of casualty figures, although i believe it should be mentioned under a subtitle of indian claimed Truthwins018 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible; you may have comprehension problems, that doesn't preclude others from calibrating a source. Kerberous (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Information in the source neutral source is definetely not impyling WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It would seem to imply if the source was on some other country and mentioning thus the information. The source clearly is on one of the participating countries of the war and under a section on National Security. It also mentions all the other Indo-Pak wars. It is fine to present the source as an estimate from 1500-6000. The 6000 figures also seem dubious and WP:BIASED. Even citation of The News source looks like WP:CIRC as mentioned by Cipher21. No official statementhas been given by Pakistani authorities to ascertain the casualty figure. The 1,500 source is cited here [[1]] and on global security.org which has quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [9] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar[10] including reuters as SpicyBiryani has mentioned earlier.Truthwins018 (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear from any of the sources just what these figures represent (ie the context). In each case, there are "official" casualties of the two national militaries but there are also military casualties that were not officially part of the two national militaries. I would suspect that the lower figures (ie 1000-1500) are the "official" casualties. The 6000 figure is likely the total combatant figure for Pakistan. The total for India might be similarly higher if it were to include the Kashmir state forces etc. This is of course my assessment and counts for naught at the end of the day. We must rely on the sources that we have - as imperfect as they might be. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Cinderella157, The J&K State Forces were under the command of the Indian Army, and their casualties would have been counted just the same way as the Army's own. This was not the case for Pakistan. All its fighters were irregulars; nobody (in Pakistan) knew how many were fighting or how many had died. They simply didn't keep track. The Pakistan Army itself did fight, two brigades or something. They were in the back and probably provided backup and artillery support. Their casualties would have been negligible. The term "soldiers" used by the source is quite misleading.
The knee-jerk equation of India and Pakistan that this source is using is precisely what destroys its credibility. It shows a complete lack of understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Kautilya3, you make assumptions about what did or did not happen. Your views (as are mine) are irrelevant (ie WP:OR). We have to survive with what we have and report them neutrally. I do believe that the present status does this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The presupposed paucity of sources is not a grounds for lowering the yardstick for assessing sources, especially when the source contradicts the existing reliable sources with a broad-brush. As already enjoined by others before, find a better source for making changes to the casualties, as this one doesn't inspire confidence. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my unexplained revert but it was done by mistake. It has already been explained by Cinderella157 and is definetely inspiring confidence. The reasons have clearly been stated. In this topic, it is only neutral to state it as an estimate of both. Read the above discussion. You changed the article without actually making a point. Opinion doesn't carry weight here. Hope you understand WP:ORTruthwins018 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: But still, you know you are in an untenable position and you don't have a consensus for the revert you made. File an RfC or pursue other avenues but statusquo should be maintained until you get consensus. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Reasult of RfC
The RfC has now been closed. This was a technical close that the source was considered unreliable, more for the lack of evidence that it is a WP:RS than that the evidence doesn't exist:
... does not show that India: A Country Study is widely cited by reliable sources. Similarly, no one has shown that the authors of the work are themselves widely-cited or accepted experts in their field, and no one has shown that the publisher of the work, Federal Research Division, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is widely-cited in this field (nor has there been any evidence of actual or presumed fact-checking occurring in the publication of this work).
Some post close comments evidence that these requirements can be easily met. [2],[3],[4] My own searches would indicate that the editors (those exercising oversight) are considered eminent in respect to south Asian history and like. It appears clear that the closers rational for making their close could be readily addressed. On the otherhand, the discussion at WP:RSN raised significant concerns with the other sources being used to support the casualty figures reported - ie that none of the sources are adequate for the purpose of reporting casualty figures. Consequently, there would appear to be a couple of courses open from here:
Reopen a WP:RSN thread and provide the evidence that would likely conclude the Country Study source reliable. If it doesn't, then remove material attributed to it.
Leave things as they are, given the likely outcome - ie a new WP:RSN is probably just wasting everybodies time.
Delete the casualty figures totally because none of the sources are reasonably adequate for that purpose.
Find good quality sources to support the article (particularly casualty figures). Whether or not the existing material is deleted in the mean time is a subsidiary question but deleting them is likely to stimulate activity.
Delete the country study figures and nothing else.
Option 4 is clearly the best path but it assumes that such sources do exist and I'm not certain they do since it is reasonable to assume that they would have been found and used by now if they did. There is probably going to be a lot of argument against option 3 - not because it isn't an appropriate course but because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is common sense in preferring option 2 over option 1. Option 5 assumes that nobody is going to advance option 1. Comments on how to proceed please. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
Cindereall157's edits
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
@Cinderella157: I also checked the RSN result and it seems that the source is indeed unreliable. Nobody except you, one user and a sock puppet ever agreed here with that source anyway against numerous editors who opposed the inclusion all the time so I think you are better off moving away from this part of the topic per WP:STICK. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)06:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, there is an open discussion above (#Reasult of RfC). The RfC at RSN was closed for technical reasons: In sum, while the numerical margin against reliability was small, the arguments in favor of reliability objectively did not meet the bar set in WP:RS, which is a requirement for inclusion as documented at WP:V. It is possible that editors may, in the future, bring forward new information about the source that convinces other editors that it meets the requirements of WP:RS; consensus can change. The post close discussion (ping MGetudiant, John M Baker and Tayi Arajakate who contributed there, and the closer Levivich) clearly indicate that the technical reasons for the close could readily be satisfied.
Rather than grabbing the stick by the wrong end and wielding it around, it would be better to contribute to the above discussion to build a consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Cipher21 was a sock , we shouldn't be considering his comments anywhere. The RSN discussion (that went against you) still considered the sock's comments.
Result of the RSN discussion was not overturned, and even if it was, you would still need consensus here to include it since you never had one as correctly pointed out here. 11:24, 16 May 2022
Just remove the entire casualties field in the infobox. It's not the strongest source (imo) but it's certainly stronger than the rest, most of which aren't even adequately independent so there's no justification for solely removing that one. Tayi ArajakateTalk04:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. When the Indian military itself admits that it lost over 3,000 soldiers, a source that says "each side" lost 1,500 is being ridiculously naive and ill-informed. Hardly a "strongest source". WP:VNOTSUFF. See WP:RSTERTIARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any source from Indian military saying 3,000 dead. The figure of 1,104 killed and 3,154 wounded for India is accurate. I just added good source here. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:
During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.[1]
So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It is possible that all the Indian military writers just reported their own casualties and ignored those of the State Forces. If that is supposed to be reasonable, then by the same count, it would also be reasonable to count only Pakistani Army casualties like the US Federal Research Division did. You can't have your cake and eat it too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The picture of Pakistani troops in position is wrong it's from the 1965 war. Pakistani troops weren't that much well equipped during the Gilgit Baltistan liberation war. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pr0pulsion 123 I uploaded this one which is suitable for this article.
Pashtun warriors from different tribes on their way to Kashmir and Gilgit during the Kashmir Liberation War C.1947-48Xtreme o7 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, as it also appears in [5] - relating to the 1948 war. It seems the Pakistan army is inconsistent in its use of images. - Arjayay (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Of course the governor generals had a bigger role. But somewhere it should be mentioned who the king of each country was. In the pages for World War I and Indian Rebellion of 1857 for example kings or queens were listed.
Ok, your point is valid. Now the next question is why no mention of the king in the article? Given the unique situation, it would be very interesting to know what the king did or did not. There must be some valid source on the topic.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Joooshhh - because this is a change to the infobox, it's possible there's already a reliable source cited somewhere in the article prose. If that's the case please just point me to it and WP:PING me to take a look (or leave a note on my talk page). I'll leave this open a while longer in case another editor cares to review or hunt down a source. --N8wilson🔔18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@N8wilson: Found this in the article - In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mehndar Valley.[94], the cited source being Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, pp. 65–67. Re12345 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I am going to revert this edit on the grounds that, even if Pakistan troops were not deployed in Kashmir prior to May 1948, the Pakistan Army was fully involved. Here are some extracts from General Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain's talk at an ISPR-organised conference:[8]
"When Quaid-e-Azam was briefed about all this [on or around 27 October 1947], he kept quiet, General Gracey then asked his permission to draw his own plan."
"The first thing after this conversation was selection of suitable officers. officers were picked up from the army. Brigadier Akbar had served with General Gracey on the Burma front and was recommended for Victoria Cross but was awarded D.S.O. due to lack of evidence. A cell for planning on Kashmir was created in Military Operations Directorate under Brigadier Sher Khan. Similarly a branch under Adjutant General was opened which was assigned the job of selecting those officers who had been associated with Kashmir or the State forces. Such officers were sent to assist the Mujahideen and were shown as retired or absent without leave".
General Wajahat further said that "apart from planning military operations, General Messervy had a close liaison with the civil authorities. He used to come to the office at half past seven, Brigadier Sher Khan would present the report on the previous twenty four hours and get instructions for the next day. Then they would visit the operations room where consultations would continue till 10 a.m. Thereafter rest of the affairs were handled. In the evening General Gracey would visit Commissioner Rawalpindi, attired in civil clothes. Briadier Sher Khan, GOC 7 Division Major General Tottenham and a couple of other Brigadiers like Brigadier Azam Khan or Brigadier Akbar used to be present. The deliberations would continue till late at night. Every second or third day General Gracey used to submit the progress report to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who himself used to come once or twice a week, accompanied by Secretary General Mohammad Ali. Once in a fortnight or so Defence Secretary Colonel Sikandar Mirza would pay a visit".
Thanks for the explanation Kautilya3. Working only with the prose of this article leads me to believe the May date is simply the nominal/official entry but not necessarily the first involvement of any form. In IB discussions such as this I tend to lean toward pruning information out so that readers in search of finer or more nuanced details must rely on the prose anyway. That is to say, I'm fine with this revert and appreciate the added context you've provided here. --N8wilson🔔22:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: and @N8wilson: - That's proxy warfare, not direct involvement of Pakistani troops. For example, we don't say that the Pakistan Army was directly at war with the Soviet union in Afghanistan - we say that they supported the Mujahideen - even though, like this war, Pakistani officers were coordinating many attacks with the mujahideen, including raids into Soviet territory. But after May 1948, regular Pakistani foot soldiers directly entered Kashmir and began fighting their Indian counterparts.
A more appropriate way to represent this would be to indicate that til 1948, the AJK irregulars were supported by Pakistanis - but it was not until after this date that the regular Pakistan Army itself entered Kashmir. Please refer to this infobox -
It was clandestine warfare, not just proxy warfare. The Army was involved in many ways, directly on the ground, even before its official declaration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Sending officers to coordinate and plan attacks (supporting) is very different from sending 10s of thousands of regular troops to fight (direct belligerent). Re12345 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
^"Furqan Force". Persecution.org. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
^"Failures and Successes of Kashmir War: Muzaffarabad Seminar - 27 November, 1990", Defence and Media 1991, Inter Services Public Relations, Pakistan, 1991, pp. 114–125
Wrong link
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments3 people in discussion
@Kautilya3: Your edit reverted more than just infobox edits. Why Indian gain (which is bigger) shouldn't be entered first? Not to mention that India is described as the victor of this war by many sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the edit because you replaced the existing precise wording (one-third and two-thirds) with wooly wording like "most of Kashmir". You did this in both the infobox and the body. Yes?
As to which country should go first and which should go second, we don't want to engage in enormous hair-splitting. The question doesn't interest me. (We write Wikipedia for literate readers, who read and try to understand the substance, not verbal gimmicry.) But I don't want to see to-ing and fro-ing between the sides. So unless there is a strong reason for change, for which WP:CONSENSUS can be obtained, the STATUSQUO should remain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
"Most of Kashmir" is the right way to define it because "Kashmir" also includes Aksai Chin and Pakistan or India never fought a battle in Aksai Chin or had any control there.
The current wording is more dubious than you think. It is "Pakistan controls roughly a third of", "whereas India controls the rest".
In line with your message on above section, it seems that Pakistan army was "fully involved" in this conflict before Indian army attacked Kashmir.
In this sense, I am wondering how "Pakistan controls roughly a third" would be relevant. It lost control over most of Kashmir. At best it can say "Pakistan retains control over area what came to be known as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, while "India gains control over most of Kashmir" which is still a reality.
See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOOR. You need to provide multple high-quality reliable sources for whatever wording you want to propose and argue that that is how the majority of RS describe the result. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
We can discuss the result later but first we need to resolve the issue over "most of Kashmir". See what sources say:
Duiker, W.J. (2014). Contemporary World History. Cengage Learning. p. 293. ISBN978-1-305-15628-9. India also seized most of Kashmir but at the cost of creating an intractable problem that has poisoned relations with Pakistan to the present day.
DeRouen, K.R.; Heo, U. (2007). Civil Wars of the World: Major Conflicts Since World War II. Civil Wars of the World: Major Conflicts Since World War II. ABC-CLIO. p. 417. ISBN978-1-85109-919-1. Auchinleck's refusal to allow British participation in Kashmir perhaps proved decisive in the military conflict as India took control of most of Kashmir.
I am afraid you didn't process what I said. So here it is again. Point 1: You cannot replace precise wording in the the infobox by vauge wording. (This is independent of whatever sources you have produced). Point 2: For any other changes, you need to state the change you want made and back it up with RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Above sources are enough for supporting my original wording: "Most of Kashmir fell to Indian control, while Pakistan gains one-third of the region." This is what I am still proposing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
"Two-thirds" was apparently changed to "most of" in this edit without any source. It was probably a misguided copy-edit.
None of your sources sway me. None of them are specialists in Kashmir and it is doubtful if they even know what "Kashmir" means. The last source is a Master's thesis. The first source is a constitutional lawyer from the 1950s. You will find many dubious statements and claims in them. If "Kashmir" is supposed to mean the Kashmir Valley, then "most of Kashmir" would be wrong since India has all of Kashmir. If they mean the Kashmir Division (which was called "Kashmir province" in 1947), then it would be true. If they mean the whole of the Kashmir region, then it would be wrong again. It is perfectly normal for non-specialist authors to pick up tidbits from here and there and regurgitate them without understanding what they mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I have no nationalistic iron in this fire. I have made an edit that tends to follow that by Abhishek0831996. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, we don't write the article in the infobox. It should be an at a glance summary. It is not a place for intricate detail. Detail belongs in the body of the article and perhaps in the lead. I have edited the territory parameter to read: One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder[1][2] IMHO, this is a summary that best conforms to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. To the result, I believe that this has been flogged to death, resuscitated and flogged to death again. It is an ex parrot. Neither side got what they wanted. Both sides got something before the UN stepped in. Per MOS:MIL an appropriate result would be the see aftermath section option - the nearest existing section being the Moves up to cease-fire section but that isn't great. The alternative is to omit the result parameter. IMHO, the status quo (United Nations-mediated ceasefire) is a reasonable WP:IAR alternative to the guidance at MOS:MIL. However, the dot-points that follow are intricate detail and I have removed these as being inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and usage of the result parameter per MOS:MIL. I would suggest that the article could be improved by expanding detail on the cease-fire and aftermath that would address some of the detail mentioned. I have retitled two sections as a start. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: Thanks for improvements but there is more. There are three Kashmirs. One that is controlled by India, another that is controlled by Pakistan and the last one is Aksai Chin which was never controlled by either countries. Sources I mentioned above say "most of Kashmir" falling into Indian hands instead of "rest of Kashmir" or "remainder of Kashmir", because they know about Aksai Chin. Can you discuss this issue and change the wording? Thanks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
What Kautilya3 has asked. This appears to me to be splitting hairs and a non-starter. If there is any substance to this, it should be supported by the article in the first instance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: But this question does not make sense because India established "control over the Kashmir valley and most parts of Jammu and Ladakh before a UN-sponsored ceasefire."[6] "Aksai Chin" (part of Kashmir) is not on the list. That's why we cannot describe "remainder" or "rest of Kashmir" falling in Indian control. It gives false impression that Aksai Chin was also a part of this battle because it comes under Kashmir but in actual it was not a part of this battle and was not controlled by Pakistan or India. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
If you are making assertions about what sources do or do not mean, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for verification. The relative areas are defined by the UN cease-fire per this map. I have change the description in the territory parameter to read One-third of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder, since the war was fought over the principality. Kautilya3, do you see any issue with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderalla157: But Kautilya3 changed here changed the earlier text to "successfully defended the majority of the contested territory"(emphasis mine). So why infobox cannot say the same? I would support modifying the current wording to "One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over the majority of territory". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir : the unwritten history. Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. ISBN978-93-5029-897-8. OCLC849305950. After Partition in 1947, Jammuites engaged in three significant actions. The first was a Muslim uprising in the Poonch area of western Jammu province against the unpopular Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The second was serious inter-religious violence throughout the province that killed or displaced larger numbers of people from all religious communities. The third was the creation of Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir in the area of western Jammu Province that the 'rebels' had 'freed' or 'liberated'. These significant actions all took place before the Maharaja acceded to India on 26 October 1947. They divided 'his' Muslim-majority state and confirmed that it was undeliverable in its entirety to either India or Pakistan. They instigated the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over which state should possess J&K—the so-called 'Kashmir dispute{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Fareed, Rifat. "The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-03-21. The killings triggered a series of events, including a war between two newly independent nations of India and Pakistan, which gave birth to Kashmir dispute.
Not done. The sources don't say what you claim (except I haven't checked Al Jazeera, which is a newspaper op-ed, not a reliable source for history. Neither is it clear that the so-called massacres took place before the invasion. And they are not part of the war in any case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
But Snedden (2001) outright says The tale of a massacre of Muslims caused a chain of events that produced the Kashmir dispute my bad on not copying this quote properly initially - the text was not copy paste-able
Al-Jazeera is not an op-ed, it's published in the news section, not the opinion section. It also attributes the article's contents to Al-Jazeera itself at the bottom of the page. And although HISTRS is not a Wikipedia policy page and its guidelines aren't set in stone, I couldn't find any mention of newspapers being considered unreliable - it simply says when available, scholarly sources are preferred.
In fact, it states This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement.Solblaze (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I may or I may not. It depends on what you want to say based on it. Note that Snedden's book considered quite biased in India.[7][8] Morever, it is now known pretty conclusively that the Pakisani invasion of Kashmir was decided on 12 September. There was pretty much no violence in Jammu on that date, "massacre" or otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
19 September 1947 (1947-09-19): The Muslim Conference acting president Choudhri Hamidullah and general secretary Ishaque Qureshi were summoned by Pakistani prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan and briefed about Pakistan's invasion plans.[7]
As for the note in the infobox, I'd prefer it be removed altogether, but it can be altered to have a similar phrasing. Solblaze (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Since I have been pinged. For the record, I have no nationalistic ties to the subject and to that extent, my observations are objective. I declined the original edit request because it was insufficiently precise as to what was to be added where. I have since kept a watch on this discussion. I observe that the citations are not as complete as they might be. Perhaps the most pertinent part of the proposed text is fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of, which cites two sources. I cannot access the first. For the second, the hyperlink is to the home page of Frontline and an extensive search by author and title does not reveal the cited article. The assertion by Solblaze is that there was a direct causative effect between the 1947 Jammu massacres and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. The opposition by Kautilya3 is that there was not. Solblaze has cited sources and provided quote snippets to support their assertion. For myself, I am uncomfortable making an assessment based on quotes alone without the fuller context in which they were made. I have considered the following articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, 1947 Jammu massacres, 1947 Poonch rebellion and Kashmir conflict. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 is part of the ongoing Kashmir conflict. The partition, rebellion, massacares and first war arguably initiated the conflict. Hence, where sources might assert that [t]hey [including the 1947 Jammu massacres] instigated the ongoing dispute, it does not necessarily mean that they instigated the first war since the dispute is much greater than the first war. That is why the fuller context of a quote is important.
The proposal is to assert a causative relationship: that the massacres were a cause of the first war. To even entertain such a case, the massacres must precede the war and even then, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a caution. In respect to establishing clear timelines leading up to the start of the war on 22 October 1947, the articles are quite poor. The Poonch rebellion, between June 1947 – October 1947 clearly predates the official start of the war. There is also a clear causative link between the rebellion, Indian intervention and the start of the war. The massacres occurred between October 1947 – November 1947, with the first indication being 14 October. They certainly don't appear to cause the rebellion (the rebellion predates the massacre) and are more likely to be a response to the rebellion - with both being a response/result of partition. While the massacres may have slightly preceded the start of the war I am not seeing a reasonable case for asserting they were a cause of the first war. On the otherhand, I am seeing a reasonably likely case to assert they were causative of the Kashmir conflict, along with the other events (the partition, rebellion, massacares and first war) but the conflict is not synonymous with the first war.
Consequently, on the information before me, and having given full consideration to all of that information to the extent I am able, I cannot action the change, even if it were to be more precise as to what was to be added where. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 - In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh's delaying tactics. - from BBC - combined with Al Jazeera stating the same, and Snedden writing that the wider conflict was sparked by outrage at the killings of Muslims should be sufficient (I believe I provided a url to Snedden in my citations)
I think we all can agree it's a bit unfair the article doesn't mention Hari Singh's shenanigans when it says the tribes invaded and "started" the conflict. Solblaze (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Solblaze, we now deal with quite a separate issue: that massacres of Muslims preceding the Muslim uprising in the west and not one which was subsequent to the start of the war. The Al Jazeera article is not relevant as I read it, since it is quite clearly dealing with events in November. Both Al Jazeera and the BBC are news sources and are not what would be considered good quality sources for this purpose. Sneddon however is a different matter. Unfortunately, I cannot access either of his works save a preview of the journal article. At the second paragraph he states: There are two reasons why this massacre, if it occurred, is important. I would tend to agree. While it is clear that Pakistan planned an uprising, massacre/s and/or riots against Muslims would have played to such a plan. Sneddon likely refers to events around the 1947 Poonch rebellion. This article presently states: "exaggerated reports of events in Poonch circulated in these Pakistan districts in which State troops are cited as the aggressors." In light of Sneddon (and any other good quality sources on this), we might modify what the article has to say but the 1947 Poonch rebellion is the main article for those events. However, without the benefit of the full text (and the full context of what is said), I leave this as might - particularly given that Sneddon has stated if it occurred. If you have access to the full journal article and/or an excerpt of the book, I would appreciate you emailing me a copy. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
^Khan, Aamer Ahmed (1994), "Look Back in Anger", The Herald, Volume 25, Pakistan Herald Publications, p. 54: 'Once past Kahuta, the two leaders were apparently whisked away to Liaquat Ali Khan by military personnel. The meeting was a hush-hush affair, attended by Sardar Shaukat Hayat, Mian Iftikharuddin, Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan and General Sher Khan besides some other officers. "We were told about the plan to attack Kashmir. Liaquat Ali Khan said that it would all be over within hours. The Frontier government was to mastermind the attack from Garhi Abdullah while the Punjab government would control the attack from Kahuta to Jammu."'
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023
Latest comment: 11 months ago8 comments6 people in discussion
This has become an inappropriate discussion fork of the discussion immediately above. There is no consensus at present for the requested edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
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.
Citing an Indian defense analyst, a few sources in a minority that disagrees with the loud majority that this war was a UN-Mandated ceasefire and had no victor is basic bias. India's failure to repulse the 20 lashkar invasion and undo Major William Brown's accession to Pakistan is not a victory. This war was a stalemate for a reason. The discussion above is not an RFC as previously stated by another user. The edit by the user Capitals00 stating an Indian victory is in violation of ./MOS:MIL. It is expected of you to revert it, otherwise your bias due to nationalistic reasons is obvious. The edit to an Indian victory does not reflect the consensus of good quality, academic, sources. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not referring an RfC on this page I'm referencing the RfC the user mentioned ./Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Result_field. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
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.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Indian victory is unreliable to add in this page as many sources, people, and simple facts show pakistan as won but the same is for the other side so i request you to instead add it as no clear winner Pajeetspotter (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Please change "Indian victory" in the result to "UN-mandated ceasefire" and "See aftermath". The topic of the result is highly contentious as evident in the talk page, and the current result was only changed recently and facing mass crticism. The current result fails MOS:MIL and when the user who made the edit was confronted, he simply ignored the message and made a minor edit after the confrontation, making it evident he ignored it. This topic is highly contentious and the citing of a military stalemate with one side having the slight upper hand as a total victory is incorrect and a fallacy, and the updated result has faced massive contention with multiple people criticizing. I request that after "UN-mandated ceasefire" be "See aftermath" to align with MOS:MIL, and show the situation of both parties at the time of the ceasefire. MrGreen1163 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done As an extended confirmed editor, you do not need to make an ECP edit request. Either make the change yourself or comment in the section "Indian victory" above. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2023
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Already done Has {{Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars}} for a long time ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Joooshhh - because this is a change to the infobox, it's possible there's already a reliable source cited somewhere in the article prose. If that's the case please just point me to it and WP:PING me to take a look (or leave a note on my talk page). I'll leave this open a while longer in case another editor cares to review or hunt down a source. --N8wilson 🔔 18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Done Thanks Re12345. I'm going ahead with this change based on the reference provided above. --N8wilson 🔔 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done We have 1947 Jammu massacres for it. Unless this war was anyhow significantly influenced with those massacres then the sources would say that. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
