Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 8
This is an archive of past discussions about Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The POV claim of Indian victory in Infobox
I am afraid the claim of Indian victory in the infobox is false, pushed through by adducing sources selectively. The most reliable sources, those of academic publishers, consider it a military stalemate:
Listed below are twenty (20) scholarly sources that make the case that the India-Pakistan wars of 1947 and 1965 were military stalemates. By "scholarly" I mean the university presses and in addition Routledge, Wiley, Palgrave, Springer, and Hurst. I have not included trade paperbacks published by Harper Collins, Vintage, and so forth. Here is the list, which I have collapsed on account of its length:
Twenty scholarly sources on the outcome of the wars of 1947–48 and 1965
|
---|
|
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide your input at Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts#Proposal. Thank you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler, I would be interested to note your rebuttal of the sources provided over Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Change_in_result_in_the_infobox by Sdmarathe. Regards, ∯WBGconverse 16:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric:, @Sdmarathe: Sorry, just saw this. Will answer soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Excessive quotations in "Assessment of losses" section
Fowler&fowler, the amount of quotes that you've added to the article is excessive. You've almost tripled the amount of quotes in "Assessment of losses" section. The twenty-nine quotes in the section take up roughly a third of the body's vertical length. Not only does this violate WP:QUOTEFARM, you also seem to be editing this section as a proxy for changing the result section in the infobox. Not every source that is useful to gauge the result needs to be quoted. There is no need to add repetitive quotes when they don't provide any new perspective about the losses to each side. I understand that the state of the section wasn't ideal even before you started editing, but this takes it too far. Let me propose a standard for adding quotes:
- The quote needs to provide new information or perspective that is not provided by any other quote
- The quote needs to be detailed enough to argue that it not possible to paraphrase it without losing important information
Everything else should be lumped into categories and paraphrased. —Gazoth (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear @Gazoth: I am not done with the editing yet. That is why the underconstruction tag is still in place. My plan is to reduce this entire section to a paragraph of descriptive prose. I would like respectfully to suggest that the same principles be applied to the repetitive, drastically selective, quote farms that have been top loaded into the lead, with the paragraph beginning, "India had the upper hand over Pakistan ...," ones which have no precedent in a longer text in the article's main body, which they can aspire to summarize. Those are what I am primarily worried about—text-book examples as they are of WP:Lead fixation—not the infobox. (Let me state as an aside, as the major editor of the Wikipedia pages Indus Valley Civilization, Company rule in India, British Raj, and Kashmir, and of Wikipedia pages on their successor- or claimant states the FA India and History of Pakistan, I am wise to the various conceits and biases that Indian- and Pakistani-POV editors bring to controversial pages. I did not make the determination of India-POV bias in some of the daughter pages of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts lightly.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler, if you're unsure or need time to summarize the quotes, do it in a sandbox. Setting NPOV concerns about the lead aside, the quotes in the lead are placed inside ref tags and do not drastically affect the readability of the article. The excessive amount of quotations in the body on the other hand, does affect it. —Gazoth (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gazoth:. Thanks. Will do so this weekend. Please bear with the unsightly mess until then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler, thank you. Sorry if I came off as too harsh. I was just really annoyed by the mess. —Gazoth (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've restored the version before you introduced major changes to the article using the same sources that were rejected by a number of users in this thread. I'd therefore advise you to desist from making such edits that you haven't got consensus for, and while the discussion is ongoing. I haven't had the chance to go through the latest source of yours yet, but it's clear that majority of the rest of your sources are unreliable and mustn't be used in the article. Orientls (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Gazoth:. Thanks. Will do so this weekend. Please bear with the unsightly mess until then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler, if you're unsure or need time to summarize the quotes, do it in a sandbox. Setting NPOV concerns about the lead aside, the quotes in the lead are placed inside ref tags and do not drastically affect the readability of the article. The excessive amount of quotations in the body on the other hand, does affect it. —Gazoth (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear @Gazoth: I am not done with the editing yet. That is why the underconstruction tag is still in place. My plan is to reduce this entire section to a paragraph of descriptive prose. I would like respectfully to suggest that the same principles be applied to the repetitive, drastically selective, quote farms that have been top loaded into the lead, with the paragraph beginning, "India had the upper hand over Pakistan ...," ones which have no precedent in a longer text in the article's main body, which they can aspire to summarize. Those are what I am primarily worried about—text-book examples as they are of WP:Lead fixation—not the infobox. (Let me state as an aside, as the major editor of the Wikipedia pages Indus Valley Civilization, Company rule in India, British Raj, and Kashmir, and of Wikipedia pages on their successor- or claimant states the FA India and History of Pakistan, I am wise to the various conceits and biases that Indian- and Pakistani-POV editors bring to controversial pages. I did not make the determination of India-POV bias in some of the daughter pages of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts lightly.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Strengths need editing
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842104,00.html is a good neutral source about strengths of both militaries also https://www.nytimes.com/1965/09/07/archives/india-possesses-the-larger-army-pakistans-is-outnumbered-825000-to.html also gives good information about relative strengths. They are far better then indian sources in template. The indian strengths should also have (indian claim) written right next to them to avoid deception — Preceding unsigned comment added by سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 5th citation has been wrongfully attributed to the book which in the 2nd paragraph from right clearly mentions that Pakistan lost 75 Aircrafts and India 45 ,someone with malafide intentions has edited and cited to his own whims and fancy 117.212.114.159 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done The 75 and 45 aircraft mentioned in the book are casualties in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The figures for 1965 in the book are as given in the article. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Possible to add image
How to add a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to make some changes kindly grant me permission Clatpolecola (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please specify the changes you want to make. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
"At 3:30 hours, on 1 September 1965, the entire Chhamb area came under massive artillery bombardment. Pakistan had launched operation Grand Slam and India's Army Headquarter was taken by surprise.[54]"
To
"At 0330 hours, on 1 September 1965, the entire Chhamb area came under massive artillery bombardment. Pakistan had launched operation Grand Slam and India's Army Headquarter was taken by surprise.[54]"
In order to properly denote 24Hr/Military time. Asmarksaz (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Formatted as 03:30 according to MOS:TIME. DrKay (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistani Pilot MM Alam shot down 6 Indian planes in less than minutes and made world record {Book by Zahid Yaqoob Aamir a defense Analysit}Arslan739 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not doneThis template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DrKay (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 (2)
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Indian army suffered 11,479 casualties in the 1965 war (including ceasefire violations) https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/1965-war-when-foot-soldiers-took-on-the-mighty-pattons-of-pakistan/amp_articleshow/49032326.cms Arslan739 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not doneThis template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DrKay (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Casualty figures
Truthwins018, I am not happy with this edit. The President of India does not have executive responsibility. He was probably giving a guesstimate. It can't be used without validation from a WP:SECONDARY source. And later sources with better information take priority. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The source mentions recorded conversation between Chester Bowles and president Radhakrishnan. I consider it a valuable source as a president is in direct talks with the military and has exclusive information to the casualties. Considering this, this remains a not made public remark which was only compiled in this book under foreign relations sources. Other articles on Indo-Pak wars directly mention politician claimed figures of casualties. Considering the lack of figures under Indian claims, this to me remains a good source to quote. Casualties not only refers to kills, it also refers to injuries, wounded etc. Truthwins018 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever it may be. The Indian Army officially compiles the casualty statistics and those have been reported. Only those can be labelled as "Indian claims". The President's off-the-cuff conversations with diplomats don't belong here. You can take it to WP:RSN if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay so if i consider your view, it would also be unwise to quote any political account of casualties. Then the infobox on Kargil War page should also be edited to remove the figures given by PM Nawaz Sharif Truthwins018 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about any "political". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If a president cannot quote casualties, your words, so cannot a PM according to your views Truthwins018 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I said, The President of India does not have executive responsibility. He was probably giving a guesstimate. No such crieria apply to a Prime Minister. I have also characterised your source as being WP:PRIMARY. I asked you for a WP:SECONDARY source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I request you to provide an official source saying that a Prime Minister is allowed to announce casualties to general public. If so, i find the president to be in a higher ceremonial position then a prime minister, and the remarks of a President are more trustworthy. We can maybe quote as approx. estimate by president radhakrishnan or remove the PM Nawaz Sharif figures on kargil war pageTruthwins018 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea what "ceremonial" means? I suggest you drop this issue. Or, you will end up at WP:AE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Casulaties on Indian side were much more higher than pakistani side.Whole Indian Tank brigade was destroyed in Chowinda by Pakistan Army suicide Bombers and chowinda is popularly known as graveyard of Indian tanks
Reference-https://www.globalvillagespace.com/indo-pakistani-1965-war-battle-of-chawinda/://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/battle-chawinda-largest-tank-battle-since-wwii.html Arslan739 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Military Stalemate quotes in Neutral assessments
Hi, Listed below are twenty scholarly sources that should be added to the Neutral assessments section.
Twenty scholarly sources on the outcome of the wars of 1947–48 and 1965
|
---|
|
All of these sources are taken from Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Result_field because the consequences were already achieved for it that's why I decided to add it to the page directly but after @Fowler&fowler and other user told me to gain consequences from the talk page so that's why I have open this discussion. NomanPK44 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
They should be added as the article seems away from being neutral at any pointTruthwins018 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree Yes they should be added.119.160.118.226 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The all the sources of the war are taken from Indian army so that's not true I have sources from australia Abdhann (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- So state these sources and the request may be done. Animal lover |666| (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nouman96 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) edit spelling mistakes and provide citation for information provided.
- Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. 💜 melecie talk - 10:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Feels like reading propaganda
You rarely encounter so biased language on the page, that claims to be an encyclopedia. 2A00:801:2D0:C410:0:0:804D:F6EC (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Pakistan did not operate the Canadair sabre in the 1965 war
The first Canadair sabre Pakistan received was through iran from ex Luftwaffe stocks after the 1965 war when sanctions were placed by the US kindly remove that claim of the "sabre slayer" getting kills on man CF-86 Xtreme o7 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says that India had upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. However this RFC says that this line and citations should be removed so please remove it. 101.53.225.41 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now. The RfC at another page does not have any impact on what should go into this page. Please initiate a discussion and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:What are u talking about? the 1965 war section is copied from this page and previously RFC held on that page have also applied here like this one the irony is that this this RFC is also not implemented on the page that it actually happened 101.53.225.41 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Not in neutral point
8 number para of war section is saying a regiment Pakistan's pride. I think this para is written by a pakistani, it's not neutral pov? It should be removed.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022
This edit request to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
45.115.58.12 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
can improve the picture quality
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
text
to much text 82.194.193.194 (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)