Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image copyright problem with File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg

The image File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note,recent casualty figures present Pakistani bias

Suggest using a credible source such as this one.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

It shows 8,000 Pakistani Army casualties and 3,000 Indians. Most of those who present the claims are not of Pakistani or Indian origin but are US government based.

Recent Casualty figures update-IMPORTANT

The current report that India suffered 3,000 KIA while Pakistan suffered 100-200 casualties is obviosly biased. The citation of that comes from a Pakistani source,thus making it invalid.

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/contribute.asp?artid=C028&Pg=16

The link above is the source.

I highly suggest a more credible source be used such as the following-

Indo-Pak War, 1971 B&J W. Pakistan: 8,000 India: 2-3,000 S&S India: 8,000 [sic] Pakistan: 3,000 [sic] TOTAL: 11,000 Eckhardt (Indo-Paki War): 11,000 Clodfelter India: 3,241 Pakistan: 7,982 [TOTAL: 11,223] WPA3 India: 3,037 Pakistan: 7,982 TOTAL: 11,019 Hartman: India: 10,633 Pakistan: 17,000

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

The information is from an independent source and does not promote Pakistan nor India,I suggest that the equal balance of 3,000 KIA for India and 7,000 KIA for Pakistan which is agreed upon by most of the figures be used for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad108 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

copyedits

Hi.,

Just wanted to let you folks know that i made copyedits and removed some superficial content. I also added "citation needed" as i find that a lot of statements aren't backed by news sources. I am not claiming that the article is biased, just that there isn't enough sourced material. --192.8.222.82 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections wrongly tagged with no reference/no citations tag

There are several sections of this article which have been tagged as of having no citations or references, where as all the facts mentioned clearly have references. Hence I am removing the tags (where they have been wrongly tagged). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Gautam (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - Atrocities

Some of the issues I have found with lack of neutrality after just a quick scan of this article:

• No mention of atrocities committed by the Indian Army.
• No mention of Pakistan's war effort being hindered by US sanctions after 1965 war - among those forces affected was the Pakistan Air Force which had a significant number of US aircraft.
• No mention of Pakistan's "pre-emptive" strikes being a response to Indian-backed insurgency.

--Hj108 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Atrocities? Pakistan's war effort being hindered by the US? Indian-backed insurgency? Wow, I can see some biases and prejudices starting to come forth. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. The biases and prejudices are clearly in the article. Just one small example I was about to add to my first edit:

Under Objectives section it says that Pakistan's objective was to "hold Indian forces from entering East Pakistan . It was not easy for Indian troops to go deep into Bangladesh as Bangladesh had many rivers and subrivers separating the land. Transporting the entire army and artillery across these rivers was not easy." What's with the last two sentences? If it talks about difficulties for the IA, where are the PA's, PAF's and PN's difficulties? For example: massively out-numbered, taking losses from the Indian-backed insurgency, etc. --Hj108 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed, it's all a bunch of original research. If you want to add anything, you must provide reliable sources as your references. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--

I know I need reliable sources, thanks, I'm not here to "make wikidrama" as your signature puts it. One reference I found for Indian backed insurgency:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/KRG.htm

"After a lull in June, refugees in large numbers again poured into India. President Yahya continued to press for the United Nations to force India to withdraw her support to the Bangla Desh rebels and to decrease border tension to induce more refugees to return home."

"India also increased its support to the Mukti Bahini military operations by providing artillery fire across the border for the guerrillas and stopping the Pakistani army from pursuing them into Indian territory. With their lines of withdrawal more secure the guerrillas undertook deeper raids into East Pakistan to destroy bridges, roads and army posts. The increased military activity put further pressure on the army to repress the actions and divereted effort from rebuilding the economy and reestablishing civil order."

Of course, the Indian side of the story must present also:

"At the same time Pakistani diplomacy emphasized the requirement for United Nations action to restrain India from supporting the rebels of East Pakistan. Pakistan continued to argue that India was interfering in her internal affairs. New Delhi's position was that the problem was not an "India-Pakistan" problem, but strictly a Pakistani one for Islamabad to correct."

Again from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/KRG.htm. Author: KYLE, R.G., Major, Royal Canadian Artillery. Sounds pretty neutral to me. What were you saying about my biases and prejudices again? My dispute still stands, the article is NOT neutral.

EDIT: According to this source, Pakistan's military was indeed under US sanctions and this had a profound negative affect on them: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-history.htm

"During the 1965 War Pakistan was put under an arms embargo by the USA. After the 1965 War, Pakistan turned towards China and France to rebuild its war damaged air force. China supplied Shenyang F-6s (MiG-19s), which were both donated and purchased. From France Pakistan Purchased 24 Mirage IIIs. Also Pakistan aquired 90 F-86 Sabres through Iran after the war.

"The F-104's life in the PAF was cut short by the United States Government's "even-handed" arms embargo on both Pakistan and India after the 1965 and 1971 wars. Washington chose to ignore the fact that India, a long-time ally of the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, did not possess any American military equipment and the sanctions thus exclusively penalized the armed force of Pakistan."

--Hj108 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article always refers to "Pakistani surrender", did West Pakistani forces surrender also? I don't think they did, which means that the article should say something like this: "surrender of East-Pakistani forces"? Another example of how biased this article is. --Hj108 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Was there an "East Pakistan Army", or an "East Pakistan Navy"? No, there was one and only Pakistan Army, and Pakistan Navy etc. A better worded sentence can say "Pakistan Army in East Pakistan", or "Pakistan Army stationed in East Pakistan" or something like that. --Ragib (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The army that surrendered was the National Army of Pakistan. the people who surrendered were Pakistani citizens. Pakistani forces in west did nothing to help the east Pakistan forces and Niazi was left high and dry. Did they continue fighting in the west to try to force Indians to get out of East Pakistan??? No they accepted the division of the country. If you want to believe they did not surrender more power to you to daydream. The reality is that this war was the shortest war which resulted in liberation of a country and 90K POWs in the history of mankind. even mighty 'superpower' USA never achieved a similar feat as the Indian Army.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ragib, I agree, I will make the appropriate edits. Wikireader41, I will not hesitate to take action against you if you continue your blatant racist attitude and edits. I don't think the moderators here will take kindly to bigots such as yourself. Anonymous editor 86.158.234.4, if you aren't willing to sign up and help me clean up this article, don't bother editing here.

--Hj108 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

the above comment made by IP is actually banned editor Nangparbat. Your comment is completely Uncivil. you are welcome to report any of my activity to anyone. Wikipedia policies explicitly forbid editing on behalf of banned editors. it is considered Vandalism. this is your Final warning.Hj108. Wikireader41 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies explicitly forbid adding any content that is not neutral in tone or presents only one side of the story. Your edits to the article (and your past edits regarding Pakistan) are completely uncivil because they promote hatred and ignorance - they do not portray all the facts, only the ones that conform to your ideas of Pakistan and its history. That is vandalism. Warn me as much as you like, but let me warn you: unless I encounter a lot of resistance from those such as yourself, I won't stop editing this article until it portrays both the Indian and Pakistani sides of the story in a neutral manner. I dare you to carry out your "final warning" threat, I have references to back up all my edits. Do your worst.

--Hj108 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of wikipedia policies. I am willing to work with you to improve this article. as such the article has very little info about the disgraceful conduct of Pakistani Army that 'brought disgrace and defeat to Pakistan by their subversion of the Constitution, usurpation of political power by criminal conspiracy, their professional incompetence, culpable negligence and wilful neglect in the performance of their duties and physical and moral cowardice in abandoning the fight when they had the capability and resources to resist the enemy. Firm and proper action would not only satisfy the nation’s demand for punishment where it is deserved, but would also ensure against any future recurrence of the kind of shameful conduct displayed during the 1971 war.'[1]. Indians are not the only ones who believe that Pakistan was defeated and Pakistani Generals were incompetent. before you go around 'improving' this article I suggest you read Homoodur Rahman Commission report and help me incorporate that info.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

also Hj108 to address your concern about West Pakistan army not surrendering consider this part of Hamoodur Rahman report 'The traditional concept of defense adopted by the Pakistan Army that the defense of East Pakistan lays in West Pakistan was never implemented in a determined and effective manner. The concept remained valid, and if ever there was need to invoke this concept, it was on November 21, 1971, when Indian troops crossed the East Pakistan borders in naked aggression. Unfortunately, the delay in opening the Western front and the half-hearted and hesitant manner in which it was ultimately opened only helped in precipitating the catastrophe in East Pakistan.'[2]. Looks to me that 'West Pakistan Army' may not have surrendered like Niazi but were not willing to fight inspite of the 'catastrophe' facing their country. most reasonable 'neutral' people would consider that a 'surrender'. tell me where I am wrong Wikireader41 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no time to respond to the rants of a bigot, partly due to the amount of Pakistan-related articles that need watching and building. Find somebody else to read your BS.

--Hj108 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please update the list of "biases" in the article so that they can be either removed or debunked. Else it would be appropriate to remove the non NPOV tag from the entire article. The presence of facts in the article confirmed by credible sources that are against one side cannot be proof of the article's non neutrality. The sections could be tagged for improvement if a point from a credible source against the other side is not present.Andy anno (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the POV tag the {{Overcoverage}} tag or the {{Toofewopinions}} tag would be more appropriate for the points mentioned previously.Andy anno (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and improper citation

Like lots of other posters before, I also feeled that this article is biased toward Indian's side and depicting Pakistan in the most negative possible light. For example, in the aftermath/pakistan section, it makes the unreasonable claim that Pakistanis are delusional and unable to handle reality, by giving examples that they protested? There are lots of reason that they could have protested. The citation is insufficient, just by giving a book without a page number. That one book is also cited a lot without giving any additional information of where in the book did the claims come from. One can't expect people to dig through the whole book to confirm one sentence. So can the one who made the citation clarify which pages did the claims come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.227.184 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Am removing the NPOV tag - because except for some rants, no one has provided a single reason why this article is NOT neutral. If there are sections which you find non-neutral - please list them below. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The section "India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War" is non-neutral because it states that the Pakistan Army committed acts of genocide, but does not also state that the Mukti Bahini/Awami League rebels, whom were backed by India, committed mass killings against non-Bengalis as well as those Bengalis who sympathised with them and the actions by the Pakistan Army were aimed at stopping these killings. The webpage http://www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net/blood_tears.php#top contains excerpts from the book "Blood and tears", by author Qutubuddin Aziz. One paragraph is quoted here:

"The sheaves of eye-witness accounts, documented in this book, prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the massacre of West Pakistanis, Biharis and other non-Bengalis in East Pakistan had begun long before the Pakistan Army took punitive action against the rebels late in the night of March 25, 1971. It is also crystal clear that the Awami League's terror machine was the initiator and executor of the genocide against the non-Bengalis which exterminated at least half a million of them in less than two months of horror and trauma. Many witnesses have opined that the federal Government acted a bit too late against the insurgents. The initial success of the federal military action is proved by the fact that in barely 30 days, the Pakistan Army, with a combat strength of 38,717 officers and men in East Pakistan, had squelched the Awami League's March-April, 1971, rebellion all over the province."

• Under the "Naval hostilities" sub-section of "India's official engagement with Pakistan", the article mentions that several Pakistani warships were sunk with no losses to the attacking Indian vessels, but it does not state that the Pakistani warships were obsolescent and had no viable defence against the anti-ship missiles fired at them by the Indian ships. Surely this is noteworthy? Reference: http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/angrysea.htm

--Hj108 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your quoted text from the book by Aziz is a blatant lie. The quote claims that "the genocide against the non-Bengalis which exterminated at least half a million of them in less than two months of horror and trauma". Please provide reliable sources that support such claims. The number of deaths of non-Bengalis is not mentioned anywhere else at all. Please don't quote a just website. As for the Bengali civilian deaths, citations from various scholarly sources provide a range of 1.5 million to 2.5 million. --Ragib (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want all the relevant facts to be included in the article. The book by Aziz contains 170 eye-witness accounts. Can you prove the claimed figure is a blatant lie? This document: http://www.bangla2000.com/bangladesh/independence-war/report-hamoodur-rahman/report-pdf/chapter2.pdf (Part V Chapter II of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report) states that "according to various estimates mentioned by Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz, between 100,000 and 500,000 persons were slaughtered during this period by the Awami League militants". In case you think the H.R. Commission Report is too biased towards Pakistan, according to the Bangladeshi website it is hosted on, it was "submitted on October 23, 1974" and details the "political, administrative, military and moral failings of then Pakistan."

--Hj108 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that. I am aware of Hamoodur RAhman commission's report, but the Hamooodur Rahman commission merely restates Aziz's claim, not as a fact. No other reliable third party sources support such an audacious claim. Unless you can show third party sources supporting Aziz's numbers, it will be just a claim, and very likely to be fabricated. (I'm not saying the 150 eyewitness testimonies are incorrect, but 150 is NOT equal to 500 thousand. That number is perhaps 10 to 20 times higher than the actual number of Bihari deaths). --Ragib (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To further demonstrate the implausibility of your claim, the Bihari population in East Pakistan in 1971 was around 1.3-1.5 million [3]. Now, Aziz claims that 0.5 million were killed, even before the 1971 war started. Would you expect anyone to believe such a claim that during peacetime, when Pakistan Army war reigning supreme in both wings of Pakistan, 38% of Biharis were killed? And that too without any mention in contemporary media in West or East Pakistan? Sorry, that absurd claim is simply a lie. --Ragib (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction of information Provided

On the section of Important Dates of the article Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, the information below is quite wrong. 26 March 1971: Major Ziaur Rahman declares independence from Kalurghat Radio Station, Chittagong. The message is relayed to the world by Indian radio stations.

There should be as followed.

26 March 1971: On behalf of Bangabandhu Seikh Mujibur Rahman, Major Ziaur Rahman declares independence from Kalurghat Radio Station, Chittagong. ....

The proof of this line is found in the declaration by Major Ziaur Rahman which can be verified anytime the authority wants to.

I would really appreciate if corrective measures are taken promptly.

Thanks,

Kevin S. Boiragi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.149.84 (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide Valid Sources and not usual emotive rants!!

I know people from a particular country are overly emotional with losses and they loose objectivity while analyzing an article. Please provide Valid Sources of your claims and not just rants and conspiracy theories about propaganda, while trying to twist fact in your favor by changing an outlook of an article. My advice to authors is to ignore rants about conspiracy theories and propaganda and check the neutrality and validity of each source.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutu1234 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) My comment was edited by a person who is brainwashed by his military junta and religious superiority complex thrashed many times, accepting defeat is so tough that you end up vandalizing others' thoughts. Bottom-line is 1971 was a Victory for India and defeat for Surrendering pakistani army. genocide is a reality (enough documented evidence).

Videos Documented by pro-pakistani British Channel (NBC) Surrender Video of general Niazi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdVtyjTKokM&feature=related

Genocide Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3SgqmwksfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v7uppdmCsA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMg9Ly9nK0g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z6SgETOjug&feature=related

(Huge amount of Documented evidence is available which pakistanis have been denying and doing Vandalism on Wiki won't help them refute the TRUTH!

Tutu1234 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hi! i believe, now that enough sources have been published, both here and on the article itself, we can safely assume that we have settled the neutrality of the issue. Dispassionate, hard facts, remain what they are- facts. There is little we can do to change mindsets on both sides of the LOC, but we can all evolve enough, like ragib and hj108, to try and look at the facts for their face value, devoid of sentimental interpretations. i mean, if the facts, comprehensive as they are, favor one side of the story, it is unreasonable to demand that lies be accepted in a scholarly discussion to maintain political correctness. the wake of a war is always troublesome, but the waves do exist. facts will, and do exist. whether you have the requisite gumption to accept them lies solely on you. Thank You. (i have not logged in deliberately, lest someone tarnishes my opinion as patriotically biased.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.20.165 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jholicky, 7 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Text reads: Hamoodur Rahman Commission

In aftermath of war Pakistan Government constituted the Hamoodur Rahman Commission headed by Justice Hamdoor Rahman in 1971 to investigate the political and military causes for defeat and the Bangladesh atrocities during the war. The commission's report was classified and its publication banned by Bhutto as it put the military in poor light, until some parts of the report surfaced in Indian media in 2000.

The 3rd spelling of the name is incorrect. Change from: Hamdoor Rahman Change to  : Hamoodur Rahman

regards, jeff Jholicky (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done good catch. CTJF83 pride 05:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

India & Pakistan War 1971! To WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR?

Pakistan Army Surrendered because the Indian Government was begging USA, UN Resolution to call it a Cease Fire. Hundred Thousand Pakistan Army Troops were inside of India & was Hardcore fighting the 10x Larger Indian army without giving up or Surrending & was Far superior in that Stage.

Pakistan Army had to listen to their Leaders command & Surrender without Harm & Promise. Statisticss of Indian Army Casualties were 5x larger than Pakistan's Casualties. Wikipedia Author on this matter thinks Pakistan Army was Captured by Indian Troops & mentioned that India's Victory, which is Totally wrong information.

After Pakistan Army listening to their Commander In-Charge to give-up & Surrender. Pakistan Army was Promised to Return in no Harm.

India began Celebrating Victory as if they Captured Hundred Thousand Pakistan Troops in India. Pakistan was also Celebrating knowing why they had to Surrender (Under USA, UN Resolution of Ceasefire).

IN THAT MATTER WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR ON THIS TOPIC WAS CONFUSED IN THIS MATTER. ALSO ITS NOT EASY TO FIND 100% TRUE INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE ANALYSED & CHECKED UP & UPDATE THIS INFORMATION AGAIN (Mine is Accurate).

'WHO IS THE VICTORIOUS?'Bold text IN THIS WAR: EVEN THOUGH PAKISTAN HAVING THE EDGE THAN 10X LARGER ARMY, BOTH SIDES WERE EQUALLY VICTORIOUS.

SEND YOUR VIEW'S??? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.71.231 (talk • contribs)

Are you really making any sense here? :) Please read some history ... and clear up your logic. By your logic, Germans and Japanese are also victorious in WWII, right? :) ... --Ragib (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

India & Pakistan War 1971! To WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR

Pakistan Army Surrendered because the Indian Government was begging USA, UN Resolution to call it a Cease Fire. Hundred Thousand Pakistan Army Troops were inside of India & was Hardcore fighting the 10x Larger Indian army without giving up or Surrending & was Far superior in that Stage.

Pakistan Army had to listen to their Leaders command & Surrender without Harm & Promise. Statisticss of Indian Army Casualties were 5x larger than Pakistan's Casualties. Wikipedia Author on this matter thinks Pakistan Army was Captured by Indian Troops & mentioned that India's Victory, which is Totally wrong information.

After Pakistan Army listening to their Commander In-Charge to give-up & Surrender. Pakistan Army was Promised to Return in no Harm.

India began Celebrating Victory as if they Captured Hundred Thousand Pakistan Troops in India. Pakistan was also Celebrating knowing why they had to Surrender (Under USA, UN Resolution of Ceasefire).

IN THAT MATTER WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR ON THIS TOPIC WAS CONFUSED IN THIS MATTER OR BIASED IN THE FAVOUR OF INDIA. ALSO ITS NOT EASY TO FIND 100% TRUE INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE ANALYSED & CHECKED UP & UPDATE THIS INFORMATION AGAIN (Mine is Accurate).

WHO IS THE VICTORIOUS IN THIS WAR??? EVEN THOUGH PAKISTAN HAVING THE EDGE THAN 10X LARGER ARMY, BOTH SIDES WERE EQUALLY VICTORIOUS

It seems you read all this in a Pakistani textbook which was justifying it's defeat.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Temo2k, 7 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} "father of the current American president"

No longer true, unless Bush Sr. really is Obama's father.

Temo2k (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out. Shovon (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

HEAVILY BIASED INDIAN-MADE STORY

THIS ARTICLE IS HEAVILY BIASED IN INDIAS FAVOUR.ILL DO MY CRITICISMS THE REST IS HISTORY WHICH CANNOT B CHANGED BY INDIA'S LOUD HAILING CLAIMS.(1)THE FACT TAT WAR WAS 14 DAYS IS INCORRCT,INDIAN INVOLMENT STARTED IN 4 JUNE.MAJ GEN LACCHMAN SINGH AND MAJ GEN SUKHWANTH SINGH OF THE INDIAN ARMY ADMIT IT.BATTLES OF GARIBPUR LODGMENT,KAMALPUR,COMMILLA,HILLI ETC HAD ALL STARTED BEFORE 3 DEC.(2)INDIA DID NOT HAV A LIGHTENING VICTORY AS THE GENERAL WAR STARTED ON 21 NOV 1971 AFTER THE BATTLE GARIBPUR LODGEMENT.SO IT WAS 4 WEEK LONG WAR.MOREOVER INDIA DID NOT HAV COMPLETE SUPERIORITY STIFF BATTLES WERE FOUGHT AT KAMALPUR(IN WHICH THE INDIAN CORPS COMMANDER LT GEN GURBAX SINGH HIMSELF PRAISED CPT AHSAN'S COMPANY PERFORMANCE),HILLI,COMMILLA,CHULNA,KUSHTHIA,BOGRA,DINAJPUR,LATUMURA-CHANDERPUR-KASBA LINE,DHULAI POST,NARSINGDI ETC.(3)IAF DID NOT DESTROY PAF'S 14 SQ IN 1 DAY.14 SQ KEPT ON OPERATING TILL 6 DEC.(4)TROOP BALANCE IS NOT GIVEN PROPERLY:-INDIA:13 DIVS(8 INF,1 COMMUNICATION ZONE,1 MT,3BSF),72 REGTS OF ARTL,6 REGTS OF ARMOUR,11 SQ WARPLANES,4 DESTROYERS,2 SUBS,1 CARRIER,1 FRIGATE,1 TRANTOR,1 LANDING CRAFT + 100,000 MUKTI BAHINI.PAKISTAN:3 INF.DIVS(7 BIGADES),8 REGTS. OF ARTT.,1 ARMD REGT.,1 SQ. WARPLANES,4 PATROL BOATS. FIELD MARSHALL SAM MANEKSHAW HIMSELF IN A FACE TO FACE PROGRAMME WITH KARAN THAPAR ADMITTED TAT INDIA WAS OUT NUMBERING PAK ARMY BY 50:1.(5)INDIAN TROOPS AND MUKTIS HAV BEEN SHOWN AS HEROES THOUGH LT.GEN.JAGJIT SINGH AURORA HIMSELF SAID"THEY (MUKTIS)USED TO SEND SMALL "CHOKRAS" TO SEE WEATHER WAS A PATHAN IN THE POSITION OR NOT". MUKTIS WERE AFRAID OF PATHANS SAYS JAGJIT.(6)THE NAVAL LOSSES R BIASED. PAK LOST ONLY A DESTROYER(PNS KHYBER) WHILE THE 2ND(PNS SHAHJEHAN) WAS DAMAGED BT NEVER SUNK IT WAS REPAIRED BY THE PAK NAVY AND KEPT ON SERVING TILL 1982 WHEN IT WAS SCRAPPED OFF.PNS GHAZI WAS NEVER SUNK BY THE DEPTH CHARGES OF INS RAJPUT.GEN.JFR JACOB HIMSELF SENT DEEP SEA DIVERS OFF THE VIZAG COST AND LATER AFTER CLEAR EVIDENCES MADE CLEAR TAT GHAZI SANK DUE AN INTERNAL EXPLOSION.PAK NAVY NEVER LOST 7 GUN BOATS AND 5 PATROL BOATS.THE SINKING OF 2 BANGLADESHI AND 1 INDIAN GUNBOAT OFF THE COST OF CHULNA BY 3 INDIAN MiGS IN A FRNDLY FIRE IS NOT DISCUSSED,ALONGE WITH THE CAPTURE OF 42 INDIAN NAVAL PERSONNELS BY BRIG.MAKHMAD HAYAT'S MEN IN CHULNA.THE 11 IAF WARPLANES SHOTDOWN BY PAK NAVY IS NOT MENTIONED.THE SUCCESSFUL BOMBARDMENT OF OKHA MISSILE BOAT HARBOUR IS NOT DISCUSSED.INS KHUKRIS SINKING IS SHORTLY DISCUSSED AND INS KIRPANS COWARDICE IS NOT DISCUSSED,PROVED BY AN INDIAN SAILORS CHARGE OF COWARDICE UPON REAR ADMIRAL RISHI RAJ KAPUR.(7)WAR ON THE WESTERN FRONT IS BIASINGLY DISCUSSED.THE CAPTURE OF CHUMMB BY 23 DIV IS NOT DISCUSSED THE SUBSEQUENT ABONDING OF 16 TANKS BY INDIA.INDIAS DIV COMMANDER 10 DIVS QOUTE TAT"Y DO WE SOUTH ASIANS STDY NAPOLEON AND ROMMEL WEN WE HAV GENERALS LIK AKBAR,AKHTHAR AND EFTIKHAR" IS NOT TOLD.PAKISTANI CAPTURE OF QASR E HIND IS NOT TOLD.PAKISTANI CAPTURE OF DHARAM ENCLAVE IS NOT TOLD.THE BATTLE OF SIALKOT IN WHICH PAK ARMY REPULSED 2 ATTACKS BY INDIAN 36 DIV IS NOT TOLD.BATTLE OF NAYACHOR IS NOT DISCUSSED AS TO HOW PAK ARMY BROUGHT TO A GRINDING HALT THE INDIAN 12 DIVS THRUST TOWARDS HYDERABAD.BATTLE OF LONGEWALA IS TURNED INTO A FAIRY TALE NOT TELLING WHAT AIR MARSHALL BAWA SINGH(THE MAN WHO LED THE INDIAN HUNTERS),MAJ GEN ATHMA SINGH HANSARA AND MAJ GEN KHAMBATTA HAV TO SAY ABT THIS,TAT THERE WAS NOT ARMY TO ARMY CONTACT B/W PAK AND INDIAN ARMY AND MAJ KULDIP SINGH CHANPURI DID NOTHING.(http://www.indiadefenceupdate.com/news94.html),PAK LOSSES WERE 18 TANKS DESTROYED 8 DAMAGED NOT 52 TANKS AS CLAIMED BY INDIA.IAF ITSELF CLAIMED 25 HITS WHICH IS CORRECT AND NEAR TO PAK CLAIM OF 26 HITS(18+8).BATTLE OF JARPAL IS OVERCOLOURED,THE 2 ATTACKING PAK TANK REGTS(13 LANCERS AND 31 CAVALRY)NEVER ATTACKED SIMULTANEOUSLY HAD THEY DONE SO ACCORDING TO THE INDIAN COMMANDER THEY WUD HAV TORN THROUGH THE INDIAN DEFENCES.FIRST A SINGLE SQ OF 13 CAV ATTACKED THEN WEN IT WAS MAULED WITH 8 LOSSES THE ENTIRE 13 CAV WITH ITS 2 REMAINING REGTS ATTACKED MAULED WITH 20 LOSSES 31 CAV ATTACKED WITH 1 SQ WITH 2 PROVIDING STATIC FIRE,MAULED BY 10 LOSSES,THE TOTAL LOSSES WERE 38.JUST 4 SQS TOOK PART IN IT WHILE INDIA HAD AN ENTIRE TANK REGT.WHILE INDIA HAD 1 TANK REGT(17 POONA HORSE) AND 1 BRIG. OF TANKS.(8)MASSIVE INDIAN ECONOMIC LOSS IS NOT DISCUSSED.INDIA GAVE A DEFENCE BUDGED OF 55000 MILLION RUPEES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1971(WHICH TO PROVED LESS AND SPENT IT ALL ON WAR,INDIRA HAD TO SPEND THE MONEY OF "GHARIBI HATAO"SCHEME AS WELL TO FUND THE COSTLY WAR.(9)MUKTI BAHINIS WERE MOSTLY HINDUS.IN AN INTERVIEW TO KARAN THAPAR MANEKSHAW HIMSELF ADMITTED TAT HE HAD RECRUITED 80,000 HINDUS IN MUKTI BAHINI TAT IS 80% OF THE TOTAL STRENGHT.(10)LOOTING WASENT DONE PAK ARMY BT BY INDIAN ARMY.READ THE BOOK OF ZAIN UL ABIDIN "RAW AND BANGLADESH",IN WHICH HE CLEARLY SAYS "THE INDIAN ARMY TOOK AWAY EVERYTHING FRM A CEILING FAN TO A WATER TAP".HE FURTHER SAYS TAT THEY WERE TREATED AS AGENTS AND NOT FRNDS. THE FIGURE 9000 IS INCORRECT AND GIVEN BY INDIAN MILLITARY IF SO PAK ARMYS FIGURES B ALSO GIVEN TAT OF 2500 PAK SOLDIERS KILLED AND 30,000 INDIAN CAULATIES.THRER IS A BOOK WRITTEN BY AN INDIAN "WHY INDIA LOST ALL HER WAS"IN IT 40,000 CASUALTIES FOR INDIA R WRITTEN.TATS A CLEAR PROOF FOR THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CASUALTIES INDIA SUFFERED.(11)THE PAF WAS SUPERIOR TO THE IAF.SQ LDR SHAMS SHOT DOWN 4 WARPLANES(RIGHT OVER DECCA INFRNT OF MANY EYES ON 5 AND 6 DEC).PAKISTA SHOWED THE WRECKAGES OF 33 IAF WRECKAGES IN WEST PAKISTAN.AFTER THE WAR THE PAF DISPLAYED ITS AIRCRAFTS TO THE WORLD MEDIA SO AS TO FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES TAT HOW MUCH THE PAF HAD SUFFERED,IAF DIDNT DO IT WHICH IS VERY CURIOUS,THE SAME WAS THE CASE IN 1965.(12)THE FACT TAT UN CEASEFIRE WAS TREACHEROUSLY CONVERTED INTO A SURRENDER DEED IS NOT MENTIONED.GEN JFR JACOB HIMSELF SAYS HE WAS SHOCKED AT THIS DEVELOPEMENT. ITS A LONG STORY GENTLEMEN AND I HAV 85 PICS SHOWING KILLED INDIAN SOLDIERS,DESTROYED TANKS,ABANDONED TANKS,CAPTURED WARPLANES,CAPTURED HELICOPTER,INDIAN POWS ETC. SO CONTACT WITH ME AT mtrue87@YAHOO.COM TO KNOW MORE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.11.97 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Given I had to remove this a week or so ago you probably have a point. However writing in all capitals isn't particularly good at getting your point across, and you'll need to bring some verifiable reliable sources to the table to backup whatever changes you wish to make. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NO NEED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH INCONVINCING INDIANS

I HAV POSTED THE NAMES OF SO MANY INDIAN GENERALS ABOVE TO PROVE MY POINTS VIZ,JFR JACOB,JAGJIT SINGH AURORA,SAM MANEKSHAW,SUKHWANT SINGH,LACHMAN SINGH,GURBUX SINGH. AND STILL IAM TOLD TO GIVE RELIABLE SOURCES!DOES TAT MEAN TAT THE INDIAN GENERALS ABOVE R NOT RELIABLE SOURCES TO THE INDIANS THEMSELVES???ONETHINGS CLEAR EITHER THE INDIANS R NOT READY TO ACCEPT THE REALITY OR EITHER THEY HAVE A NATURAL GRUDGE AGAINST PAKISTAN AND WHAT PAKISTANIS SAY EVEN IF ITS WITH PROOFS FRM THE INDIAN QUARTERS.I DONT BOTHER TO DISCUSS ANYMORE,THOSE WHO HAVE A BRAIN MUST DO CROSS ANALYSIS ONTO THE INDIAN TEXTBOARDS TAT R CONSTANTLY FEEDING PROPAGANDA INTO YOUNG INDIAN MINDS.LIKE AIR MARSHALL RK NEHRA SAYS"ITS NOT THE HINDU MUSCLE BUT THE HINDU MIND THAT HAS RESULTED IN HINDUS DEFEATS BEACAUSE HINDUS HAVE WRAPPED THEMSELVES IN A CACOON OF THEIR OWN SELF MADE IDEAS AND R TOTALLY NOT READY TO ACCEPT ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST IT".WELL HINDUS HAVE BEEN LIVING IN A CACOON OF THIER OWN IDEAS FOR THE PAST 5000 YEARS MOULDING HISTORY SINCE ARYANS AND GREEKS,WE CANT CHANGE THIS PSYCHE IN A MATTER OF AN ARTICLE.TO ALL PAKISTANIS DONT BOTHER OF WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS MAKE UR OWN ANALYSIS DONT FOLLOW THE PROPAGANDA BANDWAGON OF THIS SELF-MADE BOLLYWOOD STYLED SUPER-HUMAN-INDIAN ARTICLE.LET THE ADMIN. AND INDIANS NOT ADMIT THEIR ADMITTANCE AND NON-ADMITTANCE WONT CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY LET THESE HINDUS BE WHAT TEY R!THEY BLAME MADRASSAS,BUT HERE THEY R INFESTED BY THEIR OWN BOLLYWOOD HISTORY! AND IN THE END YES,ADMIN U HAV NOTHING WITH MY CAPITALIZATION OR NON-CAPITALIZATION OF WORDS JUST READ THE MATERIAL,AND IF U DNT ADMITT WE PAKISTANIS DONT BOTHER REMAIN IN UR 5000 YRS OLD CACOON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.83.14 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting the names of some Indian generals is very exciting but WIkipedia requires things to be verifiable. And for what its worth I'm not an Indian. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Template

I think the template of the war has become too congested and difficult to read. I think we should divide the template like on WW2 page, into Eastern Front, Western Front and Naval Operations sections. I would like to know the views of other editors on this matter.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If this isn't a "decisive victory", then what is?

Anyone care to explain? I can think no good reason why such an astonishingly one-sided victory is not considered "decisive" other than to avoid embarrassing the losing side. One can dispute casualty figures of course, but sheer magnitude of the territorial loss (holding 50% of the population!) seems sufficient by itself to invoke the label. Surely the losing side would be capable of preventing such a massive loss in the event of a war that was less than "decisive". The speed of the defeat easily suggests that it was one-sided even in a purely military context. So, what's missing? 173.28.194.95 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally no victories are "decisive", even World War 2 isn't called "decisive", and while the Pakistanis may have lost Bangladesh, it didn't become Indian territory afterwards, so the Indians didn't really gain any territory in the war. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding edits by Ironboy11 about the infobox

Ironboy's recent edit to remove mention of Lt Gen AAK Niazi on the ground that "General A A K Niazi was leading the Bangladesh Liberation War. He had no role in decision making at the Western front. DO NOT ADD GENERAL NIAZI AS COMMANDER THERE." is quite incorrect. The War was officially fought on two fronts between the two nations and operations in the eastern theatre were part of it. The surrender in East Pakistan was the concluding act of the war. Removal of Niazi's name may be considered as POV and attempt at denialism. For those who may not be aware of the regions history, the term Bangladesh Liberation War is used to depict the armed struggle by Mukti Bahini and Indian armed forces against the East Pakistan government and Pakistani armed forces in the East through most of 1971. However, the decisive military operations resulted from the war itself and took place after war was officially declared between the two nations.

Ironboy11 has also added names of two minor functionaries, the vice chiefs of the Pakistan Navy and the PAF in the infobox. As second-in-commands, they do not merit mention as commanders especially keeping in mind the secondary role played by the other two services to the Pak Army at the time. Nor are the vice chiefs of IN and IAF mentioned. Lt Gen Jacob also does not merit mention in the infobox as he was not a commander. On the other hand, Ironboy's earlier addition of names of commanders of air force and navy of both countries has not been reverted as it is constructive, encyclopedic and useful. Only those edits perceived as inappropriate have been reverted.

In view of the above, I have reverted the current edits of Ironboy11 and request him to kindly add material which is clearly main stream, supported by references and with a suitable logic.

As far as these edits are concerned, if Ironboy still feels that his point of view is more correct that the one I have outlined here, he may like to provide superior logic, backed by references and refer to the community for consensus before carrying out these particular disputed edits in articlespace.

AshLin (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• User Ironboy11 (talk) is now blocked from Wikipedia. Users are requested to scrutinize and revert if necessary his wp:OR and CopVio --dBigXray (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of neutral point of view policy and verifiability policy.

• While on the topic above, all Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani editors here please take note. Kindly make yourselves familiar with Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies, the very important ones are:

1. WP:Neutral point of view
2. WP:Verifiability

If the edit you've provided us here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) is not verifiable and not of neutral point of view, we will remove it. Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project, hence by definition all unencyclopedic information will be deleted on sight. Anyone who repeatedly violates the rules risked getting BLOCKED and/or BANNED, and I won't repeat myself again. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the policy. POV edits & unverified material needs to be removed. I might add another very important principle - Assume Good Faith! Wikipedia is NOT a battlefield. ;-) AshLin (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sincerely thank you for reminding me that I've missed a few more.

1. WP:No original research
2. WP:Assume good faith, & lastly
3. Wikipedia is not a battleground

Read also the below. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

middle

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.

Wikipedia is freely available, and combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works.

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish unverifiable material.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own ideas.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your opinions.

Wikipedia is not a free advertising space.

Wikipedia is not a social networking site.

Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform.

Wikipedia is not an internet directory.

Wikipedia is not for medical advice.

Wikipedia is not for legal advice.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy.

Wikipedia is not censored.

Wikipedia is not nearly this in-your-face most of the time.

See also

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community
• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:The rules are principles

Infobox

The Attack on Indian airfields on 3 Dec By PAF was not a success. read This preemptive strike known as Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the success of Israeli Operation Focus in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. But, unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967 which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India and failed to inflict the intended damage.

"Trying to catch the Indian Air Force napping, Yahya Khan, launched a Pakistani version of Israel's 1967 air blitz in hopes that one rapid attack would cripple India's far superior air power. But India was alert, Pakistani pilots were inept, and Yahya's strategy of scattering his thin air force over a dozen air fields was a bust!", p.34, Newsweek, December 20, 1971

Accordingly this info has been removed from infobox.

Also the after the Surrender by Gen Niazi on 16 Dec the 1971 war came to a halt. the ceasefire was called at once and there was no seperate negotiation on the western front. the war on the western front was stopped on 16 Dec itself. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The content I added to the infobox was a claim of Indian officer hence no point of dispute. And surrender on western front? That statement is by all means completely misleading. There was no surrender at western front. The war came to a halt. It's called a ceasefire. And ceasefire doesn't just happens because eastern command surrenders (since western command was the head quarters and not the other way round). --lTopGunl (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

According to ACIG.org [4] the attacks by PAF were failure and most resulted in, to quote the source, 'Minor damage'. Those who suffered a bit more damage were operationalised with hours. As a matter of fact it clearly states that Pakistani bases suffered a lot more damage. I propose we add it to article. Swift&silent (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Chenghiz Khan is known as a failure and that too by neutral sources. Here we have two things to know-

1- Source in question (Inddefudate) quotes the beginning of war NOT the end result. Not only this but the little damage that was dealt was repaired within hours.

2- According to neutral sources like Times Magazine 'Some six hours after the Pakistani air raids, India hit back in force, bombing eight West Pakistani airfields including one at Karachi.' [5]. Swift&silent (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hasan Please understand that i am not trying say that Pakistan Surrendered on the Western front. But I do not agree with the stated information, that on western front Ceasefire Negotiated. Well i have referred a number of sources, they do not refer to any negotiation on the western front for the Ceasefire. The surrender on the Eastern Front by Gen Niazi was the sole reason for Ceasefire. If you disagree you are welcome to post the citations that support your claim. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This is backed up by both Indian and Pakistani sources (the current reference being an Indian), there's no point of NPOV here. And no body said it was 'end result' of the 71 war. It is not mentioned in results, it is mentioned in causalities and losses section. You are out weighed here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

dbigxray, your entry was of surrender on western front which was completely wrong and misleading. Yes, that's what you were trying to say since you entered it, it was a ceasefire not a surrender on west. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hasan has been unilaterally reverting edits and trying to prove that IndDefUpdate (even when that source itself says that on 4th Dec the IAF retaliated contradicting what Hasan is trying to imply) is better than Times Magazine and Newsweek. Swift&silent (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits are backed up by sources and not unilateral. Keep in mind WP:3RR. The Indian Airforce chief acknowledges these damages in his book and so does a Pakistani source. The source does not contradict my statement. It clearly says in the exact terms that there was widespread damage (retaliation or not). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hasan I have never said (nor am i saying) that Pak Surrendered on Western Front . Please dont confuse. All I am saying is there was no seperate negotiation for the Ceasefire on Western Front. But even then Cease Fire took place on Western front. Why because on 16Th Dec Surrender agreements were signed on the Eastern Front, which led to a Stopping of Indo Pak War of 1971. Thats why i am saying that Ceasefire due to Surrender on Eastern Front . If you think you have a point and a Ceasefire was negotiated please help wiki by giving reliable citations for that. - --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[6] This diff clearly shows that you inserted the misleading content. No, you didn't say "Ceasefire due to Surrender on Eastern Front", you inserted "ceasefire after surrender" which is misleading. You are trying to hijack the issue in question. The issue is not about the word negotiation but about your misleading edit that mentioned surrendered in a form implying it to west. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting a source With the unconditional surrender in the East and the unilateral Indian declaration of cease-fire in the West, the 14 days war ended. No 5 Squadron had flown over 300 hrs, nearly all by night and delivered hundreds of thousand of pounds of high explosive bombs. The "Tuskers" earned one MVC and three Vr Cs. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/sqn-5.htm

i think this completes the arguements. you can comment if you disagree --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this one is neutral now. But the phrase you entered still implies a wrong meaning. Reword it to "India declares ceasefire". The current word unilateral may lead some one to think that Pakistan did not follow up India's lead to ceasefire. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I am just following what the Source is saying . Lets not introduce wp:OR based on our thinking. yes it was a unilateral Cease Fire Forced By India on Pakistan as Gen Niazi had surrendered on 16 Dec leading to the Stopping of Fight and independence of Bangladesh. Also if one of the party stops fighting and Declares cease fire (due to surrender on some part) it is understood that the other party also followed the India's Ceasefire unless otherwise stated. The statement is historically accurate and also supported by the citation. I think we need to restore the line that i had stated. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the word UNILATERAL is important to state because it was declared by India, there was no word of Cease fire started from the West Pakistan. Neverthless after this the war came to an end --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not understood. One might assume that India declared ceasefire unilaterally while Pakistan kept on attacking it. Also, the word unilateral has not been used in your source. The current content is as per the source you gave. Now it seems understood that Pakistan also followed up the ceasefire declared by India since the war stopped. This is not such a big issue. You might want to request a 3rd opinion on the issue WP:3O. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should. Check the source again With the unconditional surrender in the East and the UNILATERAL Indian declaration of cease-fire in the West, the 14 days war ended. No 5 Squadron had flown over 300 hrs, nearly all by night and delivered hundreds of thousand of pounds of high explosive bombs. The "Tuskers" earned one MVC and three Vr Cs. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/sqn-5.htm i think it is visible now. i still disagree with your understanding of the word Unilateral. It is not so, the full phrase conveys its meaning --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The word unilateral here is misleading due to the reason I mentioned. You might want to use WP:3O. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The blockade is well cited and effective with no ships entering Karachi harbour. i doubt your argument (wp:OR) holds in this case, as its not supported by any of the citations we have looked. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Blockade has already been discussed. Redundant discussion. Pakistan had submarines patrolling the sea as per a citation you gave in the relevant discussion.

Lets get to the next issue, the soviets and americans were supporting both nations with intent of military support by their fleets which they didn't in the end as they were 'stalemating' each other. I think the addition by the IP was correct. I'm restoring that. Discuss. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Casulaties and losses.

also i have removed the PAF claims of shooting 130 IAF planes which is originally taken from the PAF website http://www.paf.gov.pk/history.html not at all a neutral one . I assume it was a mistake done in good faith, hence i have reverted that. If that was the Information for PAF losses in 1971 taken from http://www.paf.gov.pk/history.html then it could have been allowed , since it is about IAF from PAF official website, it cannot be taken as a neutral source. Do not try to fool yourself and others, please read wp:NEUTRAL The Sources at Global Security had only copy pasted that information from the real source http://www.paf.gov.pk/history.html this only States that This is a Pakistani Claim and not a neutral one. If you are very admant of mentioning IAF losses then it should be mentioned along with Pakistani claim as they are officially pakistani version. Global Security here is just acting like a mirror for this information . it is not affirming a neutral view as you are claiming. read wp:RS. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

also i am removing the extra Text from losses and casulaty The Infobox of war pages does not conation these information about Damage to Airfields and harbours etc. IF they do then this is to be elaborated and a lot of information needs to be added as a number of Harbour KArchi and Various East PAkistan harbours were damaged. and there is a long list of air fields both in East pakistan as well as west pakistan. This information is already in the article, The extra information will make the infobox unduly long. You can refer to other war wiki pages. or we can again take this issue to Dispute resolution noticeboard for your satisfaction. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The information about downed aircrafts is supported by 2 citations, the PAF and the global security which you so eagerly quote most of the time. The fact that this neutral source is now giving the same facts, verifies this figure. Also neutrality is one issue, but you can certainly not doubt reliability of PAF website since its the official website. It is not acting like a mirror, the information has been clearly placed in context. If you claim this site to be a mirror site then all previous claims of yours with this site will be removed from all articles. You are misleading here. A list of airfields is not given. Just the damage is mentioned and karachi fuel tanks can be included as well. Lost assets are often listed in wars. The phrase is not making the infobox unduely long. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dont Fool yourself and others PAF official website does not Give the Value for PAF aircraft losses (while it can accurately give it) for obvious reasons. but no the PAF Website goes on to give IAF losses, although it is the official PAF website but this particluar information about IAF losses from PAF official website cannot be included owing to Neutrality issues. wp:NEUTRAL This is a Pakistani Claim and not a neutral one.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• A lot of damage can be mentioned in infobox of both the Indian and pakistani sides, that does not mean we have to add it. these are extra information that cannot and should not be added in infobox. Kindly dont argue on this, and follow the Wikipedia trend on war pages. if you still doesnt agree we can take it to Dispute resolution noticeboard. i see you are calling it vandalism now? please mention below if you agree to take it to dispute board --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the only source saying it as you can see. It is backed up by a neutral source. The dispute resolution requires enough discussion on the talkpage. And in any case, you've not given any references to dispute the figure. Your current edit is just WP:Vandalism. Refrain from any vandalism on wiki. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try and assume good faith. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One might, but seeing the previous records of the user and the way he starts removing sourced content from any article that I edit, he's lost that credibility. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If so that sounds like a conduct issue. Possibly one worth raising at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is really an issue about neutrality and excessive content you'd have removed the content for both sides and not just that inflicted by Pakistan. I would have reverted your edit as well on that basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[|as you can see from this edit] i have removed both this information. the changes were not visible earlier as i was alco commenting on the talk page baout my edits and in the meanwhile the other user reverted my change leading to a a conflict on my web browser so my 2nd changes were not visible in thhe beginning --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any user would definitely get that benefit of doubt but both your edit summaries are completely different. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think one should not take undue benefit of doubt and complain at once (without wasting a second (check time stamps)) to the Antivandal rather than waiting for the user to complete his comment, moreover this is clearly assuming bad faith as opposed to wiki assume good faith--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also if the user lTopGunl (talk) really wanted a real resolution then he could have taken it to Dispute resolution like i had asked but no he took the matter to ANTI VANDAL for getting me blocked, besides i have enough proof with me that he since long wanted to get me blocked and has threatened about blocking numerous times on talk pages of various articles. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution requires discussion on talk. You wont be entertained there for a completely new issue. You might want to read the guidelines on top of that page. There is a reason a discussion takes place here first, Second, when you remove cited info on basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's the right noticeboard to go to, --lTopGunl (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there are issues on both sides they will come out. I still think some level of escalation will be good for both of you - chances are both of you are at least partially in the wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that above users considers it fit to Get me blocked by antivandal rather than discussing on the talk page reduces any space for a healthy discussion. I had a number of proofs against the other user about his disruptive edits (removing cited content etc ) on Operation Trident (1971) but i considered it fit to discuss it on talk pages by initiating discussion myself, rather than complaining it to the antivandal, after disussion at Talk:Operation Trident (1971)all his edits on Operation Trident (1971) have been reverted as they were incorrect . I am not left with any choice than going to DRN hence i have mentioned the dispute on DRN. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misleading here. My edits were not 'reverted' they were agreed upon in a consensus. And the ones that you could not get a consensus on, you started to spam the section. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• yes i agree your were not reverted you were forced to undo them from the talk page after discussion . yes you can take credit for that in case you want it. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the issue on talk page is not spamming the talk page . the points are valid and has been raised appropriately. moreover its Important to note that all my points were valid and were finally agreed upon , it can also be checked from the Talk:Operation Trident (1971)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, all your points were not agreed upon. And I was not forced to undo any change. I did them as per consensus. You are repeatedly trying to mislead. Also you might notice, this page is not for this discussion but for improvement of the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think its ok to leave the other editors to decide after seeing the respective talk pages who is trying to mislead. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also i have taken the matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (the archived link here [7] ) other editors can check the comments there. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

non neutral material does not belong in Info Box if you want to add the Pakistani claims please do so to the air war section of the article as for the harbor claims place that in the naval war section global security and Pakistani government/military claims are biased and or unverified --Buklaodord (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 as an example. Add appropriate headings in the infobox. The variations of claims require such measures. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

well you need to see clearly that 1965 page shows Neutral Sources first adn then biased sources if any. as Giving Biased source alone serves no purpose other than POV pushing (PAKISTANI POV pushing from you) in this case. hence it needs to be removed, until and unless the casualties are backed up by Neutral and verifiable wp:RS sources--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The claims above both headings are neutral or as verified by both sides (citations given). Add sourced Indian claims to their section when you find them. Due to varying claims as told in 65 war article this is the easies way to go forward in progress of article. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

your So called EASIEST way of POV pushing is sadly not the way to go ahead. Wikipedia history articles does not and should not Give vital informations and data until and unless there are credible neutral and reliable sources backing them. so far the source for Infobox of 1965 war for 130 indian aircraft casualty is PAF website and not neutral.[8]--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and a PAF website is a credible source for PAF'sclaims only which I presented and did not mislead. You can stop with the blaming and find the Indian claims to add instead. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• well The discussion about the source PAF is already there at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 (do have a look again in case you have forgotten it by now. )and it clearly says that its BIASED dont argue about your source any more.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything. Read the concluding/closing argument! It was inconclusive. Stop jumping from positions of removing the source totally to sorting out the neutral ones along with it. If you don't want to add Indian claims, some one else will. WP:VOLUNTEER. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Widespread

Ashlin, the citation says "widespread" damage which is as quoted by an Indian officer. The word is not exaggeration rather telling the extent of damage caused. Further, since an Indian officer is saying that, it is least likely to be exaggeration. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On one side you are removing "widespread" from one side and now you are adding on the other? Seriously? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

One officer's word is "Undue". However, Lal's exact page reference may kindly be provided. I have just borrowed a copy of this book and will be able to cross-check all his references. I will be able to discuss accurately after that only. Generally speaking imho, "widespread" is a word which can also be understood as carrying out much more damage than was achieved by the limited strikes to each of the airfields. Overstating damage will only cause amusement to professionals who are able to judge the relative degree of damage, much like the claim that the Dwarka raid was a "naval success" whereas it would be accurately portrayed as "a limited naval success". Being conservative and accurate does not take away from the achievement while overstating does.

As regards the reversal of referenced information unilaterally, the reversed information were not my edits but the exact amount of damage to Karachi can be checked in detail to see whether it applies or not. That is a separate issue which I am not discussing here at the moment. AshLin (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not actually undue (it would have been one thing if it would have been a Pakistani officer). I don't have a copy of Lal's book (used a google book when I entered the source), I can however tell that it states that they had to use the taxi ways to take off for six days of war. So the word was adequately placed. About the reversal of edits, the burden of proof is on the editor who adds or reinstates them. If you don't know about it yourself yet, you shouldn't revert it. It is very much related to this since you removed the same word from one side and added to the other (yes, reinstating others' edits puts equal burden on you). That would be a typical POV case. You also reinstated the shipping issue which is not a physical damage/loss at all (see my comment in below section). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that means your edit based on Lal's Google book does not need page citation but that being the reverting editor I need to have it, interesting. And by the way, that was with reference to one airfield only of all of those attacked. If there was widespread damage to all the airfields the airfields should have been out of commission for part of the war and PAF able to gain local air superiority for at least a while. Let me read Lal's book & I will get back to you in detail. AshLin (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Page citation I don't think is a burden when the book has been cited. You can make a quick google search for that. The reverting editor needs to have atleast a citation or basis for the revert. I don't think it was a reference to a single airfield but rather in general. Airfields were not put out of commission, instead taxi ways were used as I quoted. In anycase, the exact term used by an Indian officer is a source enough to be added to the claim. There's no undue weight in it since it has been published in a secondary source. -lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, pagewise citation is essential for verification on Google Books. Citing Google Books is very easy using RefTag which gives you facility to cite page as well. As such just citing a book is never good enough. The aim for citation on Wikipedia is verifiability and if page numbers are not given for large books, it is just as useful as providing no citation at all. In that case don't be surprised if it is treated as uncited. As such since you spend so much of your time editting India-Pakistan articles where almost any issue or fact may be challenged, in good faith I advise you to cite pages henceforth. For reversion, a cite is not necessary. If the facts in an already cited source are mis-represented, the edit may be reverted. AshLin (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add the pages if that is all the problem. But the content is not uncited without that. We do have another citation, so a revert is not called for. You can not remove the word "widespread" if you think it is exaggerating while the source says exactly in those words. The WP:BURDEN is yet on you for why you removed the cited content (given that Lal's book was a consolidating reference only which I will add page no's to since you object). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef.info is an unreliable source. Indiaupdatenews.com is a self-published source and not reliable. See the publishers advertisement offering various types of services. The particular article he wrote was a rant over why air force did not get adequate credit for Langewala. As such he sites no sources, has no editorial policy. His self-authored article on Longewala is a tainted source and not reliable. AshLin (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG. The source is reliable. The "about us" page you cited just clarifies that an editor is present for the source and editorial processes are applied. Infact that places it into the "expert" category since that is explained on that page. Having advertisements is surely does not render any source unreliable. About the content you claim as rant is also attributed. Pakdef can be replaced by sources from the mission's article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ranjit Rai runs a self-published news aggregator with poorly-written POV (In this case POV is that IAF did not get credit for Karachi/Longewala) articles authored by himself, with advertisements seeking custom for his services, no reliable news organisation backing him and no editorial policy. Even the source he supposedly attributed is completely amateurish. Good luck with proving he is reliable as a NEWSORG on WP:RS! :). Ranjit Rai's articles may only be considered reliable if published in proper defence magazines of repute and with strict editorial policies and/or peer review where his articles would be vetted and editted. His rant on Longewala on his own website does him no credit. As far as NEWSORG is concerned, if his article had been an op-ed on the Times of India or The Hindu or the Statesman or any other mainstream paper, it would have been correctly RS under NEWSORG, not some website he set up himself. If you feel I'm wrong on this, you can always take it to RS Noticeboard for their opinion. AshLin (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For your repeated mention of his opinion on Longewala, since you missed what I said in my last comment, I'll quote from WP:NEWSORG:

"When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Book reviews too can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces."

The Identity if author here is given in length. Your claim is void on that. For the fact part it is backed up by Lal's source as well as it's own attribution. Your comment is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the page ref. Now see the first line of page 287 (next page) - (regarding the same airfield Uttarlai) it says :

"That is how they operated for the war, they flew 300 sorties with great gusto and style - the Maruts, the Gnats and later the MiGs."

Hardly the language one would use for an airfield with "widespread damage". And that was only Uttarlai.

See Operation Chengiz Khan. In no case was there much worthwhile damage done in any airfield. The attacks were widespread but the damage certainly was not. The reasons are self-evident from the text - night bombing from high on. AshLin (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On another note, Pakdef.info is considered unreliable and it will not count where facts are disputed. We need clearcut RS for that. AshLin (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef.info is not in dispute here. No matter how many sorties they flew, the damage to the airfields is not proportional to that when the source itself clearly states that they had to fly from taxiways. You don't have to assume on your own when the citation clearly states the opposite. And this is not just one citation here. The previous citation is also presenting it as a statement of fact as well as expert opinion if you read it. When something is cited by more than one citation, you have to be careful before removing it. As of now, you have not cleared your burden of proof nor reinstated the word you removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the account of one airfield is being extrapolated by you to other airfields and a few craters which were repaired rather quickly in the majority is being considered as "widespread". I have provided adequate cause for the removal of the word and looks like we shall need outside opinion on this. In the meantime, I shall read Lal to check what all his book is saying. AshLin (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed my comment again. I didn't extrapolate it. It is being cited in another citation along with this one proposing the same for atleast one airfield in direct context. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My view is references 6 & 8 are unreliable. Lal who is an RS has been quoted extensively in Chengiz Khan as well as in one of the pakdef.info pages. As far as I can see, you have given a ref for Uttarlai being widespread damaged by Lal and for no other airfield. I shall be checking his pages in detail for the same soon. The problem here is what exactly do you mean by the word "widespread"? One connotation is that damage was extensive which implies that the bombing was very effective in rendering the airfields non-operational. The other meaning could be widely extended or spread out. AshLin (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to one and all. Will continue this discussion in the New Year. AshLin (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Content removal

The IP user must not remove this content, it was notable enough and is well sourced and accepted by both India and Pakistan. Removing such non disputed content can be taken as vandalism. It is fair enough to put Karachi fuel tanks too, though your comment with it was not in the citation. Also blockade is not a damage or a loss. It goes to the body of this article and the results in the infobox of the specific mission articles which already have it. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Registered user must observe best practices for casualties and losses section. As wwi and wii articles demonstrate, this section is reserved for statistics on war dead and injured (including military and civilian casualties). User's bullet points may indeed be sourced, but should be called out in main article rather than this section as a best practice--damage (especially trivial as in the case of the airfields since they were in use within hours) is no more apropos here than the blockade. The section is for human casualties to give readers an indication of the scope and scale of human loss (both civilian and military).

In addition, please note that that my penultimate edit was not a reversion and did not merit a 3RR warning. I am ineligible for a block as I have been discussing both on the history page and now the discussion page. Also please reread wiki policy as reason for deletion was clearly stated (and legitimate) and did not amount to and would not approach vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The content is well sourced however the terminology you are using for your content is not neutral and should be balanced. Also shipping problems are not 'damages' (even if they are correctly cited). The second bullet has no place in the info box and the first one should use neutral wording. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not sourcing--please address the main issue in the discussion, which is that all those bullet points (whether about india or pakistan) are not germane to the section. The section should be restricted to human casualties as is the best practice here on wikipedia. "[D]amages" are expected in war, but do not indicate human loss or strategic value, and are nonetheless addressed in the main section of the article to better provide context. The attack on karachi ceased virtually all shipping to pakistan's main port and harbour and gives the reader an understanding of this. The attack on okha fueling facilities did not stop the subsequent attack on karachi as the attack on airfields did not achieve the objective of temporary air superiority as advocated by tikka khan. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Best practices" are not a rule of thumb. Also, the infobox heading under which you have listed the "ceased shipping" states "casualties and loses". I've listed the damages to the facilities which are physical damages while ceased shipping is not a damage and under no criteria comes into infobox (it could come in a results section but that of the mission or a part of war not the main war). I've not contested the listing of Karachi fuel tanks, but that should be done in neutral wording. Also, objectives are not relevant to this even though they were achieved as per the Indian citations. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• As already discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 the reference to the Airfields and fuel facilities needs to be removed.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't put up false claims of inconclusive DRNs. Check out closer's comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Its not a false claim as you can see everyones comment, besides its only you who is not listening to what the other editors are saying making the DRN fruitless. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put Indian claims in the infobox and it seems to be of neutral nature what do you say?--Vyom25 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are under their respective headings. Fair enough. One of it says only "45" though. Consider adding "IAF aircraft" like the other side to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Topgun, you need to understand that military science is based on achievement of objectives and impact not mere standalone damage to facilities. That is why the attack on karachi is more significant than okha. Okha could not prevent the second attack on karachi. The second attack on karachi ceased all shipping traffic. That is what determines who wins a war. That is the best practice on wikipedia. As such, objectives do matter especially when giving context. Also, there were two points that were made: 1. about fuel tanks being destroyed (3 B dollars worth) and 2. actual harbour damage. You deleted harbour damage saying it was "nonneutral" when it was neutral and providing scale and context.Please do not delete sourced material. According to your comments, deletion of sourced material is vandalism.

Regardless, as has been stated earlier, none of these points (india or pak), belongs here. This is the casualty and loss section. It deals with human loss not "damage". Please cooperate with other users as this is a community and not personal page, and follow wikipedia best practices (esp with respect to inboxes need to be followed). Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What you don't understand is, the 'achievements' go in the results section (or the results section of the specific missions). You here are claiming one thing more important than other on your original research. Even if you could prove that statement of yours, it doesn't mean that you can add stuff that doesn't even count as even a damage. You are doing this in a tit-for-tat (as you said above) just to get the rest removed. The content you placed in the infobox was first using POV tone and wordings, then you just removed the word 'all' from the other side without looking at the content you were reverting and your current edit is not supported by the citation. There's no mention of the specific information you are giving here, ie. the main port being damaged. It just says that the harbour was set ablaze in context to the fuel tanks that caught fire. You seem to be forum shopping at an admin and a previously involved editor now. This will not help your case. It doesn't matter if you are discussing and explaining along with your reverts. You have to completely stop reverting and only discuss or you are editwarring no matter what you say. Also your last reason for reverting content is meaningless. There is no such thing known as consensus version or consensus edit. There's only the existing revision and your revision. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not citing original research, it's all there in the citation--you're just not reading it
• There is no tit for tat. A number of other users such as Dbigxray have also said the "achievements", aka damage to facilities don't belong in the casualties section. The fact that you call it an "achievements" shows that you are POVpushing.
• You have been given examples of WWI, WWII, among others where only casualties are placed in the casualties infobox. That is the core of the problem. You need to follow WP Best Practices
• Please focus: The issue is the infobox. The consensus here is that nothing else should go under casualties besides casualties. You are alone in opposing, likely to POV-push to salve the wound of pakistan's defeat and surrender of 90,000.
• The citations I placed actually note "port installations" being destroyed.
• You don't address the issue of sargodha and masroor airbase being cratered even though you unilaterally deleted. Explanation?
• You cannot revert because you had a bad faith block placed on me. Blocking is not a basis for reversion. Also you did not even respond to me after you blocked. Showing WP: BAD FAITH, meaning you are trying to POV push. These articles should be maintained for accuracy and not to refight a war that were won by India 40 years ago.
• If you have a problem with the consensus here, my suggestion is that you continue the WP:DR that DBigXray began with you in good faith. You were instructed to go to arbcom. So if you would like to change, take it to arbcom. Until then, the consensus (you are outnumbered here and BWilkins said majority consensus will be retained) will stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you see the commas? What you put there was referred to as 'achievements' which is a 'result' and that is not equal to damage, Or are you now implying that you were of my views and I of yours? Let me first sort it out, you have now placed some content of similar type in the infobox which you say is not a 'best practice' yet editwarring to keep it? That is either tit-for-tat or you are really confused about what you want to do here. I reviewed the citations, you are twisting the phrases here. Accusing others of bad faith is meaningless on wikipedia and will only amount to uncivility. It is completely ok to revert a blocked user as far as I know and this is not the place to contest your already expired block. I don't have any problem with a consensus. That DR was closed by an uninvolved editor and can not be continued but this talk page is still open. I was not 'instructed' rather recommended to go to mediation but I utilized my time on other articles assuming "no consensus" here which has a default of retaining the status quo. I don't think BWilkins said anything on this talk page and I don't think he will say something like that because consensus is not majoritarianism nor is it voting. You have yet made another revert just after your block expired. You seem to be pretty well aware of the terminology here, maybe you can sign and indent your comments next time? --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• "A result" is not equal to "a damage" but is not "an achievement"? You're not making sense. Please focus on the issue of the purpose of the infobox.
• It is not tit-for-tat when you believe damage to a facility should be placed under the casualties section of the infobox. You insist on that standard of placing damage under casualties, so I am applying that standard all the way through. Unless you think only damage in the India column should be retained--in which case, it would be POV pushing.
• I don't care about tit-for-tat. This is history, the war is over. pakistan lost. So I don't care about tit for tat, just an accurate recounting of what happened.
• Here are some of the best war articles on wikipedia and none of them has "achievements"/damage in the casualties infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War DBigXray has also given you numerous examples

• You reverted on the basis of a block and not for substantive reasons--that demonstrates that your concern is POV pushing since a substantive ground would be able to stand scrutiny.
• Dbigxray and I(among others) have been attempting to reach a compromise with you--that's why when you insisted on putting "achievements"/damage in the casualties infobox, we compromised and did the same.
• You cried "WP:VANDALISM" every time we tried to remove damage from the casualties column so we compromised. Now you are attempting to remove or dilute the damage in the pakistan column. That is POVpushing and bad faith editing. That means that the majority editing in good faith attempting to reach consensus will have their edit retained.
• You were instructed to go to RFC or mediation if you had further issues. Please do so. Until then, the consensus edit will remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me still. You are adding similar content on basis of a so called 'compromise' but you are arguing all along to remove everything even in this comment. So I don't see a compromise here. My concern is not a POV you assume here. I've told you the reasons for the revert. All my reverts have been explained to you and remember I've not reverted your current revert (while you are warring with multiple users here). You are placing twisted facts so don't blame me of diluting information. Infact keep your comments to the content only. There has been no consensus here, which means status quo should stay till a consensus. I've previously told you there's no such thing as consensus version. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok topgun, I know this can get confusing, so let's take this from the top:

• You insist on putting "achievements" which are not "a damage" but are "a result" in the infobox marked "casualties"
• The majority of the editors here have pointed out that "damage" doesn't belong there at all only human casualties
• You rv our attempts to remove that information saying it's vandalism to remove sourced information
• We say "ok fine, have it your way" and instead of reverting your edits, just add new sourced information to give the complete picture that you claim you want to do. If you don't want the complete picture--only your edits--that's POV pushing.
• You say "no, it is only a place for achievements which are a result but not a damage."
• We point out that the attack on karachi harbour and the cratering of pakistani airfields are even more significant than your edits, and thus, belong there
• You unilaterally rv and delete the pakistani cratered airfield edit with no substantive explanation. You merely wrote that you were reverting because the user had been blocked at your request. That is not grounds for reversion, since you had me blocked for edit warring with you in an edit war you started. So you deleted sourced information without an explanation. By your own view, that is WP:VANDALISM.
• I'm not warring with multiple users here--only you. The comments in the discussion are here for all to see.
• DBigXray, myself, and others are attempting to work with you. If you have a problem with this consensus, I suggest you take this to RFC or mediation.

The previous WP:DR admin told you guys to take it to mediation.Why do you have problem with that (you have yet to answer why)? The only motive for your reluctance is that your tactics of trying to block users first to keep your preferred version will be open to admin scrutiny, and you've been warned about this before, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=463924949#Punitive_Block

"You PERSONALLY forced the other editor to edit-war, reported him, and have the further belief that you could get away with it by claiming you weren't going to do it anymore? Are you listening to yourself here? YOU BOTH GOT BLOCKED for your edit-war. Don't do it again ... easy as that. Your complete lack of understanding of WP:EW, WP:BLOCK is becoming disturbing. If I had only blocked you, then you might have had a case for some kind of argument about something ... but no, BOTH got blocked. I clearly have assumed too much good faith for too long, but WP:IDONTGETIT is a tiring argument (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)"

I hope this clears things up for you. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. I and the other users here would be happy to go through any mediation or RFC that you may like to request. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You insist on putting "achievements" which are not "a damage" but are "a result" in the infobox marked "casualties" << I'm not doing that... read again, I said you were putting results in loses section one of which is a blockade. I think that is clear enough now. You have the wrong belief that being more in number makes your point. You don't say anything like "have it your way", you are disputing that all along. so don't say the opposite. Yes you can put damages in the other side obviously. I did not revert the Karachi attack except for what the citation didn't support. You on the other hand have removed "all" from the Indian western airfields in your revert which is the exact term used in the citation and supported by another. Your pointing out that one thing is more significant than the other is complete original research at its best and WP:POV at its worst. You can stop contesting your block here if you are really interested in discussing the topic. Blocked users do get reverted. Instead of coming back and discussing, you did exactly the same thing for which you were blocked, I don't think you've understood the meaning of editwar or are attempting to draw me into one. I'm open to consensus, you can stop assuming everything on my part. My last month's block is not related to this topic and is not related to you (unless you are the same person logged out? I hope not.) You should look at the article history. You are only discussing it with me, but warring with multiple users (I count your direct editwar with atleast three there). If you don't stop this advertisement of my old block, I will report you for hounding - but then, don't claim I reported you for block 'first'. I've warned you for both edit war and this first (and that's what I did before reporting you a day ago). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Topgun, anyone who just reads the article on the 1971 war knows that the karachi attack is more significant than the okha attack because karachi was and still is pakistan's main port. pakistani shipping was crippled after that attack. All shipping traffic ceased and the pakistan navy was bottled up. okha was a minor harbour in comparison and the attack on it did not even stop the follow up raid that put the lid on karachi. That's not WP:OR, that's WP:COMMON SENSE, but readers won't know any of this based upon your principle of only putting "achievements which are a result but not a damage" in the casualties section of the inbox. As for the citations, they clearly support my edits--I suggest you reread. Even if they didn't, you could have always edited rather than reverted. But you chose to revert so that you wouldn't have to reword or re-cite (i've clearly demonstrated my desire to do both in the interest of compromise). Also, you should be aware that your WP:INTIMIDATE tactics have run their course. Your past block is relevant as you have a long track record of disruptive edit warring recognized by admins and editors alike. By all means, if you think I am WP:HOUNDING you then please WP:REPORT me cause then your own record will be WP:SCRUTINIZED. You can't warn someone about edit warring when you start the edit war yourself. You have been warned by some clearly very irritated admins in the past. For your own good, I suggest you obey their instructions. So far in this discussion it's been me and DBigXray (already a majority), and seemingly Ashlin and Vyom25. You're the only one commenting in favour of your position--I see no others. DBigXray (the original party to your dispute) appears more than ready for a mediation or rfc, so what's stopping you from requesting one (in the interest of WP:GOOD FAITH I recommend you answer this question)?

98.165.115.152 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• As we all can clearly see in the arguments in the DRN on this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 that everyone other than the User TopGun was of the view that the redundant info needs to be removed from the infobox. The DRN was inconclusive as User TopGun was not ready to hear anyone else's comment or suggestion on the issue, TopGun's policy of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU is clearly visible in his arguements. I request him to respond appropriately an point-wise to the questions raised above. It seems that we now need to take this issue further if we are unable to reach a consensus here on the talk page. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the comment above, where I have replied to all the points. It is hard to get the point to reply to when the editor is talking of removing it while adding content himself. If you are so right and I had nothing to base any argument on, why was the argument closed as inconclusive...? You can stop making assumptions. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually you haven't. Why are you still not interested in taking this to mediation or rfc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk • contribs)

Read again. Slowly this time. And sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Only you are responsible for your own editwar. For the rest, WP:TLDR. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read. There's nothing substantive there except for WP:OBFUSCATION--something admins have noted you have a track record of doing. I think if you spent a little less time misapplying wikipolicy and a little more time cultivating self awareness (as the punitive block discussion advised), you'd understand why admins have told you that it takes two to edit war. You have been warned not to warn users you are edit warring with--I suggest you observe this. You have also been guided through a WP:DR that told you to go to RFC or mediation as you are in the minority here. DBigXray and I are more than willing to compromise by keeping the existing consensus that incorporates your preferences, or (even better) ready to go to RFC or mediation. Those are the choices, Topgun--it's in your hands now. Status quo or RFC/mediation? , FYI, telling me to reread convoluted posts is not as effective as just answering my question here, unless your policy is indeed WP:OBFUSCATION--is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No matter how many times you comment on me rather than the content, it's you who's trying to deviate from topic here. You removed the cited word "all" from the infobox without any explanation and you've failed to discuss it here and only reverted. I don't see you reverting just me to say it takes two. Look at the history and yes, read my comment again where I told you that you are editwarring with 3 atleast. No compulsion has been placed on me and there's no restriction that you can place on me for a particular case. You have been hounding me here instead of talking about the content, if you are not ready to discuss the content, it is you who is filibustering. You've tried "reporting" me to the people of your choice and they've all told you to discuss the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• "You removed the cited word "all" from the infobox without any explanation"-no I didn't, user Ashlin did here(and he gave an explanation): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971&diff=next&oldid=466810706

So are you having trouble with WP:COMPETENCE here yourself, or are you not discussing/editing in WP:GOODFAITH or could it even be a WP:PREVARICATION? Quite the WP:CONUNDRUM, my dear topgun...

• The admins I spoke to said take it to rfc/mediation--which you seem to be reluctant to do. They also said that if you keep edit warring with me, you yourself will be blocked (as you have been before).
• The rest of your paragraph is WP:INCOMPREHENSIBLE, so I'll just focus on the crux of the matter: I will gladly talk content--I and others have been trying to from the beginning. You're not answering questions. That's why you keep getting reported to admins--you go around in circles. Even your WP:MENTOR got WP:FRUSTRATED and WP:GAVE UP on you. You didn't even answer my question--or purposefully evaded--about whether you want the status quo or RFC/Mediation.
• I have no problem with the status quo. You're the one who reverted on the basis of reporting me for a block for edit warring with you. I keep talking about your past misconduct because you keep warning me on my talk page not to edit war. That's why I brought out how you've been chastised by admins for warning editors with whom you yourself are edit warring. So if you have no interest in RFC/Mediation, the status quo remains--fine by me. Just don't think that you can revert a few days later without consulting the other editors who have reached a consensus.
• WP:FOCUS: Do you want the status quo (we can discuss citation/wording issues) or RFC/Mediation? What's your WP:ANSWER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ashlin didn't explain anything about the word "all" in the detailed discussion later and look at your last revert, it is you who readded it, not Ashlin. No, your sole purpose of advertizing the block and hounding me here is to get a work around the fact that you are finding it hard to get a consensus and are still claiming a false consensus on the issue just because you editwarred with multiple users to get the current revision to your choice. On wikipedia your changes and contributions will be edited mercilessly. So don't think everyone, including me, will consult you for making changes to this article either now or later. Just because I've decided not to edit war with you doesn't mean that I'm supporting your edits. And you can stop repeating your same insistence every time you comment and I'm not restricted to do any of that which I've replied to earlier. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• The detailed conversation between you and Ashlin on "widespread damage" and "all western airfields" is above for all to see.
• Thank you for confirming my correction of you: I didn't delete "all", ashlin did and the edit is there for all to see, just reverted your reversion. The question is, why did you revert on the basis of you getting me blocked? WP: GOOD FAITH means giving a real and well thought out explanation--not "a tit for tat" one. Why TG, why?
• You're outnumbered and out referenced right now, TG, so all these editors (esp the ones posting on my talk page) will be keeping watch. Saying there's no consensus doesn't make it no consensus. There is one whether you WP:OBFUSCATE or not.
• You're still not answering me on content decisions, just WP:IGNORING THE QUESTION...so let me give you another chance to bite:
• WP:FOCUS: Do you want the status quo (we can discuss citation/wording issues) or RFC/Mediation? What's your WP:ANSWER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

When you revert content, the burden is on you. It is your responsibility. There has been no explanation of that removal and Lal's book explains that all the airfields got damaged. I can read what you have written once, there's no need to caps and bold everything. See WP:SHOUT. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• "When you revert content, the burden is on you. It is your responsibility." Exactly--thank you for again proving my point!
• Ashlin provided an explanation(readers can scroll up to widespread discussion on Ashlin's edit) for his removal which I reverted to (so the explanation was there), but you failed to provide any explanation other than "user was blocked" for why you removed my edit with your reversion. So you failed to meet your own WP:BURDEN.Why TG, why?
• FYI, If you don't want people to "WP:SHOUT" ,as you mischaracterize it, you can't WP:IGNORE THE QUESTION. So again,

WP:FOCUS: Do you want the status quo (we can discuss citation/wording issues) or RFC/Mediation? What's your WP:ANSWER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is getting useless if you don't explain the removal of "all". I've given you reasons for the reverts, esp. when you got blocked reverting you on those basis meant you should debate here and not editwar. I'm thinking of leaving it for the time being and maybe debating it later with some serious set of editors. But then again, you have done some unexplained removal here which you have to answer. --lTopGunl (ping) 23:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• "I've given you reasons for the reverts, esp. when you got blocked reverting you on those basis meant you should debate here and not editwar."-No you haven't. You didn't explain why you removed the point about damage to pakistani airfields. You just rv'd on the basis of you getting me blocked:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971&action=history
• You can't revert on the basis of a block without substantive rationale. You failed to explain. The onus is on you to do so.
• Please stop WP:MISCHARACTERIZING to readers of this discussion. Ashlin gave an explanation stating you exaggerated claims (see above link and discussion above), and I rv'ed to his while rebutting your contention about significance of damage. Far more than the courtesy you afforded me when you said: "Undid revision 467255355 by 98.165.115.152 (talk) - reverted blocked user."
• Again, you failed to provide an explanation for your reversion on pakistani airfield damage.
• Since you have unilaterally decided to cease discussing(aka WP:TACTICALLYRETREATING) without answering our content question (no surprise), know that this article will be kept on watch since you refuse to edit collegially and congenially. If you wish to make changes, you need to discuss rather than stealth edit warring. Any invalid edit you make to the status quo will be reverted. Otherwise, seek RFC/Mediation. We'll be waiting.
• Let the record show we have tried to discuss with you in good faith, but you refuse to answer our simplest of questions and instead attempt to WP:TRADEACCUSATIONS so that you can WP:RUNOUTTHECLOCK and WP:STEALTHEDITLATER.
• Since we believe in WP:BENEFITOFTHEDOUBT, here again is the straightforward question you consistently refused to answer:

WP:FOCUS: Do you want the status quo (we can discuss citation/wording issues) or RFC/Mediation? What's your WP:ANSWER?

• Because we're feeling charitable, given your plight with numerous editwars elsewhere Other TopGun edit wars we'll even just ask, what content changes would you like to see and why (in WP:EASYTOREAD bullet form)?. Of course, given your long track record of WP:IGNORINGTHEQUESTION and WP:PUNITIVEBLOCKS and WP:SOCKPUPPET accusations, we don't expect a serious answer. WP:GOODDAY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You've made enough personal attacks demanding answers from me like you own the article. I've given you explanations in my first replies. If you continue to make personal attacks you will get blocked, again. --lTopGunl (ping) 09:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if you guys have a look at the featured articles of various battles of WWII you will find out that in casualties and losses section only KIAs, MIAs, Wounded soldiers, loss of instruments such as tanks, aircraft, ships etc are listed. All the info regarding infrastructure is covered in the article so I suggest you to remove points that says damege to Karachi and Okha port and damage to airfields on both the sides and cover it somehow in article. If we want to make this article a featured article in future we must follow the articles which are already featured. I will get back here soon with more. Meanwhile I reverted edits of Ghostgd as you are discussing the issue over here. --Vyom25 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This was the stable version of the article. You are right, only single word casualties are placed in the infobox. But this can be done with the same here. Or even if moved to the body, I doubt it will be kept neutral by the IP above. I don't mind you reverting Ghost's edits or the other users that reverted IP 98. The IP is the one edit warring. I have no rush since the world is not ending tomorrow. I can even wait till he goes to other places and makes similar personal attacks on others and finally get a permanent ban. --lTopGunl (ping) 09:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

well, what do you say 98.165.115.152? If you and any other editors who are observing this agree then we can move infrastructure damage to it's proper place which is article not infobox..--Vyom25 (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for mediating, Vyom25. Absolutely fine by me to keep only KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs and Loss of Instruments as is done according to WP:best practices in the infobox. It is what DBigXray and I have been saying from the beginning. The only question is whether Topgun will honor the agreement here or go back on his word as he has done elsewhere (he seems to be hinting at that by saying he has "no rush"). If he explicitly honors the agreement, then I accept your proposal. If he does not, given his history of punitive blocks and admin warnings, it is he who will be on track for a permanent ban--ostensibly when jcAla returns from his topgun instigated Edit War block. In the event of an observed commitment to this, I will adhere to our agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you even expect to come to an agreement with those personal attacks of yours? --lTopGunl (ping) 11:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you even expect me to come to an agreement with your continuing threats and WP:MISCHARACTERIZATION here and WP:HARASSMENT on my talk page? Do you expect anyone to think you are negotiating in WP:GOODFAITH after you suddenly make a 180 and accept DBigXray's request from 2 months ago because your disruptive behavior on 5 concurrent edit wars have been noticed by admins?

98.165.115.152 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accept anything. Read it again. I offered solutions to a serious editor. --lTopGunl (ping) 02:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Read it again--slowly. You did not offer any solutions only personal attacks on my neutrality and ban threats. You've been stonewalling, smokescreening and trading accusations since the beginning. A solution was offered to you by vyom25 (the same one dbigxray offered and that I resuggested almost 2 months later).
• Sidenote: it's not good form to threaten to block and ban people then cry "personal attacks" when they just repost your previous block histrionics--it's not truthful either. Also, with umpteen concurrent wars over povpushing edits, don't imply that you are a serious editor and others are not.
• You finally then said to vyom that "You are right, only single word casualties are placed in the infobox" after 2months of your opposing that very suggestion that DBigXray first made which started this edit war and then restarted again when I noticed it and thought your posting of pakistani "achievements" in the infobox was silly. Unless you don't understand the meaning of the words casualties and loss instruments such as tanks,aircrafts and ships, it's all there for people to see. No matter how hard you may try and how long it may take, topgun, the truth alone triumphs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing you've offered here other than cherry picked, out of context, quotations from me and other editors and personal attacks on me. You've taken all my warnings as a pretext to only make more personal attacks. And truth is not what Wikipedia needs. --lTopGunl (ping) 03:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

alas poor topgun, the evidence is there for users to see, and like everything else you've WP:MISCHARACTERIZED, is not cherrypicked but accurate. you didn't even provide a rebuttal (proving your awareness of how hollow your argument is) just one more example of how you WP:TRADEACCUSATIONS to smokescreen. Truth IS required for wikipedia discussions. WP:NPOV is required for articles. Alas, it appears that just as you have trouble differentiating between those two, you have trouble distinguishing between personal attacks and reposting of your disruptive editing elsewhere. This, of course, is in contrast to your WP:THREATS and WP:BULLYING towards users.And you can't warn users for edit warring and personal attacks when you are doing the same. Admin Bwilkins specifically reprimanded you for this before. but fear not, my dear, dear topgun, the truth alone will triumph here and WP:NPOV on the article, no matter how much you may WP:MISCHARACTERIZE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys as I was on vacation I couldn't participate here now I am back. It seems from your comments that both the parties are agreed on keeping only single word casualties in infobox then why text is still there? I can remove it if you guys like it. However it must be covered in the article text first.--Vyom25 (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A reference article for interested Editors

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Drunk-Yahya-hinted-at-India-attack-10-days-before-71-war/articleshow/11505027.cms regards --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

India's motives are disputed.

TG reverted an IP [9] saying India's motives are disputed. Disputed by whom? I feel quite certain that I have read India went to war due to the humanitarian crisis. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been objected repeatedly on different mission pages. I guess the archives will have this. If not I'll search the arguments to present them to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do so. I will point out to you that any Pakistani or Indian sources will be of no use, sue only reputable academic publishers preferably from western scholars who will not be biased. On a side note, who objected to this content? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Will check around. And obviously editors objected to this content. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's one that I specifically remember [10]... you can search the rest yourself. There's no point in digging up discussions every month about the same content.. hardly constructive. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So yourself and one other editor objected to this? Even though sources were given which stated why India went to war? It seems quite stupid to have an article on a war and to not explain one of the country's reasons for going to war. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'll go all over this debate again. You can read my replies on the linked discussion. The reasons are disputed so it is not 'one' of the reasons. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This video may help. Video features the Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi who traveled the world to garner support for victims of Genocide.

| link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.216 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Figures in the lede

Need to stay, as well sourced and four hundred thousand women being raped in such a short time is a lot. Another thing, were the civilians actually POW's? Are civilians caught behind an advancing army really POW's? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Civilian working with the military are POWs. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not even remotely surprised to find another source misrepresented. It does not say the civilians were POW's. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not checked those. This was an answer to your question. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I had not checked either, but the numbers involved seemed far to high for civilians working for any armed forces. So I did check, gross misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you made that revert on just the (improbable) numbers? Or does it not say civilian at all? I'll have to take a look too I guess. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I thought the numbers too high, so I checked the source. It dose not say the civilians were POW's. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the pow figure you can deal with that however I am concerned about the manipulation of the death toll which varys extremely according to source example it is very high according to indian claims and low in Pakistani statistics while neutral source put it at between 500,000 to 3 million this deserves a mention in the lead not just a single source to fulfil ones pov MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Nangparbat [11] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You have thus far given three different casualty estimates, 371,013, 300,000 and now 500,000. And yet the source cited says 3 million. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to this figure that you removed, yes they were civilians which included families of military personnel, civil government staff and their families. Mar4d changed it from Pakistani civilians to Bengali civilians, which is not true. These civilians were Pakistanis (West) and were kept as POW by India. They were released along with the Pakistan Army POWs in 1974. I have met a few of them so can understand what the author of the book cited here means by civilians. --SMS ^Talk 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say the civilians were POW's. Please read it carefully. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok! probably I am getting it wrong but can you explain what does author mean by this: "...release of some 93,000 Pakistani prisoner of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children captured in East Pakistan...". And please also read this. --SMS ^Talk 09:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is really rather simple, it is the context. 93,000 refers to troops, these are the POW's. The 15000 refers to people (family and nationals) who were caught behind the lines during the fighting. They are not POW's. If civilians caught behind an advancing army were POW's then the allies had quite a few million in Germany after WW2. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I get your point now. But I am not sure you are aware that these civilians were kept along with the military POWs in Indian detention camps. And also this 93,000 figure included civilians. Now my question is what should these civilians (caught by Indian Army and kept in Indian jails for about 3 years) be called? Visitors? Guests? or may be State Guests? --SMS ^Talk 10:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Use what the source actually says. I have been thinking on the best way, this is my proposal. "79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army(ref) and released along with 15,000 civilians who were captured in(when was this? I am unable to find a source which says when the prisoner exchange occurred)" Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the source saying these civilians were POWs and not only this source any mention of POWs of Indo-Pak war of 1971 mentions the figure of around 90,000, which includes the civilians. And if your theory of POWs not including civilians is followed the lead section of wiki article on POWs must also be corrected. --SMS ^Talk 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say they were POW's, we ca neither use my proposal, which I think covers everything, or you can find a source which says the civilians were POW's. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you find a source which states that there were 79,000 POWs (and not 93,000)? And the source cited here clearly says that civilians were POWs, I can't help if you want to interpret it your own way. --SMS ^Talk 15:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but this is due to the sources having being even more misrepresented than I had realized. The sources in the article mention two numbers for POW's, these figures do not include civilians at all. Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad pp10 actually say 90,000 troops surrendered, the second source Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies pp216 is obviously close to this in troop numbers with a figure of 93,000. Neither source includes the 15,000 civilians at all. The numbers in the lede are incorrect for total Pakistani POW's Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[12] 90,000 troops seem borne out by this result. [13] far less for 93,000 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The figure of 90,000 is an approximate figure. Here are some sources which includes civilians among POWs: redacted, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. But I think we can call them Civilian internees. --SMS ^Talk 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Your first source (which I have removed as a linkvio says

The prisoners of war, including civilians paid out of the resources of the armed forces, according to the information received through the International Committee of the Red Cross, numher 81,888. In addition, India continues to detain over 10,000 civilians, among them 6,500 women and children.

As you can see troop numbers are entirely separate from civilians.

1. Your second source says

   There is also the diplomatic issue for the Bengali government of repatriating 93,000 Pakistani POWs (including 20,000 civilians)

   Again the civilian numbers are separate from troop numbers.
2. You third source is self published and as such is not WP:RS
3. Your forth source is not from a reputable publisher, from there own about Verso Books is the largest independent, radical publishing house a self described "radical" publisher is not what I would call a decent source.
4. Your fifth source is a highly opinionated Op-Ed, and as such is useless for statements of fact, let alone historical ones.
5. Your sixth source seems to be self published as well, it is hosted by sixhour but the banner says Bhutto.org? In essence your sources are of no use or do not support what you are saying. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked further into this, 90,000 soldiers seems to be the correct number of POW's. Asian Security Handbook: Assessment of Political-security Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region pp203 M.E. Sharpe. Human Rights in the Twentieth Century pp273 Cambridge University Press. Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad pp10 Brookings Institution. Issues in Terrorism and Homeland Security pp192 Sage. Pervez Musharraf: President of Pakistan pp34 Rosen. Détente and the Nixon Doctrine: American Foreign Policy and the Pursuit of Stability, 1969-1976 pp103 Cambridge University Press. I think we have enough academic sources there to show 90,000 is the correct number of POW's taken. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My point of quoting these links was to show that the figure of around 90,000 includes civilians. And saying that there were around 90,000 POWs means that civilians were POWs. Wherever the military POWs are mentioned separately the number is reduced to around 80,000. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand. And the number was never exactly 90,000. You will even find sources saying 95,000. The ICJ petition says it was more than 90,000, so it would be better to say more than 90,000. --SMS ^Talk 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Might want to check out how they have dealt with this on other war articles from the Wikiproject military history. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your new source also fails as WP:RS, it is an opinion piece. I think all those academic sources are more than enough proof that the figure is 90,000. Do you have any neutral academic sources which dispute this figure? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The confusion of whether this figure of around 90,000 POWs includes civilians is still unanswered on your end and I think we are going no where after having a lengthy discussion. Our point of discussion initially was whether this figure of around 90,000 included civilians or not? And what to call those civilians captured or detained by India? (I have already suggested to call them civil internees, though almost every source call them POWs) Sources which say more than 90,000 POWs captured by India are:

92,000

1. Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law by M. Cherif Bassiouni
2. Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes by William Schabas
3. Genocide and the Europeans by Karen Elizabeth Smith
4. Humanity for all: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement by Hans Haug
5. Perspective on Kashmir: The Roots of Conflict in South Asia by Raju G. C. Thomas

93,000

1. A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East by Spencer C. Tucker
2. India and the Middle East by Prithvi Ram Mudiam

1. No mention of civilians

1. Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani Foreign Policies by S. M. Burke

1. Separates troops from civilians.

1. Genocide and Political Groups by David L. Nersessian

1. 93k Soldiers, not mention of civvies.

1. Nuclear Pakistan by M. G. Chitkara

1. No mention of civilians.

1. South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma: India, Pakistan, And China by Lowell Dittmer

1. No mention of civilians.

1. Benazir Bhutto (Leading Women) by Corinne J. Naden

1. No mention of civilians.

1. Pakistan: A Modern History by Ian Talbot

1. No mention of civilians.

1. Islam at War: A History by George F. Nafziger and Mark W. Walton

2. Says 93k soldiers taken prisoner. No mention of civvies.

1. A Brief History of Pakistan by James Wynbrandt and Fawaz A. Gerges

1. I find no mention at all in this source of POW's. Page number please.

Page 204

1. [20]

94,000

1. India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic by Arnold P. Kaminsky and Roger D. Long

1. 94k armed forces, this one says all army.

1. Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War by Victoria Schofield

1. Says 94k POw,s mainly Pakistani troops, the rest could have been paramilitary personnel, no mention of civilians.

1. Beyond Afghanistan (Research Papers and Policy Studies) by Leo Rose and Kamal Matinuddin

1. Does not mention civilians. Only 94k Pakistanis taken as POW's.

95,000

1. India-Pakistan Relations with Special Reference to Kashmir by K.R. Gupta

1. Can I get a page number for this one please, I am unable to find the 95k figure in it.

Page 173

I quoted different figures to show that no one knows the exact figure of POWs captured by India in 1971. Some authors say 93,000 in one para and 90,000 in next. So it is better not to write an exact figure in this article too. --SMS ^Talk 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we use the high and low figures, yes? Between 90,000 and 95,000 Pakistani military were taken prisoner during the conflict Will that suffice? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as figure is concerned, Yes I agree with you. I will also support around 90,000 but your proposal seems more neutral and I guess will avoid random (and crazy) editors changing the figure. But saying that they all were Pakistani military personnel is not correct. They included civilians too. As majority of the captured people were military personnel, so some authors avoid or don't mention that this figure of around 90,000 included civilians too (lack of research on their part). Some of the above sources clearly say that this figure included civilians. --SMS ^Talk 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the sources I already commented on then no, as I said they are of no use. I rather think that the academics who wrote those books did at least some research. I just cannot see them all making the same error. I suspect the 79,000 odd figure was the mistake, people saw 90k odd prisoners, also saw X amount of civilians and just subtracted the civvies from the 90k total. But we need a reliable source which says all these civilians were POW's or were interred. I will go looking for some, give me a bit of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the sources say that the civilians were POWs (which is noted in most sources) then we should prefer not to use other terms and resolve this by saying something like "including civilians" or "including X amount of civilians". Civilian internees however seems to be a synonym, so can also be used but it should be implied that they are all referred to as POWs in the sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful if you would read the entire thread before making such a ridiculous statement as If the sources say that the civilians were POWs (which is noted in most sources) when I have already demonstrated above that that majority of reliable sources say no such thing. I will find sources which deal with the civilians, they are an integral part of the history and will not be left out. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the sources (published books) I listed the last time mentioned that this figure includes civilians. Sure, have your time (and don't worry I will not edit the page related to the issue we are discussing), by the time I will also search for more accurate sources. --SMS ^Talk 22:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read the thread, that is why I'm replying here, you don't need to tell me that. Sources do demonstrate that these included civilians, don't state your assertions as facts or this debate will turn into another one of those never ending ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have looked through most of the sources for the 93k figure, see my point by point rebuttal above. Now tell me the sources also include civvies? I am not looking through all of them, I have checked enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources that includes civilians in this figure of around 90k:

1. Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law by M. Cherif Bassiouni
2. Daily report: People's Republic of China, Issues 127-147 by Foreign Broadcast Information Service, pp73
3. Annual report of 1971 by International Committee of the Red Cross, pp50
4. Political system in Pakistan: political events in Pakistan, a chronology by Verinder Grover, Ranjana Arora, pp330
5. Foreign affairs Pakistan, Volume 3 by Government of Pakistan, pp47
6. Mountbatten and the partition of India by Syed Hashim Raza, pp156
7. Asian survey, Volume 14, Issues 1-6 by University of California, Berkeley
8. Perspectives on Indian politics by Ramashray Roy (Probablt author quotes from somewhere else)
9. Humanity for all: the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement by Hans Haug, pp121
10. A Brief History of Pakistan by James Wynbrandt, Fawaz A. Gerges, pp204
11. [21]

Will add more (if required) when I get time. One thing I am still confused about that how do you say the civilians are mentioned separately when it is written some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children [22]? --SMS ^Talk 10:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because including means in addition to. So X amount of prisoners including (IE-As well as) X amount of civilians = 90k POW's + 15k civilians. These are separate. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Quoting as an example(USAir Flight 405) that may look out of context and irrelevant but need to explain the use of word including.

Of the 51 people on board, 27 were killed in the accident, including the captain and one of the cabin crew members

So now can you tell me the total number of fatalities? --SMS ^Talk 12:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but your comparison is flawed. I will buy that new car for £15000, but only if you include air con and breakdown coverage which costs £300. How much did you pay for the car? I suspect we will need to try the DRN board or perhaps the RSN board for wider input, while it has been a pleasure discussing this with you I think we are just going to go in circles. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right we are in no way coming to a conclusion. I prefer a third opinion before going to DRN or RSN. You may proceed as you like. --SMS ^Talk 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

3O might be rejected because 3 users have already commented here. RFC? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure RFC is more appropriate (I didn't read that requirement for 3O) before going elsewhere. --SMS ^Talk 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)