Talk:Operation Meghdoot

Revert Unjustified?

I appreciate that the links I added were already in the article, but other articles use similar tactics in the See Also section- they were intended to allow a reader, having just finished reading the article, to easily find another, related article: a summary of the more important links used in the article.

I don't want to engage in an edit war, so, to help expand the article a little and help people who don't know anything about the subject, which internal links would you suggest?

If you want to discuss it, feel free to use my talk page.

EvocativeIntrigue 16:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

New name

I suggest the name Siachen Glacier War per WP:MilHIST guidelines as Operation Meghdoot is Indian-POV. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not a war and even Pakistan sources refer to this as Op Meghdoot. Idleguy 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

a little name fixing, Siachen War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• If it's not a war then what? please source your statements --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "The singular case of a bunch of breathless idiots fighting over a giant ice cube?" Makes a change from all the other stupid things humans fight over. Imagine the size of the whiskey glass it could fit into!

• I see no difference with Operation Badr (Pakistani) - Kargil War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All sources listed here and anywhere you'll see mention this specific assault in 1984 as Op Meghdoot. Actually you'll have to prove otherwise that it was a "war". No credible source mentions it as such. Thanks. Idleguy 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist:Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

also, the infobox is full of rubbish (name, date etc...) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pl avoid making wholesale changes, including changing the Ind-Pak campaign box when your claims are neither properly sourced nor do they have a consensus in changing over here. Thanks. Idleguy 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

have you ever heard for pre-emptive war? I'm for hearing other thoughts...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

infobox still full of rubbish. it contradicts the article --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

War at the Top of the World, please read the milHist guidelines... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

and please, do not WP:OWN --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please dont indulge in speculation and original research. Everything you add in Wikipedia is to be properly sourced. Actually that Time magazine article is one of the sources I used and no it doesn't refer to this specific incident as Siachen War or something like that.

• Can you be more specific about what you consider "rubbish" and how does it contradict the article? Idleguy 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

see the infobox conflict name and date. This is a Preemptive war, what do you think it is other than that, see also Six-Day War

AGAIN: WP:MilHist:Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name.

Examples:

• Operation Change of Direction - 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
• Operation Litani - 1978 South Lebanon conflict
• Operation El Dorado Canyon - US bombing of Libya

This is simply WP:milHist. This is a war per se, as the others above, whether claimed or not. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. yes, also possible version is 1984 Siachen conflict, but war because not different from Kargil War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just so you know "siachen glacier war" returns only a measely 30 results in google, while "operation meghdoot" returns 4,630. even if wikipedia links are removed i'm sure it's like 100:1 in favour of op meghdoot. Thanks. Idleguy 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ehm, I saw Siachen War, like Kargil War - the same standards. You still did not get the point and the infobox still contains Operation Trident - this statement raises doubts over your knowledge of this thing, I will have to activate WP:Milhist --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do people quoting that guideline on codenames always omit the second part? If this conflict/engagement/whatever is overwhelmingly known under an operational codename (which may or may not be the case—I'm not an expert on this topic by any stretch of the imagination—but is certainly suggested by the Google results), then it should be left at that title, rather than being moved to an arbitrary geographic one that's not used in actual historical literature on this topic. (Indeed, the "most common name" principle is almost universal in Wikipedia's naming conventions.) Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur - the article name should correspond to the name used in the historical literature. The ghits seem to suggest that Operation Meghdoot is the most common name, but I also cannot speak from any position of authority or expertise. Carom 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

and what with this:

• Operation Change of Direction - 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
• Operation Litani - 1978 South Lebanon conflict
• Operation El Dorado Canyon - US bombing of Libya

and POV?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the people who moved those articles; presumably the codenames are not widely enough used for the "most common name" principle to outweigh the drawbacks of employing them as article title. Kirill Lokshin 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• btw, pl look at Template talk:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars where I've responded in detail. If Siachen needs to be linked then the template name should be changed to Conflicts and the correct link should point to the war/conflict and not just one of the operations of the siachen conflict that has gone on since 1984. Also TheFEARgod has not spelt out clearly what needs to be cleaned up in the page here. The tag itself says that a more precise problem needs to be identified instead of a vague tag. Thanks. Idleguy 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg

Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Saqi Map Kashmir Standoff 2003.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• GyongLaNJ9842.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Siachen Glacier.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)