Wikipedia

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 6

< Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Some time pictures tell the whole story

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please visit the link in which pictures tell all of the story of large scale terriyory confiscated by pakistani forces in Rajhistan sector( Kishengarh etc), Kasur sector, chamb jurrian sector Kashmir and Rann of Kutch sector. War ended in stallemate because Pakistan didnt succeeded in its objective i-e capture of Kashmir while having upper hand in terms of catured enemy territory.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

International newspapers clippings

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please visit the [1]

[2] The Australian News Paper

[3] reference from another international news paper

[4] reference from another international news paper

[5] reference from another international news paper

[6] reference from another international news paper

[7] reference from another international news paper

.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadkhaliq (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Sonu (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit below this line

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Or preferably use the 'new section tab' on the page top to post your message. AshLin (talk) before printing the articles please check the refferences. it is clear from videos, books, living persons of that war, or anyother resorce that pakistan not only won that war but also occupied some area of india, which definitely was returned back after cease fire. the credibility of this article is very poor. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.36.35.230 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

To prove its air superiority, PAF put its entire fleets on show for inspection after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have been able to annihilate the tiny PAF to prevent such displays.

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is necessary as this article also uses "Western sources" abundantly.Ghatus (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the wrong information published by "The Australian" dated 14 Sept. 1965 regarding Chawinda battle and nothing else. Cheers! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

First, for our Indian friends, Encarta was not a reliable source, and now The Observer, The Australian and The Guardian are bad too when they dont push their POV. Sir, almost all of the neutral assesment section if from western sources, half of which can be termed as being 'exaggerated' if one goes by your understanding, so let's not go there.—TripWire ʞlɐʇ 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

E-Punch

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ghatus Were your comments; "rubbish and unverified PoV pics are removed.If you continue to do this,the consequence will not be pleasant" while making a WP:POV edit a threat?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 13:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It just tells what is the logical conclusion of WP:DE. You can take it as you like it. None actually likes to bite the newbies , but there is a growing tendency to game the system.Ghatus (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Shivam Vij

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Shivam Vij is no historian. And,it's an opinion piece, no WP:RS on history or military matters. Ghatus (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shivam Vij who writes for but is not limited to huffingtonpost, Express Tribune, CS Mmonitor is not reliable?? What you want to say is that every info in this article is ONLY from what you like to call historians? Or do you want to suggest that a writer/journalist pens his opinion without carrying out research? Till the time you come with a better excuse, I'll humbly state that info is going to stay in the article.
And why would you remove the info from Neutral assessments section which is still under discussion above? That, sir is what you called WP:DE when removing sourced info in your edit—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It's your edit, thus it's on you to gain Consensus here not on us. Beside, this made it clear that he is mere a journalists and a blogger who writes for opinion websites, and not a historian ofcourse! Beside, this is an opinion piece. It's his own OR! Provide a WP:RS, WP:BESTSOURCES and gain consensus first or this will be considered disruptive. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet
Everybody today, including historians is a blogger. Dont make blogging into a crime. As regards 'mere journalist', well you are no one to distribute certificates so as to which journalist's info should be included here. Like I said earlier, if you want we can remove all info from journalistic sources from the article and leave just the 'historian' part. Lastly, as regards gaining consensus, what else do you think this section and the one above it is doing on this talk page? First you rebuffed an authentic and well-read 'source' (Encarta) as unreliable, now you have started targeting individuals too?!
Why is it that info from an everyday website like Bharat-Rakshak which has no reputable people on its panel becomes reliable for you, but news/info website like DW, Express Tribune and Huffington Post and people who write for these are not reliable? —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
What are Vij's credentials or qualifications to write on military history? What are his experiences or past researches on military history? He is just a blogger on "every issue" under the sun- from JNU to Rock Bands. The source clearly is not WP:RS. Wikipedia can not accept edits which violate WP:VERIFY , WP:ATT and falls under WP:FRINGE also. As per WP:ATT,

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Ghatus (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope you understand that you are arguing and debating here about the inclusion of info sourced from Shivam Vij BUT indulging in disruptive editing by reverting info being added to 'Neutral assessments' section (my edit summary cleary mentions that) which has nothing to do with Shivam Vij? With 1999 edits, and 1 years and 9 months on Wikipedia and the fact the way you throw WP policies at other editors you are not as a such a 'newbie' as you like to claim, and hence this attempt to game the system must be deliberate, right? Having said this, a self-revert would be in order.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A decision is needed

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I am tagging cool headed editor Kautilya3 and administrator RegentsPark to end this impasse.

TripWire and FreeatlastChitchat want to add two quotes and one pic in the article .

The two quotes and one Image
  • The Observer gave praise to the Pakistan Air Force's performance.[1]

    One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds. Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air power, expected an easy air superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, factor of the whole conflict.

File:Main-qimg-f94b3c5066ce02c1d3869358cda5023e.jpg
The Australian Newspaper on the Battle of Chawinda, September 1965.
  • The Guardian also published a piece in praise of the Pakistan Air Force's performance.[2]

    Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.

References

  1. ^ "The Observer". 12 September 1965.
  2. ^ "The Guardian". 24 September 1965.


Now, the problems are

1)There is no way to ascertain if those two quotes are true or not and the image is doctored or not because neither any link nor any secondary source is provided. As we all know that quotes and images have magnifying and multiplying effects in article, unverified primary sources like these are not only non-WP:RS but a means to put forward PoV.

2) As per WP:ATT,

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

3) We do not know the context of those quotes ( IF true???) nor the subject matter under the headline. Without knowing the background and its acceptance or rejection in secondary sources , how one can add them as quotes in an out of context situation?

4)The quotes and image contradicts almost all scholarly secondary sources and a perfect example of WP:FRINGE with over-weightage, even if these primary sources be established as verified which is very hard to do.Ghatus (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


My position has always been clear. Only WP:HISTRS should be used for historical information. If the scholarly sources don't cover such issues, we shouldn't cover them either. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Kautilya3. 51 years have passed since 1965 and we shouldn't be using news sources from that period when there has been ample time for reliable academic sources to discuss the war. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The issues of sources apart, my memory is indeed that Pakistan had air superiority. They were flying latest fighter planes donated by the US, whereas India was flying home-made planes or outdated Soviet imports. But the dependence on America also meant that Pakistan didn't have staying power. Sooner or later, it would have run out ammunition and parts. India conceded [to the ceasefire], but on political, not military, grounds: it could have sustained the conflict and turned the stalemate into an outright victory.[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No one achieved air superiority independent historians contrary to what two country claims. see Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, both sides claimed victory in the air war but the conflict was effectively a stalemate. Even though Indians were flying outdated planes like Vampire but most of their loses were on ground while most of the Pakistan loses were on air. The little gnats were nicknamed sabre slayers and per most of the neutral historians gnat was credited with atleast 7 kills against the sabre. 115.184.68.228 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fair, C. Christine (2014), Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Armys Way of War, Oxford University Press, p. 142, ISBN 978-0-19-989271-6

Okay so I hadn't been following the discussions here but I wanted to add that I added these newspaper excerpt (unaware of Wiki rules) and on the basis that I saw an excerpt from TIME in the neutral assessments section. So if these newspaper articles can be excluded on the basis of Wiki's source rules, TIME' excerpt should also be removed.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly.Ghatus (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

new section.

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Pinging Kautilya3. Though almost all the neutral references available states: At the end of a bruising 22-day war, India held 1920 square kilometres of Pakistani territory while Pakistan only held 550 square kilometres of Indian land.

There has been some WP:FAKE addition in the lede in recent past by a sockpuppet user WikiBaba1977 (already banned); However, some analysts claimed that Pakistan held 1600 square miles of Indian territory in (1300 of it in the dessert).[51][52][53][54]" Well, not by analysts, this is pakistan claim. Let me explain!

  • The first refrence (no.- [51]) given (can be seen here) is a tertiary source which itself have reference no. [62] (haqqani 2005-pg-49) to back it's claim.
  • Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim. Use of word likewise made it clear.
  • Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that.
  • Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!
  1. Husain Haqqani is a pakistani expert/journalist and he represents pakistan's views, so it should be counted in pakistan's claim.

Some more reliable references to back my claims, these sources clearly states India held around 1,920km² land and lost around 500km² land, In addition these sources also mention pakistan claims.

  • Air warfare in the missile age- By; Lon O. Nordeen (book can be seen here)- Pakistan said its forces gained control of 1,600 square miles of Indian territory and lost 450 square miles of its own.28 The actual.
  • Confrontation with Pakistan- By; Brij Mohan Kaul (book can be seen here- Pakistan claimed to have occupied about 1,600 square miles of Indian territory and conceded that India had occupied 450 square miles of its territory.
  • Indian Armed Forces Yearbook Front Cover- By; Indian youth., 1969 - (book can be seen here)- On the eve of the cease-fire, India was in occupation of nearly seven hundred square miles of Pakistani territory. ... However, Pakistani claims to having occupied some 1,600 square miles of Indian territory in Rajasthan were declared a ...
  • 50 Years of Indo-Pak Relations: Chronology of events, important documents ... -By; Verinder Grover, Ranjana Arora (book can be seen here); 24. .... An official spokesman of the Government of Pakistan disclosed that while the Pakistan armed forces held 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, Indian forces held only 450 square miles of Pakistan territory.

Thus, I'm gonna remove it from the lede! If anyone disagree with me, Feel free to re-add it in Pakistan Claim section in the infobox! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 09:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Argument (by MB) Response(by TW)
The first refrence (no.- [51]) given (can be seen here) is a tertiary source which itself have reference no. [62] (haqqani 2005-pg-49) to back it's claim.
  • First, Ref - [51] is not a typical tertiary sources because a tertiary source is defined as "an index and/or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources", which Ref - [52] is not.
  • Second, Hussain Haqqani or his book are indeed reliable sources this gentlemen is not known to be a pro-Pakistani writer as his anti-Pakistan stance is well-known. He is at daggers with Pakistani military, is/was against sale of F-16s by the US to Pakistan - in short the guy is a persona-non-grata in Pakistan. No one who actually knows Mr HH can say that his views represents Pakistani POV or favours them. Instead, his writings are rather used by Indians to support their claims against Pakistan.
Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim. Use of word likewise made it clear.
  • If, in the same article, an Indian source (Reference no [47]) published in an Indian website (The Telegraph India) by an Indian writer (Sujan Dutta) can be used to support the Indian claim/text of "The Indian army was in possession of 758.9 miles² (1,920 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory", I wonder why cant a Pakistani source be used (in the same article)?
  • BTW, (Ref - [52]) is not based on Pakistani claim as (Ref - [52]) is a book[1] written by Col J Francis (Retd) - an Indian Army Officer of Maratha Light Infantry! MblazeLightening, why are you (deliberately) misleading other editors?
Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that. Another lie! Ref - [53] i.e page 80 of the book India's Foreign Policy indeed support the info it cites. Here's the link.
Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself! As mentioned in response to the first argument. Dont believe me, just read the Wikipedia article on Husain Haqqani and you'd know how pro-Pakistani he actually is. Against you are just twisting the facts, Mr HH is the most vocal opponent of Pakistani military and ISI. Below are a few excerpts from his Wikipedia article:
  • The Wall Street Journal described Haqqani as "a hostage" while he was in Pakistan and published an interview with him from the Prime Minister's house in which he outlined why he was hated by Pakistan's intelligence services and Jihadi groups.[2]
  • Michel Hirsh, writing in The Atlantic, described Haqqani as "The Last Friendly Pakistani" towards the US[3]
  • Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, has been a consistent supporter of Haqqani, calling him "The Hardest Working Man in Washington" and criticising Pakistan's military and security services[4][5]
  • Simon Tisdall of The Guardian called Haqqani "an instinctive ally of the west" and attributed Memogate to the ambassador's difficult relationship with Pakistan intelligence service.[6]
  • His critics in Pakistan describe him as a sympathizer of the Indian lobby in the US[7].
  • Haqqani has been vocal against the sale of F-16 fighter jets and AH-1Z Viper helicopters to Pakistan. He testified in the US Congress in December 2015 stating that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan would only lead to their usage against India,[8][9][10] The Indian government also opposed and protested against the proposed sale of 8 F-16s to Pakistan.[11]
  • Pakistan's Senate Defense Committee blamed him for working with pro-Indian lobbyists in Washington.[12]
MBlaze Lightning you have already subject to sactions that "you may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month", so as a friend I suggest you tread carefully.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@MBlaze Lightning: When you open a talk page discussion, you need to wait for consensus before making edits. Husain Haqqani is of course Pakistani, but he is also an American academic and scholar and so he is a reliable source. But I haven't been told the precise reference that is being talked about. Please do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think MBlaze is right. The paragraph of Haqqani (p. 115) starts with: Official propaganda convinced the people of Paksitan that their military had won the war. The figures that follow, 1600 sq. miles of Indian territory and 350 sq. miles of Pakistani territory, look a lot like such "official propaganda." If the figures were independently obtained, Haqqani gives no indication of how. Given that this is not a book on military history, I don't think we can place much value on these figures. -- 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I waited for more then a day but no on replied so I was left with no other option but to make changes in the article. And I do not see any reason why I should reply to TripWire. I've explained everything in my first comment with multiple WP:RS references. All tertiary sources figures are either based on Haqqani reference or Pakistan official propaganda's figures while Page 80 or anyother page of ref 53 doesn't say anything regarding pak claims. If anyone thing I'm wrong, this might clear his/her doubts. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
MBlaze Lightning First you tried to rubbish Hussain Haqqani by saying that it was a tertiary source; you were educated on the same. Then you tried to rubbish him by claiming that he is a Pakistani so he cant be reliable; you were then given a reality-check on this that he is also an American. Then you were also informed that apart from Haqqani, the same figures are also given in Indian and other RS, which you had earlier tried to rubbish as Pakistani sources. Having said that, I am just concentrating on the info given in the book by Col J Francis (an Indian whom you mistaked as a Pakistani) and the book India's Foreign Policy. Second, as regards to reply to me; well sir, you are not bound to, but you sure are supposed to get consensus before to go on a disruptive-editing spree. Now how you do that without replying to me or anyone at this talk, I am not sure. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 11:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When did I said Haqqani is a unreliable source and a tertiary source? Lol Please Go and read my comment carefully before replying! I was referring to this source as being a tertiary source and cite Haqqani reference to back that 1600 sq mi. claim and yes haqqani is a Pakistani and Haqqani claim is based on OFFICIAL PROPOGANDA FIGURES OF PAKISTAN. Go and read references I cite in my first comment and where this source states Pakistan figures of territory gained? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes you did. When you first mislead the editors by saying "Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim." and then also said that "the book is written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!" you implied that HH, being a Pakistani (must) be unreliable. This aint rocket science sir. And I will request you again to read what a Tertiary source is.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 12:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
MBlaze might have used wrong terminology; not a big deal. The point is that the sources that were inserted into the lead were all derived from Haqqani, and Haqqani doesn't say where his figures come from. There is a possibility that they represent the "official propaganda," in his own words. So I am afraid this source don't settle anything. It would need corroboration from other independent sources. I think we are wasting a whole load of time on fruitless exercise. There is no clarity on the territory gained/lost, and all of it was given back. So, why don't we put an end to this and move on to more useful things? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I couldnt agree more. This isnt the first time MblazLightening has indulged in contentious editing. Mistakes can be made, I make them too, but defending them mindlessly is not worth it. Also, how does "India's Foreign Policy" and Col Francis' book quote Haqqani as its source? Because it does not. We cannot remove an info sourced from 4 different sources, can we? I have amply explained earlier in that elaborate table each of the sources is indeed RS, and not tertiary, biased or fake as being claimed and pushed by MBlazeLightening.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 13:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This source only states Pakistan CLAIMED 1600 sq mi land and Col Francis also derived from Pakistani Figures since it's an Pakistani Govt figures And you just cannot favor one source over the others! I didn't mislead anyone, Even Kautilya understands what i am trying to say. What i mean by those word is that those figures are derived from haqqani refrence and i never said haqqani is not WP:RS or tertiary source. I was referring to his (Haqqani) claims which are basically derived from pakistani figures. I provided multiple refrences for it can be seen in my first comment. And You cannot add Pakistani figures (WP:UNDUE also) in the lede just below the neutral assessments to suit your own point of view or per WP:BALANCE I will or Someone else will had to add Indian Govt. Figures of 3900km2 land gained and 322km2 land lost which are only mentioned in the Infobox. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 17:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny. Must go through WP:NOTTRUTH. Also, i dont know from where did you arrive at this 'Pakistani propaganda figure' thing. Sir, if 4 x RS are saying something, Wikipedia will accept it, your opinion on the matter or if you think it is false/propaganda or just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT wont change it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Short Stories from the History of the Indian Army Since August 1947".
  2. ^ Mira Sethi (21 January 2012). "The Weekend Interview with Husain Haqqani: A Hostage in Pakistan - WSJ". WSJ.
  3. ^ Michael Hirsh. "The Last Friendly Pakistani". The Atlantic.
  4. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg. "The Pakistani Army Wins a Battle Over Husain Haqqani, but Continues to Lose a War". The Atlantic.
  5. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg. "Ambassador Haqqani: 'I Am a Pakistani, I Will Die a Pakistani'". The Atlantic.
  6. ^ Tisdall, Simon (23 November 2011). "Husain Haqqani's downfall becomes Pakistan's latest political football". The Guardian. London.
  7. ^ "The Magnificent Delusions of Husain Haqqani - The Express Tribune". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  8. ^ "F-16 jets US plans to sell to Pakistan will be used against India: Husain Haqqani". The Express Tribune. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
  9. ^ “Civil Nuclear Cooperation with Pakistan: Prospects and Consequences, Written testimony by Husain Haqqani, US House of Representatives, retrieved 2016-01-21.
  10. ^ "US aid to Pakistan will be used against India: Husain Haqqani - The Economic Times". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  11. ^ "India calls U.S. envoy, protests F-16 sale to Pakistan". The Hindu. 2016-02-13. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  12. ^ "Senate body wants govt to counter pro-Indian lobby in Washington". pakistantoday.com.pk. Retrieved 20 January 2016.

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This Article is in violation of NPOV.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply

  1. Your Pic violates WP:UNDUE.
  2. Your text violates WP:RS.Ghatus (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
your revert violates NPOV.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV NOTE

This article is a mess because it contains many NPOV violations. The war was over in 1965 but internet warriors are still fighting it on Wikipedia. Indians are the clear victors in this war of self serving quotes. WikiHuda (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Replace "Aircrafts" by "Aircraft" (several places)

Sipder (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for pointing that out. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 1965, Pakistanis really whipped India's rear end.

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation September 15, 1965. [1]

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue. [2]

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991 [3] 65.92.77.199 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/07/demolishing-indian-war-myths-about.html
  2. ^ http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/07/demolishing-indian-war-myths-about.html
  3. ^ http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/07/demolishing-indian-war-myths-about.html

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965/Archive_6&oldid=1191113368"