Talk:1999 Pakistani Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

Unsectioned comments

To Idleguy. Please edit out the words, such as 'stolen', which seem to be hurting your ego. But refrain from distorting history by completely removing the paragraphs mentioning that the wreckage of the plane was inside Pakistani territory, a corroborated fact further substantiated by the pictures on the Indian source I made a reference to, which show the Pakistani military securing the site of the wreckage. Red aRRow

Saying "seem to be hurting your ego" is a clear violation of Wikipedia official policy on personal attacks. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy on trying to taunt other editors. Also see WP:3RR since you are violating them too. --Idleguy 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you are failing to justify the removal of the paragraph whic states that the wreckage fell inside Pakistani territorial limits. Please provide an argument as to why you removed the extra information which is verifiable with both Pakistani or Indian accounts otherwise it is a proof of your biased mindset and inability to keep nationalism out of any article related to Pakistan or its armed forces. Red aRRow

I provided unbiased sources and also do not cook facts like it seems you are attempting to do. Firstly, tripod and other personal sites and blogs aren't accepted as a source in the first place. Not in Wikipedia, and I believe not it would not be admitted in any worthy website. Secondly, save the defencejournal article none of the sources provided by you seem to talk about "stealing" etc. especially given that the crash site was heavily guarded even if we take the partisan sites as a source for the purpose of this argument. Moreover the source for this article is the TIME magazine which has a far higher credibility than a Defence Journal etc. Finally, aftermath refers to the immediate aftermath and we aren't here to discuss what happenned to a person years after the incident and have a fairy tale ending or talk about a person's divorce. It seems despite have given an indirect consent to the fact that there are no neutral sources for your claims neither here nor elsewhere you have blatantly reverted again. To top it all you keep deleting the arguments put up by India - with sources - arguing why the incident deserved to be excluded etc. Is this an attempt to suppress facts, rewrite history all the while accusing the others of POV just because they don't subscribe to your warped version of it? I have had enough with you and your an anon IP which you used until RedaRRow id was used. I'm calling someone neutral to this. Tx --Idleguy 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy. The article you seem to be referring to from Time Asia is writen by Mr. Maseeh Rahman who is a known Indian journalist (just do a goole search). So as far as impartiality is concerned, it has no credibility. As for your argument about sites hosted on tripod and other free hosting The pictures I refer to (which show the crash site inside Pakistani territory and secured by Pakistani troops) are from reputable news agencies such as AP, AFP and Reuters and are available on sites such as corbis. India was only able to show pieces of the wreckage at New Delhi IGI (formerly Palam) airport, which is not even in the vicinity of where this the plane was attacked and subsequently crashed, because Indian helicopters obviously stole the pieces of wreckage from inside Pakistan and a press conference was orchestrated in order to somehow 'prove' that the plane was a legitimate target. You will not find any picture of wreckage or a crash site inside Indian territorial border and only couple of stolen pieces being displayed at IGI (formerly Palam) airport in New Delhi which is a good thousand miles away from the Kuch area. Furthermore I am also removing the following paragraph which is not verifiable as the link provided (from a purely Indian source by the way) is also dead:

"India also argued that Pakistan had violated the 1991 bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India on air violations, which states "Combat aircraft (to include fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, jet military trainer and armed helicopter aircraft) will not fly within 10 km of each other’s airspace including ADIZ." [2] The fact that debris was found in a radius of 2 Km on either side of the border provided India with a more solid case."

The ICJ ruling (in the link I provided) does not mention this 'bilateral agreement' you refer to. Please provide credible source which states or shows in pictures any wreckage inside India (not at an airport a thousand miles away) which proves that the wreckage was "2km on either side" of the international border...please give credible and unbiased references. I'm glad that someone neutral should take a look into this and keep out the jingoism which seem to have infected a lot of articles to which you have 'contributed' towards. Sincerely Red aRRow

I have gone through the sources and none says "stolen", not even the dubious defencejournal. A blatant case of misquoting references and trying to make up facts. And just because a PIO (Person of Indian Origin) works in CNN/TIME doesn't inherently mean it is biased. A magazine of TIME's reputation is far, far higher than the highly biased defencejournals you lovingly quote. It is a sorry state of affairs that not only do you introduce jingoist POV edits yourself ignoring facts but even accuse other edits others of doing so when the sources I've provided are all from unbiased sources. I see you still haven't read WP:Reliable Sources. --Idleguy 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've also added a new source for the 1991 bilateral treaty which you were desperate to delete. I don't falsify facts and can back up my lines with sources. If you note carefully you'll find that the article i've linked to is co-authored by Aahid Hussain from Karachi. Idleguy 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy: Which 'unbiased sources' are you refering to?? All the references quoted by you, with the exception of DAWN (I quoted Defencejournal), are of Indian origin. The article from india-today is written by Vijay Jung Thapa and the whole article is full of nationalistic views and Indian-oriented opinion. Please find real proof of this bilateral agreement being reffered to and about the debris falling '2km on either side of the border' which is not from an Indian source for anybody to take it seriously in the face of the pictures from AFP and Reuters which are publicly available. As I can see this is turning into a 'your word against mine' and who has the most free time for doing reverts.Red aRRow

that "2km" thingy is used as what the Indians claim. It MAY NOT be a fact, but it is a claim backed by a source and co-authored by a Pakistan (look further down and you'll notice a certain writer from Karachi, unless you are loathe to read it) If you provide ANY sources on Pakistan claiming a "stolen" debris then I'll be the first to add it as a Pakistani claim. Read a report of the news in Reuters and BBC News and you'll see that they use the words claim and not as a matter of fact.

As it is your source doesn't mention the word stolen and amounts to lying by you. There is difference between fact and claims. Moreover immediately after the crash Pakistan secured the site with 200 personnel and guns so it would have taken a daring raid to recover the debris or Pakistanis didn't defend the crash site too well, or it is just a claim. Even then you seem to be ready to criticise any article as nationalistic but don't see the folly of your argument and admit that Defence Journal is itself a journal of the highest Jingoistic order and is read by none but the most feverish of Pakistani Military afficianodos. Idleguy 14:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy: Adding some fictitious and unknown 'Aahad Hussain' doesn't give any credibility to the article which is written by an Indian and published by an Indian website. Here is a source which states that the debris was stolen by waiting Indian helicopters [3] and anybody who saw the footage of the incident where Indian armed forces personnel were hurriedly putting in debris into the helicopter before the arrival of Pakistani forces will certainly know what was going on. I mean why wasn't the site shown again on TV if it was inside Indian borders? If there was debris on the Indian side of the border then: a) Why wasn't the crash site or the site where the debris fell shown on tv or appear anywhere in pictures with Indian armed forces personnel? b) Why did Pakistan fire the missile on the helicopter (or jet) if it wasn't intruding inside Pakistani territory (which it was)? c) Why was the debris shown far away from the site of the incident at New Delhi airport?

Anyways I have given you a source claiming the debris was stolen by India. Now I look forward to you adding it as a Pakistani claim. Red aRRow

I've added the pakistani claim after you provided the source - finally. As for your other claims, I think we should try to look at it objectively instead of taking the respective govts. at face value and rubbish the others. See 1991 bilateral agreement (provided with source) that says flights shouldn't come within 10 km. of each other's territory and the Atlantic violated that. Instead of trying to keep a holier than thou attitude it would be nice to understand that BOTH nations indulge in Reconnaisance and borderline violations on the other nation. In mid-1950s an Indian flight over POK was caught with its pants down trying to "check out enemy terrain" and was shot down. All's fair in War and Love. Just understand that both nations' are always trying to outdo each other. Also do you have to suspect and brand anyone you don't know (Aahad Hussain) as fictitious? And what difference does it make if the debris is displayed in Kutch or Kashmir or Delhi? As the national capital and the centre of media attention the IN govt might have chosen to have a press briefing there. Doesn't make any logical arguments. Idleguy 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• PS: Ghulam Hasnain one of the TIME magazine authors is a Pakistani. Man, either you don't do your research or seem to distort the truth or you don't want to accept articles written by a Pakistani/neutral. See this for proof. --Idleguy 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• To Idleguy: The 1991 bilateral agreement only seems to exist in publications by Indian media. Is there proof or any details about this 'agreement' from either a Pakistani or neutral source? (so that this '1991 bilateral agreement' story can be corroborated. Even the ICJ ruling does not mention this in any way whatsoever). I still stand by my stand that there is no proof of debris faling 2 km on either side of the border; a thing which you call a fact in the article. The india-today article is highly biased and opinionated and does not count as a non-partisan source IMO. Also the information about PK Bundela crashing and getting himself killed is an additional piece of information (verified with Indian sources) which I deem very relevant to this article. You cannot just remove it on the basis that you don't feel like it's relevant to the discussion when I think it is. I would have accepted its removal on the basis that it was somebody's opinion or it wasn't a verified fact but it isn't either of the two...it's a known fact and as far as I am concerned it should stay.

Also where is the neutral intermediary whom you were planning on calling earlier??

BTW Time Asia article is infact written and edited by Maseeh Rahman. Ghulam Hasnain is only a contributing writer to that article. Red aRRow

Since most of the contentious issues here and in PN have been largely resolved I decided not to waste my or other's time by involving them. As for the TIME article, you are merely trying to avoid accepting facts after I pointed out that Ghulam was a Pakistani. Unable to digest it, you seem looking for a way out by ridiculously claiming that the article was written and edited by Maseeh Rahman. HA. You don't even know the job profile of an Editor-in-Chief. Editors don't "write and edit" articles except editorials or specified information in magazines or newspapers. Contributing writers, in this case Ghulam Hasnain, provide the bulk of the work and the scope of the article, with editors are at best editing articles for the sake of brevity or clarity. I am seriously wondering if you do really know about these things before jumping to conclusions just because no one except Pakistan seems to have their own warped take on events like this.

btw, don't remove Indian claims when I've added with updated sources, the 1991 bilateral agreement and stop behaving like a novel writer from Pakistan. This is an encyclopedia and beginning entire paras with "ill-fated" is puerile. And I don't understand why the "aftermath" includes the aftermath of the pilot. Does it matter if Pilot #2 is married and is working in a private detective agency? Aftermath here is about the aftermath of the incident, not the pilot. When we have an article about the pilot, we can very well discuss about his birth, life and death. Remember, this isn't Defence Journal or a Pak forum. --Idleguy 03:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The assumption by some Pakistanis that whenever an incident happens, one has to provide nuetral source is a very pathetic way of describing the truth. The Pakistani Media may be biased and may be under the direct control of the Pakistani administration since it is under Military dictatorship, whereas Indian society and Indian media is under democratic government and hence there in no way one can dispute the freedom enjoyed by journalists in India. Pakistan's equal equal policy cannot be accepted, since there is a big difference in every sphere be it freedom of expression, military or democracy. --Chanakyathegreat 07:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy: Please provide proof of the so called 1991 bilateral agreement from a neutral source devoid of any Indian writers. Thanks. Red aRRow

"So called '91 bilateral agreement"? I'm appalled. Next thing you'll be saying "so called Simla Agreement". Quite simply your knowledge in this sphere is limited to a few POV military journals published by Pakistan and you try to act smart in the face of evidence. So far any meaningful dialogue with you has yielded nothing but your demand for "neutral sources" for this and that and I have provided to the best of my knowledge the same, yet you try to pick holes because of two simple reasons: Your inability to digest that non partisan proof exists that Pakistan transgressed Indian airspace and got shot and Your lack of knowledge in the India Pakistan military affairs including treaties et al.

Still I will provide a "neutral source" for the 91 agreement. Here is one hosted on Henry L. Stimson centre. [4]. The jist "reconnaissance... aircraft will not fly within ten kms of each other's airspace, including the Air Defence Identification Zones (ADIZ)" So stop blanking sections just because you don't know facts. Hope you can actually read history and agreements between the two countries and try to accept that the press in a democratic nation is relatively more honest than a nation where dictatorship has held sway for most of its independent existence. --Idleguy 02:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy: Finally you come with a neutral source after making me look like a parrot repeating myself. As far as democracy or dictatorship is concerned..we all know about sham democracies which fail to hold plebiscites (the basic principle of a democracy) in direct violations of U.N. resolutions. But I am in no mood to start a p*ssing contest here as we all know some people are experts in that. Anyways you still haven't provided a 'neutral' source or photographic evidence which shoes debris on both sides of the border. I'll remove the paragraphs which are unsubstantiated rumours while of course will let the proven information remain. Red aRRow

See, with every passing statement you keep exposing your knowledge, or lack of it thereof, on Indo-Pak relations. Read the UN resolution wherein it states that both India and Pakistan have to remove their troops from Kashmir to hold a plebiscite. Instead of acknowledging that half the blame lies with Pakistan, you people have been brainwashed into the belief that it is only India that refuses to hold a plebiscite. Tsk.

As for the article, since you claimed the 1991 agreement was an indian concoction - for which I'm still laughing - and demanded a "neutral source" without doing proper homework, it is now in a better shape with NPOV. btw, this article is about the incident and its aftermath not about the plane or the pilot's aftermath that is removed from the actual skirmish. If you really want to tell his life story and his death then do so by all means, but in an article about the pilot. For instance many a Atlantique plane have crashed in Pakistan,[5] but is it supposed to be reported in this page? --Idleguy 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy. Even though I don't want to engage in a p*ssing contest with the experts but FYI you should check the U.N. resolution number 47 of 1948 [6] on page number 4. The tribesmen, to whom the resolution referred to went back ...what was it like 50 years ago lol. However it is the 'World's largest (sham)democracy' which still has failed to give to the people of Kashmir the most basic right of a democratic country i.e. the right of self determination..and that too in defiance of U.N. security council resolutions. Anyways I am in your debt for introducing this ignorant to the 1991 agreement. Thanks a lot for providing a neutral source (finally)..I know must have tested your google skills to the max. There is no life story in the article..it just states the death of the pilot who was turned into a hero for shooting an unarmed plane. If it pinches our nationalistic sentiments then my apologies. Red aRRow

If you feel there is no "life story", then I'm sorry, this article isn't a novel written for or by Pakistani nationalists. It's an encyclopedia article and with your words I fully understand why you insist on a line about his death in a totally unrelated crash. As you said, "it pinches our nationalistic sentiments" and so you need to somehow pull a peg to soothe any battered "nationalistic" egos. In case you didn't know, ALL people die sometime or other. It's what they do when they live that matters. No one is bothered about how he died - unless one happens to be a "nationalistic" reader from Pakistan - whether he fell from his bed or skidded in his bathtub or frankly if he/she lives happily ever after. Especially not when we are talking about the aftermath of the incident.

fyi, Pakistan failed to keep up - and still has - in its promise of withdrawing its troops from the disputed areas and somehow magically wishes to see the other side vacate the area first. And a less than fully informed majority even talk about Indians not holding plebiscite ignoring Pakistani part of the preconditions. Not to forget that Pakistan itself hasn't exactly given the right to self-determination to Kashmiris! If anything while India has ensured that non-locals cannot buy property in Kashmir and still maintains Kashmir's identity with article 370 Pakistani Kashmir has fully been populated by non-Kashmiris. In effect they have actually ensured that the plebiscite will never take place by changing the demographics of the area. True, India hasn't been the shining example of democracy, but atleast we don't get run over by Military despots every decade and even claim it's good for the nation. Mind you, you should just step aside from propagandas from both countries and ask yourself why Pakistan doesn't even have the openness in coming out with a commission for Kargil, while India has brought about 2 commissions on the same war. A "sham" democracy we might be, as you claim, but we are a democracy nonetheless. Peace. Idleguy 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy: I have removed the P.K. Bundela contentious item in order to reach a compromise. The globalpolicy article was a nice find BTW. Oh and please read the U.N. resolution again...it states withdrawl of tribals and Pakistani nationals who entered Kashmir to fight the Indian army a.k.a the tribal lashkar (which was withdrawn and is replaced by Pakistan army). There isn't any call for withdrawl of Pakistan or Indian army. So basically it has been India which has never implemented the resolution in its true form by never holding a plebiscite there. But anyways I think as far as this article is concerned, the current form seems to me to be the best compromise. Please give it a read and then let me know your comments. Red aRRow

• OK. Seems to be a decent compromise now. As for the Kashmir issue, let me quote the very line used "withdrawal from the state of J&K of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting." Wasn't Pakistan Army comprised largely of Pakistani nationals who aren't from Kashmir? Why are they still there? Aren't there non Kashmiri pakistani nationals to this very day stationed in Kashmir and aren't they the ones whom the UN resolution pointed out as the ones "who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting." Then why pin the blame entirely on India? Just because the resolution doesn't use the words "Pakistan Army" or "Indian Army" doesn't mean it fails to mention them. Read this Pakistani agreement: "the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State." Sadly Pakistan failed to keep up its promise and is yet to "withdraw its troops" and no we aren't talking about the tribals but "its troops" (read Pak military). This is Phase A as outlined in the Truce agreement. Only when Pakistan withdraws as per the resolution is India "to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages". Phase B can't occur without Phase A.

• So simply put, it was Pakistan's failure in the first place to vacate the area of its troops that failed to result in the promise of a plebiscite. Further, even if a plebiscite question arises, why hasn't Pakistan held the plebiscite in their Kashmir? Why adopt a holier than thou attitude and hope India has to implement the plebiscite when preconditions haven't been fulfilled? I guess in Pakistan they don't give their citizens the full picture parroting the same half truths and ignoring reality, since freedom of information is a hallmark of a democracy; something of a luxury in Pakistan. Idleguy 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To Idleguy: The resolution refers to the tribal lashkar. Pakistan will be more than happy to hold a plebiscite if India agrees. It has been a long time stance of the government. Anyway the positive thing is that atleast we compromised on the article. Red aRRow.

Tribals and Pakistani troops. Troops ≠ Tribals. Pl Read carefully. That resolution calls upon Pak to remove "its troops" before Indians can remove theirs. Until that happens the issue of plebiscite would be premature. Personally, I feel the chances of a plebiscite are as good as Sania Mirza winning a Grand Slam or Holland lifting the cricket World Cup, i.e. never. But yes, atleast the article is in a better shape than before. --Idleguy 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic paranoia

To Bharatveer, Chankyathegreat: The article was in a good shape after having gone through a debate b/w me and Idleguy. Most of the POVs had been removed and claims of both sides had been listed. I am in no mood to fend off every jingoistic Indian who happens to come along and list their own versions of the article every other day. You guys have deliberatly removed the impartial information while trying to give the article an Indian biased viewpoint. Please refrain from this obvious vandalism.

To Idleguy: Quite shameful the way you have suddenly 'disappeared' once your countrymen have started vandalising the article to their own nationalistic viewpoints. I thought you wanted the information to be backed up by impartial sources but now it seems you are happy to see the Indian opinionated POV. So much for your holier than thou attitude. Red aRRow

It is ow protected. Please discuss. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Red aRRow, I once again ask you not to indulge in personal attacks with words like "shameful" etc. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have other work to do and other articles to edit than be 24/7 on this article alone, unlike your edits. --Idleguy 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Only Pakistanis say right think. Your's is not even a democracy. A nation that lives under an autocratic military rule and you talk about your version being true. The articles in Pakistani newspapers are written by some Generals or military man to run propoganda and to tighten the grip of the military of Pakistan on its people. A simple example is your General Musharaff who wrote the book Line of Fire which is a big joke today for the illogical things he said in his book. Not only that he is unable to defend what he writes, but is backtracking and saying no it is not what i wrote.

Chanakyathegreat 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Idle guy is right

Most of Idleguys suggested posting are well justified and referenced by the note worthy news agencies. Going by RedArrows policy no one might be able to post or edit, since each and journalist has a nationality, calling them basied or partisian and dis-crediting their reports will lead us no where, this is absolute insanity! He's plainly trying to impose his ideas and his understanding of the event, which in my opinion is completely irrational.

There are many valid and creditable refrences made to Time articles by Idleguy, which should be posted. Which I think Mr. Red Arrow finds hard to digest because of his own Pakistani bias.

Illogical rotten, as usual untrue claims by Pakistan

Pakistan claimed that the plane was unarmed and the debris was found on the Pakistan side of the border.

What does this statement prove. It is just absurd when you say that the plane is unarmed and hence it can fly anywhere. Try to fly it over the U.S.

Debri fall is not what proves that the aircraft is within Pakistan. When the plane is hit in one area it will not go up in smoke and disappear, it will still move sometimes there are instances when after hits planes returning and landing safely. First explain why the debri is also on the Indian side.

General's latest Joke is Pakistan has provided nuclear technology to India and also retracting his own writing in the book saying that Pakistan has not paid any money to suppress the Pakistan link in the 9/11 attack.

Chanakyathegreat 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GAnom

The article needs a thorough copyedit. To name but one instance, Atlantic-91 is also referred to, for instance in "The confrontation", as Altantic-91. Furthermore, the section "The confrontation" has only one in-line reference, and the link provided for this reference (Aviation Safety Network) doesnt seem to include all the material in said section. Druworos 14:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected that "Atlantic" slip (which btw is only for showing that the name of the flight was Atlantic-91 and not the incident). The sources for the article are given in the references section. Since the wordings weren't from one specific cite alone - multiple sources used to gather the confrontation - I had left out inline citations for that paragraph. But they are fully cited. Tx. Idleguy 14:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article still really needs copyediting. I can count at least half a dozen missing "the"s, and that's without looking very hard. There is a lot of awkward sentence structure too. I'm not the main reviewer, but it's my opinion that the prose is really not up to GA standard. I will fix the "the"s, but don't have the time to do a thorough copyedit myself at the moment. MLilburne 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The work that I've done is mostly copyediting and I haven't fixed many of the awkward phrases. Two questions: shouldn't it be "Pakistani Navy" rather than "Pakistan Navy," which is used repeatedly? Am I right in inferring that "Brequet Atlantique" is the type of aircraft, and "Atlantic-91" is the designation of the particular aircraft involved in the incident? The spelling should be regularised, since both "Atlantique" and "Atlantic" are used.

I have also added some citation needed tags, which should be dealt with. MLilburne 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noting it. Idleguy 07:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about the Atlantic/Atlantique issue and the "Pakistan Army". MLilburne 07:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Atlantique is the correct French name, though the anglicized name is Atlantic, so even sources sometimes refer it to as Breguet Atlantic. As for "Pakistan Army", could you please explain in detail as I'm not clear as to what you mean to convey. Idleguy 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have written "Navy," that might be one reason for the confusion!

Let's see, here's an example. In the lead, there was a sentence that said "This was Pakistan Navy's first and only loss of an airplane to hostile fire." This wasn't grammatically correct, so I changed it to "This was the Pakistan Navy's first and only loss of an airplane to hostile fire." However, I don't think this is quite right either. If we were talking about the US, it would be incorrect to say "the America Navy"—the correct usage would be "the American navy". Thus, I believe that the correct usage is "the Pakistani navy." (with "i" at the end). However, not being from Pakistan I wanted to check that I'm getting this right before making the changes myself. MLilburne 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is written either as "Pakistan Navy's" or if "the" is used then "the Pakistani Navy's". I've corrected it myself and it's not a big deal, to use either of these two in the subcontinent usage. Idleguy 08:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. The former is definitely incorrect outside of the subcontinent. As is the lack of "the".MLilburne 08:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume from the comments here that the copyediting has been taken care of, so therefore, i've promoted this article. (According to the note it was on hold since the 11th, thats a bit more than a week heh.) Homestarmy 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats - to self :D and others who worked on this - now that this is now a good article. Idleguy 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• i was wondering if we could specify which version of Mig-21 (bison or bis) & the missile (AA-11 or AA-9) fired at Atlantique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.162.215.107 (talk • contribs).

Removed the Sci-fi sentence

"Pakistan sent a company of commandos, equipped with laser-guided, shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, to the site near the border."pl name these missile.User talk:Yousaf465

I suggest you read the sources carefully before arbitrarily tagging the article as POV (declared as a good article after third party reviews) and questioning sourced statements. If you had done so then you'd have even seen the TIME magazine's picture of the missile in question here Read the sources man. Idleguy 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The missile in picture was not a SAM but asome ATW of Pakistan army you may check it for yourself.The caption said High Alert: Pakistani soldiers check the readiness of a "guided-missile launcher" no mention of laser here,although it was in text.The GA status doen't mean that it is needs no more editting.User talk:Yousaf465

The problem with new editors is that they don't bother to read the sources or the talk page where issues of POV have already been thrashed out with Pakistani editors (like RedArrow) to arrive at a consensus page that's been peer reviewed for quality and neutrality. Simply tagging them as POV is in violation of Wikipedia policies, more so when sources have been exhaustively provided and cross checked for factual accuracy and maximum possible neutrality. Idleguy 11:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your are mentioning Times articele it is not seems to be Written by a MAture think man he doesn't that what he writing is more of Sci fi not actual.Naval commando are not infantry soldier to be deployed On border patrol!.These and other mistakes are that source.SO pl balance the section instead of just violating the copyright of other site.who was redarrow after all.User talk:Yousaf465

Then please find a more credible source that says contrary to what the TIME magazine article says. Atleast the article was more mature than what your talk page comments seem to be phrased, which is confusing at times. P.S. Read the talk page discussion above to know who redarrow was. Idleguy 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments are wrote earlier were wrtitten in a hurry.I'm sorry for that.Below is a section from a website, which might be helpful to you for the technical details.This also prove my view that Surface-to-air missile which are Man-portable air-defence system can't guided with laser.this and many other technical details are wrong in that article. " Laser-guided shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles

Some commentators have suggested that laser-guided missiles such as the British Blowpipe are particularly dangerous because they are relatively immune to countermeasures. But they require the operator to hold a laser spot on the target throughout the flight of the missile. This is a highly demanding task and would probably deter or defeat terrorist use of laser-guided anti-aircraft missiles." User talk:Yousaf465

Can you kindly provide the original website link from which you got this quote? btw, the TIME article was less about technical nitty gritties and more about the political state and the incident's aftermath. Idleguy 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was taken from Federation of American Scientists"'s website.The webiste is [7].It was taken from Federation of American Scientists"'s website.The webiste is [8].The article was politcally worng as well as it quoted a officer as saying ""The government is acting like a eunuch. We should kill 300 Indians against our 16" this will certainly hurt the Indian although he has right to say so but his or his counterparts comments should not publish this will at any time will damage the relation of the two countries. User talk:Yousaf465

Uh, you've provided me the main page of the website, can you point the exact web page from which u got this info. btw, there's nothing like political correctness especially in a political magazine and the relations of the two countries was already damaged in 1999 and people were saying a lot of things on both sides of the border. Thanks. Idleguy 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you please check this .Although many a people may be saying much but a magazine of such repute should be aware of it's contents both politically , technically as well as use of balance of thought.Some news agency fired it's photographer only on the charges he tried to thickened the smoke in a picture.So such a breach of trust by such a magazine is mind blogging.Many a people may be using even abusive language against their enemy but but these comments should not be Published as they may result in death of somebody!.User talk:Yousaf465

Please don't tag needlessly without reason or rhyme. The source was from Washington Post. Now you seem to dispute everything, even if the authors weren't Indian at all. Idleguy 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing only a section of the article, whose factual accuracy is not only diputed but seems to be written by some Sci-fi writer.which source r u talking about i'm disputing the time article and you are going on to say washington post.I don't have any personal grudge against any of the Indian authors and the source of some ritried or serving wg.cmd. you people conitinoulsy slam in every article is working here.User talk:Yousaf465

Well the entire paragraph is fully sourced. Going by what you have said here it's clear you haven't read it thoroughly and simply tagging it as POV is a violation of Wikipedia policies. If you think only a specific statement is wrong then only that has to be tagged not the entire section. btw your link in FAS actually says a laser guided anti-tank missile can very well be used against aircraft of some types, though their success rate is questionable. So I don't see what's the sci-fi you are continuously challenging! And it only says it's tough for the terrorists to use it, given that they need to be covert in their operations, but a well trained pakistani soldier with backup fire shouldn't find the level of use impossible. Idleguy 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't have a military background Knowledge that is why your are trying to prove that a laser guided missile carried by a (in your words) "trained pakistani soldier with backup fire" can be used to hit a aircraft of "certain" type.In military they are not going holidays or playing games they use what is best available in the given limits so Pakistan may have deployed stringer instead of "laser guided" (rather misguided) anti tank weapon in role of Sam.A laser guided sam could be like shoting a mach 5+ rocket with pistol! commandos are meant for only certain operations. Do india deploy black cats on wagha post? I was not saying that this section didn't cited any source i was just mentioning that i disputing time's source and you went on to WP.User talk:Yousaf465

Crazier things have happened to commandos in Pakistan. The SSG were used in some hair brained schemes in 65 and 71 (in the words of Pakistani authors themselves). But just to resolve this dispute, I'm removing the "laser" thing which is the only thing you have objection against. thanks. Idleguy 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But no such crazy thing had happemed in my life! anyway commados are meant for crazy operations but atleast not for minor patrols.The same problem is with that source although it was published by Time it was still gone unedited for it's sci-fi contents.i don't know what crazy thing you are talking. You might be talking of dropping of 180 of so called commandos and then indian villagers capturing them. I couldn't find any single author mentioning it except the wikipedians.User talk:Yousaf465

So you say that your own Gen. Musa Khan (Pakistan's then Army Chief in 1965) himself was crazy to write in his book (My Version) about this failed attempt, not to forget the Chief of Air Staffs among other people! You should read more of your own Pakistani writers on this incident. The problem with most wikipedians is that they don't read the sources provided but are ready to challenge everything just because what their governments have been teaching them is nothing but propaganda. If you still have any doubts if this para dropping into indian territory took place, then please read this Pakistani Defence Journal which starts with the official line on who "started" the war, but goes on to show who really instigated things and has a para on S.S.G. COMMANDO PARA DROPS. This from the Pakistani air chief himself. The "Conclusion" from the author is pretty much on the mark that if people cover up facts and the military leaders aren't held responsible, then history would repeat itself. Idleguy 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't undersatnd why indians have this msileading conception, Pakistani are influenced by their governments belief then they are totally been under veil of darkness.This statment is correct as applied to our nieghbour "The problem with most wikipedians is that they don't read the sources provided but are ready to challenge everything just because what their governments have been teaching them is nothing but propaganda." as i have had discussion with them even offline.And they are known to use some words more than 20 times in a single speech!.User talk:Yousaf465

No, it's something I've seen far too many times and in person too, a fact that I've even seen an editorial written in Dawn newspaper that Pakistanis are being misled and kept in the dark. For instance you believed that the "drop" was a figment of wikipedia's imagination amongst other erroneous beliefs about the war. There is also a lot of frustration among the educated elite in Pakistan that there is hardly any commission or inquisition following a war (1971 being an exception). After kargil, India produced 2 commissions (1 official and 1 secret, both now in public viewing), but Pak has yet to do so and it's not a laughing matter. Idleguy 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

References

the problems with refs

1.Problem is mentioned in the last line.

Indian sources also claim that the Pakistani Information Minister, Mushahid Hussein, was initially quoted by the BBC as saying that the aircraft was on a "surveillance" mission..Lacks an immediate online source for the BBC original statement

2.They also added that Pakistan military aircraft had violated Indian airspace at least 50 times since January of that year, showing videotapes of Pakistani Atlantiques "buzzing", or flying provocatively near the Indian Navy's warships in the Indian Ocean.

"Video tapes not made public." No visual evidance provided as mentioned.

3. Pakistan sent a company of commandos, equipped with guided, shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles "A simple recipe to spice up the article."In other words POv of a party to the incident."User talk:Yousaf465

• You are still not reading the references and as for the first issue, you have highlighted the answer yourself. A BBC Radio/TV broadcast can't be captured online and since the statement was probably later withdrawn by the minister in question, no online source is available. That's why it was agreed upon by other members (including a Pakistani editor) that the line should state "Indian sources also claim..." which clearly attributes who is making that claim. The same applies for the second line which is clearly sourced according to which, the videos were shown to the journalists. Unless someone uploads the videos in question to Youtube I can't see how videos can be viewed or even linked. Finally, take a look at the photos on a site [9] and you'll see that it is a RBS 70 shoulder fired SAM. more such photos on the site will clearly disprove your unsourced claim that no shoulder fired missiles were used. Either you don't know the difference between a SAM and ATW or you are here just to ask questions to disrupt Wikipedia editors, just because you don't like the article's contents which are fully and correctly sourced. Idleguy 04:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• your first claim is wrong.When a Indian navy ship was resuced by the Pakistan martime security agency the the clips of the resuce operation were shown on tv If you may like i will upload them to the satge6 or any other site,but it will be last week of june by then.If video was shown to the journalists then some prominent newspaper must have showns higlight of it.Another thing such a video can't be used as a evidenace in such a case.See if I host a Pakistani flag in desert in india and shows a Indian aircraft flying over head,then claim that indian aircraft has vilotaed the Pakistani airspace.wouldn't it be a simple case of fraud.I didn't said that no SAM was deployed in the area, waht i meant was,use of the words like commados -look like something fishy fishy-.Anyway ask this source to look into thier contents for mistake they have even in trying to prove that that aircraft was shot while in indian airspace.User talk:Yousaf465

The soldiers manning the rockets are from the air defence unit.User talk:Yousaf465

the issue is not about pakistani or indians editors.It simply a case of wrong information.User talk:Yousaf465

• You can be sceptical about one source, i.e. TIME magazine, but when multiple journalists (read Corbis et al.) capture multiple images on the same Pakistani armymen with SAMs in the Kutch area, any reasonable person would acknowledge the facts instead of trying to assume that the whole world wants to gang up and do fake images or videos. That is downright absurd and your example of fake pakistani flag in Indian territory is a classic case of paranoia and such a conspiracy theory helps no one. Also videos can't be displayed without violating permissions and copyrights, (seeYoutube's issues on this) so it is quite plausible if such videos don't happen to be on the internet. After all internet is NOT the world. As for the wrong information, I suspect it was you who argued vehemently a few months back that "This also prove my view that Surface-to-air missile which are Man-portable air-defence system can't guided with laser." That wasn't immediately checked up by me and so I removed the "laser" part in the article. However, upon further investigation, the fact that Pakistan Military does possess and has deployed the RBS 70 missile which is a laser guided missile, totally disproves your theory and the misinformation. Atleast do your homework and comment on the talk pages before trying to say that others (in your own words) "don't have a military background Knowledge". This only reiterates my point that before you edit you should add sources, for none have been provided by you that support your baseless accusations, so far. --Idleguy 06:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was not talking about the pic on TIME Magazine article,what i was saying only was that there is no need to mention such weapons system in open.If e.g Indian air force uses mirage 2000 against rebels in Assam region,is there any need to mention Mirages.It would be a lot better if such a mission would be described as "IAF jets bomb rebels installation in Assam."If someone otherwise say "IAF used Mach 2 jets to destroy houses with Laser guided bombs." wouldn't it be Pov

I don't think that a video made by Indian Armed forces would have it's copyrights violated if it was posted by it's own officials.

If you follow the pictures they tell the truth the claims by IAF are simply void if you look at the pictures carefully and follow them.There is no need of even reading the description,and you may consult some neutral aviation expert and he will tell you what is wrong with these pictures. Following is a para from a website which describes all of the guidance systems.The system used by the Rbs70 is similar it uses visible region or near visible region instead of radio waves used by beam riding missiles.

"Beam riding was often used on early surface-to-air missiles but was found to become inaccurate at long ranges. Limited improvement was possible using two different surface-based radar beams, but the beam rider method has been largely abandoned. The technique was used on the US Navy's Terrier ship-launched surface-to-air missile of the 1950s." Although I was wrong about the use of laser guided missiles but was correct that they wouldn't achieve high kill rate.They RBS 70 is only used against certain types of aircraft in certain conditions.It's not a all purpose sam.

Use of word laser and other words e.g commando don't do the justice withe the article.Instead of all this it will be a lot better if we use "Pakistan send in troops"why mention if they were commandos or not.

At last pl follow the picture they tell the truth word by word.

Take a real life example:A political party of Pakistan recently showed a video in which some armed mens of another party were seen carrying some arms and their leader was also shown in that video.The first party blamed that the second party killed many of it's members during the recent riots.Video was given as a evidence.But the reality is that the armed men were the private guards the second party leader.In the similar way the to me that Indian video also seems to something of similar kind.User talk:Yousaf465

I don't understand how specifying the exact weapon used in a war/conflict/attack/incident introduces POV as long as it is properly sourced. If anything, it only clears the picture and reduces doubts and questions from future readers/editors as was the case in this article.

As for the video, it's the call of the copyright holder to have it distributed or displayed for public consumption.

As for the commando issue, maybe we can change it to Pakistan soldiers to avoid specifying who were sent since it is most likely (also from the uniforms) that regular soldiers were also sent to the place. Idleguy 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That was what i was insisting on Soldier is now a better term.

Pl ask the authors to publish it on the net.

The other issue of missile is still there.No need of specifying about the SAM just say troops are posted at the crash site after the incident.User talk:Yousaf465

I've previously asked both Indian and Pakistani military to provide some photos/videos of their soldiers during Kargil/1971/1965 wars to be used in Wikipedia articles under permission, but neither have yet responded for my request. To think that the Indian military would release/post the video on the internet on this issue would be a dream and I don't think they'll even respond, given past history.

It would be ideal to provide the specifics of which missiles were used as long as they are properly sourced. It will help avoid confusion in the future from new authors. Because I've been involved in editing this article for a long time, I can say from experience that giving out specifics (that is backed by reliable sources) is better than vague descriptions. That helps to improve the quality of the article. --Idleguy 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

References

GA Sweeps Review on hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have added two citation needed tags for two statements within the article. Please add sources for those within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Nehrams2020 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added inline citations for the requested lines. I hope it satisfies the criteria now. Idleguy 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job on adding those so quickly. The article at this point meets the GA criteria and will maintain its status. Keep improving the article, and ensure that all newly added information is properly sourced. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this article - I think the GA rating is generous to say the least, but maybe I am influenced by recently noticing that the Theodore Roosevelt article was C-rated. Just from a copyediting standpoint (which I am working on), this article is currently lacking.Vontrotta (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the 2-line lead, refs from defencjournal and BR - not reliable YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the article due to inconsistent formatting, too-short lead and use of partisan sources rather than scholarly sources YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian Nationalist Bias in most controversial articles

Almost all articles on controversial India related topics are biased in favour of Indian nationalist position. This is obvious as Wikipedia is a democratic work and Indians on Wikipedia (editing from many countries) are numerous. Please don't complain. This is just the concept of Wikipedia at fault 2.124.209.50 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry Brother but i disagree. Its more like "Truth Hurts", our fellow wikipideans from Pakistan often raise objections on Neutrality in my opinion their Biased education is to blame for that. I will quote a line from blog a Pakistani News Reporter. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or have an education biased against india "The public was led to believe that India had launched a ‘surprise attack’ on Pakistan, and that ‘Hindu India’ would be taught a lesson. Thus the armed forces had full public support." you can read more here . cheers. http://mehmal.blogspot.com/2007/09/myth-of-september-6-1965.html --dBigXray (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantique incident. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304092141/http://www.defencejournal.com:80/sept99/post-kargil.htm to http://defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantique incident. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202195038/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)