Jump to content

Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Pro-Indian Bias

This article is not based on facts. There is a need to balance this article.

Here is an example:

"The Second Kashmir War again involved the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan infiltrating and starting a rebellion in Jammu and Kashmir" Maakhter 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also only selectively reporting facts. For example, diplomatic pressure on Pakistan played a big part in the resolution of the Kargil conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.19.197 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"India saw this as an opportunity to take revenge and sent their trained terrorists called Mukti Bahini across the border into East Pakistan much to the consternation of West Pakistan. Mukti Bahini acted as fuel to fire in the movement of civil disobedience by carrying out various terrorist activities and blamed them on Pakistani Armed forces" As for as the kashmir conflict is concerned, before Pakistan sent his troops in kashmir, Maharaja Harisingh asked for Patyala forces to help him against the critical situation of kashmir & ribal men from Pakistan & Afghanistan went their to help muslims on their own will. When indian forces got in the kashmir then pakistan moved his army into the reigon as Harisingh's decision to become a part of india was against the will of 80% of his muslim population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.106.45 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation required.....

My learned friend above calls 'Mukti Bahani' - a terrorist organisation. Can he explain what kind of 'Terror' it inflicted in Bangladesh? It is pitty that some people are using this discussion as an internet blog and posting their views without any bases. He himself asks for citations for the allegations he has made!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.228.15 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I could not see a reason to flag this article as biased.

Although I am no expert on this subject, in casual reading I could see no bias and was not drawn to ither side of the argument that the article outlined. I am sure that those who have added comments about this bias, will be able to correct these errors if they see fit, however, this article seems to be reporting the facts of the war- obviously wars are had to report on, the sources of information are mainly biased in favour of the source's origin.

---

No action so far to balance this page

This page looks like a propaganda tool of Government of India. A serious effort should be made to fix this page.

Could you provide sourced information to balance the page? I would hope that this would not become another battleground in the India-Pakistan conflict. Furthermore, can you specifically tell us what is biased? From what I can see, India and Pakistan have fought four wars, and Pakistan has lost all four of them. (By the way, this has nothing to do with the courage of the Pakistani soldier or the superiority of the jawan; it might have to do in some cases with stronger forces, or better generalship). The cause of each war, of course, would be different from the point of view of each side.
It would be good to have a balanced, quick summary of the wars, with links to specific wars. Thank you. GABaker (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Indian but it is not fair to say that Pakistan lost all or some wars against India. In ancient time it was easy to measure the outcome of War -in terms of Area gained/Treasure Looted/Resources (persons and infrastructure) destroyed etc. In current political-military situation of our world outcome of a war is difficult to measure. It is measured in terms of the objective of the war and weather it was gained. Both party can claim victory and both may be right from their perspective. For example lets say the Kargil conflict. Its look that India won BUT…Gain in Pakistani side – 1.Internationalisation of Kashmir issue and 2.Message to Kashmiri Terrorists about open support – was successfully gained. (only a fool Pak or Indian official would aim to gain territory from other side which they can hold forever as both are powerful and nuclear nation). On Indian side it was a failure to protect its territory – but they succeeded in gaining it back – is this a Victory or a failure? So in current time results of a war are not obvious but subtle. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.228.15 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has any Pakistani been charged for genocide?

Has any Pakistani been charged for genocide? What about the current relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh? The relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh are very friendly. If someone accuses Pakistan for genocide then why Bangladesh is so friendly with Pakistan, while no one has charged any Pakistani for genocide.

Has Bangladesh given up its allegation of genocide against Pakistan? If not then, why they are so friendly with Pakistan? Why Bangladesh does not want to chase its allegations of genocide against Pakistan?

The reason is that there was no genocide. It is Indian propaganda.

Made minor edits to the summary of conflicts. The short one liners made no sense and did not co-relate to the longer explainations in "origins of conflict"

I think international relations are too complicated to say that because Bangladesh is friendly with Pakistan, Pakistan did not commit genocide against Bangladesh. Many countries that were former colonies of European empires are friendly with the countries that conquered and oppressed them. Maltreatment is no longer a guarantee of enmity on an international basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Question asked here is "Has any Pakistani been charged for genocide?" - And the learned author is meant to say that -'as there was no charge there was no genocide!!!' My answer to his query is that: please look into history of humanity; much genocide have happened and happening now as well and how many of them are 'charged'? Were any US officials were charged for dropping the Nuke on Japan (not once but twice!‼). 'Not charged' does not mean no crime has happened - international relations and affairs are too complicated for this. It is well known fact that 'Pakistan' was a Key Ally of West/US during 'Cold war period' when this genocide happened. West controls the Market-Media; without their (western countries) approval no one will be charged for genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.228.15 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


My dear friend here alleges India for spreading propaganda about Pak Genocide. But he forgets the history of Bangladesh – where a Democratically elected Govt was toppled and sent to exile and leaders arrested by Pakistani Army. People of B’desh who earned more than 60-70% of GDP for Pakistan were given meagrely 25-35% of it for development. Genocide figures are confirmed by B’desh Govt. not India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.228.15 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary is the problem

The problem with this article is that there is really very little point to it. There are articles dealing with each of the wars, which include discussions of both their causes and aftermaths. Although each of the other articles suffer from some deficits, in my opinion, all of them are better than this article. The bias of various contributors to this article become apparent when choosing which facts of the more comprehensive articles to include in this summary. I think the way to "fix" the neutrality objections is simply to reduce this article to a briefer summary pointing to the other articles. I intend to start editing the article in this manner.Vontrotta (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This article looks like it has been a tool of The Goverment of India. The bias is so evident that the article is now an anti Pakistan page. Shame on Wikipedia for issuing this blatently prejudiced article.

Not at all. The clarity shall be as under:

If it was a Government of India page, it would have clearly written that in 1965, India crushed Pakistan. In 1971, West Pakistan's Punjabi forces were known for their biased behaviour towards Bengalis and Biharis; and they certinly were brutal towards Bengalis. However, present day Bangladesh and Pakistan are friendly because both of them are in the hands of more fanatic and fundamentalist Muslims and they have common agenda i.e. to break India and to spread terror in India.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.158.41 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2002 troop buildup?

Just throwing this out there, but shouldn't the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff be included in this category? It wasn't a declared war, but it was definitely a major conflict between the two countries. Cheese1125 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

History teaching in Pakistan

hi guys first of all I am Indian and try to be without any bias. I am reading many information on the net and come across very dissatisfied things which I think part of Pakistan school history curryculam. I dont think they teach it right in schools so we shouldn't expect any good comments from Pakistani persons whose bascis are not right. I think any article about history can't be perfect so there is always some space for emprovement but if you come across pakistani school material you laugh( not small but like LOL) what they are teaching to small kids. I appeal to Pakistani scholars and youngsters to set things right first in your schools and then come to discuss history on the NET. bye peace

P.S. some of the things are like Hindus were never living in sindh or other parts of Pakistan and it was populated by nomads. Harrapa and Mohenjodaro culture was present ony in Pakistan and not in India. Only Pakistan fought for freedom and muslim league was only party which fought to British raj. even Gestapo would not dare to spread rumors like this hahaha....

I will quote a line from a Pakistani BLogger. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or 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) 21:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reversion Notification

Being completely neutral in this (i'm Greek) I can't help but see that the current revision is badly skewed. I am reverting to the last good version by Cerejota. Causantin (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i think u r right but hey, I did a lot of work in making the article a little more TO-THE-POINT and neutral and u reverted that too....I agree that there are a few people trying to vandalize here like this Santoshsnayak....His edit was completely biased....I hope we get a few proper contributions from some neutral guyz like u......Peace...Adil your (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

just took it to the bot state where it was locked before ...cant help ....we need to edit protect this page to avoid vandalism ....--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this page should be a NPOV summary of the four plus wars between India and Pakistan. With about 16 pct of the world's population emotionally involved in these wars, naturally the feelings of bias are there. But how can we get around these facts: 1. There have been four wars. 2. Pakistan lost at least three of them, with the 1999 war status quo ante bellum.GABaker (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Siachen Conflict?

Why isn't the Siachen Conflict included in the lists of conflicts between India and Pakistan ? 96.52.201.222 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality still disputed?

Are there still parts of this article considered biased by anyone? If so, could we properly identify them so they can be addressed and the tag removed? TastyCakes (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to the lack of objection over the last 2 months, I'm going to pull the tag. Please do not re-add it unless you are willing to clearly state your objections here. --UncleDouggie (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
our fellow wikipideans from Pakistan often raise objections on Neutrality IMO their Biased education is to blame for that. I will quote a line from a Pakistani BLogger. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or 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) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Move options

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move page. Sufficient consensus exists to move this page to the nominator's suggestion. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Wars and conflicts between India and Pakistan → Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts — During the failed AfD 8 months ago, it was suggested to move this page to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, which is the name in the summary box in the lead paragraph. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For completeness, here are the current redirects to this page:

  1. India-pakistan conflict - 0 links
  2. India Pakistan Wars - 0 links
  3. India-Pakistan Wars - 1 link
  4. India-Pakistan wars - 2 links
  5. Indian-Pakistan War - 0 links
  6. Indo-Pakistan conflict - 0 links
  7. Indo-Pakistan Wars - 18 links
  8. Indo-Pakistani War - 7 links
  9. Indo-Pakistani Wars - 100 links
  10. Indo-Pakistani war - 1 link
  11. Indo-Pakistani wars - 100 links
  12. Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts - 130 links
  13. Indo pakistani war - 0 links
  14. IndoPak Wars - 0 links
  • (12) looks like a good choice, followed closely by (11). We should stay away from (9) because the article isn't about a single named war in which war would be capitalized, but rather a series of wars. There are 170 links to the current page title, about 120 of which are from the article namespace. However, the current title doesn't really adhere to our naming conventions. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I agree w/ UncleDouggie, #12 seems like the best option. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

is Kargil more of an palnned border skirmish than a war ?

many resources reported this from pape to acedmic article would be supllied soon Mughalnz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Edit request from Amitgo2010, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section on 1971 Indo-Pakistan war description, the accurate description is to add more context. Change:

Following Operation Searchlight,

to

Following Operation Searchlight and 1971 Bangladesh atrocities,

The 1971_Bangladesh_attrocities is already a verified article on wikipedia

Amitgo2010 (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for neutrality

In the Wars in Chronological order section, a citation needed sentence about the 1971 War goes like this: "Because of the impending humanitarian crisis and its own interest in 'dismembering Pakistan' India intervened..." Interest in dismembering Pakistan? Am I the only one who thinks the editor seems to be voicing his personal opinions on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiraj121 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

Undid revision 455046715 by Hassanhn5 (talk) which stated that "Indian army had been determined to capture lahore in this war, which was successfully defended by Pakistan army and airforce." This is the Pakistan's POV. Neverthless the citations Hassanhn5 added clearly showed (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=fricker++determined+to+capture+lahore+in+this+war%2C+which+was+successfully+&btnG= ) that this was disagreed By Indian military officers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshraj1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The quoted source is not from Pakistan. Its a neutral widely quoted source. No POV issue. The source says that Indian officers denied it yet there was no other purpose of this thrust. Also, Pakistan celebrating defence day on this occasion is widely known and has no POV issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your own opinion. I quoted what the mentioned source said. Also blogs (Pakistani or otherwise) have no significance in front of international neutral references from war writers. When you get reverted discuss on talk page instead of editing it back again. You should read the article on Pakistan defence day. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:DbigXray. lTopGunl has been dirupting articles on forum data.

Swift&silent (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't count here. It is an internationally recognized book. Every one is free to verify. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworded for clear meaning. Swift&silent (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are editwarring on the article pushing your POV, even when the neutral source given clearly states India failed to achieve its objective. You are still repeatedly adding Indian victory to the article under different masks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't count here. These are internationally recognized sources. Every one is free to verify. Swift&silent (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You're misusing that statement. We go by neutral references here. Not by your word. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the concept. All of them are by third parties. Swift&silent (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a contradiction then. And you need to discuss on the talk page instead of edit warring WP:3RR. You have been reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are not discussing on talk page then what are we doing? Text removed by User:Mustihussain was restored as removed content was cited content. Reason quoted by User:Mustihussain was Original research despite text's being backed by neutral resources. Anyway taking notice of his edit I have added more third party sources and removed the sources which weren't absolutely exact about the content in question. Feel free to verify and if any problem is faced then do tell. Swift&silent (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@User talk:Mustihussain Just because one citation say otherwise you cant remove all others. Why you disregarded other citations and unilaterally removed content? Swift&silent (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

this is your initial edit [1]. you backed up your claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them support your claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told you that this edit constituted wp:or [2]. you then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles [3] as they are easily verifiable. however, you didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book [4]. i suspect that the other books you provided are just another cover for your wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and you're disingenuous beyond belief.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:CIVIL NPA. You are making personal attack on me backed by self-invented conspiracy theory but this will not change the truth. Comment on content not the editor. Those books are readily available and you can verify them yourself. If one citation was inaccurate then proper procedure would be to remove improper citation with a new correct one instead of removing whole text and correct citations like you did here[5]. Swift&silent (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
ah, you attributed a claim to a source without even having read it (not once but 3 times!). that's even worse. that's pov-pushing. how am i supposed to believe you when you're so disingenuous? wiki is about collaboration, and that requires trust.-- mustihussain (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You're own references say India was merely able to save kashmir. How can you claim victory? [6]
"In retrospect, it is clear that the 1965 war was successful as a defensive action, for it managed to preserve the status quo In Kashmir, but the operations In the Punjab and Rajasthan were Inconclusive. We failed to make a real dent In Pakistan's forces, both on the ground and in the air. The Navy being far removed from Kashmir took no part In the fighting."
--lTopGunl (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 -- mustihussain (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Another baseless allegation. That was not used in the said edit. I would encourage you to read before commenting. Swift&silent (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a copy paste (from your source), see for yourself. Others are free to verify. WP:BURDEN is currently on you, unless you have your arguments based on something, we're far from consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewording needed

The Indo-Pakistani 1965 War had large number of ground actions - one of which was the Indian thrust to capture Lahore. The War stopped soon thereafter. It is correct that the Indian forces attacked and attempted to capture Lahore, but this was not defeated rather the operations were inconclusive in the time frame and halted after diplomatic efforts by USA and USSR. To portray it in the the current language is POV as it gives the impression that there was only one offensive, it was defeated (which was not quite the case) by army and air force action and that this constituted a victory for Pakistan. This is the point of contention and hence the dispute exists and has not been resolved.

Since we are attempting short simple paragraph sized entries without POV, imo the language needs changing. The reference may be a neutral one from the West but it is an air force-oriented one and is not a balanced military (army,navy & air force) account of the operation. Also, it is not available online for verification.

I am continuing the discussion in a separate subsection so that the discussion can restart here afresh in good faith.

I suggest that :

  • We change the disputed text to bare bones language which presents the fact neutrally, minimally and accurately (w/o POV of either side).
  • We add verifiable references rather than off-line ones.

In this regard, I am placing a disputed tag till we resolve this neutrally and with consensus.

Also, I request User:Hassanhn5 to kindly improve the single url reference by placing it in a cite books template. He may use RefTag for ease of use. I have no major issue with his other edits but this one revert of my edit needs resolution for the reasons stated by me (and others). AshLin (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User Hassannh5 has removed the "disputed" tag. This is incorrect on his part. He accused me of edit-warring but he has himself reverted me through his edits more than thrice in a 24 hour period. I specifically reduced the bone of contention to one issue, explained it and added a tag. His job is is to help resolve it. The dispute exists, is not resolved but he has reverted this rather than discussing the issue. This is wrong on his part. I appeal to User Hassannh5 to assume good faith, restore the tag and resolve the issue here as he asks me to do. It is sad that instead of improving the article, User hassannh5's appears to have chosen a disruptive path. AshLin (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you should read and weigh the discussion above. I see no point in merely repeating everything again. If you have an argument on bases other than that, we can surely comment on it. But just on basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT the text can not be reworded. It is neutral and does not imply in any way on a victory of a single party as the sentence just before the celebration part says it was a stalemate. The celebration itself is a very significant occasion in Pakistan and is notable enough to be included in the summary. Again, I'll advise to review the discussion above which is specifically on this matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
See WP:TC:
"Add template messages to inform readers and editors of specific problems with articles or sections. Do not use them as a badge of shame."
A discussion has taken place on the issue. You can't just add tags because you don't like it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The presence of a disputed tag is not intended as a badge of shame, which is a contention on your part, but to indicate that factual content disputes are present which are being discussed on two articles. The specific contents have been indicated on talk pages. It is not intended to shame you or anybody and certainly not the article. It is normal practice for content disputes to exist in articles and for that to be indicated; it is not shameful. Please restrict the discussion to content rather than ascribing motives. The "you dont like it argument" is an unproven imputation on your part while I objectively state that there are two disputes existing on content which is being contested by three editors which any one can see and verify for themselves. And stop dragging the DBXray's invite in again & again. I am not here because of that which was a long time ago. AshLin (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the purpose of the tag is not that of giving the article a 'badge of shame' and that's what should be considered while placing it. You placed it because you thought there was a problem with it. You didn't see the discussion that was already there on the talk page for which I gave you complete benefit of doubt. The existing content was well explained for and you are free to review the discussion and the citations given. If you remove the content just by giving mere arguments it certainly comes up to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have any thing to base your argument upon, we're still waiting for it. Further more, this discussion was not and is not between 3 editors vs 2. It is between 1 editor (dbigxray) vs me and mustihussain. The user swift&silent and you, were both canvassed by dibigxray and I have recorded diffs for that. This is certainly an issue and cannot be disregarded. Wikipedia has a strict policy about WP:CANVASSING. Coming after a long time still doesn't give you a legitimate position. The fact about the canvassing remains. If you are still discontent take the issue to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Good morning to all editors, let us continue the discussion. If we need to understand why the disputed sentence was POV, please read the main article Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#The_war. It brings out that the war was precipitated by Op Gibraltar being launched with a major armoured thrust by Pakistan (Operation Grand Slam). This was followed by Indian ripostes in the Punjab, one towards towards Lahore (the only battle mentioned by Hassanhn5) which did not succeed. However this was followed by armoured thrusts of India towards Sialkot (which captured valuable territories in the Punjab) and by Pakistan towards Khem Karan which was stopped with very heavy tank casualties. The conflict ended in ceasefire resulting in overall stalemate. If we need to mention anything about the armoured battles in the very short paragraph on 1965 war in this article, then the armoured thrusts by both sides need to be mentioned, it would also require the mention of the Asal Uttar debacle which was on a far greater scale than the Lahore thrust. As the war was never completed, each of these thrusts only formed strokes in a larger picture hence mentioning these is in my opinion unnecessary detail, just as including the disputed sentence in its present form is blowing it out of proportion as also not representing the general truth, hence POV. My suggestion is to drop the disputed text completely. Let the article stand clean without POV text of any kind. Let the article also not include things like Defence Day, Vijay Diwas which, while relevant and verifiable, are completely out of place in a four-five line paragraph on a war. That is my justification from the content point of view.
If you feel that I'm being disruptive and guilty of canvassing, Hassanhn5, you are at liberty to take up the case in a conduct forum later on. Here I am only discussing content.
I have placed Mustihussain's proposal in a seperate subsection being a discussion fork. That allows your comments on my posts and vice versa without merging with his proposal. AshLin (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Specific battles are to mentioned in the main war articles obviously but the mention of lahore was to give reference to the defense day event. If the event can be placed in the text without mentioning the battle yet retaining its meaning, that would do probably. As for the defense day itself, it is a notable national event hence filling the wiki's criteria for both verifiability and notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I now understand the reason for why you added the disputed text but Hassannh5, there are number of problems retaining this text -
  • In its present state, it is POV due to WP:UNDUE besides other objections.
  • If we retain it we have to change its text to make it non-POV by placing it in accurate perspective, no matter how brief. This will then make the reason for Defence Day look weak/unsatisfactory (imho).
  • Retaining the mention of Defence Day will again create a precedent for addition of Vijay Diwas, Kargil Diwas etc. On what grounds do we keep one and exclude the others?
  • Retaining the edited text goes against the minimalist approach which seems to be the consensus for this article. The disputed text really stands out jarringly, without this text the rest of the 1965 War paragraph seems quite okay. Mustihussain's approach is relevant in this context.
Keeping all this in mind, we will need to resolve this issue suitably. I recommend deleting the mention of the Lahore thrust etc and Defence Day. AshLin (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I am assuming that you've gone through the discussion in this main section about the issue. That being said, the WP:UNDUE is not being violated here because only a fact is being presented. That is, the fact that Pakistan celebrates the defense day, is not disputed even if the outcome of war might be. So this at its worst is not a POV issue. The next issue comes of notability which I already explained (and you understood). About the minimizing of text about the thrust, it can be done without the defense day mention loosing its context. Some thing like, "Pakistan celebrates defense day on Sept. 6, on the defense of lahore and other important areas during the war" (here it mentions the defense but not the thrust and its aspirations). I think the last sentence I gave for an example should be further improved and replace the current mention of the defense day. Coming to the precedence about the addition of other celebrations (including those by India) I think I'm the first one who mentioned addition of them in reply to mustihussain's suggestion. Any celebration which can be proven notable enough should be added with minimal implication of bias towards the result of the war in question. I guess now your objections are explained for. This was being objected as a POV issue previously as well as now, but the issue is of notability and context. I'd like you to critically examine this. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hassanhn5, the single fact of 6 September being a commemorative day is completely irrelevant in context to a single paragraph article on the 1965 War, as is the mention of a solitary battle placed solely for supporting a fact, besides making the paragraph seem skewed and NPOV. This fact is NOT notable in a single paragraph description of the War. Were it relevant from notability, it cannot be permitted to remain in an NPOV state. The entire paragraph must read cleanly and NPOV and consistent with the minimalism which is the consensus view to date. I find it strange that you should support removing the outcome of a war (Mustihussain's proposal) which is such a major part on the one hand and resist removal of a minor battle on the other. The other option of adding material on India's Vijay Diwas etc is only going to worsen the situation. Except for your suggestion, no one is looking to expand any of these sections and minimalism is a consensus, to which you also agree by giving an okay to Mustihussain's proposal. In my opinion we need to maintain the minimality and neutrality of the article so I request you to kindly revert that edit of yours. AshLin (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Look again, I partly agreed to that proposal. This paragraph is a summary if what happened in the conflict and does mention the notable events, outcome of war if removed is one thing since it will let the reader to continue to the dedicated article for further reading, but that does not mean we should remove other notable events. Yes, it is notable and has alot of backing form neutral citations not to mention its keeping by no way makes a POV situation since the celebration itself is true. Minimalism is a consensus? Well there are two points, one; you moved that suggestion to a separate subsection hence making it a different category of issue rather in general form, and two; you disagreed to that as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
i have a suggestion. why not put all the celebrations in the culture-section at the end of the article?-- mustihussain  18:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! I've seen that as a trend in many articles. A separate subsection from that of movies and dramas should be dedicated to these real life (notable) celebrations. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to that but the supporting language needs to be neutral. Also it should mention the days of both countries. However, the line "Indian army had been determined to capture Lahore in this war, which was successfully defended by Pakistan army and airforce. In commemoration of this, Pakistan celebrates Defence day on September 6." needs to be removed from the 1965 War paragraph, being UNDUE, POV and out of context. AshLin (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
that line can be moved to the defence-day entry in the new celebration-section, reworded if must.-- mustihussain  19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That was taken from a neutral citation, so not undue. I guess this is resolved. A section should be created for the celebrations but keeping in mind that only the celebrations that are celebrated by the respective country itself as a national occasion should be added to it with a citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as India is concerned, it is Vijay Diwas and Kargil Vijay Diwas. Did you have anything else in mind? AshLin (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You'd know better I guess. Just make sure they really are annual celebrations. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
They are. AshLin (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
great. i suggest that hassanhn do the necessary changes, and that ashlin objects if he/she disagrees.-- mustihussain  19:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggest adding a wiki link too: Defence Day. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Removed the wording completely. It should rather be a list. That way no objections. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mustihussain's proposal

personally, i believe this article is rather ill-conceived and prone to duplications and edit wars. sentences about "who won and how", or stating that the "maharaja signed the instrument of accession" at the beginning of the article are excuses for opening the pandoras box. the raison d'etre of this article should be as a guide to articles about indo-pakistan wars and conflicts. nothing more. hence, there is absolutely no need to add content about the end-results as they are the topic of the linked main articles. detail is not in the domain of this summary-natured guide and any attempt of adding such invites to trouble. here is my suggestion on how to resolve the issue.

  • Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: This war started following of Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India. India retaliated by launching an attack on Pakistan. The five-week war caused thousands of casualties on both sides and was witness to the largest tank battle in military history since World War II.
  • Indo-Pakistani War of 1999: Commonly known as Kargil War, this conflict between the two countries was mostly limited. Pakistani troops along with Kashmiri insurgents infiltrated across the Line of Control (LoC) and occupied Indian territory mostly in the Kargil district. Pakistani government believed that its nuclear weapons would deter a full-scale escalation in conflict but India launched a major military campaign to flush out the infiltrators.[4]

all the specifics and nuances are deferred to the main articles that treat them thoroughly-- mustihussain  18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Qualified Support: This is better and will remove the possibility of every other editor coming and 'replacing' POVs. The end results and reasons can be incorporated in the main war article to enhance it if the other editors want. I guess it will already be present there. These summaries of all should contain factual information rather than claims. Instrument of accession, Pakistan's defense day celebration and Kargil vijay diwas‎ by India should rather be included as they are notable facts. The detailed aspirations however, should be shifted to main article and removed from here (incase they stay, should be equally presented from both sides to have a neutral POV). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
the instrument of accession should be only mentioned in the summary of the indo-pakistan war of 1947 (see my suggestion above), not in the background-section (which is the case with the current version). i don't have any strong feelings regarding the celebrations. couldn't care less.-- mustihussain  20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess the Instrument of accession is rightly placed. The inclusion of celebrations relies on notability and not feelings. Sums up to be a national event every year, hence notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
this is the sentence i removed yesterday from the background-section but it was added right back in [7]. it's enough to mention that both pakistan and india laid claim on kashmir. if you begin to elaborate then someday the stuff about the instrument not being genuine will be added and you'll get a new conflict. better to mention the instrument only once, that is, in the summary as above.-- mustihussain  20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agreed over the accession part. That's enough mentioned once in these summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Mustihussain for a fresh proposal. Due to work/timings constraint, I will comment on this tonight. AshLin (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mustihussain for a fresh think on the subject. I applaud the miminalist approach and the desire to maintain neutral POV. Imho NPOV will come by tackling and removing text that we find objectionable by discussion/consensus. Removing the outcome of the wars from each paragraph wont work. The reasons being that:
  • Avoiding NPOV by avoiding the issue only changes the nature of the problems. Surely, Indian editors will then come in and want to add the outcome. On what grounds does anyone object to their wanting to do so? The present minimalist approach which seems to be a kind of consensus here (I may be mistaken) has resulted in each conflict being described in four to six statements. They include the beginning, broad trend of the war and outcome. So the outcome, mentioned briefly in NPOV, is an integral part of the description. Deleting it will only create a different issue, editors wanting to add what is relevant to complete the description of the conflict.
  • There could be an accusation of POV against this suggestion stating that outcomes are being deleted as Pakistani editors are trying to hide historical facts unsavoury to them. Especially since the disputes in this talk page are NOT about the endings. In the 1965 paragraph, the issue is mention of one battle being portrayed in a POV context while the 1971 one is about the exact motivations of one country to go to war.
So for the reasons mentioned above, I OPPOSE the suggestion. Imho the long road of discussing disputed objectionable text, getting consensus and resolving each issue is the way to go. AshLin (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE the suggestion, the above reasons stated by Ashlin are quite logical and they are bound to happen by the editors of one side or the other. its better to use the wiki tried and tested way dispute discussion->consensus>resolution. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
good luck.-- mustihussain  19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The outcomes when removed will be removed from all wars alike and hence not held as POV. If outcomes are presented as a plain infobox style phrase in the end of the text, there will be no POV issue to implement Mustihussain's suggestion. As for editors coming later to add to this minimalist approach, the existing consensus can be referred to, so that is not a good argument for improvement. The purpose of this article is to provide a short summary about the conflicts and their nature and not to describe the conflicts them selves since they have dedicated pages for that. I think this suggestion if rightly implemented will only resolve issues. Dbigxray, consensus is not established by voting, rather by discussing. Your adding oppose in caps here along with only stating what he said seems to imply that. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hassanhn5, deleting mention of relevant points/facts if they are unpalatable is a biased action and showing a POV. Whether done to one or all is irrelevant. In fact deleting the facts from all the wars makes it worse keeping in mind that most all the outcomes are not to your liking. The argument you provide holds no water. The disputes in question are about other issues. AshLin (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the outcomes of war and that is not a POV issue for me as far as they are correctly mentioned or not mentioned at all. That was a reply to your point hence a question of dispute raised by you. Anyway you should stick to a single side... minimalism is a consensus or not? (refer to you comment in above subsection). Its like you are double speaking from both sides to get a conclusion including the side you just opposed here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Minimalism does not imply excising the essentials only the non-essentials. So the way I see it, removing the disputed text re Defence Day was all that was needed. The removal of outcome was imo removal of essential text. Hence to my mind, I have upheld the principle. AshLin (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

There was a missing citation on the line about india joining the bangladesh liberation war i have included the LA Times article http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/30/local/me-passings30.1 i suggest Mustihussain (talk) to read the full article Bangladesh Liberation War --dBigXray (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, india joined the war but the source does not support the idea that india joined it due to the "impending humanitarian crisis". hence, i'll remove that part only.-- mustihussain (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if those sources are there. It is a non neutral POV to say that India joined the war to prevent a pending humanitarian crisis (even though the war only increased it), since the matter is highly controversial. lTopGunl (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Original WIkI article contained "Because of the impending humanitarian crisis , India intervened in the ongoing" User mustihussain (talk) Has changed it 3 Times to "India intervened in the ongoing", Its not easy to get many online references for 1971. Please Look BBC interview of Indira Gandhi Which clearly says that "Because of the impending humanitarian crisis , India intervened in the ongoing" I could not find the text of that interview, the video can be looked up by searching "Indira Gandhi 1971"--dBigXray (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
i altered the sentence only twice. content has to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. an interview with indra gandhi is obviously not such a source, heck, it's not even a reliable primary source. i've noticed that this line is duplicated in the bangladesh liberation war - article as well. i suggest you remove it.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview of Indira Gandhi is DEFINITELY POV. If the 'original article' had some pov issue, it had to be edited. The current state is neutral from both Indian & Pakistani POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi was the Indian PM at that time and was responsible for taking the decision to depute Indian Forces in Bangladesh Liberation war. Yes it was her decision thats why its a part of the article. I propose that the line be restored in the article --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Indra Gandhi was the Indian prime minister and her calling the situation a 'humanitarian crisis' is an obvious bias. You should read WP:HEAR & WP:POINT. Just because you couldn't change the consensus, you shouldn't make disruptive edits all over wikipedia to prove your point. That Results in quick blocks. Not being able to listen to what other editors are saying is also very disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not Threat for blocks. you have already tried a number of times and failed. I think its better to concentrate on the subject at hand, thats what the Talkpage is meant for. [| the book] clearly states the point . It should be included in the article as well, The killing of enormous number of people is a Humanitarian Crisis, even if the term does not sound good to the citizens of Pakistan as PAkistan army was the perpetrator of this Humanitarian Crisis. I sense a clash of interest above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
yes, it was a humanitarian crisis but that is not the reason why the late mrs gandhi went to war. stop kidding yourself.-- mustihussain (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The humanitarian crisis only increased with the war. You should be able to make a difference between explanations and threats. This is the most obvious POV you are giving. If you keep on claiming on such typical cases like this long after a consensus is established, you'll loose your credibility. You really need to read the articles I linked in my last comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added there lines from a wiki reliable source a book by a neutral foreign author .
  • India faced a massive refugee influx through its neighbouring border from East Pakistan and India intervened in the ongoing Bangladesh liberation movement
you're cherry picking lines from sources without having read the whole source. mrs gandhi went to war because her goal was to break-up pakistan, as explained by this source [8]. here on wiki you need several reliable secondary sources to establish verifiability for controversial claims, sources you actually *read* and *assess*. mrs gandhi probably had several motives and these are not exhausted by a single line you cherry picked from google books. there is a strong possibility that the book you found also discusses the other reasons as well, but then you actually have to read the book i.e. buy or lend the book from a library. googling up convenient lines is not scholarly research. -- mustihussain  13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There are multiple resons for the start of every war, all those are already debated on the main article. but this section contained what the facts were and i have provided source to support these. Operation searchlight did occur. Bangladeshi's were massacred and raped, THere were millions of bangladeshi refugees . And India did support the bangladeshi in their fight. You had an arguement that India did not attack bangladesh just because there was a Crisis in Bangladesh. yes agree , there can be a number of reasons. Hence the new edit that i placed just stated the facts . These are facts found in almost all the reliable sources and books. I see it as an attempt to deviate the wiki article from the neutral versions of the Episode. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
mrs gandhi went into war because her goal was to break up pakistan. that is the primary reason. the secondary reason was the humanitarian crises which was used as a pretext to enter the war. you cannot treat them on equal footing. suggest you formulate something along these lines here on the discussion page.-- mustihussain  15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

User:Hassanhn5 has wrongly accused me of edit-warring. He has also warned me against Canvassing. My edits have been towards improving of the article and making it neutral. I had come here basically to improve references. I have also editted the articles to make them neutral and relevant. I had not noticed the talk page discussions. I will now participate in the same. AshLin (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between accusation and a polite warning assuming good faith. In anycase you've been removing content under different labels which were already discussed in the 1965 section above. I already mentioned that you should see talk page discussions. In addition you were called in to participate by the user dbigxray, which comes in canvassing and your discussion will not hold a separate weight due to that action of his. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You will see that User:DBigXray's ill-advised message was a long time ago and I have not participated in his disputes or to his request. I came to this page while trawling my watchlist yesterday, and have only added/improved the articles in a neutral manner. Each edit of mine is towards a neutral POV, and sourced. I am willing to submit them to scrutiny by Dispute resolution or any other body. In addition, I can back them with sources. I have also have cleaned up the sources and verified which ever are possible and am now addressing POV issues. What I am involved is normal editting and not POV warring.
I have followed your advice and started posting on talk page. You need to do that too and participate in the discussion rather than reverting me while placing a 3R warning on my talk page. A dispute tag is placed when there is a dispute. This dispute was on all this time on two issues before I even got to this page. I have specifically outlined the dispute on 1965 War and invited resolution. Your reverting a Disputed tag, goes against editting good faith and constitutes disruptive behaviour. I request you to participate amicably and discuss the changes rather than revert. Practice what you preach. AshLin (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Give your fellow editors some time to post replies to justify the reverts they make (which I have now - follow the discussion in that section) other than the fact that the burden lies on you for removing cited content. This dispute was long ruled against in the relevant section as you can see now, which was the reason of me removing the tag. I'm open to all discussion. Keep in mind that you came to this page on being called by another involved user which amounts to canvassing. This is a wrong on his behalf, but since you are here you share his burden. Follow the 1965 section to avoid confusion of double posts. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any consensus above between the two editors. The Dispute tag has wrongly been removed multiple times by the userlTopGunl even after i retagged it . The userlTopGunl calls the dispute tag as a tag of shame and removes it. Should it be consider as an attempt to deliberately hide the matter from other wiki editors. I think the dispute tag needs to be placed back or else the matter can be furthur reported. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Features List Candidate?

This article now seems to be quite stable and neutral. How about nominating it for a Wikipedia:Featured list candidates? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You really cant be serious. The article is being continuously amended by you, it's structure is under dispute, its not stable. It has many self-published references. It still has POV issues. Your bare url references are really pathetic. Before you even think of FL, improve this article enough, remove all POV & MOS issues subject it to a GA review, then an A class and then go for FL. AshLin (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's GA, A for lists! --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
mentioning the maharaja in the background-section is still misplaced, especially if you read the next line.-- mustihussain  07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
47 war sentence structure had some problems. Fixed that. I guess it deserves the place in the background being the basis of a major issue. I changed the heading 'timeline' to 'wars' anyway, so it doesn't need precedence in that order since the next section covers the war(s) resulting from this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I swapped it with the ending sentence or the sentence might look like ending in a lost thought. About the nuclear conflict, see the linked section of dedicated nuclear conflict article which includes this as such. I followed that lead. Don't think it will be misleading since the first sentence clears it. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any other event to add to the incident section, add if you have one in mind. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the nuclear conflict section, it is neither a list of wars or conflicts. Also, both countries follow nuclear programmes specifically against different threats and NOT against each other. AshLin (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The citations say otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The citations only say that Pakistan believes India's nuclear program is aimed at deterring her. Please reword the section into an acceptable wording. AshLin (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I followed the example of this [9] for mentioning the nuclear conflict as an on going trouble other than all the citations referring to this being as a repeated confrontation. On one place you consider a stand off of troops as a conflict and on other you consider the nuclear issue not acceptable as a conflict. I think you should check out the Cold war article too. That too is being referred to as conflict here. You are only basing on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, the article is not in a form I think is correct but due to WikiConference commitments, I'm lying a bit low. I'm not done with my comments or my edits either. Your edits have gone unchallenged only because of that - not that I dont disagree with all your edits, only some of them. Mostly, I disagree with your attempting to use your "constructive" use of non:RS references in articles and to stretch a point beyond its worth. AshLin (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to challenge or replace any references. I don't think they went unchallenged anyway, you did challenge them, but you are confusing the term nuclear conflict. I don't think you have any point here other than accusing me of bad faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As suggested before, this article proves to be a list and was failed GA nomination on those basis. Some citations are missing including the popular culture and celebrations section. After adding those, it can be peer reviewed and nominated for "Featured List" in my opinion. I've fixed all the bare URLs.--lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Misc

Is it the consensus to refer to the supression of Bengalis prior to the '71 War as genocide? I wouldn't have thought that it merited that label but am not an expert. Eluchil404 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not very happy with that particular sentence. It does not convey the meaning it is suppossed to convey. The war started as a last resort after the political situation in East Pakistan got out of control & the subsequent *genocide* that was carried out.. Perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded as ".. the dispute between the 2 nations started out after Pakistan made a heavy-handed crackdown on the supporters of autonomy in East-Pakistan. East Pakistan became a free sovereign country Bangladesh as a result of this war --Rev.bayes 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


PAF alerted after Mumbai attacks

The content is as important as the moving of troops to the border since it tells of the seriousness of the situation. You may add it to the Mumbai attacks article as well if you want. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Noticed this just now. See my explanations below. AshLin (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The addition of PAF information to the Mumbai attack is completely unwarranted. The main Mumbai attacks article, viz 2008 Mumbai attacks itself has a small subsection on the aftermath where the complete section reads as follows:

"Pakistan moved troops towards the border with India border voicing concerns about the Indian government's possible plans to launch attacks on Pakistani soil if it did not cooperate. After days of talks, the Pakistan government, however, decided to start moving troops away from the border.<ref>{{citenews |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Pak-might-soon-move-troops-from-border-with-India/articleshow/4660681.cms}}</ref>"

.

Additional details of PAF deployment have not merited even a mention here. If it is not considered worthy of being included here, it can hardly be considered worthy of being included in a three-line summary. In a three line description, only the very most important information is added. The edit clearly falls under WP:UNDUE.

A more suitable action is to point the way to additional information about military preparations. This I am doing by giving "Aftermath_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks#Military_preparations" as a quote.

I am reverting the edit and adding the additional information link. Before reverting me yet again, please convince us why these PAF facts deserve mention here when no one has even bothered to add it to the Mumbai attacks article. Just by saying that the information is "not unwarranted" is no reason why it should be added.

AshLin (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me first point out that the navigation link you added is kind of spoiling the format of the list, such links are rather used under headings normally (maybe a wikilink to a phrase included in the citation would do?).
About the Mumbai attacks article, you are basing your argument on something that itself is not complete as you can see. The fact that this content has not been added there doesn't mean that it was not 'worthy' of being added there, rather that section is really small and needs expansion. May be you can improve that adding a nav link to the aftermath article (if it's not already there) and explaining more there.
In this article, look at the general format of the events being mentioned. In all events, the key points and the actions taken by both countries is given. This was a part of the troops being moved to border. So this is not undue. It's as per the format of the rest of the events. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Resolved

Wasn't a matter of pride or a certain POV. Good to go now. I guess further details and fear of a war breaking out should go in the dedicated articles. (a citaion was removed along with the mention of PAF, may another editor question it, it should be added too) --lTopGunl (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Atlantique Incident‎

The statement that "the court dismissed the case in India's favour" is misleading in the extreme. The Court did not find in India's favour with respect the main issue (i.e. Pakistan's compensation claim) but rather on the narrow technical issue of whether the Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue. It decided (in a split decision) that it did not. To characterise that finding as dismissing the case in India's favour without explaining that the finding "in India's favour" was only with respect to jurisdiction and not compensation is misleading (to say the least). Unless there are cogent arguments otherwise, I will rewrite this section to make this distinction. Gep3 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you've reviewed the citation and the fact is so, please be bold to rewrite the part, I'll support it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:PAFF-86s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PAFF-86s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Atlantique Incident‎

The statement that "the court dismissed the case in India's favour" is misleading in the extreme. The Court did not find in India's favour with respect the main issue (i.e. Pakistan's compensation claim) but rather on the narrow technical issue of whether the Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue. It decided (in a split decision) that it did not. To characterise that finding as dismissing the case in India's favour without explaining that the finding "in India's favour" was only with respect to jurisdiction and not compensation is misleading (to say the least). Unless there are cogent arguments otherwise, I will rewrite this section to make this distinction. Gep3 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you've reviewed the citation and the fact is so, please be bold to rewrite the part, I'll support it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Christophe Jaffrelot, Gillian Beaumont. A History of Pakistan and Its Origins. Anthem Press, 2004. ISBN 1843311496, 9781843311492. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  2. ^ Times Staff and Wire Reports (30 March 2002). ["Gen. Tikka Khan, 87; 'Butcher of Bengal' Led Pakistani Army". Obituaries. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 30 October 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ Syed Badrul Ahsan (15 July 2011). "A Lamp Glows for Indira Gandhi". Volume 10, Issue 27. The Daily Star. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
  4. ^ Fortna, Virginia (2004). Peace time: cease-fire agreements and the durability of peace. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691115122.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts/Archive_1&oldid=1079703217"