Jump to content

Talk:Operation Brasstacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wrote this up with whatever information I could glean from the web . Any corrections with references are most welcomed - Rising storm

Belligerents : Pakistan ??

[edit]

the {infobox military conflict} (which is misleading) was added by User:Ironboy11 (now Banned). This was not a military conflict and the strength etc added seems to be his personal [wp:OR]. Request the Editors to Either remove the {infobox military conflict} completely or else modify it to remove the Pakistan army part as This was A MILITARY EXCERCISE by Indian Army and not a Military conflict as portrayed by the box --dBigXray (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. just remove the damn thing.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It did put Pakistan army on the move... it was seen to be a probable conflict, though an actual conflict didn't happen, but situation did escalate. The article stands somewhere in middle of both your opinions. Needs some adjustment. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the case may be it still cannot be tagged as a military CONFLICT. The Tension between the two countries has escalated on numerous occasions that does nott mean each and every escalation of tension can be tagged as MILITARY CONFLICT. Thanks Musti for the support . Removing the {infobox military conflict}--dBigXray (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said probable conflict. Should be tagged under something relevant instead of 'conflict'. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

he has removed the tags [citation needed] and added http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2006/March06/03/02.HTM , i request Admins to verify if this is a valid editing and is the citation mentioned considered a reliable source , because i seriously doubt that. --dBigXray (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the commentary cited is just another POV pushing by Hassanhn5 --dBigXray (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary was already there before my last edit. I just added citations, so its not POV pushing. You seem to be following me to every article I edit trying to provoke a flame war on trivial matters including my talk page. Refrain from such behavior. Read WP:civility. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have posted my observation on the comment pages of articles that you have edited because I DONT AGREE with these edits, and i have a right to do this even if you dont like me highlighting these incidents. This is for other editors to Check if what we claim is really true or not. dont get offended and i do hope that you have actually read and understood this page WP:civility before adding it in your comments :) regards --dBigXray (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree with certain addition, you should put on your claims with proper sources. Also, its a healthy sign if you rename the sections to the text in question instead of edits by user etc. I'm trying my best to be patient with you. I have no malice against you. Being a new user, you seem to be a bit aggressive. I am still ok with it. I did not give you the wp:civility link as show down or something. You should really read those wikipedia articles, they will help you handle situations like these better. If you talk normally to people, no one is all out on war against you or point of view. The article itself is not an India-Pakistan war. The purpose is to present a neutral point of view. Which ofcourse can't be perfect, but that's what we are here for. I'll also advise you to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT in context to your current comment. If you don't like something, or disagree with something, it's your right to have your opinion, but other editors will not take you seriously when you edit articles on those basis. I hope this helps. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another baseless allegations, they are lines which need valid citations for them to stay, and stap writing useless lines on Article talkpages, talk about the content or else dont. I suggest you provide these citations before removing the tags or restore the tags that i have placed, or the matter can be furthur reported , this seems to me an act of deliberately introducing forum talks, self published and non reliable sources and wp:POV on neutral wiki articles. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources, blogs , commentary opinions as citations?

[edit]

{{Request edit}}--dBigXray (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) saw some citations added by Hassanhn5 (talk) which are not acceptable citations see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources[reply] 

http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/an-open-letter-to-gen-kayani-from-india/ 
http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-compulsory-subjects/current-affairs/54395-geo-strategic-importance-pakistan.html
http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2006/March06/03/02.HTM

all three above belongs to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources 

http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2010/02/24/indias_futile_talks_with_pakistan/3333/

news site but not related to the cited texts 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143245

a reference to the Match but not related to cited texts. I propose removal of such citations --dBigXray (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)--dBigXray (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are news & web citations.Though there's much citation improvement needed in this article, but that doesn't mean that the current sources are not reliable. Try helping by adding constructive material or new citations to the article. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the {{Request edit}} - I appreciate that there may be concerns about the referencing, but I believe it needs further discussion (here) to establish a consensus before any specific request could be actioned, in this specific case. See also WP:DISPUTE. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, previously, there was no citation at all on the article, I've tried to link some texts. This article needs a alot of improvements. So instead of simply objecting to the current references, editors should help to find more reliable and neutral ones to support whats already written. This article has quite a lot of stuff missing too, that needs to be added as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All but one are news citation. You need to review the sources first. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources do you want to be reviewed. none of them can be used in this article as citations to texts. --DℬigXЯay 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very low on quality, and needs a lot of citation. Relevant tags are already present on the article for further improvement. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • lack of citations is no excuse for inserting non reliable citations and associated POV content. Kindly remove them As soon as possible. Unwillingness in doing so, shows your Biasness. --DℬigXЯay 11:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I added the forum citation. The news citations are very much relevant however, and cannot be removed because you reject them since they are from third parties as well. Also the current consensus is to further discuss this topic and add content and citations rather than to remove the content that is already present. We follow consensus here. It is not compulsory for you to contribute to this article if you do not have time enough to add content to this article. Wikipedia works with volunteers. Relevant tags are placed on the top of the article so that any editor interested can improve it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [| edit clearly shows] that you had added these unreliable sources so as to authorize the POV content in the article, instead of removing the wrong and misleading text in the article. About the news citation that you add can you verify which part of the article text those citations prove ? I have read them and they are redundant here. --DℬigXЯay 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are words like threatened and intimidated the Indian prime minister and by even an inch, we are going to annihilate your cities which clearly seem to be lifted from Forums and are provocative and unacceptable as far as the neutrality of the article is concerned. A valid and reliable citation is very much necessary to establish that these contents.--DℬigXЯay 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those words are supposed to be in inverted commas and not to be wiki's or editor's POV but to be as said by the Pakistani general, hence they are not provocative but historical quotation. Also, 'threatened' is a neutral word for the non quoted part. You Should really read these articles before you think of going out and asking for deletion of information & sources on small under developed articles like this one: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built & WP:Eventualism. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of some time ago, this article had no reference cited to it. I've added some references. Forums might be removed, but removal of text will send the article to a size to be considered for complete deletion. This article needs a lot of improvement. I strongly suggest you read the articles I gave you above. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One cannot Say that keep the forum talks on Wikipedia articles so that the article remains long enough. Wikipedia is based on verifiable truth not on forum chat and discussions. The Misquoted Statements can be placed on the Discussion page for others to see, if they could find it. I have done an extensive search and i did not find any verifiable link that stated the correctness of these contents , they are purely based on forum chat and self published sources such as pakdef. info. Needs immediate cleaning. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not forum talks. Enough of the the content in question is cited to keep them in that shape. Also currently an RSN is in going on for pakdef.info, since the last RSN was inconclusive due to lack of neutral comments. You should keep tabs on that RSN. This article is not under a deletion tag because it is notable so stop giving that argument that everything should be removed just because enough citation isn't yet there. This article is still under development. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be more specific, can you name which of the above cite you support and why they should stay in the article , one by one. i have already given my reasons and want you to do the same if you disagree (be specific) and have a look on wp:RS before commenting. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Brasstacks&oldid=1201398271"