Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale by the India project. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article. This article was last assessed in December 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

/Archive 1 September 22, 2004 — January 19, 2006

/Archive 2 January 19, 2006 — August 2, 2006

---

Contents 1 Too many quotations in the article 2 I thought neutrality means a view point from both sides? 3 Gross amount of Indian Propaganda 4 Article is Just not more than Indian Pov 5 Marked the article as not neutral 6 Totally Biased Article: Needs Alot Of Work 7 INDIAN PROPANGANDA 8 editing the see also in the aerial warfare 9 Wrong Information 10 Damn idiots (polietly) 11 Featured 12 Outclassed, Stellar;

[edit] Too many quotations in the article

There are too many extracts from other publications in this article. These make the article too long and distract from the rest of the text. I vote that the extracts shold be moved to another page iafguru 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I thought neutrality means a view point from both sides?

Strange to see all the references are pointing to Indian sources. I was quite confused why all the pictures depicted Indian Victories, whereas the outcome of the war a stalemate as suggested? Clearly, the article is overly biased against Pakistan. An introduction of the Pakistani side of the story is the only solution, whether hawkish indian elements like it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaverickInUrFace (talk • contribs).

You are welcome to make the article NPOV. Just read the various Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Cheers -- Lost^(talk) 10:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gross amount of Indian Propaganda

All I have to politely say is that this article is not neutral, LOL. Napoleon12 7:05, 08 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is Just not more than Indian Pov

it seems that this is page by an indian writer on 1965 war and proving his/her pov through more and more of Indian pov ref.Pl look into it before removing the Npov tag.Yousaf465

Bulk of the references are from neutral or Pakistani sources. Take a good look. Idleguy 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

if the bulk of the sources are from a neutral or Pakistani sources then why the pov of the article is shifted in favour of India.And why there is a victrous tone towrds indian's army and pakistani miltitary being described as only saved by mircale.Yousaf465

How about reading the bulk of the sources first before questioning the neutrality? Idleguy 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is this "Map showing Indian administered Kashmir in shades of orange and Pakistan held kashmir in green hues.Yousaf465

The map is correct, the "held" has been renamed to "administered" for NPOV.--Idleguy 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yousaf, it will be much more helpful if you point out specific sentences that you object to, instead of going on adding the template at the top of the article. Infact you can go ahead and make the article NPOV yourself. Do keep in mind that this does not count as making an article NPOV. It just converts it to your POV. -- Lost^(talk) 07:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marked the article as not neutral

I agree with all the comments above that it is clear from reading the article that the author is Indian and is trying to twist and turn the picture towards India's side and i see no need of doing so. It's 2006 and we are (supposed to be) open minded people here, I don't think that the young(er) generation of Indians or Pakistanis hate each other as the elders did. So just state facts, this is wikipedia not the National television of either Pakistan or India where you try to promote your own country and try to portray the war as a win for your country.

For any neutral non-indian AND non-pakistani reviewer reading these comments, kindly just note that more than 80% citations of the article are by indian authors and the current text of this article takes bits and pieces from different sources (mostly out of context) and reports them in a manner to convey a clear underlying impression that the war was a win for India which should not be the purpose of the article. We are not here to judge who won or who lost but are only interested in the facts.

Muneeb.ali 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'd read sources thoroughly before you jump into such conclusions. I'm surprised you should claim 80% are from Indian authors when it's quite the opposite. Just about a quarter are from Indian sources. btw, if you have to tag then you'd need to specify the POV lines that aren't sourced and not tag the entire article as POV. Idleguy 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Biased Article: Needs Alot Of Work

I have added POV tags to the article because this article is Harry potter Vs J R R Tolkien

For instance the main map in the warbox shows Aksai Chin as part of India, In 1962 China in the Sino-Indian War Liberated Aksai Chin, thus by 1965 the area of Aksai Chin was administered by China not India, Therefore the map is totally incorrect and infact is loaded with political propaganda.

Second, there is zero mention of the 'Air war of 1965', There is mention of the Land forces, Bombing of Dwarka but zero mention of the Air war, I find this unfortunate as the PAF mauled the Indian airforce, There should be a section included on the Air war.

Third, the Losses section is completely biased, it makes no mention of the arms and support Pakistan recieved from Indonesia, Turkey, China, and the fact that the USSR and the USA put military sanctions on BOTH nations.

Lastly the article gives the impression especially in the end that if the war continued it would have been an Indian gain, this is nonsense, its like saying had Hitler not invaded USSR and instead focused on West-Europe it would have been an Axis victory, We can only comment on what actually happened not what could have happened.

Also please note that it says that the navies of both nations 'play no significant role', this is nonsense, the Indian navy played no role but the Pakistan navy undertook the daring operation Dwarka, so it should be changed to 'The Indian navy played no siginificant role'. S Seagal 11:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still a work in progress. I'm collecting information on the air warfare and you'd be surprised to know that there was no mauling you claim. Maybe in Pakistan the propaganda continues. But facts will speak for themselves; there is no need to get excited based on assumptions. The map needs editing as it's wrong and actually doesn't need to be put in the top, but that is no reason to tag the entire article as POV. Well informed opinions based on military comparisons about the future outcome isn't nonsense, especially when multiple neutral sources confirm the same. Op Dwaraka was an insignificant one indeed considering the enormity of the war. A lesser or limited scale conflict and maybe op dwaraka would have been considered relatively significant. From past interactions with you like calling the 2001 border conflict of India and Bangladesh as a "war", it appears you are again making a mountain of a molehill. I suggest you contribute positively by editing the articles citing reliable sources, instead of just pasting the same 4 tags across all pages you don't personally like. Idleguy 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy, its not my fault India was defeated in the 1965 war, It happened before I was even born. There is a document in the museuem called the 'Tashkent Declaration' you might want to read it. 1 billion Hindus of India still can not win against a little country called Pakistan, Too add insult to injury the country today that is Pakistan sits on what was once the ancient seat of Hinduism and Sikhism, I know it must feel terrible, if a Hindu state was carved out of Muslim land and included the cities of Mecca and Medina i would also be just as bitter as an Indian.S Seagal 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Dude, Hinduism is a distributed religion. No single book, place or prophet can claim tto be "sole seat" or ancient seat. Nobody gives a fig that pakistan is in Pakistan. Hindus dont have hangups like muslims. Coming to the 65 War, If India was defeated, exactly how many square meters or km of territory are you holding now from that war? answer ZERO. jaiiaf 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, S Seagal, I think it's time you stopped behaving like your moniker's namesake Steven Seagal and started learning history instead of propaganda stunts. fyi, I'm not a hindu or sikh so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Just because many muslims like you "know it must feel terrible" that Israel was carved out including Islam's third holiest place - Jerusalem, doesn't mean every religion's follower has the same bitter feeling that you or most Paks might have over Israel. Idleguy 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, Can you please stay on topic?, This is a talk page not a forum, or platform for you to stand on and lecture others. Why are you dragging Israel and the Arab-Israeli dispute here is beyond me. As for 'propaganda stunts', boy if that isnt the pot calling the kettle black. Here I am making contributions to Wikipedia starting articles such as Pakistani Nationalism, Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001, and what do I get? Barnstars? appreciatation? no I get Idleguy following me article to article.

This is my last message here, I will make changes to the articles as per the rules when I have time, we can discuss the issues when and if they arise, I'm not wasting anymore time on you two. S Seagal 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why bring in religion in the first place, when you know you're likely to get burnt? First you talk about some loss of hindu "ancient seat" unrelated to this article, but when I pointed out the Jerusalem issue, you get agitated with facts. Kinda strange. So far you have only indulged in trolling and needless stories and personal opinions on the war and hardly any factual contributions. So please do edit with sources and don't just indulge in historical falsification. And no, your edits are not worth being stalked. Idleguy 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if Pakistan would have crippled if ceasefire had not happened.What is hard fact of history is that Pakistan had a little bit edge over India regardless of its huge army.Who says India hadn't well-equipped army and airforce.They had full support of USSR(now Russia). Indian aircrafts were far better than F-86(Sabre),but even then PAF outclassed India like Pathankot strike. The tank battle of Sialkot saw highest number of tank losses from Indian side since WORLDWAR-II.The Pakistani soldiers proudly suicided by laying armed in front of Indian tanks. I don't think if India had relative edge they had agreed on ceasefire.It was best solution for them at that time. If not so,then why they came up with Bangaladesh conspiracies in 1971. Please let wikipedia be an unbiased place.This is not Indian state television.Now time has change.

[edit] INDIAN PROPANGANDA

This article is clearly written by Indian propangandists trying to underscore Pakistan’s military successes. NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI WAR PICTURE.

YES, VERY NEUTRAL. LOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.117.92.54 (talk • contribs).

Please feel free to add pictures. Just make sure they adhere to the copyright policy of wikipedia. However the absence of a picture doesnt make an article non neutral. You need to explain better than that — Lost^(talk) 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editing the see also in the aerial warfare

I really can't understand why the seealso bit in the aerial warfare bit was reverted under the argument that this is not a see also section. No section is a "seealso"" section, the whole point of adding that is that you point out that there are other articles on the same or similar topic, so the reader knows these exist and can chose to have a look, which is the point of the seealso template, as well as the point of an encyclopedia. I don't think there is any need to revert this.Rueben lys 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be linked in the articles discussing about the aerial warfare. Though there isn't a specific article, the History of Pakistan Air Force where the 65 and 71 wars are discussed would be the right place. The see main template is only for the main link, and not for see also minor aspects of aerial warfare. For if that were so then it'd be inundated with several articles like aerial battles etc. Idleguy 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Idleguy. 8-Pass charlie is a very insignificant component of the airwar. I am sure as we go along there will be hundreds of small stubs that will be created. They all cannot be linked at the top of the article. You can however link them in the links / references etc. 3 Squadron also falls in the same bracket. where will we stop? We will end up listing all the IAF and PAF squadrons that ever took part in the war in "See also" or "Main article" etc. Links to such stubs / secondary articles should go in list of links at the bottom of the page. jaiiaf 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy reverted the edit that moved 8 pass charlie from the aerial warfare to the see also section. His argument was that it is "insignificant". While I disagree that it is insignificant, that's the worst argument ever to be made to revert. It is verfiable and is notable. Also, it is relevant because this relates to a combatant in the conflict, and linking allows both the articles to develop. It was also placed in the appropriate section following discussion in this talk page, which means the effort was made to reach a compromise. I am just wondering what other way is the best way to link these articles together.Rueben lys 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only consensus here, as Jaiiaf has also concurred is that it would lead to a plethora of see also links. As if the see also is a required section in the first place. Few, if any of the FA articles posses see also links. With immediate effect I'm removing the see also section since it adds little and everything is linked properly in the article. You are acting against the consensus here, i.e. it's insignificant. I can appreciate that you've taken the time to create the article, but that doesn't elevate it to the significance to be mentioned in the main war. Like i said, add it to the PAF history page. I find you haven't done that. Thanks. Idleguy 07:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There were two consensuses, including that it could be added to the seperate see also section without crowding the relevant section. To get over that, you deleted the whole see also section. I think you are not trying to meet me halfway here, and moreover assuming ownership over the article. I really can't understand what your objection is. It is a biographical stub, and could be expanded by link from this very relevant page. You are claiming it is insignificant, I am claiming it is interesting trivia and a notable stub that has the chance to improve. Me having created the article doesn't have anything to do with it. I'd rather you discussed this with me via out talkpages before we start what is increasingly looking like an edit war.Rueben lys 10:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are somehow missing the larger picture. You yourself state that it is an "interesting trivia". I would agree with the assessment that it is trivial. The see also section is not the hallmark of a good article and thus I think it should go. I am perplexed that you should re-add the entire 'See also' section - whose links to the 47 war, siachen etc. are properly embedded in the article - just so that this one "trivia" stub of yours can be linked. Isn't that a tad too much of over stretching? If you want it to be improved then use the right stub tags and request someone to improve it. Simply linking it in the see also section of a war is hardly the right way to improve articles. There are 101 such trivial/non-trivial stuff from the war, not including the battles etc. Should we start a ballooning list of links to articles of minor importance attached to this article? Idleguy 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a few edits right now. The War links are not needed in the See Also section in the bottom. They are already there in the info box on the top. I have moved the other two lines to "Further Reading". The Reason - there seems to be more chapters on further reading / external links / notes and references than there are on the main text of the article. IMHO even the external lnks section should be merged with the further reading section. Reg the notability of 8 Pass Charlie - its left to debate. Sooner or later you will have small trivia items added and we will have to hive "Aerial Warfare of 65" into a seperate page. The links might be more appropriate there jaiiaf 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Information

This article is a stub & a complete fiasaco.While reading through history you will learn that Pakistani Troops did a lot of damage to India and Pakistan won the war.It was an Indian mision to occupy lahore and have the breakfast of 6th September in Lahore.Why did So called Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri died right after the ceasefire because he knew that when the real damages will come infront of the public he will be doomed.Please Please Please try to change the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.248.139 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Damn idiots (polietly)

This is an point of view article.Please look through history rather than improving your relations with India.Always type the right information (understood or not) POLIETLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.248.141 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Featured

Why isn't this featured yet? Its got lots of pics, several references, and seems nicely organized. Is there a NPOV problem? Colonel Marksman 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outclassed, Stellar;

This article uses the words "outclassed" and "stellar" which do not indicate a neutral point of view. The connotations that these words carry are not neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uchohan (talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).