Jump to content

Talk:Chief of the Army Staff (India)

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

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


i would like you to confirm whether General Kodandera Subayya Thimayya has received Padmavibhushan or Padmabhushan. as per your page it says Padmavibhushan, but if am right he has recieved Padmabhushan

regards Anup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.209.195 (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chief of the Army Staff (India). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on the usage of infobox in the articles of Chiefs of Staff

[edit]

I don't think this is the right place for a proposal like this, but as we don't have a page on PC, COSC, so, this would have to do.

I have a proposal on the usage of {{infobox office holder}} in lieu of {{infobox military officer}} in the articles of COAS, CAS, and CNS, as the former accomodates for notable offices held (AOC-in-C, FOC-in-C, GOC-in-C and above) and has the basic features of the latter.
Pinging Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs) and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs), who might be interested in this.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 12:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SshibumXZ Are you proposing to update the {{infobox military officer}} in all the articles of COAS, CAS and CNS for example Bipin Rawat and Sunil Lanba? I don't have a strong opinion on this but do oppose the idea of using {{infobox office holder}}. Simply because the convention so far has been to use {{infobox military officer}} across all pages and this extends to articles of other countries as well for example Martin Dempsey, David L. Goldfein, Philip Jones (Royal Navy officer), Nick Carter (British Army officer), Christophe Prazuck and many more. Another reason is the layout of the {{infobox office holder}} which, in my opinion, is ill suited for listing all the commands held. Third is the sheer amount of effort it will take in converting all the existing infoboxes into the new format and ensuring that the new articles coming from Lt Generals are in the same format.
The {{infobox official post}} currently in use with COAS, CAS and CNS are also standard across all articles.
I had a question for you on the content you added in the infobox which is "The Chief of the Army Staff is usually the senior-most Indian Army infantry officer of the senior most batch. The appointee for the office is approved by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet headed by Prime Minister, based on appointee's ability and strong confidence with Prime Minister.". Do we have a reference for this? I think if we have a reference for this then it should be added to the main text not the infobox. In particular we need the reference for this line "The Chief of the Army Staff is usually the senior-most Indian Army infantry officer of the senior most batch.". Here the word infantry is misleading and the convention has been the senior-most Indian Army officer serving at the time which also an unoffical one and has not been followed twice. We should be careful with our wording.
Currently the COSC content lives in Ministry of Defence (India) and really needs it own page. I have been trying to source some information about it before I split it into a separate page but have had little time. If you wish to start this endeavor I can definitely help. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamgerber80: yes, that is exactly what I am proposing. And, as far as I can, using {{infobox military officer}} is an unwritten convention, and has been time and again broken, like in Lord Mountbatten. {{Infobox office holder}} can accommodate for commands held too (divisional and above), the amount of effort required to change things, in my opinion, isn't a deal-breaker in any shape or form. We can start with the changing the infobox in the articles of the current GOC-in-Cs, FOC-in-Cs and AOC-in-Cs. Also, I am proposing only theatre commanders and above have {{infobox office holder}}, the rest can retain {{infobox military officer}}.
As far as the line about senior-most infantry officer goes, yes, I think we should make the line about it being a convention clearer. As far as the references go, I think we can add these — [1], [2], and [3].
As far as the article about COSC goes, I would be more than happy to help you out, you can create a sandbox page about it, then it can be improved by the community as a whole, and when the article is ready to be published, it can be moved into article namespace.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 03:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SshibumXZ: Lord Mountbatten is a special case since he also held multiple offices during his lifetime including Governor-General of India. That cannot be taken as an example to break the existing unwritten convention in military history related projects. We can do this as a case-by-case basis as you did on Devendra Kumar Joshi when he was made a Lieutenant Governor. If I also remember correctly, somebody had frowned upon this in the past when a similar set of articles for a different Armed Force had been changed. I will wait for @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: reply since he is more closely associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or initiate a dialogue with them on the project talk page.
Also the references you provided state the senior-most officer which is fine to state in the article but becomes verbose for the infobox. The issue I had raised was with the word infantry. We do not have any references for that and we should be very careful with our wording. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this in the evening. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamgerber80 and SshibumXZ: Firstly, thanks to both of you. I appreciate your efforts you've put in to take this discussion forward. Getting to the point, I agree with Adam for most of the case. The point is, as Sshibum mentioned, there is no written rule that you should that you should only Infobox military officer for military officers, or you shouldn't use Infobox office holder. It depends on the article. Taking the above mentioned example, Lord Mountbatten had held many other offices than just being a military officer. So in that article, the need exists to mention various offices held by the subject, than just as a military officer. Another example is Vijay Kumar Singh, who after retirement served in various diplomatic and political offices. Other examples include many of the US Presidents who have served their armed forces. The point that decides is the "need". If the officer has only been an army chief, or commander of a command/corps etc. or, one or two officers apart from these, I would suggest using Infobox military officer. If there exists further need, you can use Infobox office holder. Coming to the second part of the conversation, the Chief of the Indian Army, neither needs to be the senior most infantry officers neither be the senior most army officer. The decision lies with the Indian government. As per "THE ARMY ACT, 1950", the Appointments Committee can chose the next service chief from the pool of "Vice Chief and the Army commanders (GOC/FOC/AOC-in-Cs)" of the respective service. However, in most of the cases, the senior most serving lt gen is appointed as the next chief, but there have been exemptions in the past, and there is a chance to break the convection, as per the law (Source). You can go for further reading here and [4], to understand the case even better. I'm sorry that I couldn't reply earlier as I was travelling. Please ping me if you need further clarification or help, or any other issue regarding the Indian military history, I'll be glad to help. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch in serial number of COAS

[edit]

The article says Bipin Rawat is 26th COAS and Dalbir Singh is 25th COAS. However, official PIB source calls Bipin Rawat as 27th COAS, and adgpi twitter mentions Dalbir Singh as 26th COAS. Why is there a mismatch? Can someone find out? cc @Zwerubae:, @KCVelaga:. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 08:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarvatra: Looks like the Count starts from the first Indian C-in-C, Field Marshal K M Cariappa. - Zwerubae

COAS potential edit war (edit protection request made)

[edit]

Since the announcement that Manoj Pande will take office as COAS on 30 April 2022, there have been multiple (and rapid) disruptive IP edits to make Manoj Pande the incumbent COAS, as if he took office on the day of the announcement. Incorrect reversions to corrections have taken place less than 2 minutes after said corrections were made, which due to factual inaccuracy is becoming increasingly irksome.

I have made a semi-protection request. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chief_of_the_Army_Staff_(India)&oldid=1238346482"