Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

Request to update the infobox with these images added.

Indo–Pakistani War of 1965
Part of the Indo–Pakistani wars and conflicts
Top to bottom, left to right: Geopolitical map of Kashmir provided by the United States CIA, c. 2004. Wreckage of one of the four Indian Vampire aircraft. Indian soldiers on a destroyed Pakistani tank during. Sculpture showing the Indo-Pakistani War. Pakistani soldiers on a captured Indian M4A4 Sherman Tank. Lt. Col. Hari Singh of the Indian 18th Cavalry posing outside a captured Pakistani police station (Barkee) with fellow soldiers in Lahore District.
Location Western Front Indo-Pakistani border Line of Control, Working Boundary, Radcliffe Line, Sir Creek, and Zero-Point Arabian sea Eastern Front India–East Pakistan border

2400:ADC1:477:8500:CEE:2530:EA7:F33B (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Two of those images are already in the article, and if we are to have images, there will need to be an even number of Indian and Pakistani victories (and I recommend no more than one each). DrKay (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

DrKay I have updated the images. Can u please check 103.244.173.68 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have put 3 images in as two of the images are very similar (showing men on top of a tank) and as it is an infobox, we should avoid over-complexity. DrKay (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A large chunk of this Article has been wiped to revert an edit that consisted of a link.

On 30 December, a large chunk of this Article was wiped to revert an edit from 4 days prior which cancelled out all contributions by the other 2 users. The Revert was done in favour of a a singular link reference that was previously removed by Gedrose.
Capitals00 has informed us that there is nothing wrong with what happened, any prior page revision can be restored to fix a mistake, it is the responsibility of all who have contributed in between the edit and revert to manually add everything back all over again. Just for understanding, this is allowed and like in a legal court a consistent logic is present throughout wikipedia yes?
This should also mean there is nothing wrong with me restoring the article back to this if i had the Justification, maybe a link was unjustly removed back then? Who knows. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

A thousand bytes is not "a large chunk of this article" whose prose size itself comes out at 77 kilobytes. You also seem to have a fundamental misconception regarding use of images on Wikipedia; they are not actually meant to decorate articles, but to illustrate relevant text with a view to enhancing the reader's understanding of it. There are also glaring POV issues with your images, that others have mentioned in edit summaries too as their rationale for specifically removing the image spam. Of the 6 images you put in infobox, 4 seem to be dedicated to foregrounding various aspects of Pakistani armed forces operations in various regions without any documented pertinence to text. Two deal with Lahore Front (a minor theatre in the larger scheme of things), and the one captioned, "Indian officer with a destroyed mosque in the outskirts" seem to evoke religious connotations and symbolism not remotely discussed in text. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

indian officer with a destroyed mosque is from someone else, i didn't create that entire gallery, i added only 1 image because the image before was repeated in the article, all 5 other Pictures were simply restored by me from old edits. It was present from a while back. I was utilizing the expiration of Pakistani Copyright on its 1965 war images. When Indian copyright expires I can do better, for now what do you expect? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You havent sent any responding message, what does NPOV mean? You want one of the images to be of India? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Result does not seem fair

As Pakistan completely failed in its Operation to capture Kashmir then how did it he a stalemate. Second thing is that Pakistan Ended up losing 3 times more area including strategic points to India. Meanwhile India not only defended its borders but also captured large territories. 2402:8100:308E:A550:1:0:5B8E:48FA (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023 (2)

Thepdawala (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

defeat for India,

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

Pakistan Won That War After Successfully Defeating Lahore, Sialkot, and a Few Cities in Sindh. Thepdawala (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@Cinderella157 Which of my additions to the infobox were not found in the article? >>> Extorc.talk 16:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Being "supported by the article" does not mean that they can be found somewhere in the article but that the article also supports that they were key and significant through more than a passing mention or that they held a certain rank or position or simply said something. None of those added rise to this. The infobox should not report the ranks or positions. Flags should only be used when they convey information between sections (ie when there are more than two belligerents). Branch of service flags defeat this purpose. There was nothing particularly right about the edits at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

It was a decisive indian victory. I have proofs of it also. Please change it or let me do it. I will edit it with sources. Thank you SwAGgy79 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox montage

Titan2456, your addition of a montage to the infobox was reverted because it appears to be inconsistent with WP:MONTAGE. Per WP:ONUS, if an edit is challenged, there is an onus to gain consensus for its inclusion before reinstating it. See also WP:BRD. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood. How does it appear to be inconsistent with WP:MONTAGE? It appears to follows all rules and regulations of Wikipedia’s policy. Specify which part it is inconsistent with WP:MONTAGE, so that I (or we) may fix it and so we can reach a consensus. Titan2456 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:MONTAGE: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. There is no point to illustrate that would make a montage necessary. A montage in this case is decorative and against image use policy generally and guidance on the lead image. It also bloats the infobox, making it contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding a simple map of Kashmir would not suffice. There were multiple intertwined aspects of the 1965 war, the aerial combat, tank involvement, map and ground warfare are all equally important aspects which cannot be represented in a single map (the one currently used) as a infobox image. Hence a collage would be deemed necessary. Like the World War I and World War II articles that contain diverse connected contents, like the 1965 war, use collages and multiple images in their infoboxes. I understand your point of view, but a simple map of Kashmir in no way can fully represent the complex conflict that the 1965 Indo-Pak war was, using just the map is providing a lack of information to the viewer, and multiple images is the best option. It is not defeating the purpose of an infobox, the multiple images still work to summarize the war, and not replace the article itself as said in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Titan2456 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

For some reason he removes all the collages he sees. If you can't convince him he will never allow your pictures. Because he also removed my collage on a war page Elanoraga (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Which page was it? Titan2456 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Crimean War (1853-1856) You can look at the edit source and talk page there. Elanoraga (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

He almost removed my beautiful collage image and he opted for a simple black and white picture. I was going to talk to him about this but he didn't answer. Elanoraga (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I can relate to your issue. I spent a pretty long time setting up the collage on this page, and have even stated the reasons on why the simple map of the region of Kashmir (a modern non-contemporary map) by itself is useless and must be paired with other pictures of the war, therefore a collage not only looks better, but is necessary and more accurate. Titan2456 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My collage is still currently reverted Titan2456 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I told him that the Crimean war is a very big war, it can almost be called the world war zero, in my opinion, a collage picture is needed, I told him. but he just denied it with the information he got from WP:MONTAGE and then never responded to me. And there's still a bad black and white picture on that page. Look at all the other major wars. All of them have collages or at most 2 pictures, but there is only 1 picture in the Crimean War and it looks very bad in black and white to my eyes. I wanted to improvement it but I was rejected. Elanoraga (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You should just revert it if one party isn’t open to consensus. I would suggest reverting the undo and putting your collage on the Crimean war page back if they are not being cooperative. Titan2456 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that but I gave up and won't try again. Elanoraga (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

Indo-pak war was a decisive victory for India as pakistan triggered war and failed to capture kashmir. On the other hand, India successfully defended its line SwAGgy797 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already covered in the Aftermath section. RudolfRed (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Collage Undo war

I am concerned that the dispute over the infobox may cause an edit war. I have stated that before you remove the collage please reach a consensus as according to WP:CONSENSUS, The collage changes are a massive change to the article, so I would recommend nobody change the collage by removal, achieving a proper consensus is necessary, you have stated that it is not neutral, but I do not understand how? It is a neutral collage with no biases. If we are able to reach consensus and you provide good reason to prove the collage is biased, I will be more than happy to remove the collage myself. Titan2456 (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s in the best interests of the article to keep the collage until a reason is provided on how it is biased. Titan2456 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) If you think the images are biased, then we can change the images with an equal number of Indian and Pakistani images, but removing the collage entirely is not the way to go about it. Titan2456 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD the obligation exists with you to establish a consensus for inclusion before attempting to readd this collage. There is presently no consensus for this. By opening the new section, you have also forked the discussion from an existing thread. This is not appropriate. I have previously stated the following: Per WP:MONTAGE: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. There is no point to illustrate that would make a montage necessary. A montage in this case is decorative and against image use policy generally and guidance on the lead image. It also bloats the infobox, making it contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I do not see this as an improvement or one that is supported by WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding a simple map of Kashmir would not suffice. There were multiple intertwined aspects of the 1965 war, the aerial combat, tank involvement, map and ground warfare are all equally important aspects which cannot be represented in a single map (the one currently used) as a infobox image. Hence a collage would be deemed necessary. Like the World War I and World War II articles that contain diverse connected contents, like the 1965 war, use collages and multiple images in their infoboxes. I understand your point of view, but a simple map of Kashmir in no way can fully represent the complex conflict that the 1965 Indo-Pak war was, using just the map is providing a lack of information to the viewer, and multiple images is the best option. It is not defeating the purpose of an infobox, the multiple images still work to summarize the war, and not replace the article itself as said in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Titan2456 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the MOS:LEADIMAGE is to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Yes, it should be representative of the subject but that does not mean it should represent every aspect of the subject. Tank warfare, arial warfare and infantry combat are characteristic of most of the conventional wars that have occurred in the 20th century. They are not unique aspects of this war. The prevailing WP:P&G tells us to use collages sparingly and particularly where it is necessary to directly compare images. This is not the case here. Bombarding the reader with too much [visual] information at one time is counterproductive. The information just becomes noise. All of the captions are just more noise that bloats the infobox and are a distraction. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is usually better. This also applies to the lead image being collages. Citing WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a cogent argument unless one establishes that these other examples represent best practice - eg these other examples are GA or FA articles. They are not. I do not defend the present map as being the best lead image but a collage is not supported by P&G and is not a better alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but the map of Kashmir should be moved to something better, it is a general map of the region, something like the one on the Nagorno-Karabakh 2020 war would do. Titan2456 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am open to discussing an alternative lead image, though consensus should be achieved before replacing the existing image. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The new 2 set of images has been added in the style of the First intifada page, It takes into account all the points you discussed. Titan2456 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was the Commanders list removed?

Alot of Information has been wiped out, so are the distinctive Executive, Navy and Army flag icons. Also there's no label, not sure how the reader gets anything they need from it.

Please take a look at the infobox. There's 4 names listed for Pakistan and then 3 names for India. There's no credential or role listed or anything, it's just 7 names written and their articles linked. What is that? Why are the names selected so random too? The person behind this logic is now going to have to explain why they chose these names. This is ridiculous. Readers should keep in mind that the infobox did not include the Army Chief of India up until 3 edits ago. Very laughable job done here by this person with their thinking. Writing to let everyone know about it.

Can we not degrade the article? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary by which these were remove would state: RM commanders not supported by body of article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. RM positions/ranks per template documentation. RM flags that serve no useful purpose per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE information in the infobox must be supported by the body of the articles. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, flags in the infobox only serve a useful purpose when there are three or more belligerents and the flags used are those of the belligerents to indicate the allegiance of the commanders etc. The version you would be referring to did not comply with the prevailing WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Is what listed in the WP Infobox Purpose an actually consistent precedent in war articles? We both know not. Very laughable idea, everyone can view my comment, the Army Chief of India didn't qualify for the infobox haha RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Chaudhuri is at least supported by the article, though perhaps weakly. Citing WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is consistent with WP:VER, a core policy. WP:OTHERCONTENT augments are not valid unless they are consistent with WP:P&G and best practice per our quality articles (eg FA). There is no WP:DEADLINE to improving articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

May i know the improvement? What did replacing the infobox with 4 names do exactly? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

We are told not to write the article in the infobox. Adding information to the infobox that is not supported by the article is not is not a service to our readers because, in this case, the article does not tell our readers how or why unsupported names were key or significant to the war. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Again I find this policy in Wikipedia problematic, because all it has done is remove information. The credentials themselves show how they're key or significant to the war. Which are now removed, the infobox serves no purpose to a new reader of the war. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the list is high quality and accurate, it only improves the accuracy and viewer understanding of the article, it doesn’t even bloat the infobox, The commanders list should be re-added. Titan2456 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article somehow functions as a police state, any large informative change is undone. And the article is kept stagnant.Titan2456 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The solution is self evident, improve the article's content (prose) instead of trying to wrote the article in the infobox. Remember, an article should remain complete without the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The solution for that would be to add the commander’s list information to the article as well, not deleting @RevolutionaryPatriot’s change. Titan2456 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan in the case won the war

No territorial changes were made 2001:1970:5262:9A00:C89F:2F0E:4828:1F48 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Extorc, I see that you have been adding additional commanders to the infobox. This is perfectly OK since their inclusion is supported by the body of the article. However, the template documentation would tell us to limit this to about seven aside and we are now at that point. If other commanders might be added to the infobox because their role as a commander is evidence by the body of the article, we would need to be more discerning as to who is added - ie not just because they have a mention in the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of the infobox is to summarise key facts and less is better. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Those listed should be the most key commanders. This means that we may need to remove entries from the infobox to make room for other commanders who are actually more significant. I would hope that you bare this in mind for future edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enought. I will limit it to Lt Gens and commanders of the largest battles from now on. @Cinderella157 >>> Extorc.talk 06:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I am also going to add flags since commanders are from different branches of military, it helps differentiate who is a military commander, who is a political commander and of what branch. >>> Extorc.talk 06:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This would be an incorrect application of flags per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. The meaning of the flags is not established by a legend. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." - The flags deliver information about the branch of service of the commanders.

"Summarizing military conflicts" - The MOS clearly states military conflicts are a valid place to use flagicons. @Cinderella157 >>> Extorc.talk 11:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Such flags as you added do not convey useful information unless there is context which establishes the meaning of the flags. When there are two or more belligerents on one side, flags in the belligerent section along with the country name act as a legend. Then, corresponding flags against commanders would communicate the allegiance of commanders. The flags you added do not work this way. There is no legend to establish the meaning of the flags. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Positions and ranks in infobox

Extorc, the addition of positions and rank is contrary to the documentation at Template:Infobox military conflict. These should not have been re-added. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ooh that is my bad. I hadnt read that portion. You can remove those. >>> Extorc.talk 06:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

Hello Editor as you mentioned that India captured areas of Lahore,sialkot and other.According to the book 1965:"An inside story" which is written by RD Pradhan the special assistant of India's defense minister YB Chawan and later also became the governor of U.P.He writes in his book that we captured Lahore but due to fierce retaliation from Pakistan we lost it and the local commander Major Gen Naranjash ran away.This shows that the Lahore was lost by Indians and no land was captured as you mentioned that areas of Lahore were captured.He further writes that Defense minister had a meeting with COAS of India and COAS said if the war doesn't stops the Pakistani military will be on the Delhi gate as they have infiltrated through Rajasthan these thing show that India didnt had an upper hand and for your kind information India was the first country to except ceasefire not Pakistan.I also want to tell that Pakistan crossed the disputed territory of Kashmir with few men,but India crossed International border not us they should have fought us in Kashmir but instead they broke International law. 39.62.168.226 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not seventeen week war, nearly seven week war.

In the first para, there is a line that says, "The seventeen-week war caused thousands of casualties on both sides and witnessed the largest engagement of armored vehicles and the largest tank battle since World War II."

This is incorrect. The war was nearly seven weeks long, not seventeen weeks.

Correct it. Thank you. 103.181.69.23 (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

Omit the line 'The Pakistani tanks were more numerous and superior in quality, giving them a significant advantage.' This statement has no source and all the evidence that we do have of the battle points to the contrary.

 Not done Source reads "The Pakistani force contained no less than 300 of the new American M47 Patton tanks along with a few M24 Chaffee Tanks. The 46-ton Patton was considered one of the best and most modern designs of the time and included a 90mm main gun that outranged the Indian tanks. The Indian tanks were largely outgunned (the Shermans and AMX-13s only having 75mm main guns) as well as grossly outnumbered by a factor of no less than 2:1." DrKay (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Which source? That statement has no citation linked to it and the battle it refers to has no concrete sources either. Thehazardcat (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The source given for that paragraph. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Omit the line 'However, the PAF's American aircraft were superior to those of the IAF's.' This statement has two sources, that clicked upon reveal the exact opposite conclusion as their verdict. Thehazardcat (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done First source reads "IAF’s heroes slayed PAF’s superior Sabre fighter jets". DrKay (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

thats just the title of the first source, the subtitle literally reads

"IAF's lightweight Gnats took on PAF's sleek Sabres & busted myth that they were invincible. The mettle of the 'Sabre Slayers' remains a legend to this day."

and reading further into the article presents the same idea. All you've done is commit the same mistake the author of the wiki page just did. Furthermore, the second source clearly has it listed in its second factoid that the Gnat performed better than the Sabre Thehazardcat (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Both the source and the article say the same thing: the Pakistani aircraft were superior technically but that they were defeated anyway. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)