Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

rant

Well, I would completely agree with you that this article brings no knowledge about the war. Instead, it just makes pakistani and indian people fight. If I had an authority I would remove this article as it presents 'conflicts' not 'facts'. It would rather have been better to enter figures only from neutral sources. The article does have an incline towards India since it mentions no successful operation from Pakistan and it appears that pakistan had international support and better equipment but they failed due to their stupidity(too sophisticated in pakistani hands). Maybe thats because an indian cant avoid it just as I couldnt avoid trying to defend. Thats natural. Bringing religion into this is nonsense and S. Seagal, too emotional. From Pakistan.

Very Biased article - Pakistan sucks - Pakistan is a failed state!!!!

An excerpt from the tank battle: "proved to be too sophisticated in Pakistani hands"....What the hell is this. This is just a personal irrational view point. Please keep your personal feelings to yourself thank you very much. This is an encyclopedia not a Lets make Pakistan Look Bad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.28.92 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone protect this article from vandalism. They cannot change history and say "Desicive Indian victory" Any non-indian account of the war mention this conflict as a no-winner one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.52.28 (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference Number 17

There is something seriously wrong here. One paragraph in the aerial war section states the sentence: India also pointed that despite PAF claims of losing only a squadron of combat craft, Pakistan had been seeking urgent help from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China, for additional aircraft within 10 days of the war.[17] This gives number 17 as the reference. If you look at 17 it doesnt say anything about the claims presented in this statement. In fact, it says the opposite and refutes Indian claims, whereas the sentence seems to propagate the Indian view point and put the Pakistanis down. Blatant Indian Propagande!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.28.92 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan defence day proves that Pakistan was more sucessful than India in 1965 Pak-Indo war. But this article is biased and clearly goes in India's favour. Wikipedia is supposed to be realistic, not biased. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.47.6 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that Pakistan miserable failed in the 1965 War as with the ones prior to them. Defense day is celebrated because Paki forces *supposedly* successfully defended lahore from Indian Forces. But then Not everyone believes what pakistan says or celebrates. Check the picture on the main page of Indian officer in from of lahore police station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroshp (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

biased article

this is by far one of the most biased damn articles ive seen on wikipedia. its like the entire article has been written by indians who hate pakistan. the information only focuses on one side and it derogotates pakistani losses by magnifying FALSE results by adding words like....in these days alone and etc. ive fought in that damn war. there is SERIOUSLY something wrong with this.

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).

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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.pakist watttttt

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)

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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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).

All of your claims are worthless without citing sources. Kindly confine your ranting to your own home and not in a public encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.105.61 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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).

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)

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).

pakistani defeat

i see this as a tactical and strategic Indian Victory. since of course India killed more men. Land can be recaptured, but men are hard to. espec. for pakistan, Indian has, and had vast reserves of men to fall back. but after a massacre like that, pakistan would be quite desperet. morever, America interfered on pakistans behalf, in the nick of time. India was on the verge of capturing Lahore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.59.144.85 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

pakistani defeat

i see this as a tactical and strategic Indian Victory. since of course India killed more men. Land can be recaptured, but men are hard to. espec. for pakistan, Indian has, and had vast reserves of men to fall back. but after a massacre like that, pakistan would be quite desperet. morever, America interfered on pakistans behalf, in the nick of time. India was on the verge of capturing Lahore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.59.144.85 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Casualty issue

I had to remove geocities link because it is a self published source and as per WP:RS personal websites like geocities, tripod etc. are not reliable sources, therefore it was removed. The book link also was removed since it is not verified, however I wouldn't be surprised by that figure since the normal 3,800 is for the 17 day period alone. Operation Gibraltar saw Pakistan suffering 4,000 - 8,000 casualties (both figures from Pakistanis who held some of the highest posts during and/or after the war. For the exact sources pl. see the article) Therefore a total tally of approx. 7,000 is actually correct even on the lower side. Idleguy 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar

I read this article quite carefully, it has some good points..the references are even and the detail at times tries to strike a balance. The other time it seems to view things from a distinctively Indian point of view. It goes in length at how state propaganda in Pakistan presented the wrong side of the picture to the pak people, however it skips bits about Indian claims to have taken lahore early on and Indian state propaganda (which shockingly for some is not the monopoly of Paksiatn but standard practice by all states in the time of war).. also several of the battles fought have been named according to the Indian description of them, who calls the 1965 war the second Kashmir war or Battle of Asal Uttar (Real Answer). The area became known as 'Patton Nagar' ? Also isn't the correct term Indo-Pakistan war 1965? Similarly you have some weasel words : case in point In fact despite some PAF attacks being launched from East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh) during the war, India did not retaliate in that sector retaliate in war? wouldn't respond be more appropriate?..the bit about US sanctions on Pakistan which caused a shortage of spare parts ignored? Other bits are quite interesting looks at the internal dynamic of the Pak army like akhtar Maliks removal..is it fanciful to assume there was no wrangling in the Indian army? If there was why is there no mention of it? The rann of Kutch conflict deserves a proper link as another article read, it after all led to the belief that the Indian army was not able to wage war. As was the Sino-Indian war of 1962, again Pakistan was not in the know regarding the US rearmament of India post 1962.

All in all the article has attempted to keep a balance in references, however in terms of slanted writing and pictures it has sections where there is an obvious Indian bias. --Zak 13:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, some of the points you have pointed out are really to be ones that should be worked on but a few issues raised by you have valid responses. For starters, I have come across some of the Indian press and official material, but none mentioned about having "taken lahore" but merely that Lahore was severely threatened or something on those lines. That wouldn't be far from the truth. Further, the issue about propaganda in Pakistan is not merely about exaggerations in wars by nations (be it India or Pakistan) but how it specifically influenced the politics in Pakistan and the eventual demise of the Ayub Khan regime, immediately following the ceasefire and after Tashkent Declaration; until which time the Pakistan public were perhaps presented too rosy a picture, compared to the slightly coloured version that was presented in India. This is especially true when reactions in Pakistan to the Tashkent Declaration were seen as nothing short of a sellout, whereas in India there were mixed responses but the ceasefire was generally seen as a reasonable ending.

As for the naming, it is often called by what is popularly attributed, i.e. Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam are names specifically given by Pakistan while the Battle of Asal Uttar was named later on after the battle taking place in that area was completed, much like Battle of Waterloo takes its name after the place Waterloo. It is not India or Pakistan specific but named after the place where battles took place. Even the title of the war itself isn't a universal name and infact both countries call it in multiple names that's why there are redirects for all such variants to this article.

Regarding wranglin in the Indian Army, yes there was, and some of it is also mentioned under the subheading "Indian miscalcualations" where the issue of IAF and Army not being coordinated has been discussed. I suggest you read it again. The images seemingly appear one sided because while images from the Indian side were released into public domain, similar images for free use are not there so fair use images are limtied to 1-2 on Pakistan Army. If you have access to public domain images on Pakistan Army from 1965 war you are welcome as anyone to upload them with the correct tags.

All said and done, there are some missing pieces in this article like a separate article for Rann of Kutch episode and the embargo by USA on both India and Pakistan (sourced in the article) and how it affected the eventual outcome etc. Idleguy 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, with regard to your specific comments here goes (in no particular sequence):1) The issue about pictures is actually a significant one, they influence the overall read and if you take into account the cliche of a picture being worth a thousand words..it means the article is a lot more heavily tilted to one side than the other. So sequentially the opening article and the picture of US classified documents is an automatic distraction, I'd have preferred this pic Image:Time ayub shastri.jpg Similarly pictures and references need to be assessed for quality when being used. Image:Brig.Hari Singh at Barkee Capture.jpg seems irrelevant and more of a puff piece picture.

I am of mixed opinion of the time magazine front page picture showing an Indian soldier, and the bit about SSG soldiers captured. 2) your comments about comparing Battles and operations and using the Waterloo example is apples and oranges, Operations are gov codenamed and usually recognsied as such in analysis, titled battles are events thata re universally accepted. So when I googled grandslam and asal uttar and got few hits for the latter. 3)The bit about state propaganda, i used lahore as an example, I haven't researched state propaganda in detail but it goes without saying that all states employ propaganda and the implied intent is that only one state did.. 4)Casual references are made to General Mahmuds book on the 1965 war which is barely one line of the cited article and real key bits of information are totally uncited: vulnerable to the dimunitive Folland Gnat, nicknamed "Sabre Slayer". There are other points but I am a bit busy to mention those...--Zak 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

hello, thanks for the inputs; as for the images, like I said earlier, the Pakistani side of images are NOT free to use and thus only a couple of images can be used under fair use. This is in contrast to the number of images in public domain that were released by a certain "hari singh"'s grandson into PD. If you can get some pics from Pakistan in PD or atleast free to use on Wikipedia under the right tag, pl. feel free to go ahead. Barkee is just a place in Lahore district, which was partly captured and thus is not a puff piece considering that the Lahore attack was an important moment of the war and one of the few events in the war that is still in public memory on both sides of the border. The TIME magazine events on Shastri and Ayub Khan were deleted due to some issues with fair use of such images, for if memory serves me right, it was me who actually put it up in the front image in the first place. The Indian soldier on the cover you are referring to perhaps is not from TIME but Life magazine.

The naming of battles in the subcontinent is not something that is universally accepted by both sides, and sometimes by one army itself. The Asal Uttar link is NOT a definitive name as is believed but just a name given based on the common references in India and elsewhere (Pak included) to that battle. If you have a Pakistani alternative to that battle please provide it in that article and any name searches will be redirected to asal uttar. Googling is not the final word in the naming, for it is not a popularity contest. This article will tell you that the name "The Battle of Assal Uttar" is used by three different authors, a Pakistani ex-serviceman (AH Amin), an Indian author (Ravi Rikhye) and a third party, foreign guy (Roland Davis) all referring to the battle by its common name.

Folland Gnat article is replete with sources (8 in the last count) about the Sabre v Gnat issue (again from both Indian, Pakistani and neutral sources) and why it was nicknamed the Sabre Slayer. There is even a book by Victor Bingham titled "Bingham, Victor. Folland Gnat – Red Arrow and Sabre Slayer." So it wouldn't be exactly uncited information by any stretch of imagination. --Idleguy 06:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality on the page.

I read the whole article and didnt find neutrality on this page. It was tottaly biased against india. The article never said that indian army even captured pakistani part of kashmir i.e all the disputed land. then only, an UN stalement occured. India came out to be stronger. but the article rather shows the wrong decisions taken by the indian army. Some sentences also have been exxagerated. And lastly, in the result - it says UN stalement, but Pakistan was defeated, then; only a stalement occurred.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarswaroop (talk • contribs)

Extreme views on both sides seem to suggest that the article is biased in the opponent's favour. This is not true as the article tries to balance both views and rightly describes the outcome as a stalemate. Idleguy 07:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Report from a neutral source

I sure hope these lines discontinue the ongoing biased flow of the article. However I believe that there must be some readers who, apart from their geographical origins, should be interested in figuring the facts. "For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on the ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel." USA - Aviation week & space technology --Immad321 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani fair use picture

I have uploaded a Pakistani picture (see [1]) under a fair use rationale to the war infobox. Because the 1947 war, 1971 war, and Kargil war infoboxes have Indian pictures in them, it is only fair that a Pakistani image be in the infobox for this war. Pakistan considered it a bigger victory than India did. Because it is adviseable to keep fair use images in an article at the minimum, I have removed the other Pakistani fair use picture which was previously in this article. That image still remains in another article.Zaindy87 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add images that are actually contrary to historical facts. Khem Karan sector resulted in what Pakistani authors themselves concede, to be the biggest rout in a single battle during the entire war, i.e. Battle of Asal Uttar. To depict Pakistani soldiers who were in temporary position prior to the start of the actual Battle of Asal Uttar is out of context and plastering it in the top of the page is a bit odd to say the least. Idleguy 16:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a picture "contrary to historical facts". You can quite clearly see Pakistani soldiers at the town. The picture is not depicting the tank battles, rather the infrantry soldiers who captured the town from India, thereby halting an impending assault on Lahore. Had it not been for this battle, India would have advanced towards Lahore. As I have mentioned above, Pakistan has no pictures in the infoboxes, so regardless of the results of a particular battle, it is resonable that this picture remain here. The article is about the 1965 war, and this is a picture from the 1965 war. Please do not remove it again. If you still dispute this action, we can have a third party arbitration. Zaindy87 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Had it not been for this battle, India would have advanced towards Lahore." This statement of yours proves that you have insufficient knowledge on this war. The attack on Lahore was days before khemkaran came into picture. Duh! btw, there is another free to use image on the khemkaran region which shows pakistani tanks and should be a better replacement for the copyrighted image which is an amateurish attempt to portray the Khemkaran debacle as some sort of propaganda. Idleguy 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You clearly cannot stand to see Pakistani pictures on Wikipedia articles. I will refer this dispute to a third party. I will not indulge in any further revert wars until a neutral person makes a decision on the issue. All 4 wars cannot have Indian pictures in the infobox, that is grossly unfair. While I had uploaded the image for sole use in this article, I have temporarily linked it to the Pakistan Army page to prevent it from getting orphaned. Zaindy87 16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump to preconceived conclusions. I clearly pointed out the historical inaccuracy in your statement regarding Lahore etc. It isn't about adding images but the blatant thrusting of copyrighted images in the wrong places and wildly out of context of the article. If anything I'm the one who added some of the Pakistani photos in Kargil, here and elsewhere without violating copyrights or providing misinformation. Idleguy 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand what historical inaccuracy you are talking about. The picture merely shows a Pakistani soldier kneeling in an Indian town during the 1965 war. People are fully aware that territory swaps take place during a war. I have not "blatantly thrusted" any image anywhere. I have provided a detailed fair use rationale for it, infact, it is better than any rationale on fair use pictures uploaded by you. My argument here is that you are deliberately preventing a Pakistani picture from being in the war infobox. Currently, all 4 wars have Indian pictures. I asked you nicely to dicuss on this user page before initiating a revert war but you did not heed my plea. I was the one who stopped the r-war eventually. Zaindy87 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Read your own inaccurate statement which i'm repeating again: "Had it not been for this battle, India would have advanced towards Lahore." I've given the explanation for this also and what exactly i mean by misappropriate images out of context. pl. read all the responses thoroughly before you rush to post again for i'm in no mood to repeat myself. Thanks. Idleguy —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Even if as you claim the battle was not instrumental in the Pakistani war effort, how is that a reason to delete a picture from the article? Germans may have lost the battle of Britain but it was still an important battle for them. It's a picture that is famous in Pakistan. Currently there are 4 Indian pictures in all the infoboxes in the Indo-Pakistani war articles. Besides you yourself said:

"To depict Pakistani soldiers who were in temporary position prior to the start of the actual Battle of Asal Uttar is out of context and plastering it in the top of the page is a bit odd to say the least."

Prior to the Battle of Asal Uttar means this picture does not show the tank battle you claim is the same battle. That came later.

Tha main issue here is that you are trying your best to prevent a Pakistani picture from being in the infobox. I feel inorder to make Indo-Pak war articles netural, we need at least 1 Pakistani picture in an Infobox. Zaindy87 17:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the picture you have put in the infobox right now is of poor quality. A war should not be represented by a picture of broken down/abandoned equipment. As you can see here, the requirements and not requirements for a infobox picture are:

Criteria

Good quality. The image should look good at 300px, which is the standard size for infobox pictures. Not only does this mean that the real picture should be 300px or more (to prevent pixelization,) but the original picture itself has to have been taken professionally. This criteria is fairly obvious, but should still be up here. Interesting/compelling. The image should also be interesting to look at. If its depicting a tank sitting by the roadside, this isn't that interesting unless the tank happens to be a new model of tank first introduced in that particular war, which played a pivotal part. In other words, a still life picture is not very interesting under most circumstances. It should have something going on, displaying action. War is defined by action and movement, and depicting this is key. Showing humans in the photo can also be compelling, and more interesting than one without humans. Uniquely relevant. The image should show something that is both relevant, and identifiable to the war. The Vietnam War example Timeshifter found above is a particularly good example, for all three of these qualities, but especially this criteria. It shows a napalm fire, in the jungle setting. Both of these things, when combined, almost instantly evoke the Vietnam war. Not every war has something so clear as that, but there are certainly things identifiable to the Iraq war.

Not Criteria All encompassing. A photo need not show all aspects of a war. The Vietnam War image is effective because it shows a few key elements of the war, in an interesting, good quality manner. It doesn't shove everything into the same photo, and doesn't try. It keeps the focus that it has. Depicts all sides. An image does not need to show all combatants. The days of both sides lining up in rows and shooting each other predated photography, and only rarely will both sides be in the same photograph. Such a photograph would obviously dangerous to take, and we should not wait for one to show up.

The current picture on the Iraq War article is similar to the picture I uploaded. It shows kneeling/sitting soldiers. I believe the Khem Karan picture fulfils these guidelines, and for the above mentioned reasons, should be in the infobox of this war.

Zaindy87 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The current picture on 2003 invasion of Iraq shows US choppers. I don't know which Iraq War you mean, but even Iraq War proper shows only a map. In keeping with the equally fought nature of this '65 war I'm reuploading the TIME magazine cover for it's the only acceptable image that both Indians and Pakistanis can agree. Even the past talk pages from both sides seem to suggest that it is the best compromise. Idleguy 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One further point is that 2 of the current Indo-Pak war infobox images have been uploaded here under fair use rationales: 1 2. Currently the 1965 war article has two fair use Indian images, the 1971 war article has 3 fair use Indian images, and the Kargil War article has 6 fair use Indian images. That is quite fair I would say. Zaindy87 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is only one Indian & 1 Pak fair use image in this article. As for the Kargil War article, the paucity of pakistani images is due to the fact that Pakistan denied its involvement in the war and therefore few, if any, images were preserved from the Pakistani side in an attempt to show it as a mujahideen attack. Maybe this point should be mentioned in the Kargil War article if readers are wondering why images are so lopsided. The only 2 Pak images in that article were uploaded by me, and it took quite a while to get them too. Talk about "fair"ness. Idleguy 02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you people don't mind, I'd like to pitch my two cents in. Here I go:

• The article has sufficient images, there's no need to add more. If it's a groundbreaking breathtaking image, then may be you can remove one of the previous images and put the new one in. Wikipedia is not a photo album, really.
• There is no need to identify images as Indian or Pakistani images. If this designation means a coverage of both sides at war, then, I guess, the article has enough of both.
• For the infobox the Time Magazine cover is a perfectly NPOV image by all counts. Let it be there.
• The image in discussion of the lone the Pak soldier looks beautiful and relevant in the Pakistan Army article. There is really no urgent need to incorporate it here as well.
• Supposed historical inaccuracy of a talk page comment cannot be the ground for removing an image. An argument in that line is obviously flawed.
• Comments in the line of you just don't want a Pakistani image added breaches the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. While the passion perfectly appreciated, these comments represent not-too-good an argument.
• Finally, I really cannot see there is anything to fight over, concerning the images, as they stand right now.

Forgive me if I am wrong on anything. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points. The said image can remain in pak army page with the correct caption. TIME magazine should serve as a neutral infobox image. I hope this image issue is closed and we can move on. Thanks. Idleguy 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Infobox picture

See discussion in section directly above this one. 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the photo would fulfil the fair-use criteria for this article if the upload were downsized to its final layout size, i.e. 300 px or whatever—perhaps larger is suitable, too (is there a guideline?). The photo of the soldier is definitely better to illustrate this article than a tank graveyard, which seems better suited for the "Consequences" section of the article.

I won't comment about the fairness of pictures of Pakistani vs Indian subjects here, since I'm not thoroughly familiar with the historic events or other discussions here. Comments about editors' interpretations, e.g. whether India would have advanced to Lahore or not, or images in themselves being "actually contrary to historical facts" seem pretty irrelevant to the questions of fair use or acceptability of the image itself (of course the article and caption text are a different story, not at issue here). —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 21:52 Z

For heaven's sake, the TIME magazine cover seems perfectly useful. It's striking and neutral. Hornplease 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

The article claims the Pakistani shermans were superior to the Indian Shermans, namely by being armed with a 90mm gun. This is not true, While pakistan did indeed have some M36 Gun Motor Carrier (Jackson Tank destroyer)these are not tanks having less armor and no top protection. While the Jackson was remarkalby robust for a US tank destroyer and some wher emade on the M4 hull. I have not found any information to show that any of these M36B1 were sent to Pakistan. Instead I see only refrences to new build M36 and M10 covnersions known as the M36B2.

More importantly 2 regiments of the Indian Shermans ahd be re-armed prior to the war with the same French 75mm gun found on the AMX-13. The CN 75-50 75 was derived from the famed German Kwk42 L/70 75mm of Panther fame. One regiment No.4 Ind DSqdrn served until 1971 with this tank per http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/india.htm India also had a number of Sherman of either IIA or VA variant with the same 76mm M1 gun as found on the Pakistani Shermans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.247.62 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The report is biased and not based on actual facts and it seems to be written by an Indain author supporting the Indian agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.145.122 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pl. see Wikipedia:Verifiability where reliable sources have to be produced for contentious claims. That Pakistan had the qualitative superiority in armour has been stated by authors from Pakistan to neutral third party observers. Altering it to give the opposite meaning serves no purpose. --Idleguy 02:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Idelguy, lots of people believe in Aliens to. At least 2 regiments of Indian Shermans had been up gunned with the CN 75 50 a gun derived form the KwK42 L/70 75mm use don the WW2 Panther. This gun was superior to the US M1 76mm on the Pakistani Shermans. India also had Sherman IIA and IVA variants equipped with the same m1 76mm gun found on the Pakistani Shermans. The British made Centurion with either the 20pounder OQF or L7 105mm cannon had superior firepower to the Pattons 90mm guns. The Centurion also had armor up to 50% thicker 152mm max centurion vs 100mm max M-47 and 120mm max. M48 The Centurions also had a simpler co-incidence ranger finder, higher ground clearance but lower height, better trench crossing and superior side slope. The Pattons only advantage was road speed beign about 50% greater than the Centurion. However off road the Centurion could match the Patton speed and mobility with similar ground pressure despite a greater weight (about 13kc/cm^2 per tank).

The information you have provided is no doubt interesting, but for the sake of Wikipedia policies, we need a Wikipedia:Verifiability based on a WP:reliable source so as to avoid sounding like any WP:Original Research, which is not permitted. Hope I have clarified this issue so that you can provide some references for the above. Idleguy 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Zraver 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Zraver again, I provided a link http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/india.htm this site is pro-Indian and sourced so claims about India's Shermans having significantly greater firepower than commonly believed are not pro-Pakistani bias but real historical fact. vis a vis the Patton family vs the Centurion. Wikis own entries on these tanks confirm most of it. Common sense confirms some of it, and the rest is easily Googled public knowledge out side of the partisan debate. Or do you really think a a M-47 Patton introduced in 1952 with a 90mm gun is superior to a later Mk Centurion with a 105mm L-7 cannon? http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/461-battle-chawinda.html has pictures of a 105mm gun armed centurion captured by Pakistan. The early Centurions with the 20 pounder OQF gun out gunned the 90mm, the 105mm was leagues better than either. In fact this gun is still in Service with NATO today. Canadian forces are using Leopard 1's for fire support in Afghanistan. The Centurion also had the superior range finder (in actual tactical use), the US stereoscopic range finder with mechanical ballistic computer proved to be far to complex. The US was aware of this fact and the M48A2C went to a much simpler co-coincidence type of range finder.

I fear you're missing the point and going into too many technical details that is more apt for the tank pages and not the war page. For instance, sources from Pakistan reveal that the bulk of Pakistani armour was technically superior to Indian tanks. This is confirmed by a senior major general in his statement where he specifically says M47 and M48 Pattons were superior to the Shermans which you have altered. Even if the Pattons were indeed inferior to the Centurion, a look at the number of Centurions in the war reveals just 180 at best were in Indian hands of a total of 608 tanks. Whereas Pakistan's Patton was the mainstay, the Indian Sherman was the tank used in large numbers, thus validating the fact that Indian tanks were technically inferior on the whole. Moreover, the M-48 Patton is tank with a 120mm gun whereas the centurion has a 105mm gun. So I'm rewording some of the changes to stay true to the source. Idleguy 02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Zraver, No M48 ever made mounts a 120mm gun. The Most powerful variants based on the West German conversion of the M48A2 is the M48A5 9introduced 1975) which mounts the license built American version of the Royal Ordnance L-7 105mm cannon. The same gun that had been equipping Centurions for nearly 20 years by the time the M48 got it. As for Shermans India and Pakistan employed about equal numbers of them on the battle field. Each had over 300 but under 400 in service. Indian Shermans with the CN 75-50 had the ability to kill a Patton, the Pakistani Shermans with the m1 76mm guns could not kill a Centurion. This would be critical in the war and especially in the creation of the Patton Nagar. Indian Centurions backstopped the Shermans and used the 105mm guns to deadly effect. As for a Pakistani Major General, and your point is? This same group of officers thought they would walk all over India and that the Pattons were all but invulnerable. They were wrong on those 2 critical things why believe them on a smaller issue? The devil is in the details and the Centurion was the better tank, and Indian Shermans were not nearly so helpless as portrayed. Zraver 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

120mm gun was a typo, and sorry for the confusion; that said, the fact remains that editing should stick to the source and that is exactly what I am doing while you are indulging in WP:OR, which is clearly not accepted as per Wikipedia official policy. The fact is not if one particular tank, the Centurions were better than Pattons, but the totality of it. In that sense, multiple authors, both Pakistani, foreign and Indian, have agreed that, on the whole, Pakistani tanks was numerically more and qualitatively better than Indian tanks during the war. We could spend our time debating the tank which had the better gun, or the one with the greater armour, or the one with more manouverability and totally miss the point of the subarticle - which is to talk about tank battles of the war with a few lines about the tank strengths. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks.

Zraver 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Zraver, although I do not agree with the authors assessment of the value of the AMX-13 vs the Chaffee, http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/assaluttar.html gives a good account of the relative armored strengths prewar. Pakistan had 11 tank regiments, 2 light tank regiments and and 4 TDU regiments (rapidly re-equipped cavalry units)for a total of 17 armored regiments verses India who had 11 tank regiments regiments and 4 light tank regiments. So clearly Pakistan's edge in numbers was misleading as India actually had the greater number of trained crews. At the single biggest battle of the war Khemkaran 3 Indian regiments (1 each Sherman, Centurion, AMX-13) took on 6 Pakistani regiments from ambush. Per wiki's own entry the Indian Sherman http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Postwar_Sherman_tanks#1965_Indo-Pakistan_War and http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/india.htm there do not appear to have been any M3 75mm gun equipped Shermans present at this battle. In fact the only low velocity guns belonged to the Pakistani Chaffee light tanks. This actually reduced the odds quite a bit. All 3 Indian regiments could defeat the Pattons from the front, while Pakistani had only 5 not six capable regiments in the fight. Plus one of India's regiments was the centurion force that could defeat the Pattons form any angle stand a good chance of its armor defeating all but the closest ranged fire.

BTW---- The m4 Sherman was made by America not Britain.

Point taken, but we're not discussing a single battle here but the war and there were only 180 Centurions overall. That's what the multiple sources clearly say: that Pakistan had qualitative and quatitative superiority. And for the last time, no WP:Original Research and Pl. see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your point on Centurion being the best tank of the war needs a reliable source, else I'm afraid it'll be nothing but an original research; a good research perhaps, but still original and per Wikipedia policy, it's not accepted. Idleguy 02:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Zraver, it is not original research per Zaloga in his book M47 and M48 PattonOsprey Military publishing Tanks(you know who he is right?) "The Patton emerged from the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 with a tarnished reputation.... Though a contributory factor was the exaggerated esteem in which the Patton had been held by both the Indian and Pakistani soldier"http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsdjJZWqtg4C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=pakistani+patton+tanks&source=web&ots=BXozFs6K6A&sig=jd5I5Dcgwx0E8Gk8kHo7mcfayYc#PPP1,M1

In 1965 Pakistan had received 230 M47 and 202 M48 tanks since deliveries began in the 1950's. 432 tanks is just slightly more than 2-1 vs Indias 188 centurions. However when India's CN 75-50 equipped AMX-13 and upgunned Shermans are added the advantage evaporates. How much better was the Centurion than the Patton? It's not original research to point out public knowledge that the Centurion had armor upto 50% thicker, had a better gun, lower profile, better crews excetera. http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/tanks/patton.html From wiki's own source the M4 Sherman had frontal armor very nearly as thick as the M47 Patton 91mm vs 100mm-110mm. --Zraver 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is slowly turning into a case of misquoting the sources, even partisan ones like from Pakistan. Take the http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/tanks/patton.html link providing by Zraver. It says "Much attention has been paid to the supposed advantages of the Centurion over the Patton in these encounters, ignoring the fact that the majority of Patton causalities were caused by recoilless rifles, artillery and anti-tank guns" and adds frankly even for a Pak source: "The Indian Army has made much of the fact that some of its Centurions survived repeated hits; yet have failed to point out that the majority of tanks in the Sialkot sector were Shermans whose guns were inadequate even in 1944." Even the book on Patton from which the pak source has replicated faithfully, concludes that "no vehicle, whatever its technical merits, can survive the kind of gross tactical bungling which characterised the pakistani charge into the tank trap at Asal uttar." So stick to the sources and don't add your original information as part of the sourced line. It's misleading and contradictory to the bulk of the sources provided herein that state which side had the superiority overall. Idleguy 03:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am neither misquoting nor introducing OR. I am correctign innacuurat einformation put up by partisans like yourself. You yourself said earlier the tank battles section was about the tank battles over the entire theater. India was not massively outgunned or out numbered as the Indian partisans like to claim. It had up gunned Shermans, the Centurion, and the best light tank in the world at that time and more fully trained regiments vs Pakistan which had 2 seriously flawed tanks designs, some under trained units and weaker gun power overall. I have also not tried to minimize the Pakistani defeat, the interest should be accuracy not partisanship. Every time you delete or modifiy one of my edits you are hiding the truth, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zraver (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again, another original research with hardly a credible source in sight. This edit is clear proof that you are misquoting the citation I provided on author heginbotham to state your claims. btw, ALL the sources provided by me are either from pakistan or from non-Indian authors, so I don't understand where the issue of partisan crops up. Is it because I pointed out that ur previous comment was from a pakistani source? Perhaps you should re-refer the book on patton tanks suggested by you, where the foreign author also states that the indian tanks were inferior in most theatres?

• Your line centurion "emerged as the best tank of the war overall." still does not have any source but only tries to build up and produce a WP:No Original Research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position which is clearly not the case. You need to produce a WP:Reliable Source to back up that claim that it was the best overall tank of the war. I was the one who added heginbotham's ref and it doesn't mention that. btw, remember it is not about truth, but as per Wikipedia's policy, WP:Verifiability, which i'm quoting "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I only hope that you understand that vital point. --Idleguy 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything I have edited is backed by sources and links I have posted here. here is some more http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8Q0hx5_PZggJ:www.eastarmy.nic.in/know-army/amo-05.html+Indian+Army+Centurion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a Lists the Indian Centuriosn as Mk VII models. These were made after the introduction of the 105mm Mk V model introduced in 1959 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7 making it newer than either the M47 and M48. India's AMX13 and PT76 were the same age as the M48 Patton and newer than the M47 9vis a vis full production dates) Patton http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=175 Both sides used about the same number of Shermans although India's up gunned Shermans had the most recent upgrades. So I think changing the newer Pattons to US supplied Pattons is both verifiable and truthful. Like wise giving the Centurion credit as the best tank of the war is simply stating the obvious. The Centurion with its thick hide and 105mm gun emerged as the most feared tank on the subcontinent especially after the Pattons had thier mystique shattered. No original research here, just accurate compiling of other peopels work into a non partisan picture of the capabilities of the tank forces involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zraver (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The indians have shown no accurate sources about the alleged rehaul of the ins vikrant they just make up mumbo jumbo on this page without unreliable data im going to check all these indian sources and delete any post without sources or qaulity sources which have not been fabricated by indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.212.247 (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please edit right articles

These information that are shown in Wikipedia article looks like totally edited by an Indian given approximately 100% to Indian Army. If the Pakistan was so much weak in the wars then Pakistan should have conquered since 1947 to India. Pakistan army cause a heavy damage to Indian Army that India denied raising many false stories.If, India have so much success in the Kashmir Wars then how Pakistan captured approx. 50% of Kashmir region. The facts that are mentioned in the articles are not telling us how Pakistan Army defeated Indian Army to gain the so much region of Kashmir. Pakistan has a very less amount of his army in the Pakistan-administrated Kashmir comparing Indian Army and why would Pakistan infiltrate or launch an operation which leads towards war knowing that we have not comparable army in region.

Secondly, If it was a Kashmir War, and started by Pakistan with Operation Gibraltar, and Indian failed that operation it means Indian Occupied Kashmir is safe. Rather then giving more to security to the LOC why India invaded Pakistan at the front of Lahore. is, that the greed of Kashmir security or Pakistani Land.Thats why these articles are India-based articles and the facts should be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashif Arshad Khan (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't make head or tail of what you saying. DemolitionMan (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:65 war.jpg

Image:65 war.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

hindutva propaganda

This article contains alot of Hindutva propaganda. Many "victories" by india are exhageratted by the Hindutva media. It also stated that India completely defeated Pakistan in 1971 but deliberately hides the fact that Pakistan was at civil war and that the Pak military was absent from the country, giving India full advantage.

The whole article needs rewriting to be neautralized. problem is there are too many indians editting wikipedia compared to Pakistanis and engage in constant team tag edit war to evade the 3RR, making it impossible to revert their fantasy visions to what actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.118.226 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"absent from the country"? Where was it? Was Pakistan's military taking a vacation? Mindstalk (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

tfh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.139.224 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources from Indian sites biased

The majority of sources regarding claims of pakistan is taken from Indian articles how on earth can anyone trust india and its claims on pakistan this is like trusting the soviets in afghanistan total rubbush indian propaganda.

Fake source

a totally fake source on the numbers killed from the so called indian government website doesnt even work correct this major propaganda.

OPEN-ED sources

open ed sources are not reliable and are being used to back up statistics in the war infobox regarding pakistans sources furthermore these sources of open ed types are taken from indian websites which is naturally biased towards Pakistan so this is a double wammy please remove these ureliable indian open ed sources and replace with neutral references or i will keep on deleting the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.69.230 (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "globalsecurity" :
  • http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm "Indo-Pakistan War of 1965"]. <u>Globalsecurity.com</u>.
  • [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm Indo-Pakistan War of 1965<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive all the old POV comments

I just tried to find the most recent discussion comment (another POV complaint), and got lost in all the discussion dated back to 2006. The old comments are really difficult to follow since there have been so many edits to the article since them - I suggest just achiving all the old POV comments, which aren't particularly helpful to improving the article. Comments?Vontrotta (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding future POV comments

I suggest that any future comment such as "this is Pakistani (or Hindutva) propaganda", or any other general POV complaint without a specific suggestion to correct the problem (preferably with an acceptable citation to support it) be immediately reverted. Let's focus on specifics, which can be analyzed, debated, and ultimately agreed. This article, and all the others on the Indian-Pakistani conflicts can be greatly improved - there are lots of published materials - if it can be agreed to shift the focus from general conclusory statements, to specifically debatable facts. Comments? Vontrotta (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfair edit

On November 29 I made an edit where I removed un-cited numbers of Pakistan and Indian losses, and replaced it with cited numbers. The citation I used was an article from The Times, London giving the date of publication, the page number and article name. In the article a full-time correspondent for The Times said he had personally seen Pakistan's evidence and agrees with Pakistan's claims. At that point, the claim had been verified by a mainstream publication and therefore met EVERY Wikipedia criterion for inclusion. That is more than what one say for most of the sources listed on this page.

On December 20, 2008 user 118.100.8.185 reverted these changes, bringing back the old un-cited numbers.

I have better things to do than get in an edit war with the fanatic Indians on this site. But can someone (preferably user 118.100.8.185) please explain why this edit was made.

207.237.178.202 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Very biased.

This article seems to be pretty biased. The thing that strikes me most is that the section that describes consequences for Pakistan does not say any positive results. Specifically, I'm talking about psychology. When a country holds off an enemy several times larger than itself, then that is nothing to sneeze at. But the article fails to mention it, almost as if it wants to distract the reader with negative outcomes. I have listed some quotes from various unbiased sources. Perhaps a few of them ought to be added? I'm not saying the negative outcomes ought to be removed, but there certainly ought to be a more comprehensive description of the positive ones.

"The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one." - Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum

"Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air." - Christopher Sivores, author of Air Aces

"The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with Pakistanis didn’t get clobbered, they just turned and ran, leving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind...my money would be on the Pakistan side." - American Broadcasting Corporation reporter Roy Maloni

"India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces." - Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965

"India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it...If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this [flow of Pakistani offensives]?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes." - American Broadcasting Corporation reporter Roy Maloni

"Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds." - The Guardian, London, September 24, 1965

"By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own." - Newsweek, September 20, 1965

"there is little doubt but that the Pakistanis will lick the Indians in the long run, despite the fact that the Indian army outnumbers the Pakistan army four to one." - Top of the News, Washington, September 6-10, 1965

As you can see, these sources aren't Pakistani, so any allegations of government/media propoganda won't hold water. I would like to see more content on positive results for the Pakistanis added to this article. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese1125 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, folks. I had been given the go ahead to add some of those quotations in, and I've done so. As a result, I will remove the neutrality dispute tag at the top of the article. Cheers. Cheese1125 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide URL links to substantiate these apparent citations? Every unbiased view that I have ever read about the war, and even some by Pakistani officers seem to indicate a completely contrary picture to the one apparently being depicted by the "citations" above. AreJay (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

if there were any URLs he would have provided it. overall the conduct of pakistan needs to be seen in light of their future status as rapidly ascending king of "failed States". " Internantional Migraine" etc. this was the early conduct of a country destined to be one of the 'leading Failed State" of the world. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager, as claimed by Cheese, is far from a neutral source. In those days of the Cold War, India was close to the USSR block whereas PAF essentially depended on US machines. In order to prove the supremacy of his own machines & materials, Chuck would have endorsed the PAF's statistics of the kills. To Wikireader41, please refrain from ranting like you did above. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

to user Shovon those are not rants. it is reality. the purpose of pakistan launching 1965 war was to "liberate" Kashmir which clearly did not happen for pakistan. still they insist that they "won" 1965 war. how do you "morally" win the air war. your comments on chuck yeager are dead on. My own conclusion about pakistanis is that they consider a war "won" if their country does not get dismembered at the end of the war. so they won in 1948, 1965 and 1999. now they are winning against the taliban as well as the CIA drones. ;) Wikireader41 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Very Biased and One sided topic portraying Indian fictional Stories:

This gives Indian fantasies of their lost adventure. Nothing in this article seems independent. The article includes lands of Kashmir as Territory occupied by India. This is true but the area mentioned is insignificant as India has captured the entire Kashmire by force.

The Runn of Kuch was never an indian soil as there was no Border settlement pertaining to this area. Indian airforce losses are supressed, results of Khan Kot operation are not mentioed. Destruction of Dawarka base is termed as insignificant. results of War of Chonda in Sialkot where Indians lost the biggest battle of tanks is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.14 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of complaining, your best option would be to include the items you've listed above, supported by valid, reliable citations. AreJay (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent India casualty vandelism

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html

The following citation states there were ~3,000 Indian casualties,not 8,000 as its marked.Although the Pakistani casualties are accurate at 3,800 as stated by the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad108 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

dude,the war was a draw . no one won . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.84.62 (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think thats quite obvious, forgive my misunderstanding but I was talking about the casualty error, not the result of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad108 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

hateful allegations

i think we should refrain from putting our own views instead of facts. labelling for the photo "File:Ichhogil Canal (1965 Indo-Pak War) .jpg" shows "a salute to great indian victory against pakistan (terrorismstan)" which is very inappropiate!

mods or editiors please edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.31.86 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I want to clear some mistakes in this Article.First we should see that Pakistan Army was much smaller than that of Indian army .Pakistan Airforce was small too but it was highly professional as compared to the Indians .The F 86 sabres of Pakistan airforce were very effective against the outdated Indian Vampires.But the rest or indian planes were good enough to challange pakistan airforce.The Gnats,Hunters and the Mig 21 which was the only super sonic jet in Asia were fighting against Old Pakistani F 86 sabres and F 104 strarfighters. PAF pilots were not good in controlling F 104 .So the whole responsibility of defending the nation was put on the old F 86 jets to face the highly equiped indian Migs and Gnats.But the young pilots of PAF perfomed very well throught the war because their training was better than IAF pilots.After the involvment of indian airforce in the war and the firing of indian jets at a train on Wazerabad Station the PAF came into action.And it attacked number of indian bases on the evening of 6th of September.The quick attacks of PAF were very effective and number of Indian Fighters were destroyed on ground.The IAF launched an offensive attack on Sargodha on 7th of September but was chekmated by PAF fighters.In one Dogfight over Sargodha PAF pilot Squadron Leader M M Alam shotdown 5 indian jets .Four of them were shotdown in less than 30 seconds.In the whole war he destroyed 7 IAF fighters and also he was able to damage 2 IAF fighters.He was awarded Sitara-e-Jurrat by government of Pakistan. The quick responce from PAF enabled the PAF to get Air Superiorty in just 24 hours after the start of war.Because it was abale to destroy 53 indian fighters in air as well as on ground.PAF attacks on the indian bases Pathankot ,Halwara and Jester were sucessful .IAF Gnats played a good role and they shotdown 7 PAF F 86 fighters . They were named as Sabre Sylerres by IAF.But PAF got a clear cut victory over IAF quite earlier. In the whole war PAF lost just 19 aircrafts. On the other hand the IAF loses were very high as it lost 115 aircrats .The indian army attacked Pakistan from 3 sides . The Runn Kuch, Lahore and Sialkot. The attack on Runn Kuch was sucessful but the indian army which attacked Lahore with their aim of capturing it in 6 hours and then enjoy the victory in Lahore Gym Khana was chekmated. The Pakistan army was caught unprepared but legendary acts of heroism halted the indian thrust. The indian army attacked Sialkot with hundreds of tanks. This was the largest tank battle in the history of the world. But Pakistan army under the commanding of General Tikka Khan at Chawinda was able to defend the city well and it destroyed atleats 150 Indian tanks.At the end of war the Pakistan Army was able to occupy 1617 mil square area of India.India occupied 446 mil square area of Pakistan. 516 indian tanks were lost and 35 Pakistani tanks were lost.Indian navy did not join the War but Pakistan navy made a good progress and shelled Indian naval base called Dawarka.But it does not effect the war as Indian loss was not high . This is the true Summary of the War of 1965 between India and Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.217.188 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Objections seems to be quite objectionable

The reasons for making this BGrade article seems to be objectionable if one looks at the comments " How many Indian Rats were killed"

The person who had made the rating seems to be having serious misgivings against India and Indians. To add to the fact all the objections have come from Pakistan most probably done by the person who had made the earlier comment. Hence the rating and the comments are best ignored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.3.6 (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Flat-out deception by mis-quoting

Forgot the allegations that this article does not list enough Pakistani sources and is thus biased; the information in this article does not even accurately reflect Indian sources. For example, if you look at the "Indian Claims" section on Aircraft Losses, there are two sources listed: bharat-rashak, and Ministry of History, Govt. of India. If you click on either link, you will see that the first source lists 75 Indian losses (combat and non-combat), and the second source lists 59 combat losses for India. The Wikipedia article however makes up its own numbers despite listing these sites as sources. How is this not POV? 207.237.219.51 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan failed to achieve objectives

There seems to be a misconception that because Pakistan held Lahore, Pakistan won. Fact of the matter is, Pakistan's objectives were first to take Kashmir through Operation Gibraltar and operation Grand Slam. They failed to achieve the end goal and therefore failed to achieve the initial objective, and hence lost. Quoting a holdout at Lahore is no basis for victory, Pakistan were trounced at Assal Uttar with 300 Pattan tanks with superior range and armour against 3 45-tank regiments and had the Indian army near Lahore.

Regardless, the initial objective of Kashmir was not met and Pakistan failed to make any inroads and that is the key point around the success or failure of an operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndhere (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, was reading an interesting article by Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN discussing the events in terms of objectives at: http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndhere (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharam Karo SharamLink title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.80.18 (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC) A proof of Pakistani Chief of Army Staff standing at Khem Khar Station. Sharm karo indians sharam.

See Picture of Pakistani COAS General Musa standing at Khem Karan Railway Station.http://images.google.com.pk/images?gbv=2&hl=en&ei=QXWGSpqNFpfg7AON9fn6Aw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=General+Musa+at+Khem+Karan&spell=1&start=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.80.18 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Sharam Karo" for what my delusional pakistani friend.Khem karan was held by pakistan and no one is arguing that. What was your objective and what did you achieve. You did not get kashmir and neither did you capture more land than us. So I believe its pakistanis who should be ashamed for claiming they won solely based on the fact that they were able to defend lahore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.218.61 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Foolishness and Idiotic

This article,totally based on one viewside and is biased, giving wrong information and must be changed according to facts, if wiki is to maintain its popularity among good ones. There must be a commitee or some group, not one writer giving his thoughts on article by seeing websites or other sources, that have a collective work and research so truth is around not thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.35.237 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)