Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 1

Older discussion
I am going to start re-editing this page. This whole page has just been lifted from GlobalSecurity.org and Fas.org and is a violation of copyright. Apart from that, people posting stuff are indulging childish POV jibes. For the time being, I have left the edit as it is, but I will start working on cleaning up the article from tomorrow.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a medium for people to brag about each other's war heroics.

AreJay 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Was there any fighting on the border of East Pakistan in 1965?

Oystertoadfish 06:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read from various sources that both India and Pakistan had "tactically" agreed to not allow the theater of conflict to expand to East Pakistan.

AreJay 23:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article
This is in reference to the edits made by Idleguy and his reasoning for the reverse edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IndoPakistani_War_of_1965&oldid=13836504. Allow me to differentiate between a neutral author and neurtal point of view. Idleguy included the following:


 * "Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" had there been continuation of fighting and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government." and


 * "..Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan.."

This excerpt is from GlobalSecurity.org (which, in actuality, licensed the original artical from Fas.org). These two (GlobalSecurity.org and Fas.org) are neutral authors because they are not party to the 1965 war. However, and this is the distinction, they definately have a point of view ("..what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.." et al). The purpose of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. In other words, to present positions that are indisputable. This excerpt, clearly, is disputable, especially with respect to Pakistan and Pakistani writers. It is not a fact, it is an opinon and dosen't belong here. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for more information. I will therefore be reverting the edits to the most recent NPOV copy. Please feel free to edit and improve this article with information that is indisputable. AreJay 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While I accept that some parts especially the first point mentioned is slightly POV (probably the "hindu india" part), I wonder in the second point, how an analysis of the war and the future outcome in light of the military differences is still considered as POV. If an encyclopediac article is to remain neutral to the point of not incorporating real insights and "what if" scenarios by a relatively well known (in defence circles atleast) organization, then it is equal to saying that there should be no objective truth in an encyclopedia. Maintaining a neutral point of view when documents largely point to one side's relatively larger losses is ignoring facts, given that they were in quotes and attributed to an external source to avoid saying that it is wikipedia opinion. General Ayub Khan was indeed blamed for Pakistan's poor showing in the later phases of the war, despite initial successes. I suggest a complete reading of Pakistan's state of affairs after the war before a comment otherwise. The sentence could have been toned down, but to totally ignore it is ignoring facts citing POV. POVs are facts when the populace believes in them and is ultimately responsible for the head of the government losing the confidence of the people. As such they can't be dismissed summarily. According to the encyclopedia britannica, "Shastri was hailed as a hero in New Delhi." and is one of many reputable sources that agree with this as much as it is agreed that Ayub Khan (read wikipedia article that says so) himself was the target of Pakistani ire in his failure to capture Kashmir. The only redeeming feature of the war was the PAF's relative success over IAF, but in the overall objective of capturing kashmir, it was perceived as a failure by the populace. The very reasons that ultimately enabled Bhutto to power in later years.


 * Secondly, why was the title "Losses" reverted back to "indian and pakistan claims" when a neutral organization like Global Security has facts on the losses sustained, albeit the number of tank losses on the indian side isn't mentioned (I'm working to find that out from a neutral). Already it has a third nation like USA giving some facts on each country's gains on land. And still the title should remain "indian and pakistan claims"? Absurd. Figures don't have POV, unlike the above statements so atleast this shouldn't be disputed as some of the figures have again been from a neutral point. Absence of just one figure (casualities of indian tanks) isn't reason to delete another important piece of data, again on the premise of maintaining neutrality.


 * In ur words "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. In other words, to present positions that are indisputable". If it were wrong that Ayub Khan is known to many pakistanis that he failed, then the wikipedia article and many external articles on ayub khan would be disputable. You have also mentioned "this excerpt, clearly, is disputable, especially with respect to Pakistan and Pakistani writers." I also suggest a reading of the book "Can Pakistan Surivive: The Death of a State" by Pakistan author Tariq Ali that also talks about the wars. Idleguy 05:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me be very clear. I am not against any analysis of the war itself that would further the understanding of a person wanting to learn more about the 1965 war. What I am against is the tone and the structure of the paragraphs. These are very clearly opinions of someone. I would suggest a review of the sentence &#8220;..Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country&#8217;s military defeat to &#8220;Hindu India&#8221;.&#8221; I wonder, does this sound like &#8220;fact&#8221; or &#8220;opinion&#8221;? Further, would ignoring this be tantamount to, as Idleboy puts it &#8220;ignoring facts citing POV&#8221;? Is this a fact at all??


 * Idleboy maintains that &#8220;(m)aintaining a neutral point of view when documents largely point to one side's relatively larger losses is ignoring facts..&#8221;. There are numerous &#8220;documents&#8221; written by people, such as Maj (Retd) Ikram Sehgal (&#8220;The Army since 1965&#8221;), that assert, among other things, that &#8220;India attacked across the international border from Sialkot to Sindh sectors on September 6, 1965. The attacks were repulsed on all fronts, in a series of counter attacks the Pakistan Army penetrated several miles inside Indian territory, capturing for more territory than the Indian Army did&#8221;. While this is clearly factually incorrect, the point that I am attempting to make here is that if we were to go about incorporating opinions and excerpts from &#8220;documents&#8221;, we will be writing the history of the 1965 war for some time!


 * I also do not know what to make of the ludicrous assertion that &#8220;POVs are facts when the populace believes in them&#8230;&#8221;! The general &#8220;populace&#8221; in Pakistan was lead to believe the ideas that were &#8220;propagated in the early years of Independence through popularisation of the belief that one Muslim soldier was equivalent to at least four Hindu ones!..&#8221; (Dr. Shireen Mazari, &#8220;Nuclearization of South Asia: The geopolitical dimension&#8221;). However, this is clearly not a fact, albeit this being a belief held by the majority of a nation.


 * Second, I do agree that Gen. Ayub Khan was blamed for Pakistan not being able to achieve its objectives through this war, however, he was not the only person blamed. Commander-in-chief Musa and Minister Bhutto were blamed for operating under the assumption that the Indian army would not cross the International Border and that Pakistan would be able to restrict the theater of conflict to Kashmir. Similarly, Yahya Khan was also blamed for his poor showing at (atleast one author AH Amin of the DefenceJournal asserts to this). Indeed, as Maj(Retd) Agha Humayun Amin puts it, with respect to Operation Grand Slam, (&#8220;Grand Slam &#8211; A Battle of Lost Opportunities&#8221;) &#8220;Grand Slam was Pakistan&#8217;s failure, Pakistan Army&#8217;s failure! It was not Ayub&#8217;s failure alone, nor Bhutto&#8217;s failure, nor Akhtar Malik&#8217;s failure!&#8221;


 * The encyclopedia Brittanica (Brittanica Online) does a decent job of analyzing the 1965 war (http://search.eb.com/eb/article?tocId=47067&query=india%201965%20war) without having to resort to conjuncture, hearsay and opinions of other sources, however neutral they may be.


 * The United States Library of Congress has very detailed account of India and Pakistan and a succinct account of the 1965 war. Again, the document contains factual information on the war and does not opine, as Idleboy suggests we do with this article in Wikipedia.


 * I believe that the armies of both nations have promulgated fairly inflated versions of their relative success during the war. I suggest reading Chapter 10 of the &#8220;Official&#8221; Indian analysis of the 1965 war as published by Bharat Rakshak (a very dispassionate account) for in-depth take on the armies&#8217; claims and why it is hard and equally important to separate fact from fiction. When I initially wrote this article about a year ago, my sources for the contrasting claims of the two armies were the official Indian analysis of the war (Chap 10) (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter10.html), the previously mentioned &#8220;Grand Slam &#8211; A Battle of Lost Opportunities&#8221; and the GlobalSecurity.com article Idleboy speaks of.


 * I also did not mean to delete Idleboy&#8217;s segment on GlobalSecurity.com&#8217;s take on the losses. I did a reverse on the edits, which probably wiped out Idleboy&#8217;s numerical excerpts from GlobalSecurity. I have no qualms with that particular segment.

AreJay 16:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think AreGay has tried to defend his blundering edits by resorting to the same story. Please see the previous comment where i started with the statement that the use of the first para was POV. That was a hint saying that I had no problem with someone editing that particular sentence as fit (currently I don't have any issues with the article) and now that it stands corrected, I don't think it would be of any use to debate on this.


 * However fyi bharat rakshak tends to skew its story towards India. and never said wikipedia should give its opinion. just that when possible if anyone can accomodate a neutral's insight on something it goes a long way from making it a dull read. Also the statement "POV's are facts when the general populace believes" was meant to draw attention to this particular fact that Ayub Khan was resented. Ayub Khan being the reason was a POV shared by many in pakistan, as a result the fact was that he was hated. Bhutto might have been hated by a section, but because he could use his political manipulation he eventually used it to his advantage. Thus in a limited context I meant POV=fact.


 * Basically I wouldn't have reverted but for an erroneou blanket revert by AreGay that erased the figures quoted by a neutral organization. I think this chapter is closed. sorry if i've been a bid crude and rude.--Idleguy 17:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't think my edits were "blundering" as Idleboy puts it. I am trying acceuntate a point, which aparently finally got through. If Idlegay agreed that his first paragraph was POV ("Please see the previous comment where i started with the statement that the use of the first para was POV"), why was there a "blanket revert" of the article to include this POV paragraph? Is this not an equally "blundering" edit?


 * I am not trying, nor was I ever, to defend my edit. A sizable portion of Idleguy's reply to my post on Talk was dedicated to discussing how Ayub Khan was disliked by the people, which is obviously a reference to the "Hindu India" paragraph that he was trying to defend (albiet the contradictory claim now that he had no problem with someone editing it). I therefore felt it right to address that issue.


 * Please note as well, that nowhere did I say that my references were from a Bharat Rakshak story. All I said was it wAs published by Bharat Rakshak. The actual document is entitled "History of the Indo-Pak War, 1965" by B.C. Chakrovorty for The History Division, Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, 1992.


 * But I agree that we have beaten this issue to death here. I am happy with the way the article is presented now. Just as a side, I will be adding additional information to this article which will include an Order of Battle and Indian and Pakistani war inventory, in subsequent posts. Thanks. AreJay 18:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
This is in reference to the very factually incorrect edits of 129.100.224.148 that reeked of military bravado than presenting facutally correct informtion. AreJay, Idleguy and Variable have reverted these edits, but the vandalism is persistant.

Excerpts of the vandalism include:


 * Pakistan had superiorly captured 2888 km of Indian territory, leaving it to claim it as a &#8220;Complete Victory&#8221; against India.


 * The Pakistani 1st Armored Division were in a threatening position to push towards New Delhi itself by the end of September 10.

This is not to mention the blatantly copyright infringing use of the image image 65war_paatkhemkaran.jpg, and the further POV alternate text "Khem Karan, the Indian market town, was the place from where Indians were to launch their thrust on Kasur and then on to Lahore. The milestone in the picture with Pakistani soldiers in the background in an eloquent footnote to India's defeated ambitions".

I urge 129.100.224.148 to cease and desist from making factually incorrect, POV edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and users rely on it for unbiased information.

In the event that 129.100.224.148 continues unabated to indulge in vandalism, the user will be reported to the vandalism in progress wiki facility and blocked from making edits on this site.

AreJay 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What User:129.100.224.148 is doing is not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and should be resolved through the content dispute mechanism.  I have reported User:129.100.224.148 for a three revert rule violation, which may or may not result in a block (it would certainly have had any of you warned him of the consequences of a 3RR violation on his/her user talk page, but that is water under the bridge).  Please be very cautious with the term "vandalism" as that term does not, at Wikipedia, include attempts to push a non-neutral point of view or even attempts to push disputed facts into articles; its definition is much narrower than that. Kelly Martin 04:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * What User:129.100.224.148 is doing, at least here, at Military of Pakistan, and Kargil War is reverting to old versions of the articles that have already labelled as POV and discarded from some time ago, and not always the same one, in addition to a few strongly POV minor insertions and deletions. This user is not inserting any substantive new content, just pulling out the old; to me this seems much more like vandalism than simple POV-pushing. siafu 04:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hear! Hear! Let's also not forget the use of the image image 65war_paatkhemkaran.jpg, which is in total violation of wikipedia's image use policies (the image even has the watermark of its probable copyright holder -- PakDef.info!!). All this taken together seems more like the work of a vandal than the work of someone just trying to push a POV agenda.
 * AreJay 05:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Once is happenstance, twice is conincidence, thrice is enemy action. This fellow now is spreading like a virus specifically across all the Indo-Pak conflicts and posting or reverting to POV versions. The edits he is making range from subtle modifications that changes the entire nature of history all the way to drastic propaganda. I think this is a case of jingoistic vandalism. He should be blocked. btw, he is also under various IP addresses and Napoleon12 is his sockpuppet username. look at their edits and they match to the last detail.--Idleguy 05:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

If anybody here cares to read up American sources, the Indians clearly were poised to win in the long run; though it remains subject to what 'win' would mean. In my context it would be simple tuckering of Pakistan's supplies and resources--221.135.224.58 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)ScytheofLuna

Protection
What is going on here? First of all, Arejay, you can't protect the page. Even if you were able, you are involved in an edit war over it. The other guy, you're just reverting it pointlessly. Bring your problems to talk and do things the right way. Grace Note 23:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * See the section above, re: the "right way". siafu 23:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace Note, I just realised I cannot protect the page. FYI I am not the only one involved in an edit war over it. I have, if you would be so kind enough to read the upper portion of the talk page, tried to get the guy to come and discuss his ceaseless edits on the talk page. He will have none of it. I am not, as you claim, reverting it pointlessly. If you notice, his POV edits are not acceptable to every other contributor to this article. If you have anything positive to contribute to remediate this situation, please do. If all you have is criticism, take it somewhere else. AreJay 23:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your rudeness. I am offering something positive. We call it a third voice on Wikipedia. I'm a neutral -- I don't have a point of view in this issue and I'm much better placed than you -- a partisan -- to judge what is neutrally presented. I have not suggested you are reverting pointlessly -- I quite clearly said the other fellow was. I'm not impressed by your having gather a gang either. You have not substantiated your POV any more than the other guy and I call on you below to do so. Try to remember to be civil, AreJay. Yelling that other people are vandals that need to be blocked doesn't actually solve anything. Block the guy and he just comes back under another name. Find a solution that makes everyone happy and that's a much better way. Grace Note 23:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from labelling myself or others as part of a "gang"; my involvement in this dispute has nothing to do with AreJay beyond that fact that we apparently agree that the recent anon edits are vandalism rather than the work of a POV warrior. This user (in his/her many incarnations) is not only inserting POV information, but also linking blatant copyvio images.  It's not possible to contact an anon user with a dynamic IP on a user talk page, unfortunately, which greatly hinders any attempt at communication.  As far as I can tell, this user is either not using any wikipedia features that would allow him/her to see edit summaries, or just blatantly ignoring them.  I would certainly prefer a "peaceful" solution over a forceful one, but this appears to me to be less of a genuine content dispute than a POV-charged wikipedia novice unfamiliar with procedure, forcing me to label it as vandalism until this user steps forward and speaks. siafu 00:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * : I am not usually rude, but I felt I had to construct an appropriate response to your curt post to me. I don't want to get into a "he said she said" with you, but you did accuse me of "pointlessly" reverting the page ("The other guy, you're just reverting it pointlessly"). And now you claim that you have "looked at this article", which means that you spent a good portion of your first talk posting, talking about a situation that you didn't know much about. I am not being rude, or being spiteful. All I am saying is please wait to judge only after all the facts are in.


 * You say that I have not "substaintiated" my POV? What POV? Please scroll down to the bottom of the article. You will find references to every article I have referenced while I rewrote this article a year ago. My point of view on this issue is irrelevant. I am a proud realist and believe in everything wikipedia stands for. I have toiled to find sources that are unbiased (which are far and few between to being with) to write this article, and I do not appreciate you saying that I have not substaintiated my edits or you calling them "POV".


 * And what is all this talk of not being impressed by my "gang" as you put it? I am not trying to impress anyone, Grace. I don't think the people that have worked tirelessly on this page to create the best possible unbiased article they could, would much appreciate you labelling them as part of my "gang". Again, I would appreciate it if you checked your facts, before coming down on me the way you just did.


 * In any case, all this is a moot point. User Napoleon12, WILL NOT COME to the talk page. He does not want to talk about it. Variable, Idleguy and I have tried but to no avail. He has reverted the article 15 times in less than 24 hours, desite being told not to by and members of the wikipedia administrators.

AreJay 00:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Areas of dispute
Right, guys, I've looked at this article. There seem to be several points of dispute. One side is presenting a pro-Indian POV, the other a pro-Pakistani POV. The article is not particularly neutral either way. Now, the question that a neutral observer (me, in this case) asks is, Are the figures etc disputed by India and Pakistan or only by AreJay's camp and Napoleon12's camp? Can AreJay and Napoleon12 present sources for the amounts of territory they say were seized and for the progress of the war? AreJay, you give one source. Global Security is not actually a scholarly work on the war, so far as I know.

It would be perfectly acceptable to present Indian and Pakistani sources. There's nothing preventing biased sources from being used, so long as they are clearly marked as sources that are making claims and not presenting facts.

What I suggest is that Napoleon12, who seems to be the disputant of the consensus view, presents a list here on talk of the changes he wishes to make, with each one backed up by a source. He has been cautioned already against using emotional language. Wikipedia is neutral. It doesn't make judgements of one side or the other's military prowess or martial fervour. AreJay, I ask you too to support all facts and figures in this article with sources. The outcome of your not doing so is likely to be that the article will be rewritten with all disputed areas removed. It's an important thing on Wikipedia to give sources for factual claims, because this allows others to verify the facts you are presenting. They need not be online. Grace Note 23:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace, again, I am not presenting a "pro-Indian" POV. I don't know why you would make such an assumption. Please point out specific material from the article that appear to you to be pro-Indian. Since you are a nutral to this debate, any input from you will help improve the quality of the article, which is my main intention. Contrary to what you believe, I am not emotionally attached to either India, Pakistan or the 1965 war and don't have a POV stance on this issue.

As far as facts and figures, please refer to the last three external links in the article. The last article is entitled "Official history of the 1965 war", published by a Pakistani newspaper. The second to last link is an "Official War History" as detailed by the History Division of the Ministry of Defence, India. Ever single figure that I have added to this article has been referenced, either in the article itself, or on this page, during my debates with other wikipedia members.

Please understand that this is not a pro-Indian POV vs. pro Pakistan POV issue. The user in question has been deleting and adding POV information to every single Indo-Pakistani war page on wikipedia, since yesterday and is not willing to listen to reason or engage in discourse with other wikipedians. That is the real issue. I hope this makes things a little clearer.

AreJay 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "neutrals" who don't have the knowledge
Firstly I'm not one of the "gang" nor is AreJay or anyone here as Grace seems to put it. Secondly the "neutral" view itself is not really well educated nor do they properly read the threads or history of the pages concerned. The neutral sources and some biased views are already given in the said articles. Yet Grace is asking that this user and his sockpuppets come to the talk page and show his sources. I wonder why a vandal would frequent a talk page? I don't see him coming and if anyone believes he is going to discuss this openly is naive. Secondly the problem isn't only to this article but ALL articles related to the India pakistan wars. Incase these neutrals don't have time to read or understand here's the lowdown:


 * 1) Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 keeps deleting the info on the bengali atrocities
 * 2) Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 just read it dammit.
 * 3) Kargil War more vandalism
 * 4) Pakistan Navy copyvio images and copyvio text from biased sources
 * 5) Pakistan Air Force blatant copyvio images and jingoistic text
 * 6) Battle of Hilli minor changes to suit his POV.

Incase it has not been noticed he has a pattern of simply reverting to his previous version without engaging in discussion like we are doing here. So the fact is while we talk about this and try to resolve he jolly well seems to care less for Wikipedia or its neutral stance and simply reverts to his POV. In those articles too, users like myself and other different users have reverted it to the non-chauvinistic versions time & again. User:Ragib is asking for this vandal to come to the talk page and discuss the 1971 war which the miscreant refuses to do. Yet nothing is being done about it or his blatant cut and copy of text from the net. If anyone still has any lingering doubts then search by selecting the sentences used to describe his photos on google and u will get an exact match down to the last punctuation error.

To avoid such future disputes I suggest that people should have a user account incase they want to break the 3 revert rule. that way it would be easier to block the user. Even now one of his sockpuppets Napoleon12 can be blocked.--Idleguy 02:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I happily agree with Grace Note and I shall back my sources up with fact. I am currently happy with the unbiased point of view of this article. I might have to do more research in the Self-Defence wars of Pakistan, and it may take me a few days.


 * Are you the sockpuppet vandal who keeps reverting back to ur own biased statements which themselves are lifted directly from www.pakdef.info without even changing the copyrights tag? lol. don't u worry cuz u are quite close to getting banned. you should be ashamed if you are cuz u r involved in POV, copyright violation of images and entire articles shamelessly. --Idleguy 10:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon12
Don't you worry I will get the copyright approval. Plus, I am trying to show the TRUTH will is the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.


 * Well, everywhere I see you have been reverting to blatant POVs in articles relating to Pakistan. Either you are too ashamed that Pakistan lost most of their wars or u have waaaay too much time on ur hands. We, here at Wikipedia strive to bring about a balanced approach and a neutral point of view. You seem incapable of framing a single original sentence of your own and need to ask permission to copy an article from another source that's blatantly Pakistan in nature. Just because you do get permission for a biased article doesn't mean you can represent minority views here. Would you then be comfortable if the whole article was written by a partisan Indian ex-commander who mentions that pakistan for all practical reasons lost the war since they failed to capture kashmir? I have seen other Pakistan contributors with whom i might have a slight tift on a few points, but it eventually gets resolved peacefully.


 * The question of banning you arises since you have already broken the 3 revert rule and spewing words in anger. We don't do that unfortunately. btw, if we were RAW agents or BJP rest assured that we wouldn't be trying to represent a neutral unbiased view. instead the article would read what you might never have read in your textbooks. so the question also arises, are u from the ISI or mujahedeen? English is a complicated language and if can't grasp the difference between claims and neutral assessments of the war then I suggest you do no read history. For ignorance is bliss.


 * Finally consenses and wikipedia etiquette demands that you r the odd man out in this needless propaganda version reverts that you are seeking to employ. also ur use of sockpuppets isn't really going to fetch you anything but a speedier ban.

--Idleguy 11:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do have time on my hands. LOL. I am a Professional Electrical Engineer sacking of at work at the office. I am proud of the PAKISTAN ARMED FORCES and of being a Pakistani.

I will never let any Indian type up an analysis of the Indo-Pak Wars on Wikipedia, unless it is fully neutral by an independent observer with the proper research (preferring someone of American, Canadian or European Descent).

I will get the copyright approvals for the pictures, so sit tight. -- Napoleon12


 * Napoleon12, since you so ask, I am an "independent observer" of an "American decent" and I was one of the major collaborators that wrote this article. There really is no analysis in your articles, and I am not going to argue about it. Your POVs do not belong in Wikipedia.


 * That's a very harsh thing to say. Wikipedia welcomes all points of view that are held by a significant portion of the world community.  It seems to me that Napoleon12's pro-Pakistani POV is one which must necessarily be represented in these articles so as to fairly represent all reasonable points of view.  I fear that if you believe that Pakistanis have no right to express their POV on Indo-Pakistani relations, you are sadly mistaken.


 * You need to develop a way to accomodate each other's points of view, rather than simply attacking one another. The goal here is compromise and accomodation, not victory. Kelly Martin 16:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly, this is NOT a pro-Pakistan vs. pro-India debate, as I have mentioned before. This is an issue of a person who will not listen to the pleas for discourse of any one contributor to this article. This person is not, or atleast has not until now, been willing to discuss his constant stream of reverts. I have requested him to openly debate his claims here in the forum (see below) and I am hoping that he will take me up on this request. I understand, as do the others on this thread, that wikipedia welcomes all points of view held by a significant portion of the world community. However, I am perplexed as to how this is applicable to our debate here, since clearly any and all information he has presented here flies in the face of facts and figures that have been well documented by the Library of Congress, the Federation of American Scientists, and not to mention books and articles written by Pakistani military personnel who were involved in the war. Please clarify.The references for this article are diverse since it was the intention of the wikipedians who wrote this article to present a complete, but accurate picture of the war.
 * BTW, I am glad that you have returned to this forum. I hope you will mediate this debate and stop it from being the painful edit war that it now is. You had reported this user for a 3RR violation some time back. You had said that there may be a possibility of him being blocked if he continued with his reverts. He has since reverted the article 15 times in less than 24 hours. Could you please clarify if anything is being done about this? AreJay 16:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * First, let me point out that (a) I am not (yet) an admin and (b) admins are not "gods" who will solve all your problems. Don't expect an admin to land on the article and do whatever you want; it won't happen.
 * If you feel that your position is backed by these external sources, then cite them! I strongly urge the use of in-text references in the case of an obviously contentious topic such as this one; a mere list of "works referenced" at the end of the article is insufficient.  Please also note that the Library of Congress is not an expert on military history; they're a library, and while they have many books ON military history and even a few librarians with experience in the field, they are not historians and are not a valid source to cite from.
 * I have no intention of deciding what the "truth" is here. What I suggest everyone involved in this disupte do is provide citations for every claim which is in dispute.  Claims for which no citations can be provided will then be deleted from the article.  If there are citations to support competing claims, then both claims will appear in the article, properly attributed; the article should not decide which claim is correct.
 * As to 3RR violations: nobody has reported any further violations to WP:AN/3RR so that would presumably be why nobody was blocked. If you feel that there is a new 3RR violation, please feel free to report it on WP:AN/3RR.
 * Finally, I remain disturbed by the jingoism and the personal attacks being thrown about by both sides, and would ask that all such irrelevancies cease immediately. Kelly Martin 17:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Please note that while we recognize that the Library of Congress is by no means an authority on military history, other sources that we have used including articles from India, Pakistan and neutral states, memoirs, and experpts from books written by individuals that fought these wars on either side, to military journalists point to a general picture of the war that was very contrary to what was being portrayed by Napoleon12. Please also note that my request to you was to mediate the debate. I understand that you may not be in a position to decide what the "truth" was/is, and therefore was not something that I requested of you. I would wager that no completely true, unbiased work on the 1965 war today, on the internet or otherwise. I think you make a good point wrt the in-line citations. I will be working on them soon.
 * War is, in and of itself, a very complex phenomenon to cover. It is even more complicated, when one considers the fact that neither the Indian nor Pakistani armies have ever published an truly unbiased account of the wars and their respective losses and gains. My aim, and the aim of the others that have worked with me on this issue is to present as accurate an account as possible. This has required a considerable effort in sifting through the many war accounts and numerical claims. The personal attacks, while not condonable, were the results of the frustration bourne out of the constant blanket edits by someone who was not willing, at that point, to discuss his edits or cite unbiased sources. Finally, I appreciate your help in helping us improve the quality of the article. Thanks. AreJay 18:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way, maybe you will get copyright approvals or maybe you won't. The point is, as of now you don't have any approvals. Delete these images.


 * AreJay 13:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Napoleon12, you being an electrician with poor english abilities does reflect on the "cut and paste" articles from www.pakdef.info you try to pass off as your own contribution. Why not admit that you can't even pronounce a single word in english properly without making errors that you have to copy a biased article written by Pakistan sources.


 * Here's my opinion of you. A vexed Pakistani who found out that they lost Kashmir to India and lost half their country in 1971 in just under a fortnight. So you decide to vent your feelings by telling your own version of history. Why else would you remove the "atrocities" paragraph in 1971 war committed by the pakistan army? you wouldn't even know that your own country produced a commission report that exposed your armed forces in poor light, and you can't even name that report.


 * Like i said before get permission for copyvio images and don't behave like a child. and don't copy text you can only fathom half of. I don't know why the wikipedia mechanism is taking so long to bank miscreants like you who want to push propaganda versions. Many of those who reverted your edits were "neutrals" and "american" in origin, whatever that means. Have you wondered that your edits are the only one that is irking many here?


 * And since you are using some obscene language I suggest you read up on the references which are equally balanced in american, pakistan and indian viewpoints. that is the way the world functions. if u want only pakistan viewpoints go to a forum and express your hate. This is an encyclopedia not a hate site. the article says in the very first paragraph that details are "sketchy and riddled with media biases." IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT then you aren't even fit to reply. --Idleguy 14:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy, you being an unemployed English teacher who works as a porter in a Calcutta rail yard has nothing to do with my professional degree, LOL. You are just making me feel good about myself and how Indians have a inferiority complex! No matter how much you curse me, I will still get a pay check of $90K which is different from what you earn in Indian rupees with every time you lift a bag.

AreJay, I am still not convinced by your efforts in making this article a neutral. Too much BS with no BACK UP SOURCES. Anybody at Wikipedia type up an article and claim it as a neutral.

"* American sources claim India held 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 miles² (545 km²) of Indian territory."

Where in the world did you did you get this BS. What American Sources? Can you point out a link that is NON-INDIAN?? Did you call up the late President Johnson from the past and asked him? Who is the American Commander that you have quoted? Can you pull out a book where it says Pakistan lost 710 mile territory? LOL. BACK YOUR CLAIM UP. SIMPLE

This so FUNNY that the PAF shot only 30 Indian planes. WHAT BS! We had a complete 3:1 kill ratio! I will BACK my claim up with an UNBIASED WEBSITE. []

I will continue the editing on this article until this article is completely UNBIASED. You don't own this site, so I can edit it anytime I want. -- Napoleon12


 * Napoleon12,


 * Back up my claim? Not a problem. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm. This is an article written by GlobalSecurity.com and by the Federation of American Scientists. I have also used factual information from "A Country Study: India" undertaken by The Federal Reseach Division, Library of Congress of the United States. What more do you want? More information? But of course! Refer to Official History of the 1965 War which was published by a Pakistani newspaper. Or how about Operation Grand Slam: A Battle of lost Opportunities by Maj (retd) Agha Humayun Amin, a Pakistani.


 * What is all this drivel about telephoning President Johnson? How did you get all the codswallop you are posting all over wikipedia? Did you call up the late F.M. Ayub Khan??


 * If you really are serious, I challenge you to do the following. Since you are the disputant to the article, I want you to show cause for any and all insertions you make on this article. You will need to show documention of any and all claims, facts and figures, and demonstrate that these sources are neutral and unbiased. If you really are interested in presenting the "truth", you will further defend your facts, information and figures to any one of us that disputes them. Please remember that no one here had a problem with the way the article was before your never ending reverts. The onus is upon you now to prove the neutrality of your edits. I am typing this response out of good faith, with the hope that you will take me up on my suggestion. If you don't want to, fair enough. We can all just get back to our little edit war.


 * AreJay 15:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, judging by your childish comments like "i've got a bigger pinky than you" etc. I can understand that your behaviour on wikipedia has not been a surprise. Who cares if you make 90K or if u have a professional degree? I don't, since I have a masters professional degree in management & IT, and not just one of the hordes of people in India who are "engineers" since I have my own consultancy and make as much sitting in India without having to spend in dollars or even work like a pig. Does that make sense? Obviously you have double standards as you want to earn dollars but want to sound "patriotic" and make fun of rupees which is what Pakistan also uses. In the end u r making fun of ur own values if u had one. I know that you will not read the facts that I'll be putting in the following paras instead u will continue to make a buffoon of yourself by resorting to personal attacks.


 * Firstly, I don't argue with facts and even if I do I back my claims with sources that are mostly neutral. The article mentions many sources of which only a minority are from India. You, on the other hand have read that obviously Pakistan site pakdef.info and suddenly "enlightened" yourself with partisan knowledge and decide to write your version of history. Tell me, why couldn't Pakistan capture Kashmir in the 65 war then? Wasn't that the objective of "operation grandslam"? Why not include the famous blockade of Lahore, which would have been entirely seized but for US intervention seeking civilian evacuation? Or that after the war, there was public resentment in Pakistan against the "dictator" which is a word that you seem to hate as I've seen you change in another related article. The other encyclopedias like encyclopedia britannica says : "The war over Kashmir in 1965 had more far-reaching effects on Pakistan than on India." and goes on to add that Ayub was seen as a loser in Pakistan despite early string of wins. Isn't that a neutral statement? Why, obviously you wouldn't accept that too.


 * Secondly, Why for instance do you want to hide history on the 1971 war that everyone knows including the commission report whose name u don't even know about? that pakistan army indulged in excess of torture, killing and brutal oppression of many bengalis. or that ur country was dismembered into half in under a fortnight. or that the largest surrender post world war 2 until the gulf war took place in 1971? Is it very shameful for you to face the facts and/or defeat?


 * Thirdly, you have not quoted a single statement from a valid neutral site or book. The references section (if u can read them i.e.) has as AreJay pointed out many sources. For your reading I suggest Tariq Ali's book (a pakistan author) who quotes that Ayub Khan was "pissing in his pants" until the US brokered a ceasefire. That is one of your own people whose views was banned since he spoke the naked truth. No, instead in pakistan the dictators ensure that is there is little, if any freedom of speech.


 * Finally, you still can't frame a single sentence that is from your brain or any neutral sources and u obviously have to rely on spoon fed biased resources. And still not one of your images has copyrights. we don't need u to do the cut-copy-paste. we all know the site address and we can jolly well visit that site for a completely pakistan view. so the question is what is ur contribution to this article save that and endless debates of ur propaganda version of history? Being an extreme right wing Pakistani serves no purpose nor does an extrem right wing Indian historical perspective. For instance while in Pakistan Jinnah might be seen as a secular person, he is viewed by many Indians with hatred for the partition. Both views are only partly right. The truth is Jinnah WAS secular but his ideology was for Pakistan a different. He also WAS partly responsible for partition, but so was the fact that constant hindu-muslim clashes that bought the inevitable. In the end it doesn't matter as it was only a matter of time that Pakistan came into being and he just did the right thing no matter what Indians might have to say of him.


 * To summarise, read the references in the articles and other encyclopedias on the war. Not all of them is propaganda and not everything is from Indian sources. It appears you have been brainwashed by pakistan sources so it would be hard to digest the facts. If you can, backup and do research with "unbiased sources" then I'll gladly accept it for I'm also an (MA) in History and I am all for the neutral truth. However as you'll know this war was quite tough to compile neutrally. The current article is the closest I believe it might come to be one.--Idleguy 06:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Placeholder for losses on the war
Since the accurate number of men and machines lost in this war is hard to obtain I'm putting up this section which shows the various other sources both neutral and partisan (except blatantly biased ones) as a placeholder. I'm doing this to get an idea of the casualties and hopefully get the closest approximate figure. Please feel free to add the losses quoting the source here.

1. Book: India Pakistan in War and Peace by J. N. Dixit (Former National Security Adviser, India)

12,500 Indian casualties; 2,700 killed, 1,500 either prisoners of war or were missing, 8,400 wounded India lost 175 and 90 tanks was out of commission temporarily. India lost 59 aircraft..

14,000 Pak casualties; 3,000 dead, 2,000 taken prisoner or missing, and roughly 9,000 were wounded. Pakistan lost 200 tanks with another 150 tanks put out of action or captured. 32% of armour lost. Pakistan lost 43 aircraft

2. Website: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com

168 tank losses for India.

300 tanks for Pakistan.

Other info not available on this site or already represented in the article as official losses.

3. ....

--Idleguy 17:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Stalemate ?
There is an interesting extract from an article by Major Humayun Amin, one of the major authorities on the subject :

''The Indians continued attacking until the ceasefire was announced - by September 19th Pakistan had started to run of ammunition, aircraft spares, and reserve equipment. The Chief of the Army General Staff and the Chief of Air Staff met with the President of Pakistan that day to request a ceasefire be negotiated. Twenty-three days into the war, Pakistan was done for - hardly surprising, as the Americans had kept Pakistan on a short leash, giving just 14-21 days of supplies. Enough time for the Americans to arrive should a communist power attack Pakistan insufficient to do India any serious harm. Meanwhile, India was just getting into its stride, learning from its mistakes, pulling fresh mountain troops from the east into the western theatre. Logically, India should have continued the war, but was talked into a ceasefire by Russia and America, both of whom wanted the status quo preserved. '' Tintin


 * Almost all military analysis on the war focussed on this very fact that had the war continued it would have been the end of pakistan. I think it's time to put references from a Pakistani military guy into the main article. Idleguy 03:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

By all means they were not winning the war either.

Operation Dwarka
I do not understand why one of the most important events of 1965 War, Operation Dwarka were left out, therefore it has been added.

Not So neutral
Bharat-Rakshak is *not* a Neutral site, its an *Indian* site. Therefore taking numbers from it will only lead to edit war. So lets stay neutral and not present only one side's point of view.


 * Can you define a neutral site? --User:Deepak gupta 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A site that is not Indian nor Pakistani.

Another way to deal with the problem is putting Indian claims from Indian side and Pakistani claims from Pakistani side.


 * Huh? That's how it's been presented right now. pl. READ properly. Idleguy 10:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

- Edit...Trying to imply that Rann of Kutch is *only* in India...which is wrong. - ARticle by Bharat Busan is not neutral, speaks of indian-point of view, which again you failed to mention or imply. - Do you have neutral and unbiased sources to back your claim that Pakistan started the war in Rann of Kutch?


 * Pl. don't start needless doubts for the sake of questioning an article. The references are mentioned in the article itself and Mohammad Musa is NOT an Indian Chief of Army Staff. Nor is Dawn newspaper and half the references listed herein. is one of the several sites that doesn't mince words in stating that Pakistan started the war.  is another

--I'm refering to Rann of Kutch events. You are using one of the links from the site, while at the same time you fail to accept one which differs from your point-of-view from the SAME site.


 * Well, I`ve corrected the POV including also removing your Pakistani biased line. No one knows who attacked whom first, and now the para reflects it accordingly. the site u quote also does not state anything new. The war didnt start in rann as u mistakenly assume, but in kashmir, if u read closely the rann incidents have been mentioned as pre-war. The main war is accepted by almost all (including Pakistan) to have been instigated by Pakistan and sources have been provided in the article and elsewhere. Tx Idleguy 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The book Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan

edited by UK Heo, Shale A Horowitz states in page pg 162 (ISBN: 027597779X) "It has been widely accepted that conflict within the Rann of Kutch offered Pakistan a cheap opportunity to test India's resolve. India responded militarily in order to protect its reputation and credibility with its Pakistani adversary."


 * I hope that settles this issue of neutrality. These were all written by neutral authors. --Idleguy 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Punjab: disambigious
It's not clear whether the references to Punjab are for Punjab, India or Punjab (Pakistan), so it would be nice if someone knowledgeable would disambiguate the links. TimBentley 03:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. But left out one intentionally since it took place in the border of indian and pakistani punjab. Idleguy 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Jayanthv86
Leave copyright issues apart,this has become a page for BIGOTSUNLIMITED.COM.well everybody asserting that each's own country did better and won the war.and there are lot of crybabies,especially napolean and ragib.none of them discuss matters in a scholarly way especially the paki users. any word about 1971 or 1965 war,they will post messages of saying RSS,BJP, HINDU,RAW and what not. try to be more reasonable and counter every allegation point by point.your blatant refusal to argue and just curse and run away shows your weak minded and not professional to engage in an arguement.--Jayanthv86 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:CIVIL, and please refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks. --Ragib 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ragib,i havent made personal attack on you.i have just written what i have observed.in fact,i have only responded to personal attacks by you.i didnt mean any offense.and my comment says dont indulge in personal attacks like naming RAW,BJP and stuff.--Jayanthv86 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)