Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 5

Flight International source
User by Hassanhn5 (talk) is POV pushing and calling it as REVERTING VANDALISM ? The Admins are requested to check [| His Edits]. --dBigXray (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hassanhn5 (talk) in my opinion your edits are not constructive in the first place.So i would request please allow the admins to decide if your edits  are constructive or Vandalism. Please note that the citations must be verifiable and your references are not . So they are very likely to be removed by the future edits of this article by admins. --dBigXray (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The addition is well linked and cited with international neutral sources. However you removed an entire (well cited) paragraph without any reason under the cover of "added internal wiki link for Bangladesh Liberation war". 

This is clearly disruptive editing. Refrain from damaging the article like this or you might get blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Far as your citation is concerned it is not verifiable . please support it with other verifiable and Valid references . Moreover you SERMON me of not commenting on your talk page about the ARTICLE RELATED comments and you yourself Indulge in doing that. eh .. ? and as far as my blocking is concerned ,please leave leave that for the admins as you dont have either the power or right or responsiblity to do that. In fact i would suggest you to check your own edits . regards--dBigXray (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link. I have verified the references. The first one is a named reference in the article (ref#28) and follow the second link to find the book. I own this book and have verified the content. You can check it from the link. Do not make such sections without first verifying the references yourself.

"Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International, issue published 5 May 1984 (page 1208). Can be viewed at FlightGlobal.com archives Retrieved: 22 October 200



I definitely don't want you editing my talk about about article related content. But here, you have started a discussion yourself, to which you are replying. Your replies here will attract more replies. Otherwise, I'm not interested in commenting here. I hope this would be my last edit of your talk page. You've already started on the bad foot with me. I have nothing against you, but don't provoke me for a flame war on every article I edit, follow WP:Civility. Go for a neutral POV. Discuss on the article talk pages instead of making complaining sections. They will do no good to the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for air losses
Under "Indian Claims" for Air Losses, the article should read: 75/59 IAF aircraft lost, 43 PAF aircraft lost.

The aircraft losses section cites sources, but then LIES about what those sources actually state. For example, under Indian Claims please go to the Bharat-Rashak link and look at it: it says 75 IAF losses (out of which 13 were accidents). Similarly the "Official Indian History" link puts IAF COMBAT losses at 59 aircraft (page 28 of the PDF). Since changing it will cause a useless edit war, I would like to form a consensus here first. Please click on the sources already cited and see what they say. Any objections? P.S.: The two sources do not contradict each other -- The 75 figure includes 13 accidents, and 3 civilian aircraft -- making it 59 military aircraft lost in combat. Kas1234567 (talk)
 * The losses in war include civilian aircraft. Also, the accidents during war are technically loss of that aircraft which can be explained in body but should be added to the infobox. I think by that the article should read 75. Or at least include the loss of civilian aircraft that were shot down. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 270 of Official Indian History (page 27-28 of the PDF link): "Total IAF aircraft losses in action during 1-22 Sep 1965 amounted to 59 which included 24 shot down in air combat or by ground fire, and no less than 35 written of during enemy attacks on airfields". So these are AIR FORCE (not civilian) losses. Plus the two sources claim there were 13 lost in accidents, and 3 civilian craft (making a total of 79). The article currently says indian claims are 35. :) Kas1234567 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC).
 * The infobox says 59. Should you correct, mention that you reviewed the citation in the edit summary. (WP:BRD is usually the good way to go). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope but the losses section (section 3) in the article mentions 35 and 30 IAF losses but cites the sources mentioned above which suggest 75/59. Being bold in an article like this will lead to a useless edit war. Which is why I'd prefer consensus. If there are no objections in a day or so, I can change it. Kas1234567 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Alright. Let's see if it doesn't happen other wise. Make sure you make it consistent all over the article. And in this article as well Indo-Pakistani Airwar of 1965. It would be self contradicting if one wiki tells a different story from another. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

About the reversion of details of the Gnat landing.
This is with regard to a revert by User:TopGun. The earlier text in the article stated :
 * Yet, an IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the PAF. Two Lockheed F-104 Starfighters, that closed in at supersonic speed, forced the Gnat down.

Based on the accounts of a dogfight in one Indian and Pakistani source below, copied cut & paste from the cited sources, I had made the following edit which is as follows:
 * In an unusual incident, an IAF Gnat after a dogfight with F-104s, turned back from the Indian border, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the Pakistan Army.

This has been reverted by User:TopGun. I invite User:TopGun to discuss where my edit was incorrect except that perhaps the F-104 was unable to actually dogfight in this encounter.

AshLin (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As my reverting edit summary stated, there was no dogfight with 104s. I've read the references for that and you are free to confirm. One of the 104s just crossed the arena a few times and didn't even engage. So that statement is not correct (though you now may be acknowledge that?).


 * Now about landing. The Indian pilot did not stay up and engage the incoming 104s, and chose to land instead after making the mistake of going the wrong way (back towards Pakistan). Whether or not he had problems with his aircraft (which too are debatable) he did land because of the incoming fighters as the second reference shows. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your construing of the landing because of F-104 is original research. In the Indian source, the reason was equipment failure because of which he got lost. In the Pakistani account, the Gnat was seen to show bizarre behaviour by turning back from the IB and landing at a deserted strip for which no reason was given. I am reverting the concerned part of the edit only. If you still feel that it is POV, let me know and we can proceed to take the opinion to WikiProject Military History where some pilots can give us a neutral interpretation. BTW he was captured by Pak Army not PAF. AshLin (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I missed that; the army captured him on the ground indeed. The phrase is not original research, rather based on the citation. Even if we take it that the approaching 104s were not the reason of landing as per the pilot's claim, there are still some issues with your recent edit. 1) The phrase does not tell, by missing the detail, that the 104s caused the Gnats to egress and rather implies to a unaware reader that they were engaged in a dogfight too. 2) The equipment failure should use the word "claimed" rather than "reported" as it was only the pilot's claim. You are an experienced editor, you know better than reverting the reigning version while the discussion is on going. There's no rush. For now, I'm correcting the stated issues. As for forcing down the plane, 104s were one of the factors even if we take the claim to be correct. This is per pilot's own claim:


 * "If there was any hope of making it back, the Starfighters snuffed it."


 * I'll try to make a neutral as possible addition of that along with correcting the issues stated above. If there are objections we can discuss here or further take it to an appropriate noticeboard (Though I'm a bit busy on some other articles and will help from my side to quickly finish this here in a neutral way). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the edit 3RR warning. A friendly gesture on your part. Where do we go with this? My view is that the Starfighter was irrelevant to his landing. He turned back just when he was about to be safe, came back and landed at Pasur - the reason his instruments failed and he was lost, he mistook Pasur for an Indian strip. Even Tufail Kaiser does not mention anything about any PAF pilot being even vaguely responsible. I think in this case, there is insufficient evidence that the Starfighter forced him down. The pilot's claim is not from an Indian source and as such is an if-then i.e. even if he could have tried he would not have succeeded, which is very different from the assertion that "Starfighters forced me down". My suggestion - keep it conservative, keep the starfighters out. It would be obvious to anyone that you would be over-reaching in this case ie stretching the facts a little farther than they can go, a tendency which all of us should guard against. Your call on this. AshLin (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think editwarring and adding POV content like "he was under the impression that this was an abandoned airfield in Indian territory" is helping your case here. Nor was it a friendly gesture on your part to edit war after I offered full cooperation. I've previously seen editors claiming they had not been warned for the editwar, so my warning was fully called for since it is your third revert. You've also changed the sentence's context from the previous evaluation sentence. This is clearly a WP:POV edit. One can only assume so much good faith. The last version was strictly as per the source and as per the pilot's own claim, Indian source or not - it was his unrefuted claim and his POW interrogation report (which you have provided below). It is an extra ordinary claim that you make. He was into a dogfight well into Pakistani airspace, and minutes later he assumed he was at an Indian airfield? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion in all good faith, I think you are over-stretching. The pilot was not actually forced down by F104s as per both accounts of the dogfight, both Indian and Pakistani. The pilot's apprehension that even if he tried he thought he could not get away is not relevant to what happened. His instruments failed, he saw a disused airfield, thought he was across the border and landed. And at dogfight speeds at such close proximities to the border, yes, it is quite easy to make this kind of mistake. Such a drift from the first encounter site has been recorded in WWII Battle of Britain dogfights with much slower aircraft. But that is besides the point. The F-104s did not force him down. Perhaps we need to take this to a dispute resolution to get external advice on this issue. AshLin (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My (last) edit was not claiming that 104s forced him down. The edit was strictly sticking to the source and letting the reader decide. You, however, have given a POV statement that he had assumed it to be an Indian airfield. You also need to have a better understanding of dogfight since they don't take place at high speeds but rather low. Your claim is still extraordinary and seems to be later made by the Indian sources after the war. Also, it is important since he has been quoted to have mentioned that. You don't have to decide if-then for yourself. You just put in article what the real world sources tell. Remember we are not debating on the real world facts but on what the citations are saying. You've not addressed the change in the start of the sentence. Whether the Gnat was forced/coerced by the approaching 104s is one point of the debate but there's no dispute here on the fact that all the Gnats egressed due to their arrival which is very much in context with the whole paragraph and the previous revision was just fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued
Okay, in good faith, you have offered to collaborate, let us see where we can agree/disagree. Taking your version as a starting point. "Yet it zoomed into an on going dogfight between Sabres and Gnats, at supersonic speed, successfully breaking off the fight and causing the Gnats to egress. An IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the Pakistan Army. The pilot claimed that most of his equipment failed and even if he could get some chance on that, the star-fighters snuffed it."


 * Issue 1 - The Starfighter proving inadequate in close combat was an opinion developed after this conflict not before. The "Yet it zoomed.." is POV imo. At that point of time, the Starfighter was not an inferior aircraft to the Gnat under any circumstance and was feared for its speed and missiles, your source says "Run, its an F-104." Imo this should be removed. There is no need for downplaying the F-104.
 * Issue 2 - Direct contradiction between two sources.
 * Pak version - The pilot claimed that most of his equipment failed and even if he could get some chance on that, the star-fighters snuffed it.
 * Ind version - Sikand’s Gnat was low on fuel, and over unfamiliar territory, and after some flying Sikand found an airfield and in a foolish decision decided to land there. Sikand was under the impression that this was an abandoned airfield in Indian territory.

How do we resolve this? AshLin (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. To start with, "yet" can be used for past tense in this context regardless of when the opinion was developed. For example, "yet it had". So that won't be a problem. The reason I added this to the context was that 104 is being evaluated here by an opinion and its performance should be written in context to it (regardless of when the opinion was developed). This would only be fair to the aircraft and per WP:WEIGHT. Next, there's no implication here in my version that Starfighter was an inferior aircraft - infact the only thing saying that was the opinion piece of the Air Commodore. About the source, do you want me to remove the source for its title? Or to remove the title, "Run, its an F-104", from the citation? I don't think that any of last two can be done since WP:NPOV applies to Wikipedia and not outside sources, not to mention that it will destroy the bibliography of the source. Correct me if you meant something else.


 * Addressing the second issue, I don't think there's a contradiction. Both sources tell the pilot's version as the same. That is, he told the same thing to Pakistanis when he was a POW and to his comrades when he went home. Just the airfield being Indian is an extraordinary claim in the Indian citation. Also, the Indian version does not contradict the obvious approach of 104s and also has it in the text. Yes, I want the article to be neutral, if you want to add the claim about Indian airfield, that can be added too (maybe?). But the way for that would be proper attribution as we can not say that for a fact. It could be added in like, "Later in (year) it was claimed by so n so that Sikand thought it was an Indian airfield and decided to land there." I am still (not strongly) opposing this suggestion of my own as well for now - giving it just to ease things up, ie. there are possibilities and work-arounds. If you think this is fair enough, I am willing to discuss.


 * There are some issues with the Indian source. It wrongly attributes a claim to the Pakistani pilot who in even in the Pakistani source is quoted to be surprised at the landing and he reached late since he was scrambled during the fight. Mirza was the one who actually entered the fight. Further more, it doesn't mention that the 'first' shoot down of Gnat was actually not credited as the plane was flown back, crash landed with no further damage and images released. Infact even the Indian source does not confirm that the kill was made rather only states that the aircraft's wing appeared to have disintegrated and it went into an uncomfortable dive and then the source claims a kill. Jung news is a mainstream media source while the Indian site is a military consortium which is expected to have some bias. There are certain inconsistencies in the Indian source in comparison to the news source as well as on its own. On those basis, the extraordinary claims can simply be disregarded. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seasons greetings to one and all. Will continue this discussion in the New Year. AshLin (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

auther what do u say about these journalistic views?
The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. 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, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World) “In September 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed maily of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragon fighter-bombers and English electric Camnberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan air force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air. It was the well proven Sabers that emerged with honors, being credited with all but five of the 36 victories claimed. The Indians claimed 73 victories – undoubtly a considerable overestimate – for an admitted loss of 35.”

(Christopher Sivores, Book: Air Aces) “Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan’s pilots and Indian officers’ leadership has been generally deplorable. 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. “Pakistan’s success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army — professionally among the best in Asia — with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust.”

“By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war.”

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London, September 12, 1965. “India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.”

“If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes.“

“Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources.”

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, September 15, 1965. “One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds.“

“Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power, expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict.”

“Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan’s civil air-line, which, in a country where ‘now’ means sometime and ‘sometime’ means never, is a model of efficiency. he talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble abobut figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says.”

“His estimates, proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like the ration of ten to one.”

“Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. The Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. ‘The average bomber crews flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.‘ “

“This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves and you get the same intense story.”

Peter Preston, The Guardian, London – September 24, 1965. “One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. In contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it’s attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)”

“By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.“

Everett G. Martin, General Editor, Newsweek, September 20, 1965. “India’s barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods.”

“The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses.“

Indonesian Herald, September 11, 1965. Pakistani forces thrusting six miles deep into Indian territory the south-east of Lahore have checked the Indian offensive launched on September 6 against the capital of West Pakistan.

Pakistani infantry supported by armor and guns were today entrenched six miles east of the Indian border, and well beyond Indian town of Khem Karan, the capture of which last week forced Indian tanks and men to make a hasty retreat.

From Khem Karan, an ever-green village now deserted by its 15,000 people, a 40-mile road leads directly to Amritsar, holy capital of India’s restive Sikhs. And a Pakistani offensive along that road could threaten the rear of Indian forces still facing Lahore from East Punjab.

As I visited Khem Karan today with the first party of newsmen shown into India by Pakistani officers, evidence of the Indians’ hasty withdrawal lay everywhere in the flat dust blown fields.

Intact mortars and American made ammunition, much of which was still crated, for 81 and 120 mm mortars, shells for 90 mm tank guns, rifle cartridges in hundred, stacks of fuel in barrel, had been left behind.

India had sent against Lahore one armoured brigade and two infantry divisions. The initial thrust on September 6, carried the Indians two and a half miles deep into Pakistan from Khem Karan and the Pakistanis say they were outnumbered six to one.

The Pakistanis pushed the Indians back at the cost of bitter fighting. One Pakistani armoured unit ran into an Indian armoured regiment, the Ninth Royal Deccan Horse… and no shots were spared.

I saw two Indian Sherman tanks on the road to Khem Karan blown clean through, one in the rear and one in the front, each by a single Pakistani shell with the dead crew still inside.

Indian dead lay unburied in the fields. An Indian border post was riddled with bullets and shells. This is real war, even though Pakistani infantry are now resting at forward posts, with Indians on the defensive and the main action in the air.

Indian British made Canberras, Soviet made Mig-21s and French made Mysteres and Ouragons constantly swoop, strafe and bomb from a safe altitude, for Pakistani anti-aircraft units are very much on the alert. On the the road from Lahore charred trucks lay twisted wrecks, one of them still aflame. It is war run by cool professionals, with every gun and tank well protected by camouflage nets, every trench where it should be, perfect discipline and very high morale.

Almost every Pakistani officers says: “We are not interested in territorial gains, but we are very keen to give the Indians a hard lesson and we won’t stop short of that.”

AFP Corespondent, reporting on September 9, 1965 Man for man, unit for unit, Pakistan’s smaller Army is at a higher standard of training than the Indian Army. The present Indian intention was to scatter Pakistan’s smaller Army by making several other thrusts apart from the main fighting area in the Lahore sector. The intense air activity had prevented the mass movement of Indian troops by air.

BBC commentary By Charles Douglas Home, September 10, 1965 The Pakistan-India conflict, in the Pentagon’s early assessment, pits tighter discipline, a higher morale, better training, and some superior equipment among the Pakistanis against considerably larger Indian Land, Air and Sea Forces.

Washington sources see Pakistan aiming to humiliate Indian in a short conflict. They judge India as depending on its juggernaut to crush the Pakistanis under sheer military weight.

Armoured strength between the two forces is about equal but the Pakistani tanks are more modern.

Christian Science Monitor, September 10, 1965 Pakistan has a somewhat more homogeneous army with less ethnic and religious frictions. Its soldiers have a high reputation for will to fight; and in Mohammad Ayub Khan, the head of state and Sandhurst-trained professional soldier, the army has always had a sympathetic supporter.

The ‘New York Times’, September 10, 1965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.222.50 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, don't paste the whole article here. Just place the link to the article. We all can go there and read. This will be removed. + This is not a forum. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

yeh everything pakistani is removed on wikipedia bt everything indian is well accepted!!!! wikipedia is no encyclopedia but one more dimension of endian propaganda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.11.192 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

US AND UK were "ALL OUT SUPPORTERS OF PAKISTAN BY THEN" it was only 1971 when they knew that they cannot project pakistan against india and as india economy grows these UK AND US started making close relations. Almost all your articles have been given by UK agencies world knows that it was UK design to give kashmir to muslims reason their soldiers were killed by maratha empire and sikh empire when they were trying to colonize Indian subcontinent and that bitter relations continued untill it was clear that India has emerged as a major economy and now very few countries like 5-7 countries can defeat India in a fullblown war.122.161.20.235 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoting an addition of content.
I added content in the 'Aftermath' section, that I had come across a long time ago. Please read and provide feedback whether it should be placed there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickzlapeor (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a separate section just for this letter and even the incident in the war article is undue. See WP:WEIGHT. You might want to see the 65 airwar article which already states this fact inline in due weight. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "But the incident relates to this war, and it shows the differences in thinking of the people from 1965 to now (possibly as an aftermath to incidents happened in that year)." Nickzlapeor (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. Nickzlapeor (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse it relates to this war.. I was the one who added it to the main airwar article. If you want to add it inline here in the airwar section it might be fine.. but that article is for the details of the airwar... here it just has a summary with respect to the war in general. If you want to further detail it in the airwar article, that will be good enough. My revert was a bold revert to your bold edit, sorry if you got offended. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Iran Support
Without any discussion in the talk page, a few months ago someone seems to have added a "Supported by Iran" to the "belligerents" section in the infobox. There seems to be absolutely nothing in the article about military support from Iran. The article makes a one line claim saying that "Pakistan received 'substantial support' from Iran, Indonesia, and China", and cites a Library of Congress article, when the cited article itself claims that the support was only political (i.e.: by most definitions, NOT substantial in a major war). The infobox is supposed to provide a summary of the article, and so I propose removing the Iranaian support reference unless someone can substantially elaborate on what military support pakistan recieved from iran (or any other country). Any objections? Kas1234567 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see a source there on which you don't appear to object and instead on the content not well covered in the article. Feel free to make or suggest the improvements instead of asking to remove what is already done according to a source. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BATTLE OF PHILLORA EXCLUDED
I am surprised that how battle of phillora one of the major tank battles fought in Pakistani Territory in which Indian Army won a decisve victory destroying 66 pakistani tanks at the cost of mere "3 INDIAN TANKS" has found no mention on this page. On the other hand the suspected "CHADWAIDA BATTLE" which has many doubts as no independent source confirms it further pakistani dont posses even 10 destroyed tanks on the other hand INDIAN ARMY PUT ON DISPLAY 100 PAKISTANI TANKS IN KHEM KARAN AND 58 PAKISTANI TANKS IN PHILLORA.

I hope that BATTLE OF PHILLORA will be given the space which it deserves as destroying 66 Pakistani tanks in one day is no mean achievement(PAKISTAN HAS BOTH NUMERICAL AND QUALITATIVE SUPERIORTY IN TANKS WHEN THE WAR STARTED STILL IT LOST MORE TANKS) 122.161.183.79 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Size of both Armies and airforces
In july 2011 i had edited the number of troops,tanks, aircrafts,artillry using verifiable sources acceptable to both Indians and pakistanis. but i would request editors that to find out the actual number of Indian troops on the western front as the entire Indian armiy's strength was 7 lakh out of which a large amount of soldiers would been posted on chinese and east pakistani borders.. i hav tried to hunt for sources but sadly none of the great authors (a.h amin,harbaksh singh pradeep baruah) hav mentioned this, i once asked a indian army veteren about the size and according to him indian army had 450,000 only on the western front..i tried to find proper sources but could find none, so i would request others also look into the matter.Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2012
The page does not contain important information on the total number of combat aircraft with India. According to the memoirs of Indian General, India had 625 combat aircrafts in 1965. For details, please follow the link:

"The Indian Air force had an approximate total of 90,000 men and 625 combat aircrafts in 1965". Page 40.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=PZ62tP_5a2AC&pg=PA40&dq=total+number+of+fighter+aircrafts+india+1965&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kJ_hT_a_HcfTsgbktO1x&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=total%20number%20of%20fighter%20aircrafts%20india%201965&f=false

Citation: Kathpalia, P. (1986). Mission with a difference: The exploits of 71st Mountain Brigade. New Dehli: Mehra Offset Press. p.40

Another citation, which confirms these numbers is provided below:

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=PKvmgfHewHcC&pg=PA45&dq=india+combat+aircrafts+india+1965&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZaXhT--sDYyTswbtq5Bx&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=india%20combat%20aircrafts%20india%201965&f=false

"The Indian Air Force, with a strength of about 625 aircrafts and a total of 90,000 men, has been considerably expanded and modernized since 1965." p. 45

Citation: Palit, D. K. (1998). The Lightning Campaign: the Indo-Pakistan War, 1971. New Delhi: Lancer. p. 45

Raindata (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After a few more edits you will be a confirmed user and should be able to change it yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The tank losses extremely biased
The Indian tank losses are exaggerated at atleast 175 tanks this means some Pakistani wants to believe that even more than 200 Indian tanks were destroyed. And the Pakistani tanks losses are put at minimal 200 tanks. The original source is US library which i dont consider as neutral at all considering the fact that US was a supporter of Pakistan. The losses dont reflect the fact that Pakistan lost almost all major battles of "Khem Karan", "Phillora","Burki" and even at Chawinda according to pakistan general himself pakistan lost 34 tanks(india claim 57tanks) on the other hand Pakistan exaggerate its claim to 120 tanks(India accept only 29 tanks) more importantly at Khem Karan and Phillora Indian army put on display some 100 tanks at khem karan and 58 tanks at phillora then how is it that pakistan losses are mere 200 and Indian losses "Atleast 175" a complete lie.

Spencer C Tucker one of the most renowned military historian puts pakistan losses at 300 tanks(Indian claimed 494 tanks) and Indian losses at 150 tanks(Pakistan claimed 290tanks).

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=N481TmqiSiUC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=pakistan+tank+losses+1965&source=bl&ots=O9UCZHbyUs&sig=-oILZn-csKxRzDXKPkNF3-dGEPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rZsOUPWhENHirAfzuIDoBg&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=pakistan%20tank%20losses%201965&f=false

All the Indian editors plz focus on this the neutral losses are represnted by US figures which i think are biased and further Spencer C Tucker is also one of the most renowned historian, even Stanley Wolpart and Jeremy Black made it clear that at the end of war Indian Army has Twice the number of tanks(Pakistan started with more tanks when war started).

All the Indian editors must raise this issue as some pakistani editors think that by peddling lies they will win the 1965 war.

ARIHANT SUB (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/webhp?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=of+Pakistan+casualties+ranged+%22anywhere+between+10000+and+14000.18+Besides%2C+475+Pakistani+tanks+were+estimated+to+have+been+destroyed%2C+disabled+or+captured&oq=of+Pakistan+casualties+ranged+%22anywhere+between+10000+and+14000.18+Besides%2C+475+Pakistani+tanks+were+estimated+to+have+been+destroyed%2C+disabled+or+captured&gs_l=serp.3...45002.45002.4.45261.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.2SJ6e6FM8ks&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=79f5683b01ec3981&biw=1280&bih=586

Pakistan Rawalpindi source confirm that pakistan has 475 tanks destroyed,captured or damaged(300 tanks were destroyed or captured rest 175 were repaired by paksitani army).ARIHANT SUB (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/webhp?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Military+Circles+in+Washington+concluded%2C+on+the+basis+of+post-war+information%2C+that+Pakistan+lost+200+tanks%2C+with+another+150+put+of+action+but+recoverable&oq=%22Military+Circles+in+Washington+concluded%2C+on+the+basis+of+post-war+information%2C+that+Pakistan+lost+200+tanks%2C+with+another+150+put+of+action+but+recoverable&gs_l=serp.3...20464.20464.0.20677.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.JX8TkVIiROM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=79f5683b01ec3981&biw=1280&bih=629

200 tanks were destroyed but the fact that US sources are biased as they dont give figures that some 115 pakistani tanks were captured in good condition by Indian army hence its clear that Pakistani losses are above 300 tanks, indian loss dont exceed 150-200tanks(when damaged tanks are included).ARIHANT SUB (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here?

All Indian editors are either banned to edit here or banned forever?

A sad state of affairs on Wikipedia.

List of Indian editors who have been banned or left Wikipedia after long edit issues with biased editors or issues with even those foreign editors who know nothing to begin with, has resulted in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.67 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edited air losses
Made it 75 losses, citing the official history from the Indian Military. This is was discussed 2 years ago (and several times before that), and consensus was reached (scroll up to the talk item "Edit request for air losses", so it should have never been changed. If you feel this is incorrect, please discuss here, before changing it. Kas1234567 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of national claims
I think that this articles's casualties side should limit with the neutral claims, not the nationalists claim, because that way we may even need to agree that Iraq won the Gulf war. Capitals00 (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014
In the section 'Pre War Escalations' the last sentence "...and the operation ended unsuccessful." I believe should end: 'and the operation ended unsuccessfully.' for it to be grammatically correct.

Alee1900 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — cyberpower ChatOnline 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree
I am totally disagree with this article because this article not showing what is reality ? please shutdown this article or correction this article because people of world read wrong about this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.136.55 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

TANK BATTLE OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN 1965: When Indian army invaded Lahore and captured many check posts, a huge tank battle was started between Indian army and Pakistan army, Pakistan army got success in resisting Lahore and pushed Indian army towards the border. After Indian army's withdrawal Pakistan army got a series of tanks that Indian army left behind in Pakistan. In Kashmir, Pakistan armed forces entered Indian occupied Kashmir and captured some nearer areas such as khemkaran and captured 40 square kilometer of Indian hold territory of Kashmir. When Indian army attacked Sindh to capture it, both forces fought a huge tank battle and India got some success in the beginning, but after that Pakistan regained control over its check posts. After resisting Wagah check posts Pakistan entered Rajistan suddenly to capture it, Pakistan captured a small area of Rajistan. This war is one of the smallest wars that was fought between two countries, it was ended after 17 days.

INDIA PAKISTAN AIR WAR OF 1965: In 1965 war, after a huge tank battle both countries used their air forces and navy. India began to use its air force first and after that Pakistan air force also used its air force. Both countries claimed over each other about the losses. The losses are unclear.

TASHKENT DECLARATION It was an agreement that was signed by Indian Prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan in Uzbek, USSR in which it was written that India and Pakistan will stop the war and Pakistan will pull back its forces from captured areas of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaharyar.121 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Causes of war
I have seen that in the article operation gibraltar is considered as the only reason for the start of war. Why the event which happened in Rann of Kutch is not considered as one of the reason of the war. The first air battle also happened over rann of kutch, so it should be given equal importance. War was started by both nation but mentioning of operation gibraltar as the only reason will make Pakistan the starter of war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerefx (talk • contribs)
 * , please see WP:BOLD and make the changes you suggest. If another editor disagrees, they will revert your change as per WP:BRD so as to discuss. Make sure to use a neutral point of view and reliable sources. -- lTopGunl (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

3 Jat
3 jat division which crossed the BRB canal were halted and pushed back as they were not reinforced. [] 5.36.203.216 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indian Express Group
Clearly a reliable source, you don't require a specific attribution.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Kargil district
The attack by Indian forces in Kargil district is not mentioned. When Skirmishes in Rann of Kutch was going on, India attacked Pakistan in Kashmir in Kargil district and were success full in occupying it [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.55.38 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 November 2011
i read an article on indo-pakistani war of 1965 and i came to know that it contained material which is out of logical reasons.in this article it is repeatedly convinced to reader that india was logically victorius in the war though the war was militarily inconclusive. > first thing which the writer says that infantry csaulities was heavy on the side of pakistan which i think is not a reason to declear india as victorius because no. of cusalities doesn't matter it matter upon the fact that wheather attacker achived it's goal or not OR whether defender achives its goal or not. > the most biggest reason given by the writer was that india conquered more territory in pakistan than pakistan conquered in india which i think that it is also defective.first you should keep in  mind that pakistan was defender and india was attacker.second india attacked pakistan midnight without any announncement.third the all terrirtory which is shown to be conquered by india was conquered during the period of night when pakistani army was not ready for war.as soon as pakistani army got prepeared for war india couldn't even conquered a inch more than it had already conquered.so saying that india conquered more region in pakistan is out of logic because it is understood that attacker will suerly conquer some region if it imposes war without announcement. it is clear from the fact that in WWI & WWII germany and its allies first conquered most of the euoropian allied region but in the end these countries(germany and  its allies) were decleared > as defeated.Also in the modren warefare the victorius country is selected on the basis of goals that is,which party achived its goals most will be victorius.now compare the goals of pakistan and india.india's goal was to conquer whole of pakistan or atleast lahore and sialkot sectors.whereas pakistan's goal was to stop the invaders from enetering the country.now compare the success india controlled only that region which it conquered during night whereas pakistan not only succedded in stoping the invaders but also conquered 1600miles square region.so according to rules pakistan is clear winner but writer repeatedly says that india is winner.so i want that whole of the article should be changed and be rewritten with the hekp of some neutral source.

Safwanzulfiqar (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

❌ the article is written with reliable secondary sources, and according to these the war ended in a stalemate.--  mustihussain   18:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey friend mostly all of your sources are from Indian books and Indians will never accept that Pakistan had won the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.112.161 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Independent sources
Can any body add these source these source in Neutral assessment, they are from neutral media like Telegraph, The Guardian, The observer http://postimg.org/image/9kf42nmf1/ http://postimg.org/image/ijhwdn26b/ http://postimg.org/image/uyf0htc5j/ 5.36.192.193 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good sources. Let us find them in the archives. Faizan (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just the last image is visible—  Trip Wire  talk 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the sources are found in the archives, I am not sure how useful newspaper articles from 1965 are when we have a whole lot of modern scholarly analyses on the war which already take into account all of the views expressed in the past. Amitrochates (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I always prevent Pakistani editors from POV pushing, but if they find a valid source, then one must accept it. 1971 war is the only war where India was able to defeat Pakistan. And Indians and Pakistanis must understand the difference between Battle and War. Pakistan casualty was higher in 1965, but considering India's population compared to Pakistani population, the Pakistani casualty should have been much higher in 1948, 1965, and Kargil to say India won. Sometimes two neutral reliable sources maybe contradictory and at that time we need to add both statement stating their sources, even if they are opposite in claims.  Cosmic   Emperor  06:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "they" here, Wikipedia is one community. I am concerned with the validity of sources presented, not with POV of any kind. Quoting historical newspaper articles sets a bad precedent. Newspapers revise there own reporting of facts as a story progresses and do not have the luxury of hindsight which scholars do. For all we know (I can dig up a few instances if you wish), Guardian itself might have changed its own narrative on the dispute through the decades. That is why for historical events, scholarly sources are the best guides. WP:NEWSORG echoes this with "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." (emphasis mine). FWIW, the TIME magazine quote in "neutral assessment" is problematic too. I see no use of newspaper/magazine articles written in 1965 except as historical relics. If someone wants to add images of TIME magazine and Guardian articles from 1965 in neutral assessment I have no issues with it. Amitrochates (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015
i want to edit beacause there are many things that are told lie in this story

Rana Bilal Javed (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015
720 Tanks 628 Artillery 260,000 Infantry 406 Tanks 552 Artillery
 * strength1=700,000 Infantry
 * 186 Centurions
 * 346 Shermans
 * 90 AMX
 * 90 PT-76
 * 66x 3.7"How
 * 450x 25pdr
 * 96x 5.5"
 * 16x 7.2"
 * strength2=
 * 133 Pattons
 * 159 Shermans
 * 114 Chaffees
 * 72x105mm How
 * 234X25pdr
 * 126x155mm How
 * 48x8" How
 * 72x3.7" How
 * POK Lt Btys
 * casualties1=Neutral claims
 * 1,800 men
 * 53 -190 tanks
 * 17–21 aircraft
 * 140 km2 (210 mi2) of territory lost (primarily in Rann of Kutch)

Indian claims
 * 45-55 aircraft lost
 * 822 km2 territory lost

Pakistani claims
 * 8,200 men killed or captured
 * 110 -113 aircraft destroyed
 * 500 tanks captured or destroyed
 * 2602, 2575 km2 territory gained
 * casualties2=Neutral claims
 * 3,800 men
 * 200 -300 Tanks
 * 20 aircraft
 * Over 1,840 km2 (710 mi2) of territory lost (primarily in Sialkot, Lahore, and Kashmir sectors)

Pakistani claims
 * 19 aircraft lost

Indian claims
 * 1600 men killed or captured
 * 43 -73 aircraft destroyed
 * 300 tanks destroyed
 * 1920, 1078 km2 gained

Deanconnor (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015
Please change (Para 2) "most neutral assessments agree that Pakistan had the upper hand over India" to "most neutral assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan" as per the assessment provided in the article itself.

Anshul.kumar111 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015
Among the Commanders and leaders on the Pakistani side should be Major General Nasir Ahmed Khan. He was the Commander of the 1 armed division that captured khem karan

39.33.202.49 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done He's the first commander listed under the Pakistani side. Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015
Major General Nasir Ahmed Khan (G.O.C 1st armed Division) who faced Lt. Gen Harbaksh singh and Major General Gurbaksh singh in battles of khem karan and asal uttar is not listed among the commanders of Pakistan Army

39.33.202.49 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015
please change BGen A.A. Malik (24th Army Infantry) to Major General Nasir A. Khan (G.O.C 1st Armed Division)

39.33.202.49 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)