Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 6

Some time pictures tell the whole story
Please visit the link in which pictures tell all of the story of large scale terriyory confiscated by pakistani forces in Rajhistan sector( Kishengarh etc), Kasur sector, chamb jurrian sector Kashmir and Rann of Kutch sector. War ended in stallemate because Pakistan didnt succeeded in its objective i-e capture of Kashmir while having upper hand in terms of catured enemy territory.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

International newspapers clippings
Please visit the

The Australian News Paper

reference from another international news paper

reference from another international news paper

reference from another international news paper

reference from another international news paper

reference from another international news paper

.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadkhaliq (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015
The Sonu (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Edit below this line
Or preferably use the 'new section tab' on the page top to post your message. AshLin (talk) before printing the articles please check the refferences. it is clear from videos, books, living persons of that war, or anyother resorce that pakistan not only won that war but also occupied some area of india, which definitely was returned back after cease fire. the credibility of this article is very poor. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.36.35.230 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

To prove its air superiority, PAF put its entire fleets on show for inspection after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have been able to annihilate the tiny PAF to prevent such displays.



International newspapers clippings
Please visit the













Hammadkhaliq (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

❌ as WP:LINKFARM and WP:NPOV - you are trying to promote one side in the dispute - Arjayay (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Some More International Newspapers headlines

 * click
 * Click
 * Click
 * Click
 * Click
 * Click

So the story isnt that as being portrayed by my dear friends in this article. Wikibaba1977 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Maps please!
This article would benefit enormously from the addition of maps shewing the course of the war, and the positions and territories occupied by the parties at the time of the ceasefire. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In Short
In Short we can Say that at the end Indian army ran away and Pakistan win the War — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxw098 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Sorry to hurt your little Paki feelings65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No we can't there are news sources which said this but per WP:OR we can not add them.
 * @ IP What were your feelings about Lahore ? HIAS (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015
In 1965 war Pakistan has only 42 tanks it was totally wrong written, total numbers of tanks Pakistan is having now a days is also rational to this figure. This was biggest battle of tanks from Indian side. Pakistan has no tanks actually. Reference: Handling of Tanks in Indo Pak Wars

Thehasan7 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the source you cited has multiple references to Pakistani tanks. The current figure in the article is also cited. Cannolis (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Biased Sources
Following sources under the heading The War are biased and cite official Indian claims. In Short these should not be in article or Pakistani point of view should also be highlighted.
 * The Tribune, Chandigarh, India – Opinions
 * Army cries out for a second railway line between Barmer and Jaisalmer. Hindustan Times (2009-12-17). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
 * Delhi plans carnival on Pakistan war- Focus on 1965 conflict and outcome
 * Modi govt plans 1965 war carnival
 * The Story of My Struggle By Tajammal Hussain Malik 1991, Jang Publishers, p. 78 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaba1977 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminder
This article is under discretionary sanctions. Further reverts may result in protection and/or blocks. --Neil N  talk to me 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And Why is that I have so many neutral references to add. This is totally unfair.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not barred from adding references or content. You are only barred from edit-warring, which you just did by reinstating your edits without talk page discussion. You also neglected to leave edit summaries for your edits. This doesn't bode well. Your best best to explain here the reasons for each of your edits, and you should aim to arrive at a consensus before reinstating edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
Please Elaborate your concerns about.


 * User is engaged in an edit war on page Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 within same contents since two days 1 2 3 and do not want to discuss on talk page. Its clear violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. BTW per WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. 1965 war was not Indian Victory. Since many sources discribe the war as Pakistan Victory, Indian Victory, Draw, Stalemate and Inconclusive so there is source contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence per WP:BALANCE. So I have to undo your revert per WP:BALANCE . HIAS (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

, Sorry for the delay. I was busy in some works. So, here the point is whether a pic of Pak Army capturing a fort in R'stan should be inserted or not in addition to the existence of a similar kind of a photo already in the specific section.


 * First, India-Pakistan land capture ratio in '65 war was 3:1 in favour of India. And, the final result was stalemate with India having the upper hand. This is more or less accepted by all.(Third party sources) So, weightage of texts and images has to given accordingly keeping these basic facts and figures in mind.


 * Secondly, WP:UNDUE says " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."


 * Further, WP:BALASPS says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." And, WP:FALSEBALANCE says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."


 * Before the insertion of the pic, (by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara) the weightage was 1:1 as far as the images were concerned in that "The War" section regarding "enemy land capturing". But, with the insertion of the pic the weight has gone to 1:2 in favour of Pakistan. It violates both historical facts & reliable sources and WP:NPOV.


 * Finally, Images are more powerful than texts. And, they are used many a times to create a false impression. Hence, the picture should be removed. By the way, Hitch Hicking Across Sahara inserted the pic abruptly and it was on him,(not on me) to get consensus. Ghatus (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that DUE weight should be respected in all forms. However, the weight here is not measured by how many of images of each side should be included. The images should be basically based on their relevance to the content. If the content respects DUE weight, the images will also respect it. So, let us talk about the relevance to the content, i.e., the text describing the progress of the war. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This means that if i insert the required text supporting capture of kishangarh fort, which to my knowledge happens to be hundreds of miles inside india in rajhastan sector than would it be acceptable? Wikibaba1977 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Waiting for an answer from you guys. And i am sure if i insert more images supported by required text and references than it will be removed also because in this article only one`s point of view is highlighted under the pretext of neutral point of view.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply
Pak-India Land capturing ration was 1:3 (WP:RS). So should be the number of images in the article " for or against" the countries. However, this article follows (I don't know why) 1:1 ratio. But, insertion of the Pic would further make it 2:1, just giving the opposite impression as against reality. Hence, following WP:UNDUE, the pic is removed.Ghatus (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision by Wikibaba1977 !
Well Kishangarh Fort which was fell in pakistani hands is mere [Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Kishangarh_Fort 11km inside] Indian Territory and comes under the total 50km2 land captured by pakistani forces around khemkaran or either desert sector during the initial stages of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and this has been well mentioned numerous times in the 1965 war article., (For example: See Neutral Assessments]] ! Not only this, that POV addition of Wikibaba1977 is mere a copy and paste of This Wiki Article all this Wikibaba1977 added despite been knowing that an separate article exist on that particular topic ! There are such numerous kinda articles in Indian Favour exists such as Phillora, Burki and there's nothing mentioned in the 1965 article even when such articles covers enemy territory captured in triple digits km2 (or either way above 100km2) because the total land on particular area such as Sialkot or either Lahore front covers all such kinda battles in 1965 War article and separate articles on battles exists on wikipedia ! And the image re-added by Wikibaba1977 which was deleted previously and the reason was well explained by User:Ghatus "In accordance with WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:NPOV as the total land capture ratio of India-Pakistan in 1965 War was 1920km2/540km2 = 3.5:1 [Neutral View]] And According to Indian Assessments it was 3,900km2/322km2 = 12.1:1 MBlaze Lightning (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive number of quotes?
Do we need all those quotes in subsection Neutral assessments? --Mortense (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060421095412/http://www.southasianmedia.net:80/Magazine/journal/7_competitive_methodologies.htm to http://www.southasianmedia.net/Magazine/Journal/7_competitive_methodologies.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061105001826/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Books/Review-Airwar65.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Books/Review-Airwar65.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071021003537/http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/july-2006/15/index8.php to http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/july-2006/15/index8.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041214203044/http://www.pakistanlink.com:80/Opinion/2004/Sept04/17/05.html to http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2004/Sept04/17/05.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060516020823/http://www.pakistanembassy.no:80/fpolicy.html to http://www.pakistanembassy.no/fpolicy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111205154529/http://www.paknavy.gov.pk:80/history.htm to http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016
124.155.252.39 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Shah Alam statement should be excluded
The Shah Alam statement is from an Indian Publishing Source and written by an India-educated author. That does not make it a neutral source at all. Imagine if we started quoting Pakistani authors on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be neutral at all.

After all on the Bangladesh Genocide page my quotations of Qutubuddin Aziz's books were called unreliable simply because it was written by a Pakistani author and published by a Pakistani press. The same standard needs to be applied here.

Also there is no need for the The Guardian/The Observer's quotes (in praise of the Pakistan Air Force's performance) in the Neutral Assessments section to be excluded. They are after all neutral newspapers from that time period. Here are images of these articles.



TalhaZubairButt (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no bar on the nationality of authors. Both Indian and Pakistani authors are allowed. However, what matters is whether they are reliable, which means that we can establish that they are reputable and scholarly, and the publishers have a reputation for fact-checking. The Shah Alam book is copy-righted by the author, which is an indication that the publisher is not taking responsibility for it. For this reason, the statement should not be in the lead. It might be considered for the body if the author is known to be well-qualified. (I myself don't know anything about him, and the book doesn't give any information about it.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , If you want to add anything in the neutral assessment section, bring a sourced ( WP:RS) quote as we can ascertain  neither the authenticity of a newspaper cutting (which can easily be photoshopped) nor an out of context headline.Ghatus (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The cropped images are photoshopped. Please cite reliable sources if you want to add anything in neutral assessment section! Beside, Pakistan was the member of the SEATO and CENTO and thus received full support from the western world who were against the U.S.S.R and India. Here's a quote from rbth. ::: ''*Western bias: Pakistan Victorious screamed the headline in The Australian, dated September 14, 1965, followed by this intro: Pakistani forces have repulsed a massive Indian armoured assault in the greatest tank battle since the African desert campaign of World War II. *The Australians media were, at worse, liars or, at best, parroting a lie. In fact, everything about the report was false. Firstly, the greatest tank battle since World War II was the Battle of Asal Uttar where the Indian Army destroyed Pakistani 70 tanks. India also captured 25 tanks which were abandoned by panic stricken Pakistani soldiers in the face of withering Indian fire.


 * ''Secondly, the greatest tank battle of World War II was not in Africa, but in Kursk, Russia, where the Red Army hammered the Germans. This is an instance of the Anglo-American media not wanting to acknowledge Russian military superiority. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is necessary as this article also uses "Western sources" abundantly.Ghatus (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the wrong information published by "The Australian" dated 14 Sept. 1965 regarding Chawinda battle and nothing else. Cheers! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

First, for our Indian friends, Encarta was not a reliable source, and now The Observer, The Australian and The Guardian are bad too when they dont push their POV. Sir, almost all of the neutral assesment section if from western sources, half of which can be termed as being 'exaggerated' if one goes by your understanding, so let's not go there.—  Trip Wire  ʞlɐʇ 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

E-Punch
Were your comments; "rubbish and unverified PoV pics are removed.If you continue to do this,the consequence will not be pleasant" while making a WP:POV edit a threat?— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 13:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It just tells what is the logical conclusion of WP:DE. You can take it as you like it. None actually likes to bite the newbies, but there is a growing tendency to game the system.Ghatus (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Shivam Vij
Shivam Vij is no historian. And,it's an opinion piece, no WP:RS on history or military matters. Ghatus (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Ghatus (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Shivam Vij who writes for but is not limited to huffingtonpost, Express Tribune, CS Mmonitor is not reliable?? What you want to say is that every info in this article is ONLY from what you like to call historians? Or do you want to suggest that a writer/journalist pens his opinion without carrying out research? Till the time you come with a better excuse, I'll humbly state that info is going to stay in the article.
 * And why would you remove the info from Neutral assessments section which is still under discussion above? That, sir is what you called WP:DE when removing sourced info in your edit— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's your edit, thus it's on you to gain Consensus here not on us. Beside, this made it clear that he is mere a journalists and a blogger who writes for opinion websites, and not a historian ofcourse! Beside, this is an opinion piece. It's his own OR! Provide a WP:RS, WP:BESTSOURCES and gain consensus first or this will be considered disruptive. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet
 * Everybody today, including historians is a blogger. Dont make blogging into a crime. As regards 'mere journalist', well you are no one to distribute certificates so as to which journalist's info should be included here. Like I said earlier, if you want we can remove all info from journalistic sources from the article and leave just the 'historian' part. Lastly, as regards gaining consensus, what else do you think this section and the one above it is doing on this talk page? First you rebuffed an authentic and well-read 'source' (Encarta) as unreliable, now you have started targeting individuals too?!
 * Why is it that info from an everyday website like Bharat-Rakshak which has no reputable people on its panel becomes reliable for you, but news/info website like DW, Express Tribune and Huffington Post and people who write for these are not reliable? — Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What are Vij's credentials or qualifications to write on military history? What are his experiences or past researches on military history? He is just a blogger on "every issue" under the sun- from JNU to Rock Bands. The source clearly is not WP:RS. Wikipedia can not accept edits which violate WP:VERIFY, WP:ATT and falls under WP:FRINGE also. As per WP:ATT,  ""The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.""
 * I hope you understand that you are arguing and debating here about the inclusion of info sourced from Shivam Vij BUT indulging in disruptive editing by reverting info being added to 'Neutral assessments' section (my edit summary cleary mentions that) which has nothing to do with Shivam Vij? With 1999 edits, and 1 years and 9 months on Wikipedia and the fact the way you throw WP policies at other editors you are not as a such a 'newbie' as you like to claim, and hence this attempt to game the system must be deliberate, right? Having said this, a self-revert would be in order.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 14:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A decision is needed
I am tagging cool headed editor  and administrator  to end this impasse.

 and want to add  two quotes and one pic in the article .


 * The Observer gave praise to the Pakistan Air Force's performance. "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, factor of the whole conflict."
 * The Guardian also published a piece in praise of the Pakistan Air Force's performance. "Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away."

Now, the problems are

1)There is no way to ascertain if those two quotes are true or not and the image is doctored or not because neither any link nor any secondary source is provided. As we all know that quotes and images have magnifying and multiplying effects in article, unverified primary sources like these are not only non-WP:RS but a means to put forward PoV.

2) As per WP:ATT, ""The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.""

3) We do not know the context of those quotes ( IF true???) nor the subject matter under the headline. Without knowing the background and its acceptance or rejection in secondary sources, how one can add them as quotes in an out of context situation?

4)The quotes and image contradicts almost all scholarly secondary sources and a perfect example of WP:FRINGE with over-weightage, even if these primary sources be established as verified which is very hard to do.Ghatus (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My position has always been clear. Only WP:HISTRS should be used for historical information. If the scholarly sources don't cover such issues, we shouldn't cover them either. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kautilya3. 51 years have passed since 1965 and we shouldn't be using news sources from that period when there has been ample time for reliable academic sources to discuss the war. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The issues of sources apart, my memory is indeed that Pakistan had air superiority. They were flying latest fighter planes donated by the US, whereas India was flying home-made planes or outdated Soviet imports. But the dependence on America also meant that Pakistan didn't have staying power. Sooner or later, it would have run out ammunition and parts. India conceded [to the ceasefire], but on political, not military, grounds: it could have sustained the conflict and turned the stalemate into an outright victory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No one achieved air superiority independent historians contrary to what two country claims. see Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, both sides claimed victory in the air war but the conflict was effectively a stalemate. Even though Indians were flying outdated planes like Vampire but most of their loses were on ground while most of the Pakistan loses were on air. The little gnats were nicknamed sabre slayers and per most of the neutral historians gnat was credited with atleast 7 kills against the sabre. 115.184.68.228 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay so I hadn't been following the discussions here but I wanted to add that I added these newspaper excerpt (unaware of Wiki rules) and on the basis that I saw an excerpt from TIME in the neutral assessments section. So if these newspaper articles can be excluded on the basis of Wiki's source rules, TIME' excerpt should also be removed.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly.Ghatus (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

new section.
Pinging. Though almost all the neutral references available states: At the end of a bruising 22-day war, India held 1920 square kilometres of Pakistani territory while Pakistan only held 550 square kilometres of Indian land.

There has been some WP:FAKE addition in the lede in recent past by a sockpuppet user WikiBaba1977 (already banned); ''However, some analysts claimed that Pakistan held 1600 square miles of Indian territory in (1300 of it in the dessert).[51][52][53][54]" Well, not by analysts, this is pakistan claim. Let me explain!


 * The first refrence (no.- [51]) given (can be seen [Https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=N1WwvQYawZEC&pg=PA256&dq=1600+square+miles+of+Indian+territory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAWoVChMI4__2qp_VyAIVDsWOCh00uw9U#v=onepage&q=1600%20square%20miles%20of%20Indian%20territory&f=false here]) is a tertiary source which itself have reference no. [62] (haqqani 2005-pg-49) to back it's claim.


 * Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim. Use of word likewise made it clear.


 * Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that.


 * Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!


 * 1) Husain Haqqani is a pakistani expert/journalist and he represents pakistan's views, so it should be counted in pakistan's claim.

Some more reliable references to back my claims, these sources clearly states India held around 1,920km² land and lost around 500km² land, In addition these sources also mention pakistan claims.


 * Air warfare in the missile age- By; Lon O. Nordeen (book can be seen [Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=voLfAAAAMAAJ&q here])- Pakistan said its forces gained control of 1,600 square miles of Indian territory and lost 450 square miles of its own.28 The actual.


 * Confrontation with Pakistan- By; Brij Mohan Kaul (book can be seen [Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uYQdAAAAMAAJ&q here]- Pakistan claimed to have occupied about 1,600 square miles of Indian territory and conceded that India had occupied 450 square miles of its territory.


 * Indian Armed Forces Yearbook Front Cover- By; Indian youth., 1969 - (book can be seen [Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=IGnfAAAAMAAJ&q here])- On the eve of the cease-fire, India was in occupation of nearly seven hundred square miles of Pakistani territory. ... However, Pakistani claims to having occupied some 1,600 square miles of Indian territory in Rajasthan were declared a ...


 * 50 Years of Indo-Pak Relations: Chronology of events, important documents ... -By; Verinder Grover, Ranjana Arora (book can be seen [Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=S6_0WoxM6-8C&pg=PA43&dq=1600+square+miles+of+Indian+territory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibkpaZoNTLAhUCT44KHR3UDsUQ6AEILTAH#v=onepage&q=1600%20square%20miles%20of%20Indian%20territory&f=false here]); 24. .... An official spokesman of the Government of Pakistan disclosed that while the Pakistan armed forces held 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, Indian forces held only 450 square miles of Pakistan territory.

Thus, I'm gonna remove it from the lede! If anyone disagree with me, Feel free to re-add it in Pakistan Claim section in the infobox! MBlaze Lightning  -  talk!   09:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Argument (by MB)!! Response(by TW)
 * The first refrence (no.- [51]) given (can be seen [Https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=N1WwvQYawZEC&pg=PA256&dq=1600+square+miles+of+Indian+territory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAWoVChMI4__2qp_VyAIVDsWOCh00uw9U#v=onepage&q=1600%20square%20miles%20of%20Indian%20territory&f=false here]) is a tertiary source which itself have reference no. [62] (haqqani 2005-pg-49) to back it's claim. ||
 * First, Ref - [51] is not a typical tertiary sources because a tertiary source is defined as "an index and/or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources", which Ref - [52] is not.
 * Second, Hussain Haqqani or his book are indeed reliable sources this gentlemen is not known to be a pro-Pakistani writer as his anti-Pakistan stance is well-known. He is at daggers with Pakistani military, is/was against sale of F-16s by the US to Pakistan - in short the guy is a persona-non-grata in Pakistan. No one who actually knows Mr HH can say that his views represents Pakistani POV or favours them. Instead, his writings are rather used by Indians to support their claims against Pakistan.
 * Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim. Use of word likewise made it clear.||
 * If, in the same article, an Indian source (Reference no [47]) published in an Indian website (The Telegraph India) by an Indian writer (Sujan Dutta) can be used to support the Indian claim/text of "The Indian army was in possession of 758.9 miles² (1,920 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory", I wonder why cant a Pakistani source be used (in the same article)?
 * BTW, (Ref - [52]) is not based on Pakistani claim as (Ref - [52]) is a book written by Col J Francis (Retd) - an Indian Army Officer of Maratha Light Infantry! MblazeLightening, why are you (deliberately) misleading other editors?
 * Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that.|| Another lie! Ref - [53] i.e page 80 of the book India's Foreign Policy indeed support the info it cites. Here's the link.
 * Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!|| As mentioned in response to the first argument. Dont believe me, just read the Wikipedia article on Husain Haqqani and you'd know how pro-Pakistani he actually is. Against you are just twisting the facts, Mr HH is the most vocal opponent of Pakistani military and ISI. Below are a few excerpts from his Wikipedia article:
 * Third refrence (no-[53])-India's foreign policy..... will be count in WP:FAKE, since the source does not state anything like that.|| Another lie! Ref - [53] i.e page 80 of the book India's Foreign Policy indeed support the info it cites. Here's the link.
 * Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!|| As mentioned in response to the first argument. Dont believe me, just read the Wikipedia article on Husain Haqqani and you'd know how pro-Pakistani he actually is. Against you are just twisting the facts, Mr HH is the most vocal opponent of Pakistani military and ISI. Below are a few excerpts from his Wikipedia article:
 * Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!|| As mentioned in response to the first argument. Dont believe me, just read the Wikipedia article on Husain Haqqani and you'd know how pro-Pakistani he actually is. Against you are just twisting the facts, Mr HH is the most vocal opponent of Pakistani military and ISI. Below are a few excerpts from his Wikipedia article:
 * Fourth reference (no-[54])- Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding Front Cover By; Husain Haqqani is the book written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!|| As mentioned in response to the first argument. Dont believe me, just read the Wikipedia article on Husain Haqqani and you'd know how pro-Pakistani he actually is. Against you are just twisting the facts, Mr HH is the most vocal opponent of Pakistani military and ISI. Below are a few excerpts from his Wikipedia article:


 * The Wall Street Journal described Haqqani as "a hostage" while he was in Pakistan and published an interview with him from the Prime Minister's house in which he outlined why he was hated by Pakistan's intelligence services and Jihadi groups.
 * Michel Hirsh, writing in The Atlantic, described Haqqani as "The Last Friendly Pakistani" towards the US
 * Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, has been a consistent supporter of Haqqani, calling him "The Hardest Working Man in Washington" and criticising Pakistan's military and security services
 * Simon Tisdall of The Guardian called Haqqani "an instinctive ally of the west" and attributed Memogate to the ambassador's difficult relationship with Pakistan intelligence service.


 * His critics in Pakistan describe him as a sympathizer of the Indian lobby in the US.
 * Haqqani has been vocal against the sale of F-16 fighter jets and AH-1Z Viper helicopters to Pakistan. He testified in the US Congress in December 2015 stating that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan would only lead to their usage against India,  The Indian government also opposed and protested against the proposed sale of 8 F-16s to Pakistan.
 * Pakistan's Senate Defense Committee blamed him for working with pro-Indian lobbyists in Washington.
 * }
 * you have already subject to sactions that "you may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month", so as a friend I suggest you tread carefully.—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When you open a talk page discussion, you need to wait for consensus before making edits. Husain Haqqani is of course Pakistani, but he is also an American academic and scholar and so he is a reliable source. But I haven't been told the precise reference that is being talked about. Please do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think MBlaze is right. The paragraph of Haqqani (p. 115) starts with: Official propaganda convinced the people of Paksitan that their military had won the war. The figures that follow, 1600 sq. miles of Indian territory and 350 sq. miles of Pakistani territory, look a lot like such "official propaganda." If the figures were independently obtained, Haqqani gives no indication of how. Given that this is not a book on military history, I don't think we can place much value on these figures. -- 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I waited for more then a day but no on replied so I was left with no other option but to make changes in the article. And I do not see any reason why I should reply to TripWire. I've explained everything in my first comment with multiple WP:RS references. All tertiary sources figures are either based on Haqqani reference or Pakistan official propaganda's figures while Page 80 or anyother page of ref 53 doesn't say anything regarding pak claims. If anyone thing I'm wrong, [Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=S6_0WoxM6-8C&pg=PA43&dq=1600+square+miles+of+Indian+territory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibkpaZoNTLAhUCT44KHR3UDsUQ6AEILTAH#v=onepage&q=1600%20square%20miles%20of%20Indian%20territory&f=false this] might clear his/her doubts.  MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   06:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First you tried to rubbish Hussain Haqqani by saying that it was a tertiary source; you were educated on the same. Then you tried to rubbish him by claiming that he is a Pakistani so he cant be reliable; you were then given a reality-check on this that he is also an American. Then you were also informed that apart from Haqqani, the same figures are also given in Indian and other RS, which you had earlier tried to rubbish as Pakistani sources. Having said that, I am just concentrating on the info given in the book by Col J Francis (an Indian whom you mistaked as a Pakistani) and the book India's Foreign Policy. Second, as regards to reply to me; well sir, you are not bound to, but you sure are supposed to get consensus before to go on a disruptive-editing spree. Now how you do that without replying to me or anyone at this talk, I am not sure. Thanks—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 11:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When did I said Haqqani is a unreliable source and a tertiary source? Lol Please Go and read my comment carefully before replying! I was referring to [Https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=N1WwvQYawZEC&pg=PA256&dq=1600+square+miles+of+Indian+territory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAWoVChMI4__2qp_VyAIVDsWOCh00uw9U#v=onepage&q=1600%20square%20miles%20of%20Indian%20territory&f=false this source] as being a tertiary source and cite Haqqani reference to back that 1600 sq mi. claim and yes haqqani is a Pakistani and Haqqani claim is based on OFFICIAL PROPOGANDA FIGURES OF PAKISTAN. Go and read references I cite in my first comment and where this source states Pakistan figures of territory gained?  MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   12:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes you did. When you first mislead the editors by saying "Second source (Ref- [52]) is also based on pakistan claim." and then also said that "the book is written by Haqqani, an pakistani journalist itself!" you implied that HH, being a Pakistani (must) be unreliable. This aint rocket science sir. And I will request you again to read what a Tertiary source is.—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 12:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * MBlaze might have used wrong terminology; not a big deal. The point is that the sources that were inserted into the lead were all derived from Haqqani, and Haqqani doesn't say where his figures come from. There is a possibility that they represent the "official propaganda," in his own words. So I am afraid this source don't settle anything. It would need corroboration from other independent sources. I think we are wasting a whole load of time on fruitless exercise. There is no clarity on the territory gained/lost, and all of it was given back. So, why don't we put an end to this and move on to more useful things? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldnt agree more. This isnt the first time MblazLightening has indulged in contentious editing. Mistakes can be made, I make them too, but defending them mindlessly is not worth it. Also, how does "India's Foreign Policy" and Col Francis' book quote Haqqani as its source? Because it does not. We cannot remove an info sourced from 4 different sources, can we? I have amply explained earlier in that elaborate table each of the sources is indeed RS, and not tertiary, biased or fake as being claimed and pushed by MBlazeLightening.—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 13:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This source only states Pakistan CLAIMED 1600 sq mi land and Col Francis also derived from Pakistani Figures since it's an [Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=S6_0WoxM6-8C&pg=PA43&dq=1600+square+miles+of+Indian+territory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibkpaZoNTLAhUCT44KHR3UDsUQ6AEILTAH#v=onepage&q=1600%20square%20miles%20of%20Indian%20territory&f=false Pakistani Govt figures] And you just cannot favor one source over the others! I didn't mislead anyone, Even Kautilya understands what i am trying to say. What i mean by those word is that those figures are derived from haqqani refrence and i never said haqqani is not WP:RS or tertiary source. I was referring to his (Haqqani) claims which are basically derived from pakistani figures. I provided multiple refrences for it can be seen in my first comment. And You cannot add Pakistani figures (WP:UNDUE also) in the lede just below the neutral assessments to suit your own point of view or per WP:BALANCE I will or Someone else will had to add Indian Govt. Figures of 3900km2 land gained and 322km2 land lost which are only mentioned in the Infobox. MBlaze Lightning  -  talk!   17:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny. Must go through WP:NOTTRUTH. Also, i dont know from where did you arrive at this 'Pakistani propaganda figure' thing. Sir, if 4 x RS are saying something, Wikipedia will accept it, your opinion on the matter or if you think it is false/propaganda or just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT wont change it.—<b style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; font-size:medium;"> Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
This Article is in violation of NPOV.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply

 * 1) Your Pic violates WP:UNDUE.
 * 2) Your text violates WP:RS.Ghatus (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * your revert violates NPOV.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV NOTE
This article is a mess because it contains many NPOV violations. The war was over in 1965 but internet warriors are still fighting it on Wikipedia. Indians are the clear victors in this war of self serving quotes. WikiHuda (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421095412/http://www.southasianmedia.net/Magazine/Journal/7_competitive_methodologies.htm to http://www.southasianmedia.net/Magazine/Journal/7_competitive_methodologies.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100329102521/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/the-right-stuff-499 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/the-right-stuff-499
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060907070325/http://defencejournal.com:80/jul99/history-pak-army.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/history-pak-army.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130503043659/http://www.defencejournal.com:80/2002/february/manto.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/february/manto.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120805182043/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051217085236/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/index.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051217085236/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/index.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120805182043/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016
Replace "Aircrafts" by "Aircraft" (several places)

Sipder (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for pointing that out. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016
In 1965, Pakistanis really whipped India's rear end.

"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.

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991 65.92.77.199 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105015854/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Kill1965.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Kill1965.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927035816/http://www.defencejournal.com/july98/1965war.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/july98/1965war.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127234125/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1965war_kills.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1965war_kills.pdf
 * Added tag to https://www.dawn.com/news/1068595
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127234125/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1965war_kills.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1965war_kills.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119073542/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2005_pg3_1 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2005_pg3_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304140925/http://fas.org/news/pakistan/1994/940912.htm to https://fas.org/news/pakistan/1994/940912.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327071528/http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art267.pdf to http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art267.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319114802/http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609073555/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter07.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609073650/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter01.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter01.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929074854/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter09.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927185738/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716212425/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter10.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050526134616/http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5 to http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605102845/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajasthan/Army-cries-out-for-a-second-railway-line-between-Barmer-and-Jaisalmer/Article1-487591.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajasthan/Army-cries-out-for-a-second-railway-line-between-Barmer-and-Jaisalmer/Article1-487591.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007171816/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/pakistan/aminkhemkaran.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/pakistan/aminkhemkaran.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716212425/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter10.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728080126/http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr65/fkashmir1965.htm to http://onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr65/fkashmir1965.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234653/http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/10/01/10071494.html to http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/10/01/10071494.html
 * Added tag to http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=1560
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050526134616/http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5 to http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426171145/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Lal-65.htm to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Lal-65.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)