Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 7

so called Independent sources derived from India
The air losses section is maligned with misleading information claiming that independent sources are being used when clearly Indian writers have created this information and presented it as "neutral" I propose using legitimate neutral sources not Indian pov sources painted as "neutral" 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you bring some for a start and then debate on it? -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that section should be left empty Indian sources cannot be regarded as neutral with any conflict with India and vis versa 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you verified who the cited sources are attributing the claims to in the "neutral" column? -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" Indian sources list
Chowk a blog with hardly any credibility is being used as a legitimate source to portray India having won the air war

Singh, Pushpindar (clearly and indian writer and an indian perspective on the war

D. R. Mankekar again and Indian writer with a title of "Twentytwo fateful days: Pakistan cut to size"

How on earth people get away with portraying this one sided sources as "neutral" is beyond me86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I've not gone through it yet, but at the first glimpse, I see a Pakistani officer's interview, incase he said that, there are chances for that being taken as a neutral claim. As for the website "chowk.com"'s own authenticity, it sure looks like a blog - you can post it at WP:RSN so that neutral unrelated editors can have a review of it. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The pakistani officer never stated India shot down more planes this is another example of twisting sources for a certain pov and the pov pushers get away with this because they know pakistani editors wont bother checking it 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is the case you can boldly make changes to them as well as give the correct figures here with quotations (referring to them in edit summary) so that there's no point in anyone reverting you. I've not reviewed any of the citations from that table but making bold edits will also get you bold reverts which you'll have to explain to, so change only the content which you have verified to be factually incorrect per the sources. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. the synopsis of this book states "indias struggle with china and pakistan" doesnt sound very neutral to me depicting India as a victim from 2 nations 86.182.221.213 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally surprised because 2 months ago when I visited the article, pakistan was the winner of 1965 war but now the results are completely changed and the changes are totally out of course... Please, it is not a forum so put the relevant information on site... Ali khan dhudi (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There are more Indians on wiki than Pakistanis so the result is clearly seen on such article
India is a brave country pak lost all wars against her Indian army has no match in world for her braveness.this is what all Indian Pakistan war related articles at wiki says.--Balti sahib (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything of substence to say, or is this just nationalist whining?65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The casualties and losses are extremely biased and unacceptable Hassan Ayub (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tanks losses also doubtful
As we all know that pakistan lost atleast 300 tanks(US was ally of pakistan in 1965 and its desperation to lower its casualty is well know further its support in 1971 is out in the world). We displayed 100 tanks in khemkaran, 58 in phillora in short INDIANS DISPLAYED 158 tanks of pakistan on display then how is it possible that only 200 pakistani tanks was destroyed on the other hand pakistan dont show a single INDIAN TANK(it has shown folland jet but no tank this raises suspicion) on display.

I think we need to have discussion that "CAN WE ACCEPT US SOURCES AS NEUTRAL SPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW THAT US WAS A HARDCORE PAKISTANI ALLY AND ITS OPEN HEARTED SUPPORT TO PAKISTAN IN 1971 IS EXPOSED BY MANY WRITERS INCLUDING US AUTHORS".

We must remove US from NEUTRAL sources reason this contradicts the fact that they openly supported pakistan throughout 1965 and 1971 and it was only in 1990s that when INDIAN ECONOMY boomed then US started supporting INDIA over Pakistan(Kashmir issue is a point where US maintains that no foreign country has anything to do with it hence supporting INDIA's stand). ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV for a better understanding of neutrality and reliable sources. Also do not write in caps we can still read what you write. The current version is well sourced. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian tank losses were higher according to many sources.Indian tanks are also displayed by Pakistan but many Indian tanks were so badly destroyed especially the ones in Chawinda they were not displayed. Hassan Ayub (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

neutrality of article
this article is not neutral and writen by indian point of view King2k (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

this article is not neutral and writen by indian point of view and is biasedAhsan szabist (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elucidate your concerns. Fai  zan  06:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

this article is mostly based on the indian version of war.it does not contains the sufficent point of view of pakistan about the war its results and consequences .hence it should be eddited to represent the point of view of both countriesAhsan szabist (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC) the author of the page is requested to edit the page to remove one sided point of view.it has been previously requested but no action is done on previous posts Ahsan szabist (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Ahsan, you can let us know about your own versions, or once if you are able to edit these articles, you can edit them, and we will review your edits, let you know. Capitals00 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's true that much of the information is biased especially the casualties and losses.It was even accepted by some Indian high ranking officers that their infantry losses were much higher due to poor planning and execution. Hassan Ayub (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015
I want to add following references from international news papers on the indo pak war 1965 that will increase the credibility of the artile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadkhaliq (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan did not gain anything from the war and it was disastrous for Pakistan
I am suggesting adding the following in article Pakistan did not gain anything from the war and it was disastrous for Pakistan based on two books below

There are two publications by Oxford scholars who have stated that " The war proved disastrous for Pakistan "

The following are the author quotes In Page 142 " India could have sustained the conflict and turned it into a outright victory In page 143 " Pakisthan made no gains in the war" C. Christine Fair

This book mentions In page 130 "The operation ended in a stalemate and proved disastrous for Pakisthan" Peter Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwar jibba (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

India attacked on pakistan and as a result pakistan army defeated india. Thousands of Indian officers were killed by pakistan Army. Zulkaifriaz (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Malaiya's edits
I have not reverted but your edits do look WP:UNDUE and are better suited on Defence Day (Pakistan). Accesscrawl (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not just UNDUE, it is also a sneaky form of vandalism masqueraded by a nationalistic editor. This often happens on the article pages of battle where editors from the losing side of warring party starts to add nonsense and/or delete key facts about the battle, one good example is the Falklands War. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I looked at this article after I came across an article in Aljazeera 6 Sept 2018 by a Pakistani journalist Taha Siddiqui "Dear Pakistanis, this Defence Day, please stop celebrating hate", and I decided to find out about the book he is mentioning.
 * "Defence Day" is widely celebrated annually in Pakistan and even overseas and the reports specifically mention that it commemorates September 6, 1965, when "Indian forces launched a surprise attack on Pakistan" (Express Tribune 07 Sep 2018. The Defence Day is is a direct outcome, and in fact, commemoration of the war.
 * I have known since 1970s about the fact that the Pakistais view the outcome differently. The article already had some discussion about it, it was not my primary interest. Lieutenant-General Mahmud Ahmed, a key Pakistani military person (head of ISI until he was removed due to the American pressure), in his book "History of Indo Pak War 1965" (originally titled "The Myth of 1965 Victory") candidly shares the details of the war that Gen. Musharraf attempted to suppress by confiscating all (almost) the copies of the book. The suppression of the book has been discussed by several Pakistani authors. -Malaiya (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is about the 1965 War, and since Defence Day is celebrated in the memory of martyrs and for Pakistan's success in defending Lahore, it should be included in this article. Knightrises10 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Knightrises10 It was already included in the article before Malaiya's edit. see this version before him. I agree with Dave and Access that adding bunch of details and a subsection is WP:UNDUE and should be removed as a revert back to the last stable version.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Appears that has restored those edits now. I would say that 's edits would require pruning since the section appears to portray an apparent fluff of WP:POV instead of reputable WP:RS with WP:NPOV . I think I would support something like  "Pakistan celebrates "Defence Day" every year to commemorate September 6, 1965 [200]; however this position is criticized by even several Pakistani journalists, including Taha Siddiqui,[201], and Haseeb Asif [202]" Sdmarathe (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it a bit. Please feel free to trim it further if need be. But I am not entirely satisfied with the coverage of the Pakistani view of the war in general. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I trimmed a bit, combining the two paragraphs and removing one unsourced sentence. We can revisit it if we have sources to support it! Please let me know if there are other thoughts! Thanks! Sdmarathe (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2018
Indian victory is false. Actually it was Pakistani victory. So Kindly check action against this. Riyasenluvurself (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not possible. Gain consensus after bringing sources. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In reality, neither of them ultimately won. I agree with Tanveer Khadim "At the end of the 17-day war, huge personnel, economic losses and strategic blunders by both India and Pakistan confirmed that the Indo-Pak war of 1965 ended in a stalemate and none of the rivals were eventually declared as victors of the combat zone. The Tashkent Declaration wounded up the affairs of all the armed consequences of the 1965 war." The war became a lesson in warfare and strategies, which may have impacted India's decision to get involved in 1971.Malaiya (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Real result
What did India gain? They wanted to have noon tea at lahore gymkhana but couldn't cross the border Huzaifa 18 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion on the thread above. India not only crossed the border but had even captured Dograi (1km from Lahore) read more Lahore Front, regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * India didn't need to "gain" anything. It never wanted to gain anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The question by User:Huzaifa 18 presumes that India started the war. The narrative in Pakistan, promoted by the Military, is that India attacked Pakistan. As Express Tribune states "On September 6, 1965, Indian forces launched a surprise attack on Pakistan and crossed the international border under the cover of darkness", which is the purported reason for celebrating Defence day on September 6.


 * However even Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmed acknowledged in his book (that Musharraf attempted to suppress) that "military conflict in 1965 which began as a clandestine guerrilla struggle and eventually precipitated into full scale war in the subcontinent" . The questions is -What did Pakistan want? Answer is Kashmir which is Pakistan's national ambition, above anything else. Malaiya (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are some candid comments by Pakistani experts Najam Sethi and Hamid Bashani, Kashmiri activist . They candidly discuss how the Pakistani army has dictated the history being studied in Pakistan (which should be the subject of a Wikipedia article).Malaiya (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Indian losses
See the map at Operation Grand Slam. The Pakistanis advanced from aroud the Dawara stream (which is where the 1947 cease-fire line was) till about Jourian. How the Indians managed to stop them there is a mystery. They appear to have positioned themselves on the heights at Kaleeth, where they had a strategic vantage point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay but how is this relevant here? Sorry I don't see it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because of this kind of contention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018
Ahmad Sajid (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Hello there could u change the article. it say it was an indian victory but it actually was a Pakistani victory and i have reliable sources to back this up.
 * Then please provide it here. ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  11:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018
Please make the following changes: Change-1: Change the insert a higher level heading named "Awards" above "Military awards" in such a way that the "Military awards" become a sub-heading, then add another subheading "Civilian awards" at same level as "Military awards". Under the "Civilian awards" create a sub-heading "India" and insert the following bullet point:


 * Joginder Singh Dhillon, Lt. Gen, awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1966 for his role in the 1965 war, becoming the first Army officer to receive the award.

Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added Dhillon, but I didn't use the terminology of "Civilian award" for Padma Bhushan. That might require more discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018
Please change the result of the war to ""Pakistani victory"" The result of the war was the Victory of Pakistan as one Australian Newspapers Headlines on their Front Page "Biggest tank battle since world war II. Pakistani victory" Hammadhassansheikh (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not sure where that fits, but more importantly no clear reference. See WP:REFB on how to give complete reference. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Correction of a few factual errors
In the Tank battles section there is this passage:

This should be changed to

(The Centurion Mk 7 had a 20-pounder gun, not a 105 mm L7 gun. I have not seen any references to India's PT76 tanks taking any part in the 1965 war or that Stuart tanks were part of the Indian army inventory in 1965.) 83.191.174.166 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please highlight the phrases you want changed so that we are clear what you are asking.
 * Also you need to specify if you have checked the cited sources, and provide new sources for any new content you want to include. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article fails to showcase the Pakistani view and conclusion of the war. Pakistan claims its victory in this war, and the day of the 1965 war is sometimes even celebrated as a national holiday in Pakistan. It should be noted that the some of the references from Indian sites contain bias information on this war. Keep in your mind that in many situations Indian and even Pakistani media become bias, especially when it comes to Pakistan and India rivalry. Pakieditor (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the WP:Neutral point of view page and explain where it says that we have to "showcase" any Pakistani view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither does it says India won the war when there are sources that show neither countries won., while there are some international sources that claim Pakistan's victory. Were there any authentic Pakistani wikipedian and admin invited to discuss this issue, when discussion on the conclusion of this war was going on in the respective WikiProject, because I don't see it. Pakieditor (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the section titled "Change in result in the infobox", where an editor proposed a change, provided sources, and received feedback before making the change. If you want to propose another change, I would advise you to follow a similar procedure. Please avoid ranting and ethnic profiling, which are not permitted in ARBIPA topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2019
Change "Result Indian victory" to "Result Pakistani victory on international borders, Indian victory in disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir" Reason: Given that Jammu and Kashmir was (and is) an independent disputed territory, Pakistan's attack in Jammu and Kashmir cannot be considered as an attack on Indian sovereignty (as per international laws), because it was (and is) not an international border. However, Indian attack on Lahore, Sialkot and Sargodha was an attack on international borders and thus an act of war (as per international laws). Indian armed forces declared full-scale war on Pakistan's sovereignty following Operation Gibraltar in Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian attack was repulsed and India had to retreat. Whereas, Pakistani attack in Jammu and Kashmir was repulsed by the Indian armed forces and Pakistan had to retreat from Jammu and Kashmir.

Or

Change "Result Indian victory" to "Result Both India and Pakistan retreated to their pre-war positions" Reason: In actuality, both Pakistan and India failed in their respective belligerent attempts, and genuinely neither were the victors. The losses could be debated but there were enough on both sides to sign a ceasefire. While Pakistan exhausted most of its ammunition, India has trouble mobilizing. However, it is neither an Indian victory only, nor a Pakistani victory only. Therefore, the current "Result" totally misrepresents facts and misleads the readers. History should present facts, not subjective opinions.

References: 1. https://www.quora.com/Who-won-the-1965-Indo-Pak-war 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNt01aCehg ZafarGilani (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The references that you have provided are not reliable. See the section titled Change in result in the infobox for the existing consensus. —Gazoth (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: These are references that support this point of view:, while there are some international sources that claim Pakistan's victory. Pakieditor (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You've provided blogs, opinion pages, news magazines, etc.  Please present reliable sources from scholars, e.g. academic journals in military history and books from university presses.  Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Change in result in the infobox
Hi, if you wish to change the result section, please gain consensus here first. This is change which needs to be discussed and deliberated upon before it is updated. Also, IMO, multiple sources (not a single source) would be required to change this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See DNRNC. I don't think such source exists that completely contradicts the information added by Sdmarathe. I had the time to search it online, there are enough academic sources to back it up. My Lord (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of that but this has been a contentious issue not only on this page but across many India-Pakistan pages in the past. It is ideal that we discuss this in great detail before we update the infobox. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are not allowed to revert just because you believe the edit needs consensus when you have no reasonable objection (something certain editors are making clear to me on another article). Second, you are misrepresenting the edit since it included 3 reliable sources, not "a single source". I recommend self-reverting yourself. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My purpose of the revert was to facilitate a dissection of the sources (provided by ) but unfortunately that has not happened. The specific opposition I have to this is as follows:
 * The edit indeed contained three references. One book about Middile East Conflicts and makes a single line reference to the war. Second book about India and it's current position and also makes a narrow mention of the war. Third is a book about India's nuclear bomb which also makes little mention of the war but is more relevant to the subject (compared to the first two books). Thus, I made a claim that we really only have one reference (which is weak at best).
 * There are also other references on the article page which have been used (in the past) to argue the other way claiming the it was a victory or inconclusive. These references, like the ones provided were not really about this conflict or about the India-Pakistan conflicts but about something oblique like talking about Tank battles and so on. I strongly believe that each conflict cannot be looked through this narrow prism and declare the result to be what they have declared through their narrow point of view. Each conflict needs a detailed analysis by the source provided which discusses in some detail about the conflict and then arrives at a conclusion. On similar lines, if we indeed change the result of the conflict (which I believe is incorrect as it exists on the page now and I explain further why that is the case), then the Aftermath section of the article must also be updated to reflect this. The aftermath section and the result section would be out of sync if we indeed claimed Indian Victory in the infobox.
 * Now the ideal references would be a book which was solely dedicated to the conflict itself since it would provide a detailed analysis of the war and it's opinion will be more relevant than the one's presented. But, most of these references have been written by former defense personnel from either sides and may or may not have some POV to it. Unsurprisingly, a good number of them claim victory for either India or Pakistan with some claiming this to be a stalemate. Also, it is also unclear if these publications were indeed peer-reviewed.
 * IMO, the best solution is to look at other academic references here. These are other references (which have not been presented yet) from academics in the field who claim the conflict to be a stalemate and that India was in a better position of the two at the end of the war or state that if the war had indeed continued then India was in a better position to win. But, irrespective of this the war indeed was a stalemate not a clear victory to either side. The academics I refer to here are Christine Fair, Sumit Ganguly and others. Unfortunately, I am currently in a haste and cannot directly quote from them (but I have prepared a list of them and read most of them). Their books from which these quotes exist are directly relevant to the subject at hand. The books deal with India Pakistan relations, conflicts and their respective armies. I will in a day or two add them and the relevant quotes or paragraphs (once I get over a deadline) and would really like to discuss.
 * In the mean time, if you wish, feel free to revert my edit on the page and I will have no objection to it. But I would ask you to definitely participate in this discussion and provide your views. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

, your comment that (Winner, 2000 Herbert Feis Award, American Historical Association, Outstanding World by an independent scholar. Winner, 2001 A.K. Comaraswamy Prize, Association for Asian Studies, Outstanding book on South Asia.) "makes little mention of the war" and is "weak at best" is outright incorrect. It is clear that you haven't even read the book yet. Read it. This book is a high-quality source, and the author is an expert on South Asia; it has at least half a dozen pages devoted to the "detailed analysis" of the 1965 war in particular, starting from page 106. You can skim through the pages yourself, but I will quote what it says on page 106: "Events soon drew Indian attention away from the quest for security guarantees and technical assistance from the United States. Military tensions between Pakistan and India mounted in the spring of 1965, leading to war. Before the implications of India's military victory in this conflict could be assimilated..." and on page 111: "Paradoxically, the victory over Pakistan triggered renewed demands in India for nuclear weapons. The day before the cease-fire took effect, nearly one hundred members of Parliament from multiple parties..." This article itself contains an ample number of reliable sources that provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the 1965 war. Some of them are very reliable and authoritative sources indeed. Sdmarathe (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the preponderance of reliable sources support the fact that India registered a clear if not decisive victory. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the large number of sources supporting Indian victory, It is clear that India emerged victorious in the 1965 war. I fully support that the result section in the infobox should be changed to "Indian Victory" . Razer ( talk ) 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support change to Indian Victory. I see that did a good job of culling the sources and providing enough evidence to warrant a change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose change to Indian Victory. We must keep Wikipedia a neutral source and so far if you look all the support for it being an Indian Victory is from Indian users. This is clear bias. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calore123 (talk • contribs)


 * Given the clear consensus here, I have changed the results accordingly and incorporated new reliable sources provided above. I had also found one excellent source earlier.    Have a look a look at  Talk:Battle of Chawinda.  I have raised issues with the sourcing there as it is about a battle related to this war.  Razer ( talk ) 04:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this list of extensive sources. I do need some time to go through them and see if they carry more weight then other academic sources. Plus, what context is the 1965 war mentioned and discussed. I also owe this discussion some quotes and sources from academic books that I had mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, I do not have the bandwidth for that currently. This is not an attempt to WP:STONEWALL the discussion but I will get back here in some time.
 * Yes, the number of sources provided are indeed sufficient but, IMO, there is no clear consensus yet and your premature update was unwarranted. Since, I do not currently have sufficient time to dedicate to this discussion, I will not revert your edits. I would recommend to let this discussion play out.
 * Mentioning one country won or not does not violate WP:NPOV on Wikipedia. By your method, all wars in the world so far would have to be represented with no result. Adding a victory or defeat here is fine (per Wikipedia guidelines), as long as we have the necessary references for it. The word "necessary" is important here which is what my earlier argument was about. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6 editors agreed that infobox should state victory, that's why I added it which is enough when it comes to WP:CON. Victory didn't had to be removed at first like other users have noted. Also note that Calore123 placed his comment above my comment but made it after the infobox was changed for second time. Razer ( talk ) 09:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Updated lead per talk and infobox. Thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Historian Akbar S Zaidi provides a good overview of this war:, this can be probably added to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

-- D Big X ray  21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support change to Indian Victory. In addition to above, I will add another source here stating Indian Military victory in 1965.

-- D Big X ray  21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The information is totally wrong and Based on one sided opinions only. Please read a few book written by indian ex army officers to get knowledge about this war. India attacked on pakistan and Pakistan killed thousands of Indian officers on that war. India was totally in loss. Zulkaifriaz (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is propaganda which is debunked even by Pakistani journalists. see 1965 War from Pakistani perspective -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose seeing as most historians note it as status quo ante bellum. Saadouken (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor's only edit so far on wikipedia is to !vote here -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on reliable Third party and neutral sources see WP:RS. So many Neutral sources are posted above. I would like to see which neutral historians call this a Pakistan victory. Only Pakistan Army says that it won the war. Even Pakistani Journalists and newspapers have published that Pakistan lost the 1965 war. Some Articles from Pakistani journalists and Pakistani historians are below.
 * 1965 War from Pakistani perspective


 * 1) Not only did we (Pakistan) lose militarily in 1965 – state propaganda aside – but we also lost our national unity in the process.
 * 2) Pakistan observing Defence Day and marking the 50th anniversary of the 1965 war, historian and political economist Dr S. Akbar Zaidi dispelled ‘the victory myth’, saying that there can be no a bigger lie, as Pakistan lost terribly. he said: “With the celebration of the victory in the 1965 war round the corner, there can be no bigger lie that Pakistan won the war. We lost terribly in the 1965 war.”
 * 3) Pakistan won the war in the same way that you finish third in a two-team tournament.
 * 4) The Pakistani military has propagated a false narrative about the 1965 war that justifies its oversized role in society. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

India won.. Editor Mofor (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, because neither India won the war when there are sources that show neither countries won, while there are some international sources that claim Pakistan's victory. Pakieditor (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Air Marshal (retired) Nur Khan, who headed the Pakistan Air Force in 1965, said in an interview with Dawn newspaper that the army "misled the nation with a big lie" - that India rather than Pakistan provoked the war - and that Pakistan won a "great victory". And since the "lie" was never rectified, the Pakistani "army came to believe its own fiction, (and) has continued to fight unwanted wars," he said. BBC Operation Gibraltar: The Pakistani troops who infiltrated Kashmir to start a rebellion-- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo in section 7.2
There is a Typo in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph in section 7.2 of this article: "The Pakistan airforce on the other hand gained a lot of credibility and reliability among Pakistan military and international war writers for successful defence of [lahore]..." Lahore should be capitalised as it is a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FernandoAguado (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification tag in Gnat section
, what is still unclear? After my edit, it should be clear that the "it" refers to his chance of returning. —Gazoth (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm awaiting your reply. —Gazoth (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You never explained what's getting snuffed out, as you would have seen had you read my comment. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the opportunity to return from the Pakistani airfield to India was what was getting snuffed out, but I guess the lack of context makes it confusing. I read through both sources to reword more of the paragraph, and the mention of Starfighters in the second line is quite unnecessary. Both sources agree that Sikand was running short on fuel and he landed in a Pakistani airfield as he was lost. Tufail adds that even if he wasn't running short on fuel and all his equipment were functioning correctly, Starfighters would have prevented him from returning to India after being lost. I don't think that is significant enough to deserve a mention, as he probably wouldn't be lost in the first place if that were the case. Let me know if this revision is any better:
 * —Gazoth (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's easy to understand; thank you. I'd just suggest a tweak on the fuel — was the pilot running short on fuel (i.e. he didn't think he could make it back before his fuel tank became completely empty), or was the plane running short (i.e. the fuel tank was already completely empty)?  I mean, in the first situation, the pilot has enough fuel to navigate the local area without difficulty (in peacetime he'd have his choice of airfields), while in the second, he's flying a heavy glider.  I think it would help if we instead said "Pasrur, as he lacked the fuel to return to his base, and" or "Pasrur, having run out of fuel, and".  Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was the former. He could not make it back to his home base and thought that he was landing in an abandoned airfield in India, but he actually landed in Pakistan. I'll use your first wording. —Gazoth (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The so-called "Indian" claim is from Smithsonian?
O' Nordeen, Lon (1985). Air Warfare in the Missile Age. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Does not sound very "Indian" to me. Is this a mistake? ---Trickipaedia (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)