Talk:Operation Brasstacks

I wrote this up with whatever information I could glean from the web. Any corrections with references are most welcomed - Rising storm

Belligerents : Pakistan ??
the {infobox military conflict} (which is misleading) was added by User:Ironboy11 (now Banned). This was not a military conflict and the strength etc added seems to be his personal [wp:OR]. Request the Editors to Either remove the {infobox military conflict} completely or else modify it to remove the Pakistan army part as This was A MILITARY EXCERCISE by Indian Army and not a Military conflict as portrayed by the box --dBigXray (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you're right. just remove the damn thing.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It did put Pakistan army on the move... it was seen to be a probable conflict, though an actual conflict didn't happen, but situation did escalate. The article stands somewhere in middle of both your opinions. Needs some adjustment. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case may be it still cannot be tagged as a military CONFLICT. The Tension between the two countries has escalated on numerous occasions that does nott mean each and every escalation of tension can be tagged as MILITARY CONFLICT. Thanks Musti for the support . Removing the {infobox military conflict}--dBigXray (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said probable conflict. Should be tagged under something relevant instead of 'conflict'. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources, blogs, commentary opinions as citations?
--dBigXray (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) saw some citations added by Hassanhn5 (talk) which are not acceptable citations see Verifiability http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/an-open-letter-to-gen-kayani-from-india/ http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-compulsory-subjects/current-affairs/54395-geo-strategic-importance-pakistan.html http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2006/March06/03/02.HTM all three above belongs to Verifiability http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2010/02/24/indias_futile_talks_with_pakistan/3333/ news site but not related to the cited texts http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143245 a reference to the Match but not related to cited texts. I propose removal of such citations --dBigXray (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)--dBigXray (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These are news & web citations.Though there's much citation improvement needed in this article, but that doesn't mean that the current sources are not reliable. Try helping by adding constructive material or new citations to the article. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WRT the - I appreciate that there may be concerns about the referencing, but I believe it needs further discussion (here) to establish a consensus before any specific request could be actioned, in this specific case. See also WP:DISPUTE. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, previously, there was no citation at all on the article, I've tried to link some texts. This article needs a alot of improvements. So instead of simply objecting to the current references, editors should help to find more reliable and neutral ones to support whats already written. This article has quite a lot of stuff missing too, that needs to be added as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If proper citations are not available that does not means editors can place citations that are Verifiability . The associated content and such citations are liable for removal. --dBigXray (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All but one are news citation. You need to review the sources first. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Which of the sources do you want to be reviewed. none of them can be used in this article as citations to texts. -- D ℬig XЯay  22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * wordpress.com is a blogging site. selfpublished. rejected
 * cssforum.com.pk is forum, selfpublished. rejected
 * pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2006/March06/03/02.HTM commentary, op-eds . dont serve as citation rejected
 * http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2010/02/24/indias_futile_talks_with_pakistan/3333/ news site but not related to the cited texts . irrelevant rejected
 * http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143245 a reference to the Match but not related to cited texts. rejected


 * This article is very low on quality, and needs a lot of citation. Relevant tags are already present on the article for further improvement. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * lack of citations is no excuse for inserting non reliable citations and associated POV content. Kindly remove them As soon as possible. Unwillingness in doing so, shows your Biasness. -- D ℬig XЯay  11:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I added the forum citation. The news citations are very much relevant however, and cannot be removed because you reject them since they are from third parties as well. Also the current consensus is to further discuss this topic and add content and citations rather than to remove the content that is already present. We follow consensus here. It is not compulsory for you to contribute to this article if you do not have time enough to add content to this article. Wikipedia works with volunteers. Relevant tags are placed on the top of the article so that any editor interested can improve it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This [| edit clearly shows] that you had added these unreliable sources so as to authorize the POV content in the article, instead of removing the wrong and misleading text in the article. About the news citation that you add can you verify which part of the article text those citations prove ? I have read them and they are redundant here. -- D ℬig XЯay  18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * there are words like  threatened and intimidated the Indian prime minister and by even an inch, we are going to annihilate your cities which clearly seem to be lifted from Forums and are provocative and unacceptable as far as the neutrality of the article is concerned. A valid and reliable citation is very much necessary to establish that these contents.-- D ℬig XЯay  19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Those words are supposed to be in inverted commas and not to be wiki's or editor's POV but to be as said by the Pakistani general, hence they are not provocative but historical quotation. Also, 'threatened' is a neutral word for the non quoted part. You Should really read these articles before you think of going out and asking for deletion of information & sources on small under developed articles like this one: Don%27t demolish the house while it%27s still being built & WP:Eventualism. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * as of now there is no verifiable citations to prove if these were said by Pakistani general the source of these comments are Forums. Hence fit for removal. -- D ℬig XЯay  22:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As of some time ago, this article had no reference cited to it. I've added some references. Forums might be removed, but removal of text will send the article to a size to be considered for complete deletion. This article needs a lot of improvement. I strongly suggest you read the articles I gave you above. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One cannot Say that keep the forum talks on Wikipedia articles so that the article remains long enough. Wikipedia is based on verifiable truth not on forum chat and discussions. The Misquoted Statements can be placed on the Discussion page for others to see, if they could find it. I have done an extensive search and i did not find any verifiable link that stated the correctness of these contents, they are purely based on forum chat and self published sources such as pakdef. info. Needs immediate cleaning. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not forum talks. Enough of the the content in question is cited to keep them in that shape. Also currently an RSN is in going on for pakdef.info, since the last RSN was inconclusive due to lack of neutral comments. You should keep tabs on that RSN. This article is not under a deletion tag because it is notable so stop giving that argument that everything should be removed just because enough citation isn't yet there. This article is still under development. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets be more specific, can you name which of the above cite you support and why they should stay in the article, one by one. i have already given my reasons and want you to do the same if you disagree (be specific) and have a look on wp:RS before commenting. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)