Talk:Operation Chengiz Khan

Nixon quotation
What is the point of this quotation from Nixon at the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention? Was this said in reference to Indian intervention in the Bangladesh war? Context is not clear, I suggest that if this has no Bangladesh connection, it be removed as irrelevant.

"Remarks of President Richard M Nixon on April 10, 1971 at State Department signing of Biological Weapons Convention. Every Great Power must follow the principle that it should not directly or indirectly allow any other nation to use force or armed aggression against one of its neighbors. USIS Text, pp 1–2."

24.131.254.142 (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Good Article

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

I've put this on hold for up to two weeks because:

I may not be able to respond to comments quickly next week, but I'll be back after that to look on your improvements. JRP 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Grammar is good in most places, but needs cleaned up. For example, "However, of its stated objectives, the PAF was unable to neutralise the Indian Air Force in the west. It most certainly achieved surprise."
 * I am working on this. Will help if you tell me where it can be improved.
 * Also check on punctuation. You have some spaces before references (10, for example) and other areas where you are missing spaces where you should have them. (15) You sometimes have references before punctuation, which should be cleaned up. (19)
 * Working on this.
 * Use of bold text in some places seem out of place, both within the text and within the references. (Did you intend to use italics?)
 * Addressed.
 * Many of sections are stubby and look more like lists. Consider following the advice of Embedded_list to make them flow better.
 * Sorted, I believe
 * The last paragraph of "Analysis" may not be a neutral point of view. You have it well-cited, but it seems biased. Maybe state sources which were surprised.
 * You will notice that this section only uses sources and references dervied from Pakistani sources, the "TIMES magazine" article written in December 1971 that analysed the conflict (and had accounts of this particular air raid), and the Air Combat Information Group (a neutral an multinational group on air warfare) article that is reference no.1. No Indian sources suggesting ineffectiveness has been included, deliberately, to avoid bias and POV. I hope this clarifies the NPOV issue.
 * Consider using the standard citation templates for more consistent citations.
 * Addressed below (References ordered to consistent order of "Title. Author if known. Source."'''
 * I'm not sure your maps are fair use. They would be easy for you to reproduce based on the factual data and the non-copyrighted CIA maps, rather than using someone else's copyrighted maps.
 * Addressed below and in the image pages.
 * Whats the status here, on hold expires today. IvoShandor 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look over in more detail tomorrow (when I am home), but it looks like there is substantial improvement here... but I'm not sure all the points were addressed. (The obvious one is the questionable fair-use on the maps, but I need to re-review more closely. I didn't do the strikeouts.) JRP 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: The images, they are the only ones I have found so far that identitifes the IAF and the PAF bases involved. The locations and geographical co-ordinates of some of the airfields (especially PAF ones) ones are usually not declared and/or publicised. CIA maps and data available on the net don't usually identify sensitive locations, including defence installations. Some of these lie outside of notable cities and/or towns(eg, PAF Masroor, PAF Murid,PAF Talhar, IAF Uttarlai, IAF Halwara). I don't think I can create an alternative map for these, so I guess if that's the sticking point, then there's not really much I can do.Rueben lys 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We may be at an impasse. I see them as being against Non-free_content #3, though I'll list at Possibly_unfree_images for someone with better knowledge of faire use to make that call. JRP 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I made some queries at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for information on the Indian Information Act which you cite. I just want this to be clear before deciding whether to promote. JRP 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pass/Fail? Ehh? IvoShandor 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my GA review comments, I gave two weeks to resolve the issues (instead of the normal one week). That ends Apr 26. I believe we are still at the "sticking point" over the maps. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content seems to be that the maps fail fair use. (And I hope Rueben lys will participate in that discussion.) Regardless of other improvements to the article, that would preclude GA until the images were removed or their fair use status was clarified.JRP 10:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the best way to deal with this for GA is to just remove the map from the article until its status is decided and just pass the GA. IvoShandor 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article, there are still a number of minor (and solvable) problems. The use of unnecessary bold text hasn't been corrected (and some of the bolds should be italics, in names of books, etc.). There's a stray dash after "objectives of the strike", there's a stray space between footnote 10 and 3, weird commas around 12 and 13, and many of the citations aren't immediately after punctuation - some have spaces and some are before punctuation. It would also be nice to have the uniformity in the citation templates. If I were to review the article now, with these problems unfixed, I would be failing the GA nomination. JRP 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the minor problems you mentioned have been sorted. I have made the references consistent in the format of "Title. Author.Source." I am not familiar with the citation template, and will take quite a while to replace all the references. I hope the consistency(uniformity) overrides any negative aspects.

As for the images,first of all they are not subject to subscription, and is not a cause of revenue-loss. Also, it is integrally linked to understand why the PAF struck the bases it did and not other ones (ie, the target airfields were in direct path of the proposed offensive, or were geographically and strategically in a place to provide ground support, while the airfields ignored were not) so the maps are quite important.This is also consistent with the aim with the original image was created. Lastly there is no uncopyrighted alternative, and it is not possible to create a free alternative since the source data are not known. The images reproduction is essentially to dissipate information that is essential to understand the operation itself. I do think it satisfies fair use.Rueben lys 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we've reached an impasse. Regarding the titles in bold face, you should follow Manual of Style (titles). (Which is largely done for you if you use the citation templates, but you can also do it by hand.) Some of the references are still inconsistently placed, relative to punctuation; see the guidelines in Citing sources. I don't think we will agree on whether the maps are fair use or not. I'm leaning toward following the input I received when asking on the Talk pages (listed above) and saying they are non-fair-use. (Particularly the opinion of Jkelly who is a commons administrator. I trust that he understands the ins and outs of fair use better than I do.) Based on these three concerns, this is still not a GA-quality article. It's quite close, in my opinion and you may find another reviewer that may let it slide. So, if you disagree with me I can fail the article a day or two early and you can start working on relisting it. It is good and on an important topic. JRP 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I am going to relist this anymore, you can fail it if it fails right now.Thanks for the help, though. Rueben lys 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A Canadair F-86 or a Shenyang F-6 in the lead photo?
The lead photo identifies the upper left jet as a Shenyang F-6 but in the second paragraph under "First Strikes" F-86 Sabre Jets are mentioned. In Canadair Sabre Pakistan is listed as an operator and also that Canadair Sabres were used in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war. Zen-in (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

correction
not even a single plane was lost by pakistan in operation chengez khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.87.0 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

POV and uncited content
There was heavy biasness with uncited content and hearsay in the article. I've corrected and re writen those parts and sourced them properly. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * there has been [| extensive edits] to this article and various contents from veribiable source and books have been quietly remove on the lame pretexts of removing POV.it seems to me that the user lTopGunl (talk) thinks that anything that says about failure of Pakistan is indian POV  and has to be removed. This is a serious attempt to disrupt the article. I expect the user to give sufficient and proper explanations for these [| edits] which could be reverted to an earlier state otherwise. -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  16:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely wrong. I've added both Indian and Pakistani sources to back my additions/replacements. The most prominent sources are the book written by the then Indian airforce chief and the already cited sources that were wrongly quoted. The text about humanitarian crisis was removed because a consensus has been reached about it on the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts page. Please review the citations before you make claims like this as it is taken as a personal attack otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * the removal of content (properly cited) has to be justified, just the explanation of removing POV is in complete. hope you will self revert the unjustified changes and provide explanation for changes that seems to be justified with proper sources. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  16:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A discussion on this topic has already reached a consensus here. Hope you have your explaination. All other content is heavily sourced and justified by the relevant citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Result of Operation Chengiz Khan
The CItation says The Attack on Indian airfields on 3 Dec By PAF was not a success. read ''This preemptive strike known as Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the success of Israeli Operation Focus in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. But, unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967 which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India and failed to inflict the intended damage.''

"Trying to catch the Indian Air Force napping, Yahya Khan, launched a Pakistani version of Israel's 1967 air blitz in hopes that one rapid attack would cripple India's far superior air power. But India was alert, Pakistani pilots were inept, and Yahya's strategy of scattering his thin air force over a dozen air fields was a bust!", p.34, Newsweek, December 20, 1971 accordingly the contents have been edited. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  11:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your claim is disputed by both Indian and Pakistani sources. The last person to exaggerate damages would be India's airforce chief, yet he too has mentioned all the damages in his book. The facts are heavily sourced here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

About your recent edit. The content you added about refugees and humanitarian crises, see above section and follow the link to review the standing consensus. If you wish to challenge that consensus, give your arguments and citations on the same page. Also, you've removed sourced content from the page. Refrain from disruptive editing. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * [| this edit clearly shows] who is trying to remove REliable sourced contents. and books. Besides you are quoting a Source that talks about an altogether different topic and the content is non verifiable .The content about bangladeshi refugee was well cited from a reliable source a book by Neutral foreign author. there was no point in removing it. you need to explain the removal of content as it amounts to disruptive editing. This is a serious issue and needs to be discussed . I expect you explain this [| revert of yours] -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  12:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about your removal of damages from Indian section. And about the refugee part, I told you, your sources have been considered on a different page and a consensus has been established, Go and change it there. If you can not convince editors for something on one page, it does not mean that you start the same topic again on another WP:POINT. You have to prove it on the page referred to in above section. I'm linking it for you here again: . Get a consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ok i am taking the discussion of Bangladeshi refugees there. but you need to explain the removal of other contents in this [| revert of yours]-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  13:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edits are completely opposite to the current standing text and they are supported by just an Indian website while they are against 3 reliable sources already sourced (which include 2 Indian sources). You further added a reduntant paragraph to present information that was already presented in counter operation section. And a consensus on the dispute resolution (about the operation tredent) has been established on not including retaliations which were not a part of the operation in the losses section. Your edits also contained a lot of peacock words which are not used in wikipedia as per policy. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * you need to be more precise in your arguements. whiich word u seee here a peacock word ? I think we need to discuss each and ever edit in this [| revert of yours] Point by point or else its a clear DISPUTE you are the one who have repeated the same words Indian airfields damaged twice on the the Infobox . (needless and deliberate doubling of content ) -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "bust" & "far superior" in this context are peacock words. Other than that your source is outweighed. We already went point by point. I've removed the redundancy from the results section now. You on the other hand gave no explanation and removed the line "Widespread damage to India's all western airfields and radar installations." from the losses section under cover of your other edits. This is obvious vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * bust and far superior are not my own words but they are from the source newsweek, besides since these wordes are not neutral hence i have not used them in the article. it is only in the reference section from the source. These WOrds are not included in the text of the article, do not mislead. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that newsweek used these words (and u just called them not neutral in your above comment) make that source biased. Also, I'm not misleading, the whole sentence was there in the reference section which could be read by any reader following up to the reference section of the article. But looking at the bigger picture here, I'll consider you considering those words as not neutral as an implication that the source is biased. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You reject Indian sources as biased, you are not giving reliable citations from PAkistan to prove your edits , and whats more eurprising is you are considering Newsweek an American news magazine published in New York City. It is distributed throughout the United States and internationally as non neutral. I will wait for citations so that you can support your claims, or else we can take it to dispute board, we are not making progress here. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa. But when an Indian source is telling about damages sustained by India, any reasonable person would consider it as one with least exaggeration if not with deductions. These statements go for both the Indian airforce cheif's book and the indiadefence website. In addition to that, I've given a Pakistani source i.e. pakdef.info. You have given only newsweek, which is outweighed here. News week is contradicting 3 sources here. We might consider it neutral on the word that its American but on the basis of contradiction it is definitely inaccurate. There is no dispute here. You are just pushing POV. If you are really interested in making progress review your own comments and my comments as a third person's point of view and see if I'm properly sourcing my edit or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

using article from http://www.indiadefenceupdate.com/news94.html
First we need to clarify this.

This article is on a different topic about Longewala and not Changez khan. besides the comment are uncited, and They are all from Pakistani Officers. The language used is also surprising. The citation is does not seem to be a reliable one and the content is questionable unless it is also mentioned in other reliable places. if you disagree then you can reply or we need to take it to Dispute Board. I suggest we use other citations from reliable sources. you are free to provide any reliable one.-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this does not need clarification. Stop deviating from the topic of discussion to prove your edits. This is not on a different topic. The article is on 2-3 events. It is a published article by an Indian officer who is quoting Pakistani officers. Also, the fact that there was widespread damage to Indian airfields was not accredited to the Pakistani source but said on the aurthor's own behalf. This already is backed up by two other sources, the pakdef site and the Indian airforce chief's book. Read WP:HEAR. This section is a baseless attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Refer to the above section for the debate in question. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried looking at the reliable sources, i did not find these claims and spoken citations to verify if they are really said. if you are so sure and certain why dont you give the links so that this discussion can be concluded ?? -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that this source is a published source itself and not WP:OR. Stick to one section. This discussion is already going on in the above section where I'm replying. This source is backed up with 2 other sources. Refer to above section where I'll post my further replies. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

citations needed
we need ciatations for this following quote i tried to search the internet and could not find any crediable source for it.

“After one of PAF’s night bombing strikes on our airfield, we were all grounded for six hours. The runway had been cratered in many places. The following morning our CO, Wing Commander V B Sawardekar, took us all to the runway to show us the Pakistani pilot’s bombing accuracy. Pointing to the craters on our runway he said ‘this is the kind of bombing accuracy the IAF pilots should achieve against Pakistani targets.’

We should mark it for deletion if there is no ciation for the next 6 months. The citation is from some pakitani Airforce officer, which does not seem very credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a credible source and cited to an Indian officer not Pakistani. Please check first. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * the content is clearly sourced from pakdef.info and blogs. removed --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  13:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion to topGun do not mask content from wp:SPS pakdef.info as in here they will be removed--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've indiscriminately removed sourced content. I'm reverting you. Only remove the sps site so that I can add other citations for it. I've not masked anything, it has been there since before that RSN thread. In anycase, there's no reason to remove the content sourced by other books. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The content as seen in an old version of this article here clearly shows that it was copied from pakdef.info. even the google search supports this . Also note that I have only removed the pakdef.info as reference and a controversial and unsourced claim (as mentioned above).Please show me where did i remove the content sourced by other book. i dont see any such other book in the comment that i have removed. you are free to restore content but not without proper sources and do not remove the {Cn} tags without providing proper source. if you want to remove remove the content along with the  tags but not just the  tags --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * feel free to back up the Cn tags by so called other sources that you are talking about, but edit warring on the article and restoring the self published sources is not the right thing to do. --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Editwarring? Look at the page history please, you've reverted a second time and you are the one editwarring. You have removed content sourced by a book which was definitely not Pakdef (Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour, page 451.). You should self revert right away and remove only the site you pointed out. Your second revert is exactly the same as the first. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Reminder: Everyone involved here is under a 1RR restriction. -- S M S  Talk 15:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes it a que for dbigxray to self revert. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not violated any 1RR and have even discussed my comments here. do not restore wp:SPS pakdefinfo into the article. about the Unsourced claims that is mentioned above. I will be glad to restore that claim that i have removed if you can give me a wp:RS for that claim I have searched it and could not find it hence removed, the unsourced controversial claim . I cannot restore and selfrevert unsourced claims back into historical articles, not against policies --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored the content for the time being (so that this content dispute will not be portrayed as edit war) but it is clearly sourced from the pakdef.info website. please provide the details of the source as the claim seems to be unreliable. no such statement was given anywhere. if it was it would have been properly documented. i will remove it again unless the reliability of the controversial claim and the source is established. --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look again, the book's page number has been provided. That is enough for the verifiability of a source. You're claim that no such statement was ever made is just by you're own word while I've pointed out a source in the article backing it up. For your info, a second revert is a 1RR violation and removing original research (or claimed original research) is not an exception from 1RR or 3RR. Read WP:3RR for the exceptions. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Dbigxray, you also removed the citation for IDS, do you claim that it is the same as pakdef? I think it's link was added to it but the sources are different. I will check this, but you should make your justifications clear when you remove. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes i have removed the links from the self published source pakdef.info even if you call it IDS or IDK (I Dont Know) or whatever to mask it. --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've not specified whether you claim Institute of defence studies and Pakdef are the same or what? If you blame me of masking again, I will consider this a conduct dispute. Please keep it to content. You seem to be making a pretty big assumption just because pakdef's link was added to the source of IDS. See this . It seems to be an independent body. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added two more citations though the first one was complete. I think these can easily cover up more content from the article, but I'll do that slowly. I will not add any more citations at this quotation to aviod WP:CITEKILL. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This clear masking of the content from  pakdef info is the cause of this dispute. There no such claim from so called Indian pilot, and unreliable . and dont add blogs as references. Both your links one from  defence journal and the other blog link have the same content and unreliable. This content needs to be properly sources as it is  a controversial claim, which is why its not in the reliable sources. first give one good reliable source then talk of cite overkill  --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving the diff above. As it is clear in the diff, I replaced Pakdef with a book source along with page number. Now that we are over that, I will point out WP:SOURCEACCESS to you; it is not necessary that you have access to the sources that I provide. But still for the sake of it I added the writer's own blog source which gives the same text (just to facilitate - not that I was bound). And did you even look at my justification for adding the blog? Self published sources by expert authors are OK to be used, and this one is just a copy of the one published in defence journal. That would be all the justification I've got. Since You've ignored my comment about IDS, I will be looking into that matter in due time to see if it was actually pakdef or IDS. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll be watching, I'll be waiting --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  17:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mission outcome
As we have a very reliable academic source which says the mission failed in it's objectives, and only unreliable sources which say it was not, would IP 36 explain why he is edit warring this out? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And the IP has still to use the talk page, and is still editwarring? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How about you and the IPs stop the editwar and consider that you are removing sourced content before changing the standing version? You haven't given any explanation of removing whole paragraphs of content, sourced content from infobox which is even backed by Indian source. Also if some citation dies out, you should look for the archives instead of removing them to change facts. And why would you follow me to yet another article unprovoked? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not followed you here at all, I removed badly sourced content and replace it with academically sourced content, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed content sourced with sources of both sides. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, the sourced contene should not be removed. Fai  zan  13:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How is the DJ source unreliable anyway? -- S M S   Talk 17:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed that crap as it was a violation of BLPPRIMARY, you cannot use a firsthand account of an event to support statements from people. So stop restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And before you ask, “My Days with the IAF” by Air Chief Marshal P C Lal is the primary source, and ought not be used at all. As is Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour,, a primary source, There is no http://www.indiadefenceupdate.com at all, it does not exist. And the DJ source is an opinion piece & also primary. I removed that junk and added academic sources, you have the temerity to accuse me of removing sourced content and you actually have now restored BLPBPRIMARY violations twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no BLPPRIMARY violation here as neither of the sources says anything or make a claim " about people ". BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.". Besides you haven't given any explanation for the removal of the content I added. -- S M S   Talk 17:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no violation here. A source of each side confirms the incident. Further more it is pubilshed by RS. The indian defense update has a removed page but when I added it, it was working. A bot will fix that sooner or later if I can't find an archive of it. In any case other sources are present to back it up. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, there are an entire quote from Flight Lieutenant Harish Sinhji, which is sourced to a primary document. End of. Again, I had removed shite sources, I added academic sources, this is called "editing the article", are you guys now upset because it reflects reality and not the tripe it was previously? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SMS, is the the source you added? The State at War in South Asia Here is what it actually says, "Unlike in 1965 the PAF met with little success, as the IAF had dispersed it's planes in concrete shelters, resulting in only a few aircraft suffering minor damage" Strange indeed that you did not mention that in the edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all editors here disagree with your opinion. All the sources cited are reliable. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it was only one of the four sources I added. And should I have repeated that when it was already written many a times in the article ? Actually you also did the same I wonder why don't you feel strange about that?
 * You better read the WP:BLPPRIMARY again. It no where supports the argument you make. -- S M S   Talk 12:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The sources used are, given they are first hand accounts. BLPPRIMARY "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." TG is edit warring in a PRIMARY SOURCE TO SUPPORT AN ASSERTION ABOUT A LIVING PERSON, that is the end of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree as there is no assertion made by a Primary source about a person here. As you have asked for an edit protect request per BLP concern, so lets see how it is handled. I may seek an explanation at BLPN following that. -- S M S   Talk 12:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of this subject and the edit warring makes it difficult to fathom; nonetheless, why not forget about BLPPRIMARY for a minute? What we seem to have is various sources who were connected to the event giving their opinions on its outcome. This is never a desirable way to produce a neutral article because those people are only reliable for their own opinion and thus we can use them only with considerable care. Post-event analyses by uninvolved people is the way to go, with perhaps a rider that "X, who was involved in the events, has said that they were a success/failure/whatever". - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are merely opinions when they are presented in reliable sources. The sources should be weighed fully. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can think whatever you wish; however, we prefer secondary sources to primary sources and reliability is determined in relation to the statement being made, not on some overall basis. However, when it comes to things that are basically nationalist issues, no person who was involved militarily or governmentally can usually be considered reliable. Please do find some secondaries that support the opinion and add the primary as a bolster. If that is in fact what had happened amidst all the recent to-and-fro then that's great. If you doubt me then take it to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Primary source about one's own pilots is one thing, but when the indian source is saying it about a Pakistani action, it no longer remains primary because the indian counter part or the writer do not represent the Pakistani side. It also doesn't mean that their remarks should be purged from the article because they are important and relevant to the event. There's no censorship on wikipedia. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable point and a breath of fresh air: a combatant who passes a favourable judgement on the other side. I wasn't suggesting a purge, though - I said "bolster" (ie: support). Precisely which source are we talking about here? I've dealt with the theory (policy wonkery, I know) but would now like to see the thing that is causing all this edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe for an instant that anyone would write that this op was a success, we already have two academic sources which says it flopped, I want to see a full quote from the source which says this op succeeded. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just protected for three days due to the edit warring. Note that semi-protection will have to be manually re-enabled when full protection expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please give the full quote from Lal's book which says the mission was a success, we have academic sources which says it failed, you are the editor who changed the content from mission failed to mission success, so please give us the quote. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd stop removing sources and the edit war and instead read the source, you'd know better about the sourced content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give the full quote from Lal's book which says the mission was a success. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the third and final time, please give the full quote from Lal's book which says the mission was a success. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for the AE that you started over this dispute... it might soon be pointless to dig into the book if your idea of dispute resolution was to get us both banned. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I will remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit protect
Please restore to this version, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, I had again removed the BLPPRIMARY violations, and it was again restored by topgun. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: There's an awful lot going on in the reverts here (example). Even though I've looked at the diffs and at the discussion above, I can't actually tell what content you are disputing exactly. Could you be more precise about what you think the BLP violation is? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Was written in the section above, there are an entire quote from Flight Lieutenant Harish Sinhji, which is sourced to a primary document. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, just remove all of this "To prove the positive results of PAF's attack, the following narration comes from an Indian Mig-21 pilot taken prisoner after being shot down over Pakistan. Flight Lieutenant Harish Sinhji, who belonged to a Sirsa-based squadron, stated:[28]

“After one of PAF’s night bombing strikes on our airfield, we were all grounded for six hours. The runway had been cratered in many places. The following morning our CO, Wing Commander V B Sawardekar, took us all to the runway to show us the Pakistani pilot’s bombing accuracy. Pointing to the craters on our runway he said ‘this is the kind of bombing accuracy the IAF pilots should achieve against Pakistani targets.’’[29][30][31]" The sources are primary, and one is an opinion piece, but also primary. And one is a blog, being used for statements of fact on living people. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And I just found another issue, the article currently states that “My Days with the IAF” (one of the primary sources) was authored by by Air Chief Marshal P C LalV., it was not, it was written by S. C. Bonarjee. That needs to be fixed as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinda a big issue actually, Bonarjee retired from the IAF in 1948, anyone know how he is giving an account of a war which happened 23 years after he left? In his memoirs? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It was "My Years with the IAF" that P C Lal wrote. -- S M S   Talk 13:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any BLP vio here.. it's a content dispute and DS is trying to get an admin to revert his version during protection of the aritcle. The self published blog source is from Kaiser Tufail an expert writer in the field which doesn't make it an opinion piece either by wikipedia's own policy. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: sorry, but I don't see this as a clear-cut BLP violation. The quote is about the bombing accuracy, not about an individual, so in my opinion it is a stretch to say it violates the BLP policy. If you can't work things out here on the talk page, I recommend that you go through the normal dispute resolution channels. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour
Can someone please let me know how this is considered a reliable, or even a neutral source? Given the publisher is a trust of the Pakistan Air Force. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are saying it's a Pakistani trust, it makes it a Pakistani source. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is written and publised by the Pakistani airforce. Please explain how you think this a neutral or reliable source for information on combat missions. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As per your own justification, if it is published by PAF, it is completely reliable to represent PAF's point of view. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewote it to point out its PAF point of view.Regards Nuclearram (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I left your point. Which is fine as it further specifies the reporting source. But don't add your own commentary in text. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is neither reliable nor neutral, it is well documented that the PAF lied through their teeth over losses in the 71 conflict, this ought to be removed per NPOV RS & UNDUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wars bring propagenda... but which document says that this naration is incorrect? If none, then it becomes opinion on event vs RS narration which has no consideration. Kaiser Tufail is covering it further, and he is also a reliable source in the field being in expert and has independently as well. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Memoirs are a primary source, Tufail as a source is from an opinion piece and is also primary. So not RS. He is not an expert in the field, he is a former pilot, not a historian. To have that in the article is UNDUE, also it is obviously wrong as the IAF were dropping bombs a few hours later, so the accuracy cannot have been all that great. Please provide a full quote from Tufail though, let us see exactly what it was he wrote. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Primary source here is the Indian pilot's narration, which is being reported by the reference, which becomes the secondary source as it is not the source's own point of view. Secondly, Kaiser Tufail is a pilot turned historian as he has considerable work in the area (makes him expert on two counts). Even if you debate that, he is still an authentic source according to PAF, which makes him a PAF source if you disregard his independent authenticity and PAF's sources are reliable to represent PAF's citings (to which already the text points so I don't know what more you want). Can't totally censor it because PAF published it, or because an Indian pilot talks favourably for PAF? Infact.... even the PAF pilot is reporting his superior's comments. Makes it secondary on so many counts. With all that disregarded for the sake of argument, as the text is currently in very clear reference, in text mention of it all being published by PAF clears all doubts for the reader. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * TG, another person quoting what another person said does not make it a secondary source, it is still primary. Please provide proof that Tufail is an historian, a search on GBooks shows but one book by him, not published by an academic printing house. And given he is a retired PAF pilot, how can we expect a neutral account from him? So all we have here are to PAF sources, not backed by anything else, making an unsubstantiated claim from a BLP. These are neither neutral nor reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Article already says it's from PAF and not of PAF's own view too. Nothing's unsubstantiated here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is unsubstantiated as only two sources mention it, both from the same guy as near as I can tell. Again, please provide the full quotes from both sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote is in text. Read the rest yourself. Can't totally remove what PAF published. It has due weight to put in each party's citations. Now whether or not the IAF pilot said it, and whether or not you like it this is what the source published. There's no BLP vio involved here as the text says the source cited the pilot to be saying this and not directly mentions the pilot to be saying such. There's a difference. Drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not getting it, I want the quote from both those books, for all I know that quote is still there from being sourced to the blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I tell you not to blindly not remove the sources as they are referring further sources. The blog post was a WP:SPS by Tufail and has been published else where (I think it was linked before you started editing out) as a secondary source. Which makes that article a source too. Read it yourself. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog is of no use, for the third and final time, please provide the full quotes ffrom the two book sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If you both could stop screaming at one another for an instant, even the book mentioned is clearly a WP:SPS not by a reputable publisher and in reality would not usually be considered a WP:RS. If you can stop bickering for an instant I would suggest WP:RSN for a resolution. I'm at a loss as to what you think edit warring that quote adds to the article, it certainly isn't worth the angst over it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant part of WP:SPS

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Whilst the author may well fall under the established expert category, the text highlighted would confirm that a WP:SPS should NEVER be used to source a quotation of another individual. I have tagged the quote in question as a potentially unreliable source. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN I did it myself. I see its already been done though I would suggest the issue is being muddled across multiple sources. One at a time people. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you agree this ought to be removed then? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do and so does the comments at WP:RSN, which indicate that this isn't reliably sourced. I would have simply removed it but didn't want to provoke another edit war, or have an angry mob camped in my talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am used to angry mobs on my talk page, so will remove it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The quotation wasn't just published in this book. It was also published in 'Defence Journal', Aug-Sep 2011 issue which is not an SPS, rather a secondary source publishing the same content. How come the defense journal too becomes ineligible for the content even if the book was. The fact that defense journal is citing the same book means it is a secondary source. @, Did you ask for the source to be removed or did you have that judgement over the whole text? Since that's what was done with no respect to other sources. Secondly, the primary source is not being used alone... it is being used in to further back up the article from defence journal. But if it should still be removed, fine as the defence journal article still sources it. The text should not be removed just because one source was removed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply because a secondary source quoting the original article does not make it worth including and the consensus at WP:RSN reflected that. The consensus at WP:RSN was as I suspected the original work is a WP:SPS and per that policy should not be used to source a quote from another individual.  Why do you consider such dubiously material to be worth including?  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit
I got interrupted in the middle of moving references, I will get back onto it but if someone has the time to move references to the body of the article feel free. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ineffectual strikes
your edit warring on this has been outrageous. You have carried out no less than 6 reverts over the past few weeks, while not taking the least trouble or showing gumption to conciliate differences on the talk page, despite being reverted by multiple editors. That your latest round of reverts on the page has come on the heels of a lull is unsavoury and tires a good deal of my good faith; and it must be queried whether edit-warring is your only modus operandi to quell discord. Take this opportunity to spell out the rationale underpinning your conduct and how the airstrikes were not ineffectual inasmuch the source is emphatic in stating on page 78 that the air strikes did not achieve the desired effects or results. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Calling constructive edits outrageous doesn't make them so. You and Yoonadue have repeatedly restored original research which is not mentioned in any source, such as:


 * Notwithstanding the multiplicity of targets, the Pakistani air strikes were ineffectual and failed to inflict any material damage to the IAF air fields, only cratering the runways at Ambala and destroying a radar station.
 * No material damage to most of the IAF airfields, with only the runways at Ambala getting cratered and a radar station destroyed.
 * A large-scale offensive was therefore doomed to fail, likely to cause heavy losses and bring the PAF in a position where it could never seriously challenge IAF operations
 * You have also removed tags on unverified content.
 * As if this isn't enough, you've even gone out of your way to remove other sourced content, whether it conflicts with your original research or not. Cipher21   (talk)  07:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid WP: GASLIGHTING will not get you anywhere. It is preposterous to characterize paraphrasing as OR and betrays your poor grasp of policies. Read WP:SYNTHNOT to enlighten yourself on the dichotomy between what constitutes OR and what does not. Ineffectual expresses the same literal meaning, retains the same sense as what Nodeen avers. Donot portray your edit-warring as constructive as edit-warring is almost never constructive, especially not when you edit war for weeks despite opposition and ignore calls for use talk page. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is original research, plain and simple. None of the above is mentioned in ANY cited source. Cipher21   (talk)  07:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me observe then that we are not bound by your perverted notion of what constitutes original research, that it is wholly unconstructive to continue being intransigent and none the wiser, and rehash the same hollow and fallacious assertions time and again, despite it having been crystallized that faithful paraphrasing is but becoming and called for. The times content has never been the thrust of our discourse, even if some of it may have been inadvertently restored, having myself purged OR proceeding from it. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to set up a straw man argument. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)