Talk:Point 5353

PAKHIGHWAY's recent edits
please discuss and/or explain your edits here one by one and lay off any further reverts until a consensus is reached. In the meantime, I've restored the WP:STATUSQUO version. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The quote about 5353 being "occupied by Pakistan" should be clearly highlighted, as it his (Praveen) article which introduced this dispute to the Indian public following comments made by an Indian MP. Why is it being reverted back and thrown into a few meager random lines is beyond my comprehension, unless the intention is for that quote not to be clearly visible, which is the only logical conclusion I can come to. Secondly, this is not a controversy for the world, this is a controversy for India. The term "Indian claims" should be clearly mentioned as a subheading. Point 5353 is in Pakistan and they captured it in 1999 and India failed to take control of it along with several other peaks during the Kargil War. The only dispute or controversy is coming from India, nobody else. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend you read WP:COPYQUOTE, which specifically states, "a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." I'll simply ignore the rest of your comment since you haven't provided any reliable sources to back up your claims. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last sentence, "The only dispute or controversy is coming from India, nobody else", but then the controversy was also started by a section of the Indian media. That's why your labeling of the controversy as "Indian claim" makes no sense. And, what about the rest of your edits? &mdash;  MBL  Talk 09:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Can either of you give me the coordinates for the peak, so that I can see what you are talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 34°31'30.10"N, 75°41'55.31"E 34.525028, 75.698697 according to this guy called Aditya_V. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 08:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Line of Control has now been altered after 1999. The maps prior to 1999 are claimed to be with Praveen. In the 1999 maps, Point 5353 (along with several other peaks) were on the Indian side of the LoC (Indian administered Kashmir). As for the link given above, a nationalist Pakistan obsessed forum like "Bharat Rickshaw" shouldn't be taken very seriously. Computer arm chair defense experts are hardly credible. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Praveen Swami you mean? Is there corroboration from any other source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Praveen Swami. He claimed in his article and quote 'Pakistani occupation of point 5353 means Operation Vijay's core objective in Drass, securing the highway, in effect failed. Officials in New Delhi attempt to argue that point 5353 is in an ambiguous location on the Line of Control, and that there are two peaks of the same height which are being confused, claims debunked by copies of the Army's own maps which are in Business Line's possession.' This is why I wanted this quote highlighted. Unfortunately the person who edited this article later on decided to conveniently remove this quote. The maps are in his possession. I've since contacted a senior member at PakistanDefence.com in order to somehow get in contact with this Praveen Swami via Twitter . Hopefully I'll be able to provide you and this article with some facts and maps. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the article and know what it says. (a) It is not making a precise claim. Which maps? Where does the LoC go in that map? (b) We need corroboration from another source to state it as more than a claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is indeed just a claim. Never claimed it was the hard truth. Give me a few days to get into contact with Praveen Swami's take on this via his Twitter account and if he gives us access to those maps which he claimed debunks the Indian army claims. Furthermore, those coordinates are not hard facts either. That's just a random claim from some user on a forum. Hence those coordinates should be reverted back to the original one. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence those coordinates should be reverted back to the original one. What "original one"? There were no coordinates here before I started editing the article this morning. The coordinates are the same as what I found on Wikimapia. They can be verified on Google Earth. If you have alternative coordinates, please provide them and tell us where they come from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On my first look at the article, it appears too lengthy and there seems to be too much written about the political controversy. Some lengthy sections including unnecessary details may need to be cut down or modified to meet WP:SUMMARY and WP:WEIGHT. Also, there are no subsections which makes this hard to follow.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Not only is it very long, but there seems to be an attempt to highlight certain quotes and hide other quotes. Quite disingenuous if you ask me. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ved Prakash Malik's book, Chapter 3, reproduces a map of the LoC in the area, along with the signatures of Indian and Pakistani commanders from 1972. It looks very much like the OpenStreetMap depiction of the line included on this page. The line does put Point 5353 on the LoC, if anything slightly to the Pakistani side. Praveen Swami and Anand were probably looking at wrong maps or wrong peaks. Unless somebody can find and quote the wording of the 1972 agreement, I think the controversy is overblown. Its length should be greatly reduced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Peaks captured by Pakistan in 1999 and still under control as of 2018

 * Point 5353
 * Point Aftab-I
 * Point Saddle Ridge
 * Point Bunker Ridge
 * Shangruti
 * Dhalunag

Quotes

 * "Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)


 * "Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months."...he said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)


 * "Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed...the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta."..."It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches,"..."attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)". - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)


 * "If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then why did they launch the attack?" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)


 * "It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders. - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

Point 5240
It is factually incorrect to say that Point 5240 was on the Indian side of the LoC. The Ashok Mehta source explicitly says that this peak is bang on the LoC. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the maps the Army folks are drawing don't seem to have a lot of connection to reality. I am still trying to figure out their world view. See the secttion on Marpo La ridge below. Wikimapia shows 5240 inside the Indian side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mohinder Puri says 5240 (which he calls "5245") is to the "southeast" of 5353 . That is a correct description. And it would put it inside the Indian territory (assuming the LoC is running east-west in that area). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This blog post points out that the LoC in the Simla Agreement was more curvy than the current maps depict. The Simla Agreement line shown there is indeed running at 135° angle in the Tiger Hill area. That might might put both 5353 and 5240 on the LoC. But neither the Indians nor the Pakistanis seem to be following that line any more. Once you straighten it out, 5353 falls on the Pakistani side and 5240 falls on the Indian side. So, all this controversy may be due to map inconsistencies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the 1949 CFL. After Point 17561 (5353m), it goes to Point 17352 (5289m). I have no idea where the latter is. But there is no mention of Point 5240 being on the CFL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Point 5240 and Point 5245 appear to be two names for the same mountain peak. Captain Amarinder Singh also refers to this peak as "Point 5245" in his book A Ridge Too Far: War in the Kargil Heights 1999. Here are some relevant excerpts from his book:
 * &mdash;  MBL  Talk 13:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ashok Metha offers no evidence whatsoever. This is his imagination at best and quite clearly propaganda to save face for the loss of several Kargil Peaks to Pakistan. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Marpo La ridge
Mohinder Puri, in his book as well as his IDR article, shows the Marpo La ridge running roughly east-west, and the Line of Control running along it. However, the Google terrain map shows a ridge running at 135° angle, which I took to mean the Marpo La ridge. There does seem to be an east-west ridge branching out of it to the right, along which the LoC runs.

Which of these two is the correct Marpo La ridge? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a false alarm. It appears that Puri is only labeling the Marpo La pass, not the "Marpo La ridge". The east-west line in the maps is clearly the Line of Control and has no connection to any ridge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Block Quote For Praveen's initial assessment
I have added a block quote to this subsection so it reads like this. The edits however are continuously being reverted for no reason. Kindly settle the issue. The block quote makes sense to highlight.


 * You don't explain why the block quote is needed. You need to follow the guidelines for quotes at MOS:QUOTE and WP:Quotations, and justify the need for a blockquote. You also need to obtain consensus for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Location
If the mountain peak is under Pakistani control, obviously it will be in Pakistani territory. This isn't rocket science. I don't know why efforts are being made to downplay the fact that this peak (along with several other peaks) were captured by Pakistan in 1999 from India and continue to be held to this day. I have not seen one map at all proving the Indian claim whatsoever that these peaks were on the Line of Control. What I am seeing is a very clever effort to try and downplay the embarrassment of losing several peaks by redrawing maps and claiming they were never with India. This is a LIE. For further information, please refer to your very own media.

--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tiger Hill Peak 5353 still under control of Pakistan
 * Point 5353 still under Pak occupation: brig (Retd.) Surinder Singh
 * Point 5353 in Pakistan's control
 * The article clearly says that it is under Pakistani control. You are trying to add that it is part of the Skardu District. In order to do so, you need a reliable source that says that.
 * And, you say, editors are trying to "downplay the embarrassment of losing several peaks". Is your purpose then to embarrass them? If it is, please say so and I will ask the admins to talk to you about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: It appears to be under Pakistani control according to India’s media. The map on the page also shows it’s on the Pakistani side. But it’s not 100% clear because some sources say it’s on the line of control - though it’s not 100% clear either that it’s on the LOC and not in Pakistan instead. Can both claims be accommodated somehow?   Willard84 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is on the Line of Control and Pakistan has occupied it. Obviously, there are no laws about these things. There are only complaints.
 * There is the accompanying controversy about whether Point 5240 is on the Line of Control. If it is then, since India has occupied it, one might say tit-for-tat. But I haven't seen a convincing source about the status of 5240. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sando Top
Could an admin remove the false and misleading claim that Point 5353 is also called Sando Top from the lede? Point 5353 and Sando Top are two different mountain peaks—the latter one is a conical mountain feature on the Indian side of the LoC and is also called Point 5260. It is one of the three main features of the Zulu Spur complex, located in the Mashkoh Sector. See also this map. Thanks. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 09:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Kuldip Singh Ludra's evidence
I think Kuldip Singh Ludra, former Army officer and founder of a think tank, gives us enough information to put the Point 5353 on the Indian side of the LoC prior to the War.

He clearly supports the Frontline expose:

On the basis of all this information, I am afraid we have to conclude that the Indian Army has been fooling the public, and the article has to be rewritten with that understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Ludra's self-published books falls under WP:SPS, hence they are unreliable. &mdash;  MBL  talk 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. Ludra's articles have also been included in edited collections, e.g.,
 * Lt. Col. Thakur Kuldip S. Ludra, "Operations in Kargil", in Musharraf's War, ed. Maj. Gen. Rajendra Nath, Lancer, 2003, p.126-129.
 * which have been cited by scholars. WP:SPS, which you invoke, states 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. So you are on thin ice in trying to eliminate Ludra as a source. Further, I have plenty of corroboration from other sources that support almost everything he wrote. The only opposition to his viewpoints is the Indian Army itself, whose statements you are trying to push are even more "self-sourced" and self-serving. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you're misinterpreting the policy. In order for a self-published source to pass muster it has to satisfy the exception criteria set forth in WP:SPS, which Ludra does not. You've provided just one source that simply won't suffice. Lavoy has cited Ludra in a footnote in passing, not in the actual article itself. If Lavoy had devoted his chapter as per the article of Ludra, then it would have been a totally different story.


 * Secondly, if you have "plenty of corroboration from other sources that support almost everything he wrote", as you claim, then you need to first provide them. Bear in mind that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. &mdash;  MBL  talk 12:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ludra is a self published source and the source has many contradictions that even if it was not a self published I would still discuss before adding it. I have removed it from the section. My Lord (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * please read the discussion above. There is nothing unusual about somebody from a think tank publishing books in the think tank's own press. For example, see this book by Stephen Cohen. Of course, it is not the best practice. But it gets done, and we don't necessarily discount them for that reason. Instead, we go by book reviews, (e.g. H. S. Sodhi, Kargil: unlearnt lessons, The Tribune, 4 June 2000), and citations it has received in other literature. We still need to use it with caution of course, and only if it looks like verified information and not an opinion. Ludra has 2-3 page discussion on the Point 5353. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Note also that the paragraph that you removed attributes it to Ludra, and doesn't state it as a fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am watching this page for months and also during ANI request for topic ban on PAKHIGHWAY I had mentioned this page. We need to go by the policy, and this kind of self-published sources should be removed because they "are largely not acceptable as sources". Given your responses to Mblaze that they don't really address the issues with Ludra source, and the considerable number of demonstrable concerning inaccuracies as well as contradictions it contains, we really have even more reason to not use this source for being unreliable. My Lord (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ludra says in a footnote that he had sent his article to Frontline in reply to an article by Praveen Swami, in hopes that they would publish it, but ended up not doing so. I'm quoting him verbatim, "The above Chapter is the text of an article which was sent to Frontline in reply to an article by Pravin Swami (sic) in the Frontline of 13 October 2000. It was never published." You see, even Frontline refused to publish his article, since it is full of factual inaccuracies and contradictions, so he self-published his book. &mdash;  MBL  talk 12:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, unlike Ludra, Stephen P. Cohen is an eminent expert on South Asia. Many of his books have been published by the Oxford University Press, a publisher that is as reliable as they come. Furthermore, Brookings Institution is itself a well-known think tank. There is absolutely no comparison. &mdash;  MBL  talk 12:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Line of Control
It is easy to verify that the 1949 cease-fire line passed through Point 5353. The description of the CFL can be found in hundreds of sources. The CFL was not altered by the 1965 war. So, if the Indian Army claims that it is now on the "Pakistani side", it needs to state when it went to the "Pakistani side". Did it go during the 1971 war, the Kargil war, or sometime in between? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ludra, whose false claims "you are trying to push", however, says, on the contrary: "When the Cease Fire was declared on 31 December 1948, Point 5353 fell on the Pakistan side of the Cease Fire Line. He also claims, on the same page, that Point 5353 is called Sando Top, while, in reality, they are two different mountain peaks. Claims like these just further diminishes his credibility. &mdash;  MBL  talk 13:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, he made a wrong claim in his 2000 book. But he corrected it in his 2004 book. Any guesses where his earlier misinformation could have come from? (I did not push his wrong claim by the way. I went and double checked.)
 * But all this is diversion from the original question. When, according to the Army, did the Point 5353 go over to the Pakistani side? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, this sub-section is itself a needless diversion from the main thread, where I asked you to provide corroboration for Ludra's rather isolated claims, in particular his claim that the Indian troops had occupied Point 5353 in the 1971 war and it was retained after the war, which in fact directly contradicts Malik's assertion that "the 1972 letter clearly shows, both on the map and in writing, that the LoC passes through 5353." &mdash;  MBL  talk 02:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are serious problems with this argumentation.
 * In the first place, V.P. Malik was the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army during the Kargil War. So he is seriously WP:INVOLVED (not a WP:THIRDPARTY) and whatever he says has to be weighted down accordingly.
 * His terminolgy "1972 letter" doesn't inspire any confidence. It was an "international agreement" signed by the DGMO's of the two armies in 1972, copies which have been lodged with the United Nations.
 * Thirdly, he has not contradicted his critics. By his own admission, Some of the Point's features are occupied by them and some by us. But he hasn't said which features were occupied by which side and whether they were in accordance with the 1972 LoC. There is not enough precision here to conclude anything.
 * The distances involved are considerable. The next peak on the Indian side, 5240, is 1.2 km away. The next peak on the Pakistani side, 5070 is, 3 km away. So, if the LoC is 300 meters north of the peak, by Brig. Surinder Singh's attestation, or 1 km north of it, by Praveen Swami's estimation, they are both consistent with his woolly claim of "some features" and "some features".
 * Praveen Swami clarifies,
 * Nobody from the Army has contradicted these assertions.
 * Most importantly, nobody from the Army has presented the wording from the 1972 agreement, which they are clearly able to do. The agreement is in the Army's possession. This failure to provide information can only mean that the Army is hiding the facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: "nobody from the Army has presented the wording from the 1972 agreement." Basically, you are admitting that Ludra et al are merely speculating? &mdash;  MBL  talk 13:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for fuck's sake, read the policies/essays you are citing—WP:INVOLVED is irrelevant here, since that policy is about the Wikipedia administrators. None of the sources that you have cited so far can be called third-party either. Malik is an authoritative source on the subject. His book,  Kargil from Surprise to Victory, published by HarperCollins is one of the most, if not the most, authoritative books ever written on the Kargil War. Reviews in mainstream publications:-
 * Oh, and for fuck's sake, read the policies/essays you are citing—WP:INVOLVED is irrelevant here, since that policy is about the Wikipedia administrators. None of the sources that you have cited so far can be called third-party either. Malik is an authoritative source on the subject. His book,  Kargil from Surprise to Victory, published by HarperCollins is one of the most, if not the most, authoritative books ever written on the Kargil War. Reviews in mainstream publications:-


 * General Malik's book...stands out as perhaps the most valuable contribution to our military literature since Independence. Bias is an inevitable companion of history. But General Malik does an excellent job of keeping it to the very minimum. He is candid in admitting that we were surprised (as indeed the title itself indicates) and the Indian Army itself was a contributor to that failure. With intelligence, the failures receive much more attention than successes. But we have had more than our share of such failures in the past, especially in military-related intelligence. But the malaise was known. — The Tribune.
 * Malik deserves credit for a frank and refreshing analysis of the first limited war fought by two nuclear powered states. His theory about the possibilities of further conflict would go a long way in shaping India’s military strategy. — The Telegraph
 * General V P Malik's account...is comprehensive, straight from the shoulder, and interesting to a range of readers, from the serious student of strategy to the amateur buff of matters military. This handsomely produced volume will certainly be a reference point, not just in discussions on the Kargil conflict, but also in the way the Indian army brass perceives vital issues like nuclear deterrence. — Business Standard
 * Malik’s account is praiseworthy for his sobriety and objectivity, as well as generosity to comrades and colleagues. — Hindustan Times
 * [General Malik] has done a commendable job by providing a definitive glimpse into the politico-military-bureaucratic equations prevalent in India during the Kargil war. — Force
 * Malik gives us a fine and easily accessible narrative on the surprise that confronted India when it discovered that territory had been seized by Pakistan in May 1999, and on the victorious response to it... All the phases of the conflict from the initial "fog of war" to the nature of the military operations and the eventual war termination on largely In-dian terms, are covered in impressive detail. — The Indian Express
 * As the first book of its kind, General Malik's book is a must read for everyone – military as well as civilian. — SP's Land Forces
 * A collector's item for students of military campaigns and military buffs! — Financial Express
 * It is a welcome contribution to the small body of literature in the realm of national security decision making in India. — Indian Foreign Affairs Journal So, your argument does not hold any water. &mdash;  MBL  talk 12:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Ludra (not et al.) has stated that he has the testimony of the officers who fought in the 1971 war, and they know how the Line of Control was affected from their operations. The "et al", i.e., Pravin Swami, Surinder Singh, and the other journalists who wrote about it, only know the ground situation that was operating prior to 1999. They haven't said anything about 1971. Pravin Swami has quoted from the "Army's own maps". Were these maps speculations? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The alternative possibility is that the LoC was indeed defined to pass through Point 5353 in 1972, i.e., the Army gave away the territory gained by Major S. S. Sahota's company, and afterwards, began to encroach across the LoC, incorporating those gains into its maps. I am open to that possibility. If so, I wouldn't expect the Army to admit to any of these things. Rather, I would expect it to quote from the 1972 agreement and declare that it is going by the agreement. Surely, it can do that? That would have set the whole controversy to rest. So, why does't it do so? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

B L Kak source
Nowhere does it say that Point 5353 was in Indian territory, so please do not restore it again. &mdash;  MBL  talk 13:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Geography
What according to you do the reliable sources say about the spatial location of Point 5240 vis-à-vis the LoC? Wareon (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that you have checked the sources cited here and compared with the others, and came to the reasoned conclusion that the situation warrants a modification? The WP:ONUS is on those who want to modify content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary, you contested my edit, saying 'That is not what the sources say'. Here you have started off on a completely different track by counter-questioning, on being in fact asked to show "what the sources say". Speaking of sources myself, the ones over there don't support the content they are supposed to support. If anything, they have been misrepresented, and to say or imply that just because the misrepresentation remained unnoticed it shouldn't be removed is problematic. This says nothing about Point 5240, whereas this one dated August 11, 2000 only says the mountain peak lies a kilometre or so away from Point 5353 as the crow flies. This supports the modification I made, and so do the sources cited at Point 5240 and this. Wareon (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When you modify sourced content, you have to check the sources, and explain how your change is justified. Now that you are beginning to do so, I am glad. It will also be helpful if you refer to the sources by name, instead of "this one" or "that one". It is unreasonable to expect other editors to click on every link to figure out what you are actually talking about.
 * Agreed that the Telegraph is not talking about 5240.
 * But, Praveen Swami does. He is saying that 5353 is on the Indian side of the LOC, and 5240 is further south. And the Indian Army took control of it without any opposition. So it follows that it is on the Indian side of the LOC.
 * It is also to the south of the LOC as per the OpenStreetMap, which is reproduced on the page here.
 * The Army claims are dubious. The LOC agreement was exceedingly precise and unambiguous, according to scholars. No Army source has told us what the description in the agreement says. Rather, plenty of them talked about markings on a map, thick pens, "don't know exactly where" etc. etc. Anything sourced to the Army sources has to be attributed. It cannot be stated as a fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR we should stick to what the sources say in place of drawing inferences from them and making personal interpretations. Praven Swami doesn't claim that Point 5240 is on India's side, rather he just gives  its spatial location in relation to Point 5353, which is not itself at issue or in dispute here. The OSM map will be removed, for using WP:USERGENERATED content to counter reliable sources is something nobody would approve. Wareon (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source do you want to "stick to"? Swami has said that 5353 is on the Indian side of the LAC based on Army's own maps:
 * If the peak of 5353 is on the Indian side, it goes without saying that 5240 is on the Indian side as well. Swami did not say that the LOC was on the ridge line. So the claim on the Point 5240 page is self-sourced and should be attributed. (That page was created by a sock anyway.)
 * Note also that the LOC is a "cease-fire line". It wasn't a natural frontier. So it doesn't necessarily go on any ridge lines. In fact the 1949 cease-fire line, which is thoroughly documented, does not do so.
 * As for the OSM, it is citing LSIB5, which is a data set produced by the US Office of the Geographer. That is the most authentic boundary data publicly available. If you want to contest it, take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the OSM, it is citing LSIB5, which is a data set produced by the US Office of the Geographer. That is the most authentic boundary data publicly available. If you want to contest it, take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments like 'so it follows that..' and 'it goes without saying that' are exactly the sort of stuff that is barred under WP:NOR. So you need to find sources that actually and explicitly support your position. Swami has written tens of articles, and made hundreds of claims on this subject but he doesn't claim that this specific peak is on the Indian side. There are currently six or seven WP:RS that explicitly support my edit. This is an encyclopaedia that reports what the reliable sources report, not conclusions that one has drawn from one's synthesis of sources.
 * If you want or expect me to 'contest' something that has already been deemed worthless by the policy, whose accuracy and reliability have been impugned for even street maps, let alone something as contentious as Line of Control, by experts. If you believe OSM cites what you call the most authentic 'publicly available' data, you need to in fact show that data here, not the OSM. Wareon (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:NOR say that 'so it follows' is barred? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources...that directly support the material being presented. You are yet to show Swami explicitly supports what you are claiming. Wareon (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Swami is explicitly supporting what is written. He has stated explicitly that the LOC was to the north of the summit of Point 5350. If it is to the north of 5350, it is also to the north of 5240. It would have been silly for him to say that it was to the north of 5240 since he has already said it was to the north of 5350. "Explicitly support" does not mean "explicitly state". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. After you have done this, I will likely ask some more specific questions. Tbh I am wary of offering a 3O here: if I am able to do so it will only be in terms of improving the article.


 * Viewpoint summarising the dispute in a short sentence by Kautilya3: The point of dispute is regarding where the India–Pakistan Line of Control (LOC) runs in this area. The Indian Army has signed an agreement with the Pakistan Army in 1973, and scholars have said that the line has been described in it in an excruciating detail. However, the agreement has not been published and we have no idea what it says. Some journalists, in particular Praveen Swami, have obtained copies of the Indian Army maps and they say that it runs a little to the north of the Point 5353 summit, which is the peak that this article deals with. A second peak called Point 5240 is to the southeast of Point 5353. So I maintain that it follows that the line is also to the north of Point 5240. Wareon contests saying that Praveen Swami has not said so. So it amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. I rather believe that it is WP:SYNTHNOT. If LOC is to the north of Point 5353 it is also to the north of Point 5240. (Hope that is clear. It is terribly technical, I am afraid).


 * Army sources have said that the LOC runs through the peaks of 5353 as well as 5240. If it does so, it heads in the wrong direction (southeast rather than east). The 1949 ceasefire line (which is pulicly available) did not do that. So the Army claims stretch one's credulity. The impression among well-informed journalists is that the Army has goofed up and it is trying to cover its backs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , what has Gen. Ved Prakash Malik said about Point 5240? Can you quote it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint summarising the dispute in a short sentence by Wareon: ....

One must say things as they are. Kautilya3 claims that the change I made was 'not what the sources say' - a charge they have failed miserably to justify, yet they have not relented. The edit was 100% supported by the sources, that were until then misrepresented. Over here on the talk page, instead of bringing any reliable source that is directly supportive to their opinions, they have relied on user generated content and drawn inferences and made interpretations from the Swami article, while short-shifting the six or seven reliable sources that have said that Point 5240 is on the LoC. Swami has only written that the location of Point 5240 in relation to Point 5353 is some kilometre away "as the crow flies". You can't bridge the gap between what the source has actually written and what you have been using it for supporting by drawing inferences or making interpretations in a manner clearly inadmissible under the policy. You also cannot reach your own conclusions that you have drawn from your synthesis of the source. That Kautilya3 is having to rely on their OR to fight reliable sources should be sign enough of the non-existence of reliable source for supporting their opinions.

It is no use putting red herrings like '1949 ceasefire line'. Interpreting primary texts is anyway the work of a reliable secondary source, not that of a Wikipedia editor. LoC is not a 180 degree straight line, and neither has Swami shown how the LoC runs on his maps, especially in respect of the spatial location of Point 5240. Ved Prakash Malik though has reproduced the 1972 maps having signatures of the senior military commanders of India and Pakistan, showing "clear - cut delineation of part of the LoC", the same, though unaccompanied by textual description, shows that LoC runs along the ridgeline on which Point 5353 and 5240 lie before turning sharply to the northeast where it meets Point 5608 (34.5555427, 75.8355881), which overlooks Shingo valley. In statements to media too, he has stated the LoC meets Point 5353 and 5240 on the same ridgeline. Thus I am in favour of restoring my edit backed by RS, with no opposition in other RS. Wareon (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by Springnuts:

Dear Fellow Editors,

I am Springnuts, a formerly uninvolved editor, and afaik I have not previously interacted with the editors involved in this request for a 3O.

Thank you both for the summaries of what is in dispute; this was most helpful and courteous. Thank you also for this forbearance with each other in what is clearly a heated area – in editing terms. But not in terms of geography or weather! You may think this odd, but I would first spare a thought to honour the Armed Forces of both sides who endure what are clearly extreme conditions as part of their military duty. I sit here in a warm room, with all creature comforts around me. They do not.

The points at issue appears to centre on an edit by User:Wareon (here: ) which changed a statement in this article about a different Point; Point 5240. The article previously stated that Point 5240 is within Indian territory (“on the Indian side of”) the LOC); the edit changed this so that the article said that Point 5240 is on the LOC (“on the same ridgeline on the LOC”). This edit gave consistency between this article and the article for Point 5240 which states unambiguously that Point 5240 is “situated on the LOC”.

Comment: The phrase “… on the same ridgeline on the Line of Control” is slightly unhappily phrased; since an LOC sounds like a very definite concept; susceptible of exact definition (thought the definition of this one is apparently not in the public domain); a geographical ridgeline may be a much more indeterminate feature; in particular if the ridge is not a single knife-edge. However, who knows if the LOC agreement may not use exactly such a term alongside maps; which themselves will be drawn to varying degrees of accuracy? But my wider point is that there may even not be a single, exact, unambiguous answer to the LOC question; even if all the documents were released into the public domain.

User:Kautilya3 then reverted User:Wareon’s edit, and amended a reference. However, the source does not say that Point 5240 is on the Indian side of the LOC; it simply described the LOC. User:Kautilya3’s inference, that therefore Point 2040 is on the Indian side, may or may not be correct; but it appears to me that it is WP:OR.

My 3O: It appears to me that the relevance of the mention of the two Points 5040 and 5070 is their strategic/tactical importance – it is not necessary to cover in this article where they sit relative to the defined LOC. However, if that information is to appear in this article it should take the lead from Point 5240, and say that both Point 5040 and Point 5070 (which is apparently agreed to be on the LOC) are on the LOC. Alternatively, you could cut the Gordian knot: simply delete the phrase “It is on the Indian side of the Line of Control.“ from the article.

A Postscript: The OSM Location map appears to show Point 5040 as definitely within the Indian controlled area (assuming that the approximately E-W line is the LOC), and this is unhelpful. In my opinion the map should be accompanied by a caveat that it may have inaccuracies in respect of the position of the Line of Control.

With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , In your 3O, you recommended cutting the "Gordian knot" and simply deleting the phrase "It is on the Indian side of the Line of Control," which I did here. In your Postscript, you recommended that map be accompanied by a caveat that it may have inaccuracies in respect of the position of the Line of Control, which also I did here. It looks like your job of 3O here is done. So I was surprised to see your revert of my edits here, without any justification. I would appreciate if you can self-revert.
 * Perhaps you have gotten interested enough in the subject to become an involved editor of the page. You are certainly welcome to get involved and I would be glad to debate the issues with you. But I would expect to see a policy-based justification of any edits or reverts you make. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting someone 's third opinion, ignoring everyone's comments, asking for "policy based justifications" when everyone has been arguing along policy lines, while yourself flouting WP:OR in all your edits, accusing me of polemics when all I did was point out our policy violations. All of this will not help your case. You can only call this a straight line after misrepresenting maps and sources. Which of the above are unreliable sources and why? After all this we simply cannot trust your personal analysis of primary sources. Having have failed to convince anyone, you must avoid edit warring. Wareon (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

 * , thanks for your input. I am removing the claim about Point 5240 being on the Indian side of the line, even though I am personally fully convinced by it. I am not however going to accept a counterclaim that it is on the LOC unless some solid information comes by.
 * Your point about how the soldiers are having to suffer under inclement weather conditions is well-taken. Unfortunately, they suffer a lot more because of the bad decisions made by their commanders and generals, than anything we do here on Wikipedia. Editors who want to push those same generals' propaganda won't have my sympathy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Springnuts, you have my gratitude for hitting the nail on the head, and the simplicity with which you have summarized it all is impressive. As for Kautilya3's comment above, there is no point in being obstinate, the time has come for them to recognize that reliable sources run counter to their thesis, and drop the stick. We are neither obliged to "personally convince" them about anything, nor do facts become propaganda only because they could not agree with them. Further, take it as you will, Kautilya3, but I advise you to assume good faith don't make accusations in bad taste that "editors" are pushing propaganda, lest an admin sees it and you get in trouble. I will implement the consensus in its entirety, including doing away with the misleading user generated openstreet map. It cannot be allowed to mislead readers. Wareon (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have asked you a query above, which you haven't answered yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Latest edit warring
What is it you did not understand,. You are editing unilaterally on the article in contravention to the broad consensus reached here. Springnuts and I both agreed that you were flouting the norms of OR, which you have continued to do, the latest being your commentary in the OSM captions and contrary to what you were told. Springnuts agreed that information on Point 5240, if it is to appear, "take the lead from Point 5240, and say that both Point 5040 [sic] and Point 5070 (which is apparently agreed to be on the LOC". After my latest comment emphasizing that "reliable sources run counter to their [your] thesis" (same sources which have been already used on this article and being numerous in quantity), you didn't pursue your case further but asked me to quote someone for which I had already attached multiple links in my earlier comments. All the reliable sources have emphasized that Point 5240's spatial location is significant only because it is on the LoC and next to Point 5353. Your reason for suppressing reliable sources rested on your personal belief that you were not "personally fully convinced" and "unless some solid information comes by" but did not explain what was wrong in the information already documented in reliable sources, consistent with the maps reproduced in VP Malik's Kargil from suprise to victory, was inadequate given your total failure to show any reliable source to the contrary. You really lack any policy based case as far as these points are concerned. Likewise, you couldn't and didn't say a word in support of the user generated, bogus open street map with a history of alterations and manipulations and documented to be contradicted by RS, after my comment on 14:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC). No objection against content on Point 5608 was likewise raised despite the availability of ample time. If you continue to make reverts and edit unilaterally and in contravention to consensus, I will have to seek admin intervention. By citing a fake page number in "}" which did not support your OR you have degraded your residual credibility. Wareon (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you want to achieve WP:CONSENSUS, you need to quit these polemics and discuss content rather than contributors. I have asked you once, twice and now for the third time: what has General Malik said about 5240? You need to answer that in order to proceed. This is required because General Malik is the only one who has claimed to have seen the "letter" and the map of 1973. Nobody else has done so. Malik's testimony can thus be taken to be authoritative. The rest of them just add to the noise., I believe you have Malik's book. Please feel free to answer it if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Re this diff:, I do see a consensus that endorses the edits of Wareon. You both made your case, and they were duly vetted by , who provided the third opinion, a statement which encompassed the tapestry of the discourse, and which not only concurred with the case of Wareon, but also explicitly stated that Kautilya3's inferences were in violation of our policy on original research, and in doing so, Springnuts came to a reasoned conclusion that Wareon's original edit had given consistency between this article, as far as the claim of this point in question lying on the LoC was concerned, and the article on the concerning point. In other words, the implication as I understand it of his statement, is that Wareon was right all along. Sure, they provided an alternative to it, or rather middle ground, but Wareon did not consent to it and gave his reasons for not doing so. So Kautilya3 were all alone in endorsing that approach. It's worth clarifying here that a consensus, in Wikipedia's parlance, does not necessarily entail an agreement endorsed in full by all the involved interests, if that had been the case, Wikipedia would not have been functioning in the manner in which it does today. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, re your ping: To begin with, I will reiterate what I have said wrt to the consensus above, but I am not going to engage in some kind of an edit war with you over it. However I do not approve of your reverts. With regards to General Malik's book; well I do not have it at the moment, but it's not an issue because an e-book version is already available on Google books. That said, your assertions in regard to Malik, that he is the only person to have "seen" the Line of Control as reproduced on the maps that were prepared in the aftermath of the 1971 war are very wide off the mark. Perhaps you intended to say that he is the only person to have reproduced content from it, nay the map itself. He has certainly done so in his book, and also reproduced an army map from the combat time, though this one is not drawn to scale, accurate etc. but depicts the geographical area of the Mashkoh and Dras valley sectors. The latter (p. 176)'s depiction of the LoC is nonetheless quite consistent with that of the original map (though they are varying in scale) which he has reproduced in one of the earlier chapters. It has most of, if not all, the points (that had been occupied by the Pakistanis) marked with black circles and having crosses on them, indicating that these were the combat objectives at the time of the war and were duly achieved. Point 5353 and the area around it, or rather the peaks in its vicinity, are not having any black circles, though Points 5145 and 5353 are duly marked in black rectangular color boxes. The line comes from MARPOLA and slopes downward from Point 5145, indicating the start of the ridge line. Point 5353 is marked too, like I said, and its summit, if one were to measure it with a ruler, is like nearly a centimeter above the line that has been marked as the LoC. Point 5240 or 5245 is not marked, and is either hidden behind the box on which Point 5353 is marked, or is the next peak on that ridge (as I said, the map is not drawn to scale). Shoot me an email, and I'll send you the scan(s) of it or other relevant pages, should you need it/them, as and when I have access to the book again. But what makes you think that Mohinder Puri, Ashok K Mehta, Amarinder Singh and Rajendra Nath's works are any less authoritative or reliable. All of them have detailed the alignment of LoC in their works, and at least three of them (Singh, Mehta and Nath) are independent military commentators, reputed ones at that. Mehta, for instance, is a well-known military commentator, a graduate of the United States Army Command and General Staff College and the Royal College of Defence Studies, and an independent security analyst specializing on India's neighbors, whose works have been used to source statements of all sorts on at least 219 articles on Wikipedia itself We had a discussion on the same thing years ago, as you will remember, and then I had quoted relevant excerpts from Singh's book, outlining the alignment of the LoC, that are relevant even today. Another thing, I reckon, is worth mentioning here is the scale at which these maps are drawn. The Survey of India (19231977) maps (a picture of which you have added in the article, which I did not remove) had detailed the boundary line at a large scale (1: 250,000). We do not know the scale at which the LoC was drawn on the maps that were exchanged between the two countries, but it is likely to be at least 1:50,000. The 1949 ceasefire line for instance went straight from the Marpola peak (17561) to Point 5289 (in m). Thus it is only natural that we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources when it comes to stating as to where Point 5240 or 5245 lie in relation to the LoC, considering it is barely 0.74 mi away from the Marpola peak. In fact,  secondary sources are generally preferred in situations like this anyway. Hope this helps. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On all authoritative maps of the LoC (either the official one or the Army reproductions of it), there is a straight line from Point 5353 to Point 5289. That is exactly what the OSM map shows. So, the efforts to delete it using whatever excuse people are cooking up are not welcome. I don't think I need to say anything more on this topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MBlaze just told you these maps were drawn at large scales. What we see in the "official" map is a downward sloping line that descends at least twice after running on the ridgeline. You can call this a straight line only if you misrepresent maps and sources. This LoC on ground follows "high mountain ridges/peaks", forming a pattern, as described below:-

A distinct difference is noticeable in the terrain and the topography between the Great Himalayan Range and the Ladakh Range. The mountain sides are barren, steep and rugged. The terrain gets even more rugged from Chorbat La to Turtuk, an ancient trade - route village located on the southern bank of Shyok River that cuts through the Ladakh Range into the Northern Areas of Pakistan. The LoC runs along high mountain ridges / peaks with heights ranging from 16, 000 feet to 21, 000 feet. Many of these areas are glaciated. The winters are extremely severe. Dras is known to be the second coldest inhabited place on the earth outside the polar regions.

Wareon (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The present article already tells you "The Times of India quoted Indian Army officers saying that the Line of Control in the area follows an "imaginary line" connecting high points such as Points 5070, 5353, 5245 and 5608." That is what the Army officers have said, according to Manoj Joshi. They are certainly right that it connects "high points" (or at least significant landmark points) as is easily verifiable by reading the descriptions of the 1949 ceasefire line as well as what is available about the 1973 LoC.

... From there the line runs to Point 13647 (Kaobal Gali, to be shared by both sides). The ceasefire line runs there through Retagah Chhish (Point 15316), then through Point 15889, thence through Point 17392, then through Point 16458 (5016m), thence to Marpo La (to be shared by both sides), thence through point 17561 (5353m), thence through Point 17352 (5289m), thence through Point 18400 (5608m), thence through Point 16760 (5108m), thence to (inclusive to India), Dalunang.

From Richhmar Gali, the line of control runs northwards passing west of Tithwal up to 3 miles north of Keran, thence turning north-eastwards up to Lunda Gali (inclusive to India). Thence eastwards to Hramargi village in Kel sector (inclusive to Pakistan), Durmat in the Kanzaiwan sector (inclusive to India) and heights 14236, 15460 and Karobal Gali in the Minimarg sector (all inclusive to India), thence along Neril (inclusive to India), Breilman (inclusive to Pakistan), and north of Chet in the Kargil sector, up to Chorbatla in Turtok sector.

Here is a screenshot of border marked in the US State Department LSIB database: it goes in a straight line from 5353 to 5289. It doesn't follow any "ridges". That is the same as in Malik's map (your so-called "fake page number" 88) as well as the treaty map.

Point 5240 is clearly to the south of it in undisputed Indian territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See, WP:PSTS "tells you" that you need a "reliable secondary source" for "interpretation of primary source material". WP:SECONDARY tells you that "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Is it clear now? Are you allowed to store copyrighted works like that? Indeed, the page you gave us was fake, the map you show us is on page 176, and you, whether deliberate or otherwise, left out that the map is neither accurate in details nor drawn to scale. Official map did not have textual description in the book, but the author gave a synopsis of the topography in the context of this map on the next page as I also provided.
 * None of these maps show a straight line from 5353 to "5289". The descend in-between is clearly seen. You need a reliable secondary source to interpret this "primary source material". In, another source that you have misrepresented on the article to say that "Praveen Swami, based on Army's one-inch maps, estimated that it was one kilometre inside the Indian territory", Praveen Swami has talked about the southern face of 5353. In the LSIB data, which reflects "US government policies on boundaries", and has at least error margin of 100 meters from the LSIB lines, the line still passes through the northern ridge which extends from 5240 itself. And all the reliable secondary sources in no uncertain terms have put 5240 on the LoC. It is possible that such a description involved the whole of the feature, as 5240 offers the best view of the other side of the LoC, thus the deployment there. See another reliable source: "There is a man, 22 years old, sitting on the top of Point 5240...At 17,300 ft, eyeball to eyeball with the Pakistanis who are grouped on a higher feature, Point 5353...Right in front," he replies. "The LoC is barely 25 m away. I can see him or even roll stones or shout to see how alert he is." All these maps have put 5353 on the LoC or its summit to the side of Pakistan.
 * It is now important to turn our focus on Praveen Swami, who has cleared the dust in his later works. Also, because for the large part of the discussion you relied on your interpretation of his old works to reject the description of spatial location of 5240 vis-à-vis LoC given by reliable secondary sources. It stands to reason that you presupposed the reliability of the mentioned work for even claims concerning 5353, which were otherwise used with attribution in the article, which you used as some hard-facts to reject other reliable sources. It is very important to note this context.
 * In this work:-
 * (1) Praveen Swami based his claims on "Army's own one-inch maps", he claimed to possess but never actually showed.
 * (2) He did not estimate that 5353 was "one kilometre inside the Indian territory", but Kautilya3 did misrepresent the source on the article to say so.
 * (3) He could not demonstrate or note the distinction between Marpo La and Marpo La ridgeline: at one place he, relying on "Copies of these maps", stated "Marpo La ridge, on which point 5353 is located," elsewhere in the article, he stated "In June 1999, Army Public Relations Officer Colonel Shruti Kant had denied reports in Frontline that Marpo La was under Pakistan occupation. Posts in the area, he said, were ``manned throughout the winter. ``No positions were vacated during the winter in the entire Kargil Sector from Chorbat La to Marpo La, Colonel Kant asserted. Now, the Army claims the principal feature of Marpo La is not on the Indian side of the LoC at all!" But according to reliable sources, Indian army did not have any posts on the Marpo la ridgeline. Gap of 9.5km existed in "defences" between Bimbat LoC-Marpo La
 * (4) Uncertainty and sentences that cast self-doubts on his own claims, which is important to highlight in the face of statements like "It is unclear why, if point 5353 is not on the Indian side of the LoC," "..Nor is there any explanation of what, if point 5353 is assumed to straddle the LoC..."
 * Suffice to say this was not his most reliable piece of work on this topic and included many mistakes and ambiguities. This context is again important to note, because 3 years later, when Praveen Swami wrote Beyond civilisation, in Frontline, he stated: "the forward deployment on the Line of Control (LoC) does serve a military purpose. Consider, for example, the case of Point 5353, named for its height in metres above sea level, from the summit of which the LoC takes a gentle southeastern turn. In the wake of the Kargil War, a series of local tactical errors allowed Pakistan to occupy the southern face of Point 5353, allowing enemy forces a clear view of Sando Top, an important post. When Operation Parakram began a little over three years ago, both the Indian and Pakistani armies began trading ferocious artillery fire up and down the LoC....Pakistan believed that India intended to take Point 5353. Indian planners probably considered the option, but decided against it. "What is the point?" says one top officer who served in the area at the time".
 * This was the author's most conscientious and reliable piece of work. It gave a reliable description of LoC that it passed through 5353 and turned to southeast, where 5240 (though 5240 is a bit of an extension from what he wrote) is situated. Wareon (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out what you are talking about. Wherever the line from 5353 to 5289 goes, it is identical to the US State Department's LSIB database. So, your objection that it is "user-generated content" is no more valid. Do you have any other valid objection for the map to go back in? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel you cannot touch on the points I have raised, I have no issue with that (saves everyone's time).But you did correct source misrepresentation after I pointed out, but that is just tip of the iceberg. Commenting on your interpretations' is not what I am here for, but you have not addressed the WP:USERGENERATED content issue which is what OSM essentially is. May I know where you get the coordinates for Point 5070? In the article too you have written "Point 5070, 3 km west of Point 5353 is the closest peak to the Marpo La pass", while listed this sloppy piece, but even it did not say 5070 was "closest peak to the Marpo La pass". May I know why you used this source for 5070 but did not use it for writing that "Point 5245, about 5 km east of Point 5353", or that 5353 was "17,397-foot"? As per the map shown by Mohinder Puri, 5070 has to be on the Marpo La pass, west to where Marpo La itself is plotted on the maps that we have seen. That is what this article tells you as well that "Point 5070, a pivotal feature about 10 km west of Point 5353". It looks like you have wrongly plotted 5165, which is to the west of 5353, as 5070. Would you answer this obvious discrepancy we see in your WP:USERGENERATED OSM? Wareon (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But the point now is that OSM is rendered superficial to our need. The survey of India map is 100% same as the official Shimla agreement LoC map as reproduced by V.P. Malik in Kargil from Surprise to Victory on page 62 (Kautilya3's link). All the contours, markings/plots, labels, tags, dots, match up with the LoC map. The SOI map shows the whole topography, terrain, and Dras, Faranshat and Gultari villages, with all the important peaks plotted that we also see in the LoC map. It also shows the palawar-bunyal axis that India can view from Point 18400 (5608 m).


 * The LoC map (even better quality) unambiguously shows:-
 * the line passes to Marpo La (inclusive to both sides)[(1949 CFL),(SOI map), Official LoC map ], thence through Point 17561 (5353m) (s.as CFL, SOI, official LoC map ) thence through Point 17352 (5289m) (s. as CFL, SOI, official LoC map), thence through Point 18400 (5608m) (s. as CFL, SOI, official LoC map).


 * As delineated in 1948 and re - drawn on December 11, 1972 on nineteen mosaics and twenty - seven maps and signed by senior military representatives of India and Pakistan , it runs along Pts 5301 - 4715 - 5353 ( Maropo La ) - Pt 5608 — between Pts 5678 & 6041 — North to Thang on Shyok River in Turtuk Sector , onto map reference NJ 9842 . Thereafter , it goes North to the glaciers


 * Thus facts will be stated as facts and not be obscured by vague claims and sloppy pieces.. Wareon (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , you deleted long-standing content that existed on this page and started a talk section called "Edit warring". This section should be devoted only to that deletion and your justifications for that deletion. If you want to raise other issues, please start new sections, and do not mix them up with this.
 * The whole debate here started about Point 5240. You said that it was on the LoC. I said that it was not. And I have provided backing evidence from the US Office of the Geographer's LSIB dataset. Are we done with that? Please state yes or no. Then we can move on to other issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will make a proper comment in the morning tomorrow, it's well past midnight over here. But just a quick query, is the objection only against the content concerning Point 5240? Then for what reason did you make a blanket revert, removing thousands of bytes in the process. They seem to be legit improvements to article. You may provide specific grounds for objecting whatever specific thing you wish to object. As for Point 5240, I think the arguments are going round and round in circles and are not really helping anyone. The LSIB dataset doesn't really contradict the reliable sources, as Wareon has also concluded above. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a "blanket edit" and therefore, only a blanket revert was possible. You can possibly the advise to make smaller edits, one section at a time and one issue at a time, and state clear justifications in his edit summaries. I don't need him to get an agreement on the talk page for any new content. But if he deletes/modifies existing content that is well-sourced, he is liable to get reverted, unless there is clear justification in the edit summary or a prior agreement on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Point 5070
, The Hindu said:

BL Kak wrote:

Do you have problems with these sources or what they said? If so, please state it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He did state his objections in the comments above. Puri's map unambiguously shows Pt 5070 to be on the Marpo La pass, and so does the Mehta source. So it's not like he's making up things. Given this information and the map above, Pt 5070 should be 34.5389979, 75.6115673 on the Google maps. This seems to be consistent with the information Amarinder Singh provides here . MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there can be a hundred peaks with height 5070. But the one being talked about in the two sources is the particular peak to the west of 5353 on which the Indian military mounted defences. It is clear what they are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And, to tell you the truth, its height is not 5070 at all. It is more than 5100. But I don't make up these terms. The Army does, and the newspapers copy. So, don't blame me if the terminology isn't kosher. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On the LoC orientation of Point 5353
Nothing can be said by looking at maps. Only the wording of the agreement can clarify which side was supposed to have control of it (if any). For example, Kaobal/Karobal Gali was mandated to be "shared by both sides" in the 1948 ceasefire line, but it was noted as "inclusive to India" in the 1972 line. That is how ceasefire lines work. Whoever had the control of the feature at the time of the ceasefire gets to keep it, unless some other agreement is reached. Since the Army sources haven't clarified what the agreement states, Praveen Swami's objections stand.

Mind you that Praveen Swami is a WP:SECONDARY source, whereas all the Army men are WP:PRIMARY, especially if they had held command positions in the area. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Marpola ridge
I have marked the Marpola ridge in this graphic with a red line. It does emanate from the Pakistani side of the LoC but not from Faranshat. There are other ridges that come from Faranshat, essentially perpendicularly to the Marpola ridge. I deleted the claim about Faranshat because it gives a completely wrong idea what this ridge is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the issue here? The ridges extend outward from the peaks that lie on the Marpo La ridgeline, going all the way to Farnshat. It's what the maps show (including G Earth and ) and sources say. So what stops us from stating the same in the article? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The ridge that runs from Faranshat up to (but not entirely) Point 5353 is not the Marpo La ridgeline. You can see it in the 1923 survey map already. But the graphic I provided precisely marks the extent of the Marpo La ridgeline (with a red line running parallel to it). Faranshat is not on that ridge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the Marpola ridge, explcitly marked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Many interlinked issues
Describing soon...