Talk:Battle of Chawinda: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:03, 2 December 2014 editVandVictory (talk \| contribs)615 edits →RSN: 2 new refs← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:32, 30 August 2024 edit undoKingsmasher678 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers2,642 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024: ReplyTag: Reply
(462 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|search=yes}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject India~~\|class=start~~\|importance=high\|history=yes\|history-importance=mid\|assess-date=May 2012}}		{{WikiProject India\|importance=high\|history=yes\|history-importance=mid\|assess-date=May 2012}}
	{{WP Pakistan \|~~class~~=C		{{WikiProject Pakistan \|auto=yes\|importance=mid\|History=yes}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Military history\|Indian-task-force=yes
	\|auto=yes
	\|importance=mid
	\|History=yes
	\|Punjab=y}}
	{{WPMILHIST

⚫	\|Indian-task-force=yes
	\|Pakistani-task-force=yes		\|Pakistani-task-force=yes
	\|class=C		\|class=C
	\|WWII-task-force=yes
	<!-- B-Class checklist -->		<!-- B-Class checklist -->
	<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->		<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
Line 29:		Line 22:
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 1		\|counter = 3
	\|minthreadsleft = 0		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	\|algo = old(~~180d~~)		\|algo = old(360d)
	\|archive = Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Auto archiving notice \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=6 \|units=months }}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}

			== RFC on the Result - Pakistani Victory/Indian defeat ==
	== Infobox edits ==
			{{atop\|RfC started by a ban evading sock, closing it per ]. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)}}
			<s>As already mentioned, that it was a Pakistani Victory. The decision was further reviewed and was once again in favor of the RFC - Pakistani Victory.

			The participants of this short talk page ] concluded the battle was inconclusive.

			Should the result of the Battle of Chawinda be "Pakistani Victory" or "Indian defeat"? ] (]) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

			* '''Pakistani Victory''' It's cut and dry - as the reliable sources state - the Indians failed to attack, the Pakistanis successful defended themselves. ] (]) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)</s>
			* '''Close RfC''' This seems ridiculous to make an RfC after a block evading IP created one a few weeks prior and now an account with 17 edits on a page that is ]? This does not seem like the correct protocol. – ] (]) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023 ==

			{{Edit extended-protected\|Battle of Chawinda\|answered=yes}}
			Please add the following sections

			==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity==
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== See also ==
	We cannot say that Pakistan "won" this war, just like we cannot say that India "won" the 1965 war. {{U\|TopGun}} should rather check the source again, it doesn't say anywhere or claims about India losing those many tanks were neutral claims, but they were Pakistani claims as per the quotation I had provided in the edit summary. Pinging {{U\|WikiDan61}} as well who had reverted these kinds of edits before. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
			* ]
	:It's the battle Pak won, the infobox is not talking about war... secondly, do not ping users that you think share your point of view just to refuel a stale editwar started by a blocked sock puppet. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
			* ]
	:Your calculation of tanks to decide who won is ]. We say what the sources say.. and a neutral source is present in the infobox that was ] by {{u\|Nawabmalhi}}. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::I didn't said that the losses of tanks assess who won or who lost. I have only said that the claims about Indian losses were Pakistani claims, not neutral claims as per the source.
	::For long time, we didn't presented this non-reliable source, then why we have to do now? Read ]. A newspaper, especially when it is outdated, it should not be used for sourcing the events where expert view is required. There was no victory for Pakistan since UN mandated the ceasefire. Nawabmalhi probably had no idea, but it can be easily confirmed that how it was not a neutral claim. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::You can't be serious citing BRD to me, because you were the one who made the bold edit, and got reverted... so BRD applies to you. It is not BRRD. Anyway, outdated? That seems to be ]. It was and is a neutral source; a party not involved in the conflict. Or would you rather cite only the sources that talk about the ceasefire and ] them to state the fact that the war was a 'draw'? We are ''not'' talking about the war here. This result is of the battle only, not the war at large.. which is still concluded as ceasefire. Just FYI, a war usually consists of many battles and for it to be concluded as a draw usually it makes sense that each side won some of them. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::It was a new edit by {{U\|Zerefx}} that was reverted by {{U\|WikiDan61}}, so ] applies on every controversial changes that have been added without consensus even when they were reverted. Seems like ], since you can accept an outdated, non-scholarly newspaper for claiming the Pakistani' victory but not accept the scholarly sources that would state it as a 'stalemate'. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::You need to get acquainted with ]. The edit you made was the first edit in every way as this was settled. ''Plus'', socks were involved which really takes away the credibility of those reverts (during the past). Now you independently reverted in the version by a blocked sock, which means you take full responsibility of the content you re-add. Hope that makes the situation clear.. since you are not reverting anymore, I don't see the point of discussing this as I'm quite clear in trying to familiarize you with the way it is done. Again, stalemate is for the war, not the battle plus we have multiple ] to back the victory claim in the article. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Anything before 0ctober 2014 could be labelled as a ] version? I don't think so. How many socks there were, and who was the sock?
	:::::::Newspapers are not definitely reliable sources. You can read ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::I can vouch for Pracharak0 and his IP to be a sock... will you please atleast own the edits you reverted in after a month of the article being in that state? Or would you apply BRD from the first version of the article? BRD is a repeating process (read the essay)...! There are multiple RS to support the claim. ] is also satisfied as the reference is not making an analysis, rather reporting the victory. Emphases on 'reporting'... something that newspapers do and are reliable for. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

			Thank you.
	===RSN===
			] (]) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024 ==
	Check ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 12:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:RSN volunteers clearly call them ].. hopefully you are satisfied now. But don't take the content dispute over to RSN as they are not aware of the context... the stalemate references are not about this battle in specific, but the war. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::Out of 3/3 comments. First one only analyzed the other 3 references and deemed them to be "reliable", second one said that the source is on borderline and it can be used only for writing that "Pakistan claimed victory", something we already did.(read the last sentence of article) Third one said that these sources must not be used. Where you have seen somebody who claimed any of these two sources, and image and a newspaper to be ]? Now since it is only a representation of what a military commander, a ] source had said, how it can be considered as a reliable source? It was a UN mandated ceasefire. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Sorry to say, but you are ]-ing the discussion by introducing the results for the war. "They are reliable sources" is the first reply you got... the rest of the discussion is not related to RSN rather to the results. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::He didn't talked about the first two, he only talked about the other 3 that I had also mentioned, he probably thought that I was only talking about the other 3 references. I needed to re-edit my original message, just for repeating that I am actually concerned about the credibility of these 2 references that were introduced by {{U\|Nawabmalhi}} along with other factual errors. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Battle of Chawinda\|answered=yes}}
	:::::Just thought I'd stick my oar in. Whilst, without looking at detail at the 5 sources mentioned in the RSN, I'm happy to accept them all as reliable, they are not all suitable. I've commented on the 3 books there, but thought I add my comments on the suitability of the papers here. The is likely suitable, although it'd be better to see the whole article. Also, it's dated 14th (so presumably refers to 12th or 13th) - that's before the start date in the infobox, so the infobox dates for this battle needs work. All that said, we're 50 years on now, so there must be better secondary sources out there which would avoid the pitfalls of relying on primary.
			Please add the following item in the "See also" section:
	::::: is not suitable, as it's merely quoting the Pakistani commander. Again, there's the date issue..
	:::::The aptly-named {{u\|Peacemaker67}} has linked to two sources and , both of which seem to be more the sort of thing this article needs. The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar), making the case that both sides could successfully defend but were not good at conducting armoured attacks. Likewise, the first is pretty clear that the Pakistanis won (pp.108-9). Now, whether that's a major, minor or just plain victory, I'm not sure, but it's a victory. ] (]) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks for clarifying on the talkpage, it helps alot keeping us two going in circles here about the RSN discussion. Now that all the sources are reliable, atleast we can say that the RSN has achieved its purpose and that this is the right venue to have a single discussion about the dispute? --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::They are particularly supporting the previous summary that "Pakistan halts Indian invasion", but not more than that. There was no particular victory as per these sources. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Also check ], formally discussed about The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks, that suggests it as a "ceasefire". ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::What they were once supporting was the doing of sockpuppets... the original summary added with the sources can not sensibly be anything other than 'Pakistani victory' as assuming good faith, I can not blame the non socking editors of source falsifications (except for the ones who changed this to that version and ''yet'' keeping the sources that said it was a Pakistani victory.. that seemed like vandalism to me and that's how the socks were caught in the first place). I doubt that old discussion matters (]) as that version was not in the article. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Check Sources doesn't seem to be using terms like "victory" or "lost", but "ceasefire", so if they considered the result of the battle as ceasefire, it seemed right. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}{{ec}}I know about that discussion because I was a part of it... the user DS has is also a sockpuppet (just to point out the level of disruption on this article) and the discussion does not discuss the current sourcing and is not relevant. For the book, ofcourse it talks about the ceasefire, that was the result of the ''war''... it misses to give the result of this battle. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:While none of the sources refer it as "victory" to Pakistan. Now are you done? Whether DS is a sockpuppet or not, it doesn't change that the relevant sources consider the result as "Ceasefire" or "Inconclusive", have some ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::So, ''The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks''. See the concluding paragraph for that section where the book uses the word defeat. The other cite uses the expressions "routed", "forced to withdraw" and "heavy losses"; these are not good things to happen to your side! Add to that, this source (page 232), which uses the expression "thrown back". ] (]) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::That is only supporting for saying that Pakistan halted the Indian invasion, they had "defeated" with small force(unclear if he is referring to India or Pakistan), however when the author explicitly referred to the battle, he considered it to be a "ceasefire". If they had "forced to withdraw", it was actually effected by UN mandated ceasefire. Heavy losses occurred on both sides per these. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::The highlighted text in your linked source does not say "the battle was considered to be a ceasefire" in any wording. It simply says the battle continued till the ceasefire. So that's pure ]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::You forgot to add the main reason behind it, it clearly meant that there was no victory. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::That derivation of the 'main reason' is your personal analysis and not stated by the ref, rather thanks to {{u\|Bromley86}}, we now have a clear cut citing of the reference ''you'' are talking about calling it an . --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::You are misrepresenting. It is not clarifying who's victory it was in ] or Chawinda, because it was an Indian victory during the ].
	:::::::Actually 25th Cavalry may have defeated the 62 cavalry, although it is not specified, but if you are talking about the whole battle, then it states about the results, that we have to use. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::{{ec}}{{u\|Bromley86}} is the one who said it, so both of us are getting it wrong? the ref clearly says India defeated Pakistan at Asal utar and Pakistan defeated India at Chawinda. You are not even disagreeing with it in your comment as I did not talk about Asal utar. Refer back to ] for the update of your comment (had an edit conflict but I already answered to that). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::1) The current sourcing clearly backs what it sources... 2) they were ''not'' being discussed in that discussion as far as I remember... this is the 3rd article you've joined up to restart a stale edit war (by socks) and it doesn't seem to be edited by you before. So you might want to stop fueling editwars (or apparently following other editors through their contributions history, I've already had my fair share of that - though I don't imply that you are doing it, but you do ''appear'' to be) before you point me to competence on simply pointing out the scope of a discussion. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::Restoring to a former stale version is not an edit war. We have probably confirmed that the 2 new sources must not be used for claiming results. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::See ]; any revert amounts to the EW concept (whether in part or as a whole), other than the fact that its not my place to tell you what an editwar is as you appear to have been editing since some time now. All I wanted to ask was not to do this as it will reflect bad and these things will add up to nothing good. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Since none of the new sources have been accepted and no other sources are supporting any of the similar result, there should no issue in reverting to version before Nawabmalhi. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	* is just about the specific brigades and their use of equipments, it may be mentioned on the article that 25th Brigade defeated its foes, but that would be the end, it cannot be used for assessing any main results. notes that there was an ongoing battle until the ceasefire, it would mean that there were no particular results, whether India won or Pakistan won. Another source, http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8183&Cat=13 pointed the Pakistan's resistance and supporting the 2nd line, but not the first. ] (]) 16:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

			* ] ] (]) 09:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
	==More issues==

			{{Mostly done}}, put it in the further reading section instead.
	Since the above issue is not the only issue with the article, I have found some more.
			] (]) 02:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

			:{{U\|Kingsmasher678}}, the navbox and sidebar already have these battles. Consequently, the addition of these to either ''further reading'' or ''see also'' is redundant. The added links are also mentioned in the article text. ] (]) 03:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
	* On the battle, "Realising the threat, the Pakistani Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik rushed his Brigade to Chawinda.." and not found in any of the sources mentioned below.
			::Thanks, good catch. I'm trying to work through the old edit requests, and this one had been on the books a good while. I'll self revert.
	* Quotes: "He ordered his staff officer to break communications with the higher headquarters..." "We advanced all day in short bursts, from cover to cover. The Indians ....." are not found anywhere, except 3 second-hand hosted] blogs that have copied this en.wiki article. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
			::] (]) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
	::The article's been a mess and subject to long standing vandalism. I'll try to look in the history if any good sources were removed or check out the web. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:32, 30 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Chawinda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Pakistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

RFC on the Result - Pakistani Victory/Indian defeat

RfC started by a ban evading sock, closing it per WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~~As already mentioned, an RFC concluded that it was a Pakistani Victory. The decision was further reviewed and consensus was once again in favor of the RFC - Pakistani Victory.~~

~~The participants of this short talk page discussion concluded the battle was inconclusive.~~

~~Should the result of the Battle of Chawinda be "Pakistani Victory" or "Indian defeat"? Joooshhh (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)~~

Pakistani Victory It's cut and dry - as the reliable sources state - the Indians failed to attack, the Pakistanis successful defended themselves. Joooshhh (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Close RfC This seems ridiculous to make an RfC after a block evading IP created one a few weeks prior and now an account with 17 edits on a page that is ECP? This does not seem like the correct protocol. – The Grid (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following sections

==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity==

== See also ==

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following item in the "See also" section:

Other battles in the vicinity during 1965 India-Pakistan War 220.255.242.109 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Partly done, put it in the further reading section instead. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Kingsmasher678, the navbox and sidebar already have these battles. Consequently, the addition of these to either further reading or see also is redundant. The added links are also mentioned in the article text. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. I'm trying to work through the old edit requests, and this one had been on the books a good while. I'll self revert.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: