Misplaced Pages

Talk:Battle of Chawinda: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:28, 21 December 2014 editNawabmalhi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,305 edits →DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory?← 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 
(296 intermediate revisions by 82 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.
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)

===RSN===

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)

:::::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.
::::: 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)
:::::::::Both of you are getting it wrong because the author is particular about the forces and that they won against the "clumsier foes", He's not talking about the whole battle of the conflict, as he already did that before. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}'Foes' refer to each other at the respective battles and the rest of the text is about tactics. It is clearly pointed out as a defeat... where as your analysis is your own derivation from the source. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:Talking about a particular group of military is not enough, he was only talking about the 25 Cavalry, not the whole military. He is not saying that "Pakistan defeated India" or "Pakistan won this battle", like you are assuming. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::It's a ] of both battles using the tactic of using smaller formations. The term 'defeated' isn't just used for a single unit's actions if the battle is concluded otherwise. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It could be clearer than that, but it is not. So claiming it as a "victory" as a whole is just out of context. He was only talking about 25 cavalry. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::There are further sources in the article clarify that, and your source does not call chawinda a stalemate... let's leave it at that. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::They really don't. I didn't really supported the Stalemate, but the original ] based results, that had to be "Pakistan halts Indian advance." And "UN mandated ceasefire." This is not just a single issue with the article. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:11, 3 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)
:::::::@] the reason why I am ignoring you is that with all do respect it seems as if you are continuously trolling the Chawinda page, for lack of a better word and I donnot time for that. Now if you want me reiterate ] I will. You donnot need to provide a link to the Source/reference it is just a good practice because it allows other people interested subject to access it and also helps in its verifiability, but its not necessary. Ask youself:
::::::*What does ] mean? and does retreating and not completing an objective after being pushed back a stalemate?
::::::*What source or reference have I even brought even one source to prove that proves their was a stalemate?
::::::*Would there really be any point for India to sign the Takshent Agreement if she could ''even'' hold the pakistanis in Chawinda, especially looking at is victories in the ]?
::::::*Is my ] clouding my judgement?--] (]) 05:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
] It seems like you are the one busy in misrepresenting the source and ] in order to make something that is beyond the ]. It has been already clarified that none of your unreliable sources can be used for claiming the results as one of the article has only represented a military commander's view and other one is just an image hosted on a selfpublished unreliable blog. The way you have plastered the article with the one sided view of a Pakistani commader is clearly ]. Last stable version represented result as "Pakistan halts Indian advance" and "UN mandated ceasefire". For stalemate, that I don't actually support, it was a globalsecurity source that was used, per discussion as seen in archives. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:OZ, seems like you do not read the links you use... ] does not refer to an explanation of the term point... it is about completely something else; disrupting wikipedia processes to illustrate a point that you had to make probably about wikipedia, an event or for a content dispute. Secondly, there's no consensus on the fact that the references are not reliable. They are all reliable only ''some'' editors want to use different sources that could make an analysis (but we are not making an analysis and do not have the ] to bring any analytical sources). So just for the sake of the argument.. if I remove the link to the image (and leave the source itself there), what will you have to say..? Because the same source will still be present and your argument would be gone.. so it seems like you are focusing your citation dispute on something that is not a source. On your last point, the last 'stable' version was the current one since the last month (before you came here to revert it back), so any version before the current has no standing and you will have to fully own what you revert to (esp. that socks were involved reverting to that while falsifying the sources). In the end, even the reference you are giving is calling the battle a defeat while calling the ''war'' a stalemate. You should ]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::I wouldn't be bothering only if at least one of your source had claimed that "Pakistan won this battle". So far it had been proven here or in RSN that your image source is unreliable and other one(Canberra times) can be used just for referring the commander, but not the results. Thus you are engaged in ], ] and using a ] reference that is found no where other than this page. ], you have presented none, just like you couldn't 2 years ago. Now I would wait for some more hours before I will restore the version that had ], none of these new edits that have only plastered article with a ] opinion had. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::It would be pretty awesome if TopGun could prove how the Australian newspaper item is genuine and not photoshopped, especially as it is hosted on a Pakistani blog. OccultZone is right, I couldn't find any source which out-rightly claims Pakistani victory...halting India doesn't mean Pakistan won a ''major victory''.....that's the greatest misinterpretation you could ever see '''<span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px lightskyblue;">]]</span>''' 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I ]. All on you to read the sources, go get the original print paper. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 09:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Well you or anyone can also photoshop and claim this war as the victory of "the United States". But how you will prove that the source actually exists and it has been recognized by a ]? ] is possible only for those sources that have some existence. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The proof for sources is in themselves that they have complete citation info. The date, title and source name is present. That's all one needs to cite something or to verify independently. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Right now it seems like a ], since it is published on a unreliable source. The report is not referred anywhere outside the en.wiki or some social networking, totaling 5, but all unreliable. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 12:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::It is published by an RS newspaper. Some one copying the paper because now it is in public domain doesn't still make them the publisher. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 13:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


The participants of this short talk page ] concluded the battle was inconclusive.
:::::::::I haven't been following the course of this, umm, discussion, but {{u|OccultZone}} has a point here. Although The Australian is a reliable source, it's only reliable if someone has either seen the article or if someone has a reasonable expectation that it hasn't been altered (say if the article title is referenced in a book). The former is unlikely, the latter I've not been able to find. And, as I said, we're far enough on in time that we should be able to find reliable secondary sources (although that was pretty damn hard when I last looked). ] (]) 17:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
As noted by just everyone else, there is no ] available for claiming Pakistan's victory. I have removed the claim, "Major Pakistani victory", since it was supported only by a primary source and a dubious image. I have also removed the commentaries of a commander that were presenting only one side. If anyone has further issues with it, kindly take this to DRN or any other board. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:You don't have consensus for making the change. Stop editwarring. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 06:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::Except you and Nawabmalhi no one else seemed to have agreed with a ] and a ] source. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I've given you the complete details of references. Go ahead and verify them for your own sources. It is clear that you could not achieve the consensus to make any change since the time you came here to restore a sock version of the article. Unless you have clear cut consensus, it is editwar that you are engaging in by forcefully adding your favoured version. I don't have more time to waste on this if you will keep going on with ]. It's time to drop the ]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::You mean fake details? Falsely labeling stable version as a "sock version" just for falsifying sources cannot be justified. It is just you who is sticking to these fake references. Have some ], and read ], you are trying to right great wrong. Current version is obviously full of primary one sided junk. Of course you would prefer it, but others have clearly stated that they don't. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::I have an SPI with concluded evidence for that and I gave you the date / title / all verifying information of the reference. So stop making personal attacks and accusing me of using a fake source because I gave a scanned image as a courtesy. Probably shouldn't have cared to add a scan of the source. The best possible verification you have at this moment is from me. You should better focus on disproving the reference by finding a copy of the same source and checking the content rather than making personal attacks at me if you are so intent. Also, don't expect any replies if you can't discuss civilly without relying on accusations and attacks in face of admin concluded SPI and complete references. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::How it would justify the use of ] and ] references? You are talking about everything else except proving that where and when, other than this page, this ] reference has been used by anyone else. It is fake because it is just an image with no reference outside this article. Also why you are adding the one sided claim and commentaries of a Pakistani commander? A ] source. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


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


* '''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>
Since the above issue is not the only issue with the article, I have found some more.
* '''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 ==
* 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.
* 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)
::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)
::: was the version that had ] and probably last stable version, although it had a dubious reference("Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory") that could be found nowhere except this page, now that is something we can replace with the Canberra times and attribute it as "Pakistani commander had claimed the victory". ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::] is not a dubious source. You've been told that. There's no such thing as consensus version, see ]. It seems like you do not even have access to the sources in the article and are only calling them dubious because you can not access them. Go to a library and read the source (it's a 50 years old ''print'' newspaper source so ofcourse it's not online). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::It is a ] with no reference outside, it could have been easier to find since it is making a ] claim. First it would be the Australian's site itself, but evidently there is none, just search the title anywhere else. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Why do we depend on a newspaper cutting for an old war coverage? Is there no coverage in books? Then, very likely, it is not something of importance to be covered in Wiki. If the claim is exceptional and yet we do not have any other reference to it, it is perhaps inaccurate/fake. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Book coverage is present too and has been presented on talk. The news paper is not the sole source and is backed up by scholarly sources. OZ hasn't even verified it and has started assuming bad faith about it. I've just added yet another book source with quote. Kind of ] there but he still doesn't even want to verify. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 09:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Not even a single sentence from any book would justify this claim, and there are no scholars who claim that Pakistan won this battle. Only says that 25th Cavalry defeated their opponent, it doesn't speak about the battle which included more than just 25 Cavalry. According to the same book, result was a "ceasefire". Thus apart from using ] sources, you are also involved in ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Ceasefire is the result of the war as compared to the battle which the book, and I quoted, calls it a defeat for India along with numerous other sources present. As per you, all the sources in the article are fake and you have only your own ] alone to challenge them. Please stick to talking about the content not the editors. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 10:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::Before that sentence, why he mentions 25th cavalry and 17th Poona horse that faced each other only in the Battle of Chawinda? Why he mentions "in the fighting" and why he mentions Chawinda in the next sentence where he mentions that result was a ceasefire? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 10:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::The reference specifically states ''the Indian attack was broken up'' by 25th cav and anti-tank teams. In the part I highlighted it mentions defeat for India by word. That makes enough claim of Indian defeat at the battle. In the next sentence where you claim ceasefire, the sentence clearly talks about ''after'' this battle given that both sides had had heavy losses, until the ceasefire there were no more battles rather skirmishes or artillery fire. It is utterly clear that the ceasefire is the result of the war here and this battle being the last one still didn't completely stop the fighting rather minimized it. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::He was only talking about the Battle of Chawinda in those paras. If he was talking about the whole war, then the "44 tank losses" that he mentions are the actual Pakistan's loss of the whole 1965 war, right? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 10:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::There's something known as chronology. He moves on from the battle and talks about the ceasefire as both sides had had heavy losses at asal utar and chawinda and they didn't go for major attacks after chawinda. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 10:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::It isn't since he was just talking about the battle of Chawinda in that particular paragraph, not the whole war. Also check , result was inconclusive. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Battle of Chawinda|answered=yes}}
==DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory?==
Please add the following sections
{{rfc|hist|pol|rfcid=C213E89}}
Do you think the statment cited in infobox, "Major pakistani victory" is valid ? ] (]) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per initial sources and my explanations in above sections. It is a "Pakistani victory" atleast, in any case. {{u|Bromley86}} states ''"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)"''. All sources linked in the infobox state a Pakistani victory, where as one that of ] further calls it a major Pakistani victory. Another user, {{u|Nawabmalhi}} has also explained above about the clear cut indication by the sources. As I explained before, the links of scanned copies of sources are given as a reference. Furthermore, the sources that talk of a stalemate speak about the ] not this battle in specific to have been stalemate.. this battle was a Pakistani victory with the war as a whole resulting in ceasefire. I will also add that this was the stable version of the article before a sock started reverting it, then another user started reverting to the sock's version a month later of being on this version yet again. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 11:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - is a ] source, a one sided opinion of a Pakistani Military commander.
:* is an image that can be described as a ] with no recognition outside this en.wiki article.
:* has no mention of victory of this battle, only a mention about a cavalry regiment named, "25th Cavalry".
:*"Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965" has no mention of victory. It mentions that Pakistan was able to "halt" Indian invasion in the battle, which is somewhat different than victory.
:*Result was a "Ceasefire" or "Inconclusive". These edits were made very recently. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Having read the article on trove.nla.gov.au and nativepakistan.com . All the Google books seem to beeither a passing mention or no mention at all. Besides, how is it a 'Major Pakistani Victory' if there was a ceasefire? --] (]) 11:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::The sources are not nativepakistan.com or trove.nla.gov.au, they are just hosting courtesy links to the online copies.. the sources are ] and ] both are RS news sources. Secondly, the war can have a ceasefire with many battles credited to each side. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 11:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::But it is just ] on a unreliable self published blog with no reference outside this en.wiki article. Canberra times had only released the statement of a Pakistani military commander, which is equivalent to ] source. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::As stated earlier by me and person above, the one hosted at the Trove is written from one POV which makes it a Primary source, and the second one is not a reliable source. If it is a 'host' why is the same not got trhu the Web Archive? Why is it not hosted on some Digital Archive? --] (]) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}Image of the original newspaper is not needed as per ]. The citation information needed is complete and are not otherwise on web because the sources are from before the 'internet' but I'm reiterating it here for the purpose of noting the point for this RFC. Secondly, both sources conclude it as Pakistani victory and not just give statements. Other than that I'll '''note to the closer''' here to include the above sections for the purpose of summarizing the consensus so that me and OZ do not have to rehash our discussion here again about our difference of opinion on the sources. See also ]. All sources have POV and it has nothing to do with their reliability or correctness. Infact it is the job of secondary sources to have a perspective unlike NPOV tertiary sources. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::] is for working references, not for ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}TG, You don't seem to get the point that I am making. Why is the image not on some reliable archive like the AU NLA trove? Those are also archives for stuff that came up 'before the internet'. --] (])
:Simply because the whole newspaper of that date is not available on the internet (if it is, we can just verify it and be done with it)... welcome to the real world. All print sources are not available on the internet and there's no burden on me to bring them to the net as per ]. The burden on me was to give the verifying information (date title etc of the source) which I have, you will have to verify from a print archive. If you have more questions about the sourcing, you can read above section as I feel I've answered the related questions there and I'll only be repeating the same otherwise. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support "Indian defeat"''' - the sources linked by Bromley86 are those I found, in fact the only ones I could find that were not written by an Indian or Pakistani, which I have dismissed because I consider them to be to close to the events. The first is a wider work, the second an Osprey book very much limited to some of the tanks involved and the ways the two sides employed armour. The first source (Orton) is a better one, although published in New Dehli, the publisher seems reliable to me, and it states that "India's 1st Armored Division... was forced back by the Pakistani 6th Armoured Division at Chawinda and was forced to withdraw after suffering heavy losses...". Now, in anyone's language, that indicates a reverse for the Indians. Given an Indian-published book might reasonably be suspected of some bias towards India, its statement that the Indian attack was defeated is a pretty robust one. Added to the description in the Osprey book, I think "Indian defeat" is better than "Pakistani victory". It was after all, the defeat of an Indian attack, rather than some triumphant victory by rampaging Pakistani forces. Regards, ] (]) 11:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:*Despite that source indicates no victory or defeat and mentions hardly 10 words about this battle, it can be supportive for the former, "<u>Pakistan halts Indian advance</u>" , but I even doubt that since it has mentioned only a single division and we have got other better sources for the highlighted outcome. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:*{{yo|Peacemaker67}} Orton' is not even a ], check the , it is copied from en.wiki. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Can't view the page.. is it possible that en.wiki copied from there? As books that copy from wiki say it in their book summary... didn't find anything like that . --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::::That book is from 2010 and copied from the Kargil War article that was also copied to other en.wiki pages(2006 revision). ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::This discussion is going nowhere, fast. Sorry about the distraction with the wikibook, they are getting harder and harder to pick, although I admit I didn't look very hard. The only third party RS I am aware of is the Osprey one, are there any others? I see some reference to ''The Australian'', it is the national paper, and at that time would have been a highly respected masthead. It certainly would be RS. I would dismiss the "involved" sources that appear on face value to have been written by Pakistani or Indian military officers. The Osprey book indicates that Chawinda and Asal Uttar were two sides of the same coin, demonstrating that both sides did better in defensive tank battles than in offensive ones. In offensive operations, one side usually has the initiative and is trying to achieve an objective, and the other is attempting to thwart them. In most cases where the defending side is successful, it would be best described as a defeat for the attacking side than a victory for the defensive side. Thus '''Indian defeat'''. There are exceptions, but this looks to me like a classic example. I might, as an aside, mention an approach I have used where a short description in an infobox has been hard to achieve consensus on, have a look at ]. I'm out. Enjoy! ] (]) 03:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::That reference to The Australian seems to have no existence other than a image that is hosted on a selfpublished blog. A link to '''Aftermath''' or writing it as '''Inconclusive''' or '''ceasefire''' can be the solution. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' No source(other than the dubious image hosted on a Pakistani blog) mentions about Pakistani victory, forget Major Victory. The term ''major'' and ''victory'' have been self-proclaimed because Pakistan halted India......halting someone is different from defeating them and they are NOT interchangeable. '''<span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px lightskyblue;">]]</span>''' 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Pakistani army won this battle. Much reliable references consider it is Indian defeat or Pakistani victory. user Peacemaker67 is right, user TopGun is right. "Given an Indian-published book might reasonably be suspected of some bias towards India, its statement that the Indian attack was defeated is a pretty robust one." is summing up good. I agree with Australia reference it is major international newspaper if is giving headline it is notable thing in major war. ---] (]) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' if anyone wants is more comfortable Indian defeat rather than Pakistani Victory I am OK with that aswell although the terms mean the same thing. Now turning to does quote Pakistani Commander as ] mentioned but it also gives its own assessment that the Pakistanis won and shows good journalship by specifying that Pakistani claims of the number of Indian Tanks destroyed. Now for some The Australian Newspaper is not on any digital archive currently, this is most likely due to the fact that Newspaper which is still running and probably has some sort of claim on it. This newspaper reference was not added recently and all I did was provide a online link for its viewing. The fact that you cannot view it online does not make this source invalid. Also please examine these Indian sources aswell:
::*
::*
First source compares Chawinda to ], where India is on the recieving end, while the second source says the attack could not succeed and provides reasons for failure.--Thank You ] (]) 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::*An image that is hosted on a self published blog is ] as anyone can draw a image that has no reference outside this page. has no mention of victory or defeat or anything nearer to it. Your other source, actually a- ] one only mentions "did not succeed", but it doesn't means that there was any defeat. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The first source likens the ](a major pakistani defeat) to what happened to the Indian forces at Chawinda. And please explain how it is iconclusive or a stalemate if we know for a fact, everything else set aside, that the Indians failed to accomplish any of their objectives like take Chawinda, cut supply lines etc, and Pakistanis completed their objectives by holding Chawinda and halting Indian Advance..--Thank You ] (]) 18:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Talking about a single cavalry regiment is not same as talking about the overall country' position. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 02:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::: In this case that unit represented India in the Battle of Chawinda, so yes it does.--Thank You ] (]) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
'''Comment''': After taking a glance at the sources, I cannot figure out that the term '''Major''' is supported on a wide scale except ''The Canberra times''. I think the best way is to reach a consensus; I suggest the term should be . I hope this helps.] (]) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:There is no source like "Canadian times", if you are talking about Canberra times, it can be described as a ]. The source you have mentioned has no support for your proposed inclusion. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity==
::Hi {{U|OccultZone}}, I think we should not be ], multiple sources support that; I am not going to bombardment of the here. Please follow and figure out, you are an experienced editor; no need for mentioning rules, as you know already. It is not necessary the sources should be online---In any shape, reliable sources are accepted, cited sources has published date and years. If you have concerns about reliability, please go to the ].] (]) 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
:::I move to second that! ---] (]) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
::::{{U|Justice007}}, but that's exactly what you are doing. At first you couldn't even read the source yet you have claimed that this claims victory of Pakistan, although it is not. Read ], an image that has been uploaded on a unreliable self published blog should not be treated as a source. Anyone can draw image and upload just like it had been discussed on both ] and here, what we require is the ] of that image if it has been recognized by any ]. Can you find a mention of that report anywhere outside this en.wiki article? Also considering finding me "multiple sources support that", so far none do. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
:::::Did you read real Canberra paper? ---] (]) 23:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
::::::It is only referring to a Pakistani Military commander, check ]. They are unreliable source for these contested claims. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
:::::::There are too much references. Indian, Pakistani, Australian every one is saying victory. ---] (]) 00:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
::::::::We have only got a 49 years old statement of Pakistani military commander, which is indeed unreliable for the information. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because we cannot state the results as either 'victory' or 'defeat'. None of the provided sources have stated any one of these terms. After checking each, there is a major issue with 2 of the sources, while other 2 have been misused. Due to the issues with these sources, I have further tagged them. ] (]) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::See debate everything is in dispute references are in dispute result is in dispute. Debate here till the time RFC is over. ---] (]) 00:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Not it is only about the validity of the result 'Major pakistani victory', as these references are being misused, they must not look completely legit. ] (]) 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Major, decisive, Indian defeat, Pakistani victory all on one side and stalemate on one side. {{reply|Zerefx}} made revision of victory many other users did it. It is dispute here. ---] (]) 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Can you name the reliable sources in place of naming other en.wiki editors? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I suggest you consider the instructions on how to use the results parameter in the ]. Bolding by me.
:{{talkquote|this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. '''In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used''' instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". '''It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much'''.}}
:(]&nbsp;]) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::"Inconclusive" can be sourced. Other options aren't available. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' pakistan victory sources are very good. --] (]) 01:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC){{spa|223.29.225.35}}
::Can this even be considered a valid vote? Seems like a sock. Not taking any names but the comment has left a good clue as to who it is. IPs only edits are edit warring in this article. --] (]) 06:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It's tagged. The closer is usually an admin experienced enough to pick out the argument from the SPAs correctly (don't know if dynamic IPs count as SPAs though), I wouldn't worry about it. Same goes for the 15 revert editwarring of VandVictory. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 07:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Stating that it is a "major" victory needs more sources. That it was a local, tactical victory seems to be true, but it also seems to be true that the effect of the battle was made moot by the UN-brokered ceasefire. Stopping a far superior force is in my opinion a success. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


== See also ==
*'''Comment''': As per the recent source misrepresentation highlighted by {{U|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|FIM}} and Strike Eagle, I have also restored some of the maintenance tags and also tagged them appropriately as per the concerns that have been raised here. None of the policy says that you cannot tag the contested claim during the RfC. Only matter is the dialogue, that is being discussed and it hasn't been changed. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]
::You will not conflict with admin action. Do RFC and wait. ---] (]) 21:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
* ]


Thank you.
*'''Support''': After taking a look at the sources and adding some other academic and the mainstream newspapers sources; I created a new section, on both side views in accordance to the ] was deleted by the editors who reject the wiki rules without valid reasons. As the rules; the photo copy of such reliable sources is not needed. The citation of the date and name is enough as the cited sources of the academic books to thousands of other wiki articles are not available online. That are also accepted as the reliable sources. I have no doubts of the sources. The editors are free to interpret what they want as personal interest rather the wiki rules.] (]) 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:*None of the ] suggest it as a victory of Pakistan at all, not even near. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:22, 20 December 2014 (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 ==
*'''Support''': by the standards of military history science, it would be both a Pakistani strategic and tactical victory, and that's confirmed by the reliable sources. However, I'm not so invested in the controversies; just offering a third opinion. Also, the ] repeatedly being made by OkkultZone such as in edit summary are unconscionable. ] (]) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:* You are incredibly wrong about that, better if you stay on the topic and tell if you can you find at least one reliable source? All of the 4 that had been added along with that unfounded statement are either misrepresented, primary or dubious/non existing. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Battle of Chawinda|answered=yes}}
*'''Oppose''' Each source has serious issues and they had to be evaluated before they were used for surprising results. Sources make no claim and only a Pakistani military guy seemed to have claimed victory. It was endorsed by any secondary source? Saddam Hussein had also claimed victory over allied forces in ]. This conflict was largely affected by a ceasefire. ] (]) 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add the following item in the "See also" section:


* ] ] (]) 09:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
== Illegitimate removal of the section ==


{{Mostly done}}, put it in the further reading section instead.
* You cannot remove the section with your personal rules, content is well sourced. ] (]) 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 02:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::Nobody's removing anything by personal rules. Stop complaining. What you have added clearly comes under the results section and doesn't merit a separate section. I don't still understand why would you would want to add the result of the whole 1965 War here and make a block quote about it. Please clarify. '''<span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px lightskyblue;">]]</span>''' 17:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{ec}}The source, unfortunately, does not say what you seem very much to want it to say. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{yo|Justice007}} Given that you are misrepresenting source, you also seem to be confusing this battle with the 1965 war, the battle was clearly declared as '''ceasefire''' according to the source you are using. If you are going to claim the victory of Pakistan on this whole war, consider using ] for that. However, I am very sure that the amount of sources and scholarship concerning these results are more supportive towards the "Indian victory" than "Pakistan victory". ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 17:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::], one of your userboxes says ''I try to do the right thing. If I make a mistake, please let me know''... we are!!! ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::::@] Please don't make any further reverts. The additions are bound to be removed soon by anyone, thanks to the misinterpretations and selective additions.... '''<span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px lightskyblue;">]]</span>''' 18:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Check. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Read the sources, I have given both views of the sources per ], while you are ignoring that. Lets the other editors view on that dispute, I do not think your description fall under NPOV.] (]) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::::{{yo|Justice007}} you are misrepresenting a source for claiming the Pakistan's victory of 1965 war, and not to mention your unexplained removal of maintenance templates. Clearly those sources are ], ], and ], you cannot even use some of them anywhere on the article. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
*There are multiple sources currently in the article for the Pakistani victory claim in infobox. Whether or not it should be there is to be decided by the RFC. Adding failed verification serves no purpose and is blatant continuation of editwar because 1) The editors adding 'failed verification' do not have access to the sources they are tagging and they have not verified the sources to be able to add that tag 2) RFC will conclude this anyway as RFC is not only considering the statement to use in the infobox but also the validity of the sources. With that said, all the sources in the infbox call it a Pakistani victory or Indian defeat. The best way is to follow ] and restore the version that was protected before the editwar and discuss and change per consensus. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::As per ], the infobox shouldn't contain inline citations. And the of those it does, they none of them claim a so-called ''major'' victory- as opposed to the sources being misrepresented again- and in fact the only honestly sourced claim is that of the UN-mandated ceasefire. Do I detect a hint of nationalistic POV-pushing here? I hope not... ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::It should contain citations if the claim is controversial. I don't care what way it is phrased.. one of the sources said Major so I changed it to that long before this editwar while a sock was reverting it to something completely different without even changing sources. If the consensus of the RFC is just to leave it at "Pakistani Victory" I don't mind that either. And please ]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Quite right. Ask everyone to assume good faith but don't bother doing it yourself. --] (]) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:Don't if you don't want to, but don't assume bad faith either: ]. No point in debating it but it's appalling that you would talk about me instead of content. Don't discuss editors here. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:*If considerable issues have raised about the sources, there is nothing wrong to template them, but it is actually appreciated so that the readers can have better idea about the dispute. None of the policy says that you cannot tag the contested claim during the RfC. Result parameter remains untouched. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:::The RFC is inclusive of discussion on sources, you just joined the editwar. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::*Yawn, here we go again. Please read the discussions in the RfC section above. Again. And again. The problems with the sources have been detailed. -zzzz. --] (]) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (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)
'''''']'''
::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.
::And if someone keeps reverting each other, I'll simply take it to ]. --] (]) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::] (]) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Keep admin revision and find consensus. {{reply|Justice007}} give vote in above RFC heading. Harassment will be noted by admins. ---] (]) 21:40, 19 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.
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:
WikiProject iconIndia: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject iconPakistan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Indian / South Asia
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion not met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Indian military history task force
Taskforce icon
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:

 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:
Talk:Battle of Chawinda: Difference between revisions Add topic