Jump to content

Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Solblaze (talk | contribs) at 08:30, 18 September 2023 (→Removal of "Indian failure": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Neutral Losses

The figure for 798 losses refers to total deaths during the period and does NOT in fact reference those incurred during the mobilization itself. It includes for example casualties taking the (regular) artillery duels as well as counter-insurgency operations in J&K as well as the Indian North-East.

Request Moderators to edit the same.

merge

What are people's opinions about merging Terrorist attack on Indian Parliament (2001) with this article? PBP 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still sort of incomplete. I need to add more information to it. The terrorist attack is only a part of the standoff — it triggered the standoff but cannot be considered synonymous with the standoff itself. Thanks AreJay 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request

{{editprotected}} An anonymous troll edit-warred an edit [1] into the article before it was protected. The edit was thus:"In the end India ended up with 800 dead soldiers and its frantic deployment of troops along the border cost a billlion dollars.". The "source" fror this factoid was a guardian op/ed [2] by a controversial far-left and pro-Islamist author named Arundhati Roy, known to tout "preposterousness" and factual inaccuracies. An op/ed cannot be used as a reliable source for facts (it can, fo course, be used as an attributable opinion) unless there has been independent verification. Furthermore, the guardian article does not mention a "billion dollar loss", surely a fantasy for a low-budget country.It's tedious to guard wikipedia against such misrepresentation, and an admin should investigate such careful manipulation.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a saying that the "wrong version" is the one that is protected. Until the article is unprotected, admins won't make content changes like this. I hope everyone will discuss the dispute that led to protection, so that the protection can be lifted promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Guardian article is clearly a POV. If used, it must be represented as such.(Anonymi (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ghanadar lies

Dear Ghandar please stop acting like a child and face the facts rather than claiming its a pro islamist writer all your articles are from right wing hindu websites and from anti pakistani writers you dont see me moaning about them its time to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) And Ghanadar open your eyes it states india lost 1 billion in british pounds thats around 2 billion dollars low bugdet country lol how comes india spends 20 billion dollars on arms a year get real i know your a patriot but you need to realise facts.[reply]

Care to find a source other than an op-ed by a crank that backs up such statements? Please don't get some Jamaati rag to substitute, even Arundhati Roy is better.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanadar hypocrasy

Ghanadar your going to far now first you claim thats i take info from right wing sites then you say its a hate speech. factual inaccuracies. This link will take you to a right wing fundamentalist hindu MP from the BJP (a extreme hindu party which murders minoritys in india) unless Ghanadar is blind he to will realize what a fool he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...As opposed to militant Pakistanis who cite websites covertly managed by the Jamaat-e-Islami, a group of extreme Muslims responsible for the murder of some 2 million Hindus and moderate Muslims in the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 86.162.66.42 please stop your name-calling. Please refer to WP:WTA; calling people "fundamentalist" and "fool" will only get you blocked. Please see WP:NPA. We respect your point-of-view; let's move away from namecalling and have a mature discussion. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if we're citing op-eds, it needs to be made clear that it is someone's opinion. If the source for the figures were mentioned in the op-ed, that information should be incorporated into the article. Given both Indian and Pakistani media's propensity to, shall we say, "fluff" facts as it relates to war, I think it is best to use a neutral source. That's not to say that Indian and Pakistani sources shouldn't be included; the absolutely must, but the must be qualified (eg. "According to studies performed by the Indian/Pakistani government, an estimated loss of $xxx occurred"). AreJay (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a fringe crank like Arundhati Roy is notable enough for this article. Furthermore, I fully support dropping all identifiably Indian or Pakistani sources and restrict the article to western ones. However, given that most of what the Indian media says pretty much agrees with western assessments, I strongly suspect that every reliable source will be denounced by the ip troll as "kaffir Hindu propaganda". This sort of association fallacies are quite common in the discourse of fanatic Islam in the Indian subcontinent, and wikipedians are under no obligation to give them any credence.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partly agree, but to discount Indian and Pakistani POVs in an article that is ostensibly about the larger India Pakistani feud would be to create in an article that is devoid of either Indian or Pakistani color on the subject. I think it's fair to represent both views; while I personnally don't like Arundhati Roy or her views, she and people like Praful Bidwai have their fair share of followers (and detractors) and if her comments add light to an opinion shared by some, I feel it should be represented in the article (even if it is represented with a caveat indicating her political leanings and the fact that her op-ed was just that - an op-ed).
I'd like to see this discussion move away from namecalling on both sides of the ball. Let's move to constructively present facts and allow readers to derive their own opinions. Perhaps I can recommend WP:WTA to my Indian and Pakistani friends. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanadar the troll which probably calls all muslims "DALIT" needs to realize his patriotism for hindustan want get him anywhere this propaganda is very common with extreme hindus who go out and rape women and children like they did in gujarat in 2002 the right wing hindus like bjp hire ghanadar to mask reality and the hypocrasy of Ghanadar who uses websites run by fanatical hindus who have nothing better to do than force people in hinduism shows how his sources are unreliable BJP give me a break your hypocrasy and support for hindu terrorist sources wont give you any rewards ghanadar move away from fundamentalist websites.

I strongly urge the nationalists extreme people of India to move away from self comforting propaganda its everywhere on wikipedia and poeple from all around the world also state how pathetic these militants of india are with there biased weasel articles showing them as heroes leave that to bollywood.


As usual the indians such as Arejay gang up on pakistani editors and try to get them block they dont like to look at there actions but try to get editors who expose double standards blocked i want a non indian moderator please.

You are going to get blocked if you come out attacking people are spewing rascist comments on anyone that doesn't agree with you. I am not "moderating" this discussion; never claimed to be. All I wanted to see was a mature discussion between Indians and Pakistanis. If you read what I wrote, I actually said all viewpoints, where properly referenced, should be incorporated into the article. Can't say fairer than that. If you can present your side of the argument, without abusing others and making outlandish rascist statements; do so. This is for your own benefit to ensure your views get incorporated into the article. If you choose not to, that's fine as well. The result of that will be that only "Indian" views get represented in the article. Entirely your choice. AreJay (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BJP is anti-Muslim? Tell that to Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Abdul Kalam. Both Muslims, both BJP supporters or members.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanadar ignorance knows no limit if you feed puppets like abdul kalam who doesnt even practice islam properly they will follow there masters like the extreme party BJP. LOL BJP is not anti islamic tell that to the women and young girls who were raped by these hindu cowards of BJP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/23cnd-india.html?hp

War infobox

Could the editors adding the war infobox please defend their actions here? There's no point in creating an edit war. Lets draw a conclusion from here and decide on the next course of action. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India lost 800 troops during there anticipation they were ready and in the correct position to attack there poor tactics leaded to 800 deaths who were all soldiers so india suffered casualties during the standofF with Pakistan.
The war box was already there originally why change it now is it due to indias looses plz dont bring pro india bias into reality
First, this infobox doesn't belong in this article since it is basically meant for wars, both official and unofficial. Since actual fighting didn't break out between India and Pakistan (unlike '49, '65, '71 and Kargil), the 2001-2002 confrontation cannot be called a war, or even a skirmish. I am therefore removing it from the article. Second, no official data on the losses pertaining to Indian and Pakistani soldiers during the buildup was ever released by either government. Any data presented therefore is an estimate made by third party sources. This estimate, if include, must be unaccompanied by a caveat that explains the fact that this is someone's opinion and not a statement of fact. I have no problem including a statement about the estimated 800 Indian troop deaths, so long as it is clearly stated that this is FAS's estimate and that the factual accuracy of this cannot be confirmed. To simply state that 800 Indian troops died during the buildup to the war is disingenuous. AreJay (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arejay said everything I had to say. Yes, there's been no official confirmation on the deaths of those 800 soldiers. It's only speculated. And for your info (in a neutral tone) India never lost to anybody. It wasn't a war, so there's nothing to win or lose. True wars between the countries were ('49, '65, '71, Kargil ans Siachen). War was actually declared per se by the governments. And there were true winners and losers. I don't need to continue.  S3000  ☎ 12:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
India lost 1776 lives to its own mines and unexploded ordnances. This was confirmed by the then defence minister George fernandez in a parliament session. Why this edit has been reverted by the user Shovon76. I also gave a valid link published online. I request the moderators to show the actual lives lost by Indian army. Because there was no other mention about the lives lost in the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.188.167 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That number seems a little excessive to me. Can you provide a link that shows that 1776 people died? The only number I've seen so far is from FAC which says 800. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link provided by 66.57.188.167 is an op-ed piece and fails WP:RS. That's why I had reverted the edit. Shovon (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. One quick point though, the author seems to have sourced her data from an ICBL report from 2004. Normally, if this pertained directly to the troop build up in this article, I would review that report and use that as the source. However, having read through Fatima's op-ed, it says that 1,776 deaths have occurred due to mines and unexploded ordance. This has nothing to do with troop build up or the 2001-2002 Indo-Pak stand-off, and therefore shouldn't be in this article anyway. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same old story indian editors trying to cover up the blunders made by the indian army first you remove the sourced fact which stated 800 indians died due to the build up now you remove another fact that another 1700 died due to there own weapons lol its pathetic cant you indians just accept the truth 86.156.214.36 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what was written in the op-ed, it says that 1700 Indian soldiers have died as a result of mines. Indian soldiers have been dying from mines in Kashmir since 1989 – this has nothing to do with the Indo-Pak 2001-2002 buildup. You would have realized this had you read the article. If you don't, then I'm sorry, but your level of comprehension isn't sufficient to continue this discussion. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your source states (correctly) that India has lost 1776 of it's own service personnel. However it has nothing to do with the "2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff", and it seems those figures have been collated since the minefields were first laid. Your use of language such as this; "its pathetic cant you indians just accept the truth", makes it appear to me that you are try to push some agenda, as you have also added the same incorrect information to the "Indian Army" article, trying to make the figure sound as if the 1776 casualties happened during the 2001-2002 Indian-Pakistan standoff. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1776 casualties mentioned in the report is not the lives lost, but (375 killed, 1,401 injured) as per the ICBL report from 2005 [3]. The newspaper Times of India has an article on the lives lost during operation Parakram as 798 [4], quoting the then defense minister George Fernandez's statement to the Indian parliament. For the record, I'm an Indian and would be pleased to have facts recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.25.91 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it is editors who choose to indulge in posturing that imply that one's national identity disqualifies one from being objective and report on factual data. I am more than happy to use George Fernandez's quote, as well as the 800 listed by FAS in the article, as long as the source of the data is clearly indicated in the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Shankar Dayal Sharma (as a commander)

Poor dude died in 1997. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warbox template, again

Some people here continue to amaze me. This was a standoff, not an actual conflict. Therefore, having a template with sections such as "combatants", "commanders", "strength" and "casualties" is plain silly. Having this template not only undermines the credibility of this article but also adds to the confusion. I see that no consensus was achieved before the template was added and I cannot think of any logical argument in support of keeping this template. --Nosedown (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.. this template was added by someone in Islamabad, Pakistan. Why am I not surprised.. --Nosedown (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani casualites

Okay, first of all, we know for certain that the number isn't "none"--it has to be no less than 6, since reference 16 (covered in the May-June section) verifies 6 Pakistani soldiers killed. But it's ludicrous to think the number isn't in the many hundreds--unless Pakistan's military is somehow that much better than Indias, that they can inflict over 700 deaths while taking nearly none of their own. Until we know for sure, we have to write "unknown" in the infobox, not "none". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that reference, thanks for pointing out. Per now, we should make it "6" as we have a reference. We cant put "unknown" there because now we do have a known number. It is quite possible for that figure to be true as the war never occurred and many of the casualties happened due to artillery fire or from own mines. In anycase, we cant put things in infobox because it is hard to believe them instead of relying on citations. 6 should be added till a larger number is found. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's....I'm going to say it, even if it's arguably incivil: that's absolutely positively insane. The news article does not state that the number of casualties was 6. It says that the number of casualties from a single fight was 6. And putting something like ">6" implies something not true. We have no source that speaks to the number of casualties, so none can be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no source either which would state that there were any more causalities than that number (from that fight) other than a gut feeling... --lTopGunl (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a source stating anything for the number of casualties for the standoff, so you cannot put anything in the box. And I'm not saying that the number of casualties from that fight was greater than 6. I'm saying that the number of casualties in that specific fight has no correlation to the total number of casualties. We cannot speculate, and putting "more than 6" implies something that isn't true. Unless sources appear, that box will simply have to stay as "unknown". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point, and 'unknown' itself isn't really something much to debate about in terms of neutrality when there's a reasonable argument. How about putting a cn tag with 'unknown' so that some one might find a reference that actually states the causalities are not known - that would kill a later debate on this. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just added it. It seems a little odd to me (like we want a source stating that the number is unknown), but I can see why you think it might help. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel

[5] TG is adding, what in my opinion is weasel wording to try ang get around the need for a citation needed tag. Adding the word allegedly instead of finding a source for the Pakistani denial is almost certainly not right. In fact WP:ALLEGED bears this out. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined Without the Pakistani denial being sourced then there are no way to know that the wrongdoing is undetermined. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denial has no relation in itself to the allegation. This is a 'claim' as previously termed in the sentence. 'Allegedly' is the right word here per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. You need to read WP:WEASEL before quoting it. Also your continued following of my edits is not going unnoticed. The only possible way you got here is from my contributions given your previous history and block because of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the paranoia. See [6] this list as to how I got here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I would have agreed if I wasn't seeing many of this 'coincidences' after a history like that. You've violated WP:3RR by adding that tag in the end instead of discussing content. It does not matter what content you add, your edits still count to 3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to report me. Your inability to follow the same essay you continually cite is highly amusing Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD applies to you here. You need to discuss on the first revert instead of readding content. Even your tagging is incorrect. You are assuming a dispute here. No weasel words have been used. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO, god your a card sir. You added content, it was reverted, you should have discussed instead of edit warring. Perhaps you need to reread your favorite essay ) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, this was already listed as a claim in the same sentence. I just made it coherent. Your assertion of weasels is completely incorrect. POV attribution is not usage of weasel words. Feel free to call in WP:30. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POV Attribution means you actually say who made the claim, not just add "allegedly" (which Darkness shines is correct falls under "words to avoid"). I've fixed the problem by, you know, reading the source, finding out whose POV it is, and saying that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that if the claim that Pakistan denies it is not sourced in a few days, I'm taking it out. This is a very contentious claim, which must be sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No it was not,[7] It is not a claim, it is a statement of fact. You must have missed my previous post. 'In fact WP:ALLEGED bears this out. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined Without the Pakistani denial being sourced then there are no way to know that the wrongdoing is undetermined. So you see, without the Pakistani denial being sourced it is not a claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think correct attribution was the purpose of the removal on pretext of WP:WEASEL as the word was completely removed instead to leave WP:POV issues. The last comment by DS further backs up my clarification. I agree with the current form of attribution. The 'weasel' and other tags can be removed since this is fixed. I'll look for the denial source (though that is not related to the claim but to the sentence about denial). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification

The two sources recently added [8] do not support the statement. The sources give are Pakistan denying having anything to do with the attacks, not denial of ISI support for the group. Also is World Socialist Web Site really a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISI-Pakistan are not two different things. ISI does not necessarily release its own press details. You've been previously clarified about this. Also, the statement is "Pakistan denied this charge". This is clearly mentioned in the sources. You should self revert the 'failed verification' tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. You may not use a source in which Pakistan says they had naught to do with the terrorist attack to say the ISI have not supported them, especially as one of your source's says they have. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at the sentence in the article again. It doesn't mention ISI. And certainly ISI is an organization of Pakistan. Pakistan's denial is the official one. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to listen, India claimed that the attacks were carried out by two Pakistan based Terrorist groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), both of whom India has said are backed by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency,[4] a charge Pakistan denied One follows on from the other. You need a source which says they deny ISI support of the groups, or any Pakistani denial of support for the groups. Using a source whic hsays they had nothing to do with the attacks = they deny having supported the groups is WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are clear in context here about the denial. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only in your own mind. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties in the Infobox

I have restored the figures of the Indian Army casualties in the infobox. There had been a demand from a user regarding "sources". The reliable sources from the famous Indian newspaper "Times of India" were already present. Could someone explain me why I was reverted? Faizan 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Faz, I had not seen them in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Faizan 08:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are they References?

At the end of "Confrontations" in May–June is the following suppose to be references? "This was the only operation to include Cadets in the history of Indian Defence [9] [10]." Adamdaley (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Cipher21 express your concerns here—Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie, the edit summary is sufficient for such statements. However, I agree that it is best we discuss further changes here. Cipher21 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cipher21 I anticipated this revert, I too have some opinion regarding citations in casualty section. But let me clear your concerns first. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Echo1Charlie, My concerns are in the edit summaries visible in the article's history page. Cipher21 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your latest edit to 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, otherwise administrators may take action against you for violating WP:1RR. Cipher21 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your concern Cipher? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is your objection regarding this change [11] replacing WP:TOI with WP:INDIANEXP and WP:HINDU?
Read the above, and I'd appreciate it if you linked to a diff of my statement instead of making it seem like I made it here. Cipher21 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please state your objections regarding the said change here, rather than being "I said there, read that" etc, after all we are here for a discussion right? Please state your objection here, so that I can explain the rationale behind the edit and we can reach a consensus at the earliest. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Echo1Charlie, I am against unnecessarily repeating things. However, since you asked, the citations you have provided are opinion pieces. They are considered unreliable for factual reporting and are primary sources which can only be attributed to the authors of the opinion pieces - refer to WP:RSEDITORIAL. So you haven't "replaced" TOI with The Hindu or Indian Express. Furthermore, TOI is considered reliable in this case. It is quoting the Defence Minister of India, so its bias towards the Indian government doesn't matter. Cipher21 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with Cipher21. The edit summary adequately explains why it is okay to quote the Indian defence minister using TOI. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me finish NarSakSasLee.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deliberately confusing what an opinion piece is verses a quotation. Quoting the Indian defence minister is not opinion. He is a representative of the Indian government. Once again, there is nothing wrong with including that within the article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait NarSakSasLee I'm coming to that point. Give me some time to finish —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but LinkedIn isn't a reliable source either - it's self published. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability of opinion piece - WP:RSEDITORIAL - "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability" - here the article/ Op-ed is co-written by Yeshua Moser Puangsuan his credentials can be found here [12] - "he's a human rights and disarmament activist, author, lecturer and nonviolence trainer/educator. He is the co-author of Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders (University of Hawai’i Press, 2000) which is regarded as both ground breaking and authoritative. He currently is a Consultant to the International Peace Bureau in Geneva and serves on the board of the AJ Muste International Nonviolence Trainers Fund.

Since 2005 Yeshua has been a research coordinator and editor of the annual reports of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munition Coalition. He's also a research coordinator at https://www.minesactioncanada.org/ , so this information is seems to be reliable, unbiased. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Quint article is that it does not quote the defence minister directly at all, whereas the other actually does quote him in sufficient detail. In this case it is perfectly acceptable to use TOI as a reliable source. Cipher21 your input would be welcome here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to submit the tape of that day's parliamentary session??! Silly reasons—Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can do anything you want, except misrepresent sources. If contradictory statements are being made they should both be included. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quote - "At the end of July 2003, the then defence minister George Fernandes informed the Lok Sabha that India had lost 798 soldiers – even without formally going to war. These fatalities were caused by ammunition-related accidents, mine-related fatalities and in some cases, ‘friendly fire’. In contrast, the 1999 Kargil War resulted in the death of 527 Indian troops." - https://www.thequint.com/news/india/no-nation-must-stumble-into-war-lessons-operation-parakram-post-uri-attack-pakistan-soldiers-jawans-kashmir-modi#read-more —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOI challenging WP:TOI https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms - quoting defence minister, casualty 798. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are two different incidents here. The 798 figures comes from casualties up to 2003 (with no start date as to the actual casualties), and the other is within a very specific time frame of 2001 to 2002. It is entirely possible the 798 figure has been confused by the wider media as to the casualties for the entire war. This is why I said I'm not opposed to having both figures included. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"During Operation Parakram up to July 2003 a total number of 798 Army personnel suffered fatal casualties — that literally covers casualty from December 2001 (starting date) to july 2003 covering the end dateof the standoff i.e 10 June 2002, that literally means total casualty of the stand off is 798 as of 2003 June! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why not include both? That's my point. The question here is then why are you POV pushing for 798 when he clearly said 1,874 as well? NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NarSakSasLee We can't include both as

  1. . Of cource WP:TOI
  2. . WP:TOI in March 2003 reported that casualty is 1874 quoting defence minister (https://web.archive.org/web/20130419044936/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-05-01/india/27277371_1_bullet-proof-jackets-jammu-and-kashmir-soldiers-face) the same WP:TOI in July 2003 reported that casualty is 798 again quoting the defence minister (same person) — this is the very reason why it is tagged as generally unreliable source — WP:TOI, got it??! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie and NarSakSasLee, some things need to be made clear:

  1. WP:TOI is in some cases considered unreliable due to its pro-Indian (government) bias, not faulty or fabricated reporting. What this means is, if TOI claims 1000 Pakistani soldiers died in a conflict, Pakistan claimed 100 died and NYT claims 10 died, that means we cannot consider TOI as the solely authoritative source among the three. TOI's figure will be labelled "Indian Claim," Pakistan's "Pakistani Claim" and NYT's something along the lines of "Neutral Figure." However, if India officially claims 798 of its own soldiers died and Pakistan, NYT or any other RS do not make any counter claims to this statement, it will be included without objection. Similarly, if TOI makes some claim about Pakistan which is unsupported by other RS or only by the Indian media/government, it will be considered unreliable.
  2. Even taking TOI's bias into account, this figure originates from the Indian Government. On what basis is it to be excluded?
  3. Echo1Charlie, please take care to read what's already been stated to avoid wasting everyone's time by making this discussion go around in circles. WP:RSEDITORIAL states, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Yeshua Moser Puangsuan's statements can be attributed to himself, not the platform he wrote on.
  4. There is a difference between killed, and killed or injured. 798 Indian soldiers were killed, while 1874 were either killed or injured. Neither statement contradicts the other, so I don't see how TOI (or The Quint) is contradicting itself.
  5. There is also a difference between the casualties during the conflict and causalities from laying mines during a whole other time period. If between 2001 and 2005 1776 soldiers died while laying mines, why does Echo1Charlie insist on this statistic replacing number of Indian soldiers killed or injured during the conflict? Including this figure in addition to the latter (as I did) seems reasonable, as it is somewhat relevant additional information. However, I fail to see any reason to remove the former. Neither can an opinion piece replace the words of the Defence Minister of India, nor are the two statements mutually exclusive.

Cipher21 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher21 The problem is.,

  1. Reliability of WP:TOI — Keep aside bias towards Indian government, the problem is it is not reliable at all, — WP:TOI in March 2003 reported that casualty is 1874 quoting defence minister (https://web.archive.org/web/20130419044936/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-05-01/india/27277371_1_bullet-proof-jackets-jammu-and-kashmir-soldiers-face) the same WP:TOI in July 2003 reported that casualty is 798 again quoting the defence minister (same person)
  2. What figures? 1874 or 798? If you go with 798 you can cite quint, the wire and theprint
  3. I don't think attribution is necessary in infobox
  4. "798 Indian soldiers were killed, while 1874 were either killed or injured." — 1874 figure by WP:TOI in their March 2003 report is corrected by them in their July 2003 report, it's corrected to 798 - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms, the new figure is also supported by other sources such as thequint, thewire and theprint
  5. Where does it states that casualty is from fighting? - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms -WP:TOI, https://web.archive.org/web/20190420230800/https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/its-time-for-india-to-join-the-mine-ban-treaty/article7008157.ece, Report by The Stimson Center page 29 https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94299/To_the_Brink.pdf , Strategic analysis article - file:///C:/Users/sarath/Downloads/StrategicAnalysisArticle.pdf Strategic Analysis Vol. 34, No. 4, July 2010, 594–610 - also support this claim - casualty due to mine laying and demining not fighting, If you ask I can provide more sources to backup this claim.

——Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Cipher21. Echo1Charlie can't seem to understand how sourcing works; or rather more worrisome, it appears that he wishes to POV push and censor certain things. His recent behaviour on WP:ANI is evidence of this. Editors have repeatedly attempted to try and reach consensus with him, but he keeps using circular logic despite repeatedly being told to stop doing so (and when that doesn't work he resorts to some rather uncivil behaviour to try and force change chiefly through issuing false and threatening warnings on user talk pages and false reporting). Worse still Echo1Charlie was involved in a cross article edit war over the exact same issue as is occurring in this very page without so much as even attempting to achieve consensus on the talk page (having even resorted to WP:CANVASSING an administrator directly to take his side in an ongoing discussion—thankfully that administrator did not take the bait).
—NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NarSakSasLee, It's not related to this article, but this article [[14]] You've apperently broken the 3RR rule there, but why you didn't got blocked because my 3RR warning to your talkpage and your 4th edit were around same time - 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC), details of the report can be found here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NarSakSasLee reported by User:Echo1Charlie (Result: Fully protected one week) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object this, need third opinion, BTW I have submitted it for third opinion. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed over there because there's more than two editors involved in this, which makes sense because there is more than enough people here to reach consensus, you're just refusing to respect the process because you want to POV push by selectively choosing sources. This is not acceptable behaviour. We have already told you we are okay with including both sources but you're refusing to even listen to this. And as further evidence of your grossly inappropriate behaviour, when you did make that request for a third opinion, you filed that report fraudulently in a deliberate attempt to mislead others. You attempted to portray the editors of this discussion (myself and Cipher21) as having said something we never did and you also made up TOI having "corrected" itself when it never did (it simply quoted two different statements that the defence minister had made - TOI has never issued an apology for making any errors in the two articles that they have written that are being discussed here). NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie, despite numerous attempts to communicate with you in good faith, you have refused to get the point. It is tiresome for NarSakSasLee and I to repeatedly explain the same thing to you, only for you to completely disregard what we say. Cipher21 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NarSakSasLee, I guess we have consensus on this revision. Shall I restore it? Cipher21 (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cipher21 Absolutely. Enough time has been wasted circling around the issue again and again. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You attempted to portray the editors of this discussion (myself and Cipher21) as having said something we never did" -so NarSakSasLee you don't want to cite this ( (https://web.archive.org/web/20130419044936/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-05-01/india/27277371_1_bullet-proof-jackets-jammu-and-kashmir-soldiers-face) report (WP:TOI March 2003 —which says the casualty is 1874?——17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)

Revised paragraph on article

"However, Pakistan has been frequently accused by various countries other than India of backing designated terrorist groups, as well as by sending state-trained terrorists across the Line of Control and de jure India–Pakistan border to launch attacks in India proper." (with credible sources belonging to US State Department)

Removal of: Anything related to Kashmir insurgency.

This in my opinion is a fair compromise and add well needed context and information to readers. Cipher21 Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the US State Department isn't a reliable source. It lists groups like the Iran Revolutionary Guards as terrorists despite it being a government paramilitary of a sovereign nation. It's decisions are based on politics not neutrality. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your views on whether or not the US State Department is neutral or not, this is intended to portray and reflect the US government's views on this issue. Similiar to how you may feel that the Times of India is biased towards the Indian government but you added quotations from the Indian defense minister from that platform. The same logic applies Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind what the US State Department says, I was just interjecting to say its not a credible source for neutrality. I don't mind including it as long as the claim is given credit to whoever said it (as well as any opposing opinion included for the purposes of NPOV). I thought you meant to include the statement without saying who said what. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Deletion of large amounts of information from the lead citing a "general rule of thumb" is not constructive. Editors wishing to change the layout of the lead should discuss their proposals here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Indian failure"

The citation very clearly states the standoff was a failure on India's part. I don't see why @User:CapnJackSp is restoring @Smahwk's removal of well sourced material on the basis of their personal opinion.

Are notable academic journals published by MIT Press and edited by Harvard contentious but WP:OR justifiable in IPA now? Solblaze (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been half a month and no justification for this. Thus, it is being reverted.
Also, did I forget to mention Narang is probably one of the most well known, credible, and overqualified authorities on the topic in the world? Solblaze (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part you are quoting out of context (which you now have reinforced with a bunch of POV changes to the lead), refers to the fact that India mobilised but did not invade. "Failure to invade pakistan" would be technically correct - But presenting it out of context in a POV form is quite wrong. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narang, Clary, and even Indian analysts have explicitly branded Parakram a failure. Here are the citations which you have either not bothered to read, or deliberately ignored.
  • The Indian strike corps remained deployed at tremendous cost to equipment and morale, awaiting Delhi’s authorization until October, when Operation Parakram was ofªciallycalled off and the strike corps returned to their cantonments. Indian military and strategic analysts describe Parakram as a costly and ill-conceived mobilization that “ended as an ignominious retreat after having failed to secure even its minimum objectives.”[1]
  • For its part, the Indian Army attributed the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan to the slow mobilization of India's ground forces, which permitted international pressures to dissuade its political leaders from launching a reprisal and gave Pakistan time to countermobilize, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale conflict in the event of a limited Indian attack.[2]
Repeatedly calling everything you don't like the sound of POV pushing does not change that fact. You are advised to adhere to the behavioral standards expected when contributing to contentious topic areas, or administrative action may be taken against you. Solblaze (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are presenting words out of context. Putting "Indian Failure" in the infobox as as a one liner in lead is completely unsupported by RS.
Just a tip - If you want to throw threats of admin action with policy links, use the correct link. The allegation you were making should have been liked to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not WP:IDHT. And POV text is different from POV pushing, read up on that too - Dont put words in my mouth. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:AGF, I ask for the (I've lost count of how many times), what part of failure of the military standoff, failed to secure even its minimum objectives, and ignominious retreat are you unable to understand? Solblaze (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Narang, Vipin (2010-01). "Posturing for Peace? Pakistan's Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability". International Security. 34 (3): 62. doi:10.1162/isec.2010.34.3.38. ISSN 0162-2889. The Indian strike corps re-
    mained deployed at tremendous cost to equipment and morale, awaiting
    Delhi's authorization until October, when Operation Parakram was ofªcially
    called off and the strike corps returned to their cantonments. Indian military
    and strategic analysts describe Parakram as a costly and ill-conceived mobili-
    zation that "ended as an ignominious retreat after having failed to secure even
    its minimum objectives." {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 28 (help)
  2. ^ Clary, Christopher; Narang, Vipin (February 2019). "India's Counterforce Temptations: Strategic Dilemmas, Doctrine, and Capabilities". International Security. 43 (3): 7–52. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00340. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 67749434. For its part, the Indian Army attributed the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan to the slow mobilization of India's ground forces, which permitted international pressures to dissuade its political leaders from launching a reprisal and gave Pakistan time to countermobilize, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale conflict in the event of a limited Indian attack.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001–2002_India–Pakistan_standoff&oldid=1175920258"