Infobox edits

We cannot say that Pakistan "won" this war, just like we cannot say that India "won" the 1965 war. 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 WikiDan61 as well who had reverted these kinds of edits before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your calculation of tanks to decide who won is WP:OR. We say what the sources say.. and a neutral source is present in the infobox that was further verfied by Nawabmalhi. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:BRD. A newspaper, especially when it is outdated, it should not be used for sourcing the events where expert view is required.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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Anyway, outdated?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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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 synthesize 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a new edit by Zerefx that was reverted by WikiDan61, so WP:BRD applies on every controversial changes that have been added without consensus even when they were reverted. Seems like WP:ILIKEIT, 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'. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get acquainted with WP:CCC. 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 WP:RS to back the victory claim in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything before 0ctober 2014 could be labelled as a WP:SOCK 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 WP:NEWSORG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. WP:NEWSORG 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

Check WP:RSN#Newspaper sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RSN volunteers clearly call them WP:RS.. 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:RS? Now since it is only a representation of what a military commander, a WP:PRIMARY source had said, how it can be considered as a reliable source? It was a UN mandated ceasefire. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, but you are WP:COATRACK-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. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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[1] my original message, just for repeating that I am actually concerned about the credibility of these 2 references that were introduced by Nawabmalhi along with other factual errors. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 first 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.
The second is not suitable, as it's merely quoting the Pakistani commander. Again, there's the date issue..
The aptly-named Peacemaker67 has linked to two sources [2] and [3], 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. Bromley86 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also check Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#Result_of_Battle_was_Ceasefire, formally discussed about The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks, that suggests it as a "ceasefire". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 (WP:CCC) as that version was not in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check [4] 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)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. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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",[5] have some competence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks. See the concluding paragraph for that section where the book uses the word defeat.[6] The other cite uses the expressions "routed", "forced to withdraw" and "heavy losses"; these are not good things to happen to your side![7] Add to that, this source (page 232), which uses the expression "thrown back".[8] Bromley86 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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".[9] If they had "forced to withdraw", it was actually effected by UN mandated ceasefire. Heavy losses occurred on both sides per these. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:SYNTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to add the main reason behind it, it clearly meant that there was no victory. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That derivation of the 'main reason' is your personal analysis and not stated by the ref, rather thanks to Bromley86, we now have a clear cut citing of the reference you are talking about calling it an Indian defeat. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting. It is not clarifying who's victory it was in Battle of Asal Uttar or Chawinda, because it was an Indian victory during the Battle of Asal Uttar.
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 clearly states about the results, that we have to use. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Bromley86 is the one who said it, so both of us are getting it wrong? the ref [10] 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 WP:SYNTH for the update of your comment (had an edit conflict but I already answered to that). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'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. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear citation to battle outcomes 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are further sources in the article clarify that, and your source does not call chawinda a stalemate... let's leave it at that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They really don't. I didn't really supported the Stalemate, but the original WP:CONSENSUS based results, that had to be "Pakistan halts Indian advance." And "UN mandated ceasefire." This is not just a single issue with the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EW; 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone 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 TopGun 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 stalemate 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 Lahore Front?
  • Is my patriotism clouding my judgement?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nawabmalhi It seems like you are the one busy in misrepresenting the source and WP:TROLLING in order to make something that is beyond the WP:POINT. 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 disruptive. Last stable version[12] represented result as "Pakistan halts Indian advance" and "UN mandated ceasefire". For stalemate, that I don't actually support, it was a globalsecurity source[13] that was used, per discussion as seen in archives. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OZ, seems like you do not read the links you use... WP:POINT 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 WP:BURDEN 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 drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and using a WP:FAKE reference that is found no where other than this page. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, 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 WP:CONSENSUS, none of these new edits that have only plastered article with a WP:PRIMARY opinion had. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 ƬheStrikeΣagle 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the burden to give you the sources. All on you to read the sources, go get the original print paper. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:RS? WP:SOURCEACCESS is possible only for those sources that have some existence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it seems like a fictional reference, 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following the course of this, umm, discussion, but 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). Bromley86 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by just everyone else, there is no WP:RS 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have consensus for making the change. Stop editwarring. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except you and Nawabmalhi no one else seemed to have agreed with a WP:PRIMARY and a WP:FAKE source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's time to drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 competence, and read WP:RGW, 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How it would justify the use of WP:FAKE and WP:PRIMARY references? You are talking about everything else except proving that where and when, other than this page, this WP:FAKE 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 WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More issues

Since the above issue is not the only issue with the article, I have found some more.

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. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[14] was the version that had WP:CONSENSUS 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". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian is not a dubious source. You've been told that. There's no such thing as consensus version, see WP:CCC. 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). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a dubious reference with no reference outside, it could have been easier to find since it is making a exceptional claim. First it would be the Australian's site itself, but evidently there is none, just search the title anywhere else. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:OVERKILL there but he still doesn't even want to verify. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a single sentence from any book would justify this claim, and there are no scholars who claim that Pakistan won this battle. [15] 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".[16] Thus apart from using WP:FAKE sources, you are also involved in misrepresenting sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:OR alone to challenge them. Please stick to talking about the content not the editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't since he was just talking about the battle of Chawinda in that particular paragraph, not the whole war. Also check [17], result was inconclusive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory?

This very fractious and bad-tempered discussion concerns an article which, for a long time, has described the Battle of Chawinda as a "Major Pakistani victory". A perennial problem with infoboxes is that they seem to need short, pithy summaries, and some subjects are so complicated and nuanced that they don't lend themselves to short, pithy summaries. For example, what the first of the sources provided in the article says is: "After the battle of Chawinda, which proved a bloodbath for Gen Chaudhuri's Indian Army, India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire at the UN. Pakistan agreed, with some reluctance..." (Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965). This does sound like a "major Pakistani victory". However, the next source (Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization) describes the battle as a "debacle" for the Indian side but then goes on to say "The war itself was short and ended in a draw". The third source (written by renowned tank pundit Steven J. Zaloga) is basically an analysis of the relative performance of different kinds of tanks, but in passing says the Pakistani forces "defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes". When we have the benefit of book sources like this, it's not necessary to consider newspaper articles and I've given arguments based on newspaper sources less weight in the close. I would suggest that editors consider removing those newspaper articles from the references and rewriting the Battle of Chawinda article to exclude them.

The true situation is that this was the final battle of the Second Kashmir War. Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda, but the Second Kashmir War overall was inconclusive. There are a number of possible ways to summarise this in the infobox.

1) Major Pakistani victory
This is too strong and does not enjoy consensus support.

2) Pakistani victory (without the "major")
This outcome is clearly supported by the book sources and a plurality of editors. If we do need a two- or three-word summary for the infobox, this would be the best option. (With all due respect for OccultZone's ingenious and skilful attempts to argue the contrary, Pakistan did win the battle.) However, it's potentially misleading to an uninformed reader who might think Pakistan won the whole campaign.

3) Indian defeat
This is semantically equivalent to "Pakistani victory" and basically interchangeable with it. I'd recommend "Pakistani victory" over "Indian defeat" because it's better to phrase things positively.

Accordingly I'm going to describe the RfC as a victory for the Pakistani Victory.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Do you think the statement cited in infobox, "Major pakistani victory" is valid ? Shrikanthv (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • [19] is an image that can be described as a dubious reference with no recognition outside this en.wiki article.
  • [20] 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".[21][22] These edits were made very recently. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not nativepakistan.com or trove.nla.gov.au, they are just hosting courtesy links to the online copies.. the sources are The Australian and Canberra times both are RS news sources. Secondly, the war can have a ceasefire with many battles credited to each side. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it is just an image 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 WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 [which isn't loading] 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? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Image of the original newspaper is not needed as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. 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 WP:POVS. 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCEACCESS is for working references, not for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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'. --Rsrikanth05 (talk)
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 WP:SOURCEACCESS. 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite that source indicates no victory or defeat and mentions hardly 10 words about this battle, it can be supportive for the former, "Pakistan halts Indian advance" [23], but I even doubt that since it has mentioned only a single division and we have got other better sources for the highlighted outcome. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Orton' is not even a WP:RS, check the p. 118, it is copied from en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 [24]. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That book is from 2010 and copied from the Kargil War article that was also copied to other en.wiki pages[25](2006 revision). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Operation Trio. I'm out. Enjoy! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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[26] or ceasefire[27] can be the solution. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First source compares Chawinda to Battle of Asal Uttar, where India is on the recieving end, while the second source says the attack could not succeed and provides reasons for failure.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • An image that is hosted on a self published blog is dubious as anyone can draw a image that has no reference outside this page. [28] has no mention of victory or defeat or anything nearer to it. Your other source[29], actually a- WP:PRIMARY one only mentions "did not succeed", but it doesn't means that there was any defeat. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first source likens the battle of Asal Uttar(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 Nawabmalhi (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about a single cavalry regiment is not same as talking about the overall country' position. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case that unit represented India in the Battle of Chawinda, so yes it does.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not close to it, but very different. Picking out same source and adding URL to it has no special effect, the source will be still considered as misrepresented one if it has been misrepresented. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 The largest tank battles and Pakistani Victory. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source like "Canadian times", if you are talking about Canberra times, it can be described as a WP:PRIMARY. The source you have mentioned has no support for your proposed inclusion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OccultZone, I think we should not be gaming the system, multiple sources support that; I am not going to bombardment of the sources 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 reliable sources notice board.Justice007 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
Justice007, but that's exactly what you are doing. At first you couldn't even read the source[30] yet you have claimed that this source claims victory of Pakistan, although it is not. Read WP:FAKE, 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 WP:RSN and here, what we require is the reliability of that image if it has been recognized by any WP:RS. 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
It is only referring to a Pakistani Military commander, check WP:PRIMARY. They are unreliable source for these contested claims. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
We have only got a 49 years old statement of Pakistani military commander, which is indeed unreliable for the information. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
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. VandVictory (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
Can you name the reliable sources in place of naming other en.wiki editors? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(Hohum @) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Inconclusive" can be sourced.[31] Other options aren't available. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
  • 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is not wrong look at the sources:
  • Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..."
  • Zaloga compares Indian 1st division at Chawinda to Pakistani 1st division at Asal Uttar and how they were defeated by smaller forces
  • Cohen and Dagupta also compare Asal Uttar and Chawinda and call it a debacle.
  • And then we have the newspapers which also clearly support Pakistani Victory --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still there's no mention of "victory".
  • Fricker says that Pakistan had halted the Indian Invasion
  • Zaloga says that result was a ceasefire
  • Cohen and Dasgupta haven't even discussed any results or outcome of the battle.
  • A newspaper telling WP:PRIMARY view and an image(dubious reference) are not reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% right that is why a ceasefire is listed in the result section as one of the results. The Pakistani objective was to halt Indian invasion and Pakistan successfully did that is why Fricker called it an Indian blood bath and Zaloga calls it an Indian defeat.The Canberra Times reports the victory while The Australian does the most clearly (I donnot think is dubious like you because the source was on Wiki before I found a picture on a blog and by the way it is found numerous other places on the internet aswell) Please be reasonable:
If someone is saying it is a Indian blood bath, others are calling it the Indian version of the Battle of Asal Uttar, and Zaloga is saying it is a defeat, dont you think that this means the same as victory?--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they are only explaining with a single sentence without mentioning victory or defeat, it becomes redundant for result parameter. Zaloga is talking about 25 cavalry not about the nation. Fricker is not claiming whether there was a defeat or victory, he seems to mention the result as ceasefire numerous times.
It is dubious reference as long as it is not mentioned anywhere else, apart from this en.wiki article.
Read WP:SYNTH. We cannot add your original and unfounded analysis. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done any synthesis, you on the other hand you look at one line and ignore the other please read what WP:SYNTH is before accusing others. It is not synthesis if you say that blood bath or defeat means the same thing as victory. If you want to write Indian defeat instead of Pakistani victory, no one has a problem with that because they mean the samething and are interchangeable. Now we donnot need to even use the newspapers with the references from the books, but again the Australian does not need to be online to be considered 'real' since we know that The Australian existed in 1965 and was published everyday. If the reference was discovered through the blog that would be different. I already explained that since the Australian is still running and it seems they have some rights over the archives that is why it is not available online.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond both synthesis and original research when you are misrepresenting the source. How a page no. can be used for claiming Pakistani victory when it is only talking about a cavalry regiment? Show me a dictionary that says "blood bath = defeat". A source does not need to be online, but it is required that a source has to be mentioned somewhere outside a en.wiki page, and it has to be a WP:RS, otherwise it is a dubious reference and must not be used. None of your repetitive explanations are compelling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation are repetitive only because your rebutted arguements are repetitive and please read WP:Synth before throwining the word around. Zaloga is talking about both 1st division(India) and 25th calvalry(Pakistan) and fought; 1st division(India) was defeated at Chawinda so it does represent India as a Nation at Chawinda. Now when Fricker says Blood Bath which makes India go to UN, Zaloga says it is a Indian defeat against smaller force which results in a ceasefire, Cohen and Gupta call it a debacle and compare it to Asal Uttar, the Canberra Times says it is a victory, The Australian(we are not going to agree) says it is a major victory I donnot need to misrepresent the sources to say it is an Indian defeat or Pakistani Victory.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As none of them claims any "victory", you are still misrepresenting sources and claiming that you are not doing it? Now how many times you have to repeat yourself and never read(WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) what others have told you: it just speaks about your incompetence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary misrepresentation of references and policies
Please read WP:CIV and WP:NPOV, to be honest I donnot know if I am amused or annoyed by your Personal Attacks and Accusations. I donnot know how any of these sources even vaguely indicate inconlusive result or stalemate, infact completely contradict your point of view, and most editors who have commented seem to agree that it is a Pakistani Victory. So please donnot tell me I am misrepresenting the sources unless you want to tell that to everyone else aswell, I am assuming Good faith and will try explaining my point of view on the books again:
1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'.
2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end.
3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read:
Fricker, John (1979). Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. University of Michigan: I. Allan. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-71-100929-5.
The ceasefire was the result of the battle.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was really uncalled for. నిజానికి (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
What difference does that make? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate removal of the section

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. ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The source, unfortunately, does not say what you seem very much to want it to say. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@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.[32] If you are going to claim the victory of Pakistan on this whole war, consider using Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 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". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J007, one of your userboxes says I try to do the right thing. If I make a mistake, please let me know... we are!!! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Please don't make any further reverts. The additions are bound to be removed soon by anyone, thanks to the misinterpretations and selective additions.... ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources, I have given both views of the sources per WP:NPOV, while you are ignoring that. Lets the other editors view on that dispute, I do not think your description fall under NPOV.Justice007 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@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 dubious, primary, and misrepresented, you cannot even use some of them anywhere on the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:MOS, 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... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:AGF. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. Ask everyone to assume good faith but don't bother doing it yourself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't if you don't want to, but don't assume bad faith either: WP:AOBF. No point in debating it but it's appalling that you would talk about me instead of content. Don't discuss editors here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is inclusive of discussion on sources, you just joined the editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted Malformed RfC removed]

And if someone keeps reverting each other, I'll simply take it to WP:RPP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]

Maintenance templates

This is 3rd time when maintenance templates have been removed for no better reason.

Looking at the result parameter once again, the current sources can be evaluated as follow:-

  1. [33] :- was already tagged with ((failed verification)), because there is no mention of victory or anything close to the term.
  2. [34] :- newly added but still not supporting the result parameter, can be removed.
  3. [35] :- was already tagged with ((failed verification)) and the tag was removed without any appropriate explanation.

Maintenance templates are required as the statement is in discussion. If there are issues with the above, write down. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[36] is hardly a sentence. I agree that new ref should be removed and rest requires retagging. Like I have told before, there are serious issues with the refs. నిజానికి (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary misrepresentation of references
This has been already being extensively discussed above, but I will repeat it as a formality:
1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'.
2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end.
3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end.
Please note you did not discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before adding the maintenance tags. For more detail please refer to the above discussion or feel free message me on my talk page.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@VandVictory please donnot misuse the Collapse Template and please stop acting like this is a battleground. If you disagree with me tell me how I am wrong. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those references fails to verify any term like 'Pakistani victory'. VandVictory (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding the tempelate and tampering with what I wrote. You have constantly edit warred on the page for whatever reason instead of positively contributing and accuse others of doing so. please read WP:EDITWAR--Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are still making the unnecessary arguments. VandVictory (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SawTooth, you don't need consensus to add tags..please read the policies thoroughly once... ƬheStrikeΣagle 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted sock comments]
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.
Categories