Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

Result field

Template:Side box

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.

---

{{#section-h:Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts/Archive 4|Some scholarly sources on the outcome of the wars of 1947-48 and 1965 }}

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.

Fatal casualties of 1965 war

Template:Disdis According to these two references india suffered from 3,712 killed and 7,638 wounded meanwhile Pakistan suffered from 1,500 killed and 4,300 wounded. Even the number that Indian parliament give according to them india suffered from ~3,200 killed and ~8,000 wounded. But here is written that india suffered from only 3,000 casualties and Pakistan 3,800 while giving only 1 reference. Comsats777 (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Template:Reftalk

OP has already been banned for being a sock account and the sources posted are non-credible, yet the changes have been made. I do not have the permissions to make those edits. Someone please fix this

According to an October 1965 (just a few days after the war ended) CIA report, the Pakistanis suffered between 3,000 and 5,000 dead.

An official history, that is still technically classified, puts Indian military dead at 2,862 and Pakistani at ~5,800. When calculating the number of Pakistani dead, the Indian history also includes the insurgents neutralised in Kashmir during Pakistan's "Operation Grand Slam". Going through the text and subtracting the number of insurgents killed gives us a number of around 3,200 Pakistani regulars dead.

Sid of Sid (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In your given CIA report written that in between 3,000 to 5,000 Pakistani soldiers killed and wounded. But you are saying 3000–5000 dead. And the second reference you are giving is Indian military publications website Raksha Bharat and here is written that these figures is according to Indian official history. Hilal publication a Pakistani military publication who's given the numbers of Pakistani official history like there's written that only 1,000 Pakistani soldiers killed and 9,000 Indian soldiers killed.[1] Find neutral source. 123Librarian (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@123Librarian

A couple notes on source issues for the Indo-Pak Wars and how they impact our understanding. These notes should clear up your qualms about "neutral sources".

• Brigadier Siddique Salik, a staff officer on General Nazi's staff, wrote in his Witness to Surrender (OUP; 1979) that the Pakistan Armed Forces do not condone the publication of any account that does not abide by the official party line
• Further, despite the fact that Brigadier Salik was a decorated Pakistani officer, he was denied access to official sources when he was writing his history of the 1971 War
• All we have for the Pakistani side of sources is rhetoric - in all their wars. The army says a number and it is accepted as fact
• Another example is the suppression of the full report of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, which investigated Pakistani losses in 1971 (this report has still not seen the light of day, only an IMMENSELY abridged version is available)
• India only began commissioning official histories of its 3 wars with Pakistan and 2 with China in 1992
• Historians were given full access and allowed to pull from whatever source base they seemed fit
• Furthermore, the Indian "versions" are not so easily waylaid by over-reporting of casualties
• When the casualty figures for the Pakistani side are not known, they are simply not mentioned (eg. 1st and 2nd Battles of Hilli in 1971, or the infantry losses in the Battle of Asal Uttar in 1965)
• When they are mentioned, they are based on number of bodies recovered and not an abstraction

Some notes on 1965 specifically:

• The war of 1965 has been a contentious one for anyone looking to tot up loss rates
• As foreign observers have mentioned, it has been incredibly difficult for even neutral parties to do so - the declassified CIA reports are almost certainly the ones that get closest
• Furthermore, the Indian historians' rough estimate of ~3,200 Pakistanis KIA (excluding the number of militants killed) is much closer to credible international estimates than to the ones posted by OP, which are based on the Pakistani party line

The Indian version can also be corroborated by looking through memorials and the death notices issued by the Army in the Gazette of India (if anyone has the patience to do so, which I don't).

My point is that we need to represent the facts as best we can. If need be, all 3 main sources should be mentioned - the "official" Pakistani count, the CIA estimates and the Indian count (which would include the distinction between insurgent and soldiers in stead of being just a sum total of 5,800)

Sid of Sid (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

1965 war Pakistan official history is written by Major General Shukat riza and 1971 war Pakistan official history is written by Fazal Muqeem khan who had complete access to source, you can read that. The second thing is that you are twisting things just to make your claim true just like you did by using CIA report. CIA report says that India lost 300 tanks Pakistan lost 250 tanks, India lost 4,000 to 6,000 troops killed and wounded and Pakistan 3,000 to 5,000 killed and wounded. But you in upper section wrongly claimed that 3,000 to 5,000 dead. And the strength size is CIA report is ~950,000 solider meanwhile Pakistan is only ~180,000. India 1,500 tank, Pakistan 900 tanks that's all figures conflict with all other scholar figures. That 5,800 pakistan killed only claims by some Indian account you can write that in Indian claim section not in neutral that's all I can say. And your claim that Pakistan don't write his official history is also a false claim. And you only source after CIA report is Bharat raksah that's is extremely biased source how you can even think about that it should to write in neutral portion. Your another false claim about 2 war of China India the fact is that China and India fought only 1 war in 1962, in 1967 there was only a 2 day Border skirmishes and you are falsely calling it a war just because India don't get defeat in it if that's a war then 2021-2022 India China skirmishes also a war. 123Librarian (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

> Bharat Rakshak is extremely biased source

Are you blind? It is not, itself, a source. It is a repository. The files that it has linked are PDFs of the 1992 copy of the 1965 Indo-Pak War's history.

> other scholar figures

Again, no. Most scholarly works on this war forego all attempts at talking about casualties (eg. S. N. Prasad's 1965 Indo-Pak War: A History, for an Indian perspective, or Farooq Bajwa's From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965, for a Pakistani perspective).Those that do, such as OP's original sources, provide completely baseless figures and numbers.

> your claim that Pakistan don't write his official history is also a false claim

This has been proven to be true time and time again, most often by Pakistani officers themselves. It can be best observed in the officers' accounts of the 1971 war. Consult the following works to understand their criticisms of how the Pakistan Army stifles any attempts at a free and fair history.

• Brig S. Salik, Witness To Surrender (Oxford University Press; 1977)
• Maj-Gen Khadim Hussain Raja, A Stranger in My Own Country (Oxford University Press; 1979)

For more academic critiques of Pakistan's concerted efforts to silence any semblance of fact, consult the work of Yasmin Saikia. A tranche of historians from the 80s and 90s have worked on the Indo-Pak wars of the previous decades and they all say the same thing - Pakistan cannot be trusted with its official figures and narratives.

> CIA report says that India lost 300 tanks Pakistan lost 250 tanks

This has long since been understood to be an incorrect assessment, especially in the face of Pakistani armoured losses as photographically evidenced after the Battles of Chawinda and Asal Uttar (the former of which has grossly overreported Indian losses once more on its wiki article).

Furthermore

The sources OP (who I also suspect is you, given your account's short history and only contribution being to this talks' page) has used to cite his 1,500 claim is completely useless. It, itself, cites no sources and has almost certainly consulted EXTREMELY outdated research on the topic, likely referring to articles published in Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 18, Issue No. 4, DOP Winter 1965 . These numbers are, themselves, based on reporting sanctioned by the Pakistani military authorities which are demonstrably unreliable. Meanwhile, a US Library of Congress history of Pakistan puts Pakistani dead in the war at 3,800. Unlike OP's sources, the LoC monograph has 60 pages of references and dozens of pages of appendices. Sid of Sid (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Shelling of Padhana

I believe I have heard of the lifting and bombing of Padhana in this war . Shall we find sources to add to this ? ਪਿੰਡ ਮੌੜੇ ਖੁਰਦ (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

yes, you may do it if the sources are not biased. @ਪਿੰਡ ਮੌੜੇ ਖੁਰਦ ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indo-Pakistani war of 1965's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

• From East Pakistan: lsi.gov.in:8081/jspui/bitstream/123456789/7452/1/1422_1951_POP.pdf
• From Ayub Khan:
• From Hindi:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2025

Template:Disdis Template:Edit extended-protected Hello user, I have observed that there are some misinformation regarding the "territories lost" in the infobox section. Because according to Neutral sources Pakistan lost 1840 sq. km of territory while India lost 540 sq. km of territory during the course of the war. I request that the error be rectified.

Thank you Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done Please provide reliable sources to back up your suggested change. RegentsPark (comment) 14:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Are India's plans to celebrate 1965 war 'victory' in 'bad taste'? - BBC News

Read this article. In the 'Gains and Losses' section it is clearly written.

Thank you Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Are India's plans to celebrate 1965 war 'victory' in 'bad taste'? - BBC News

Read this article and go to the "Gains and Losses" section.

Thank you Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, your given article crealy point out that these territory and material losses given by India. We don't write these figures in neutral portion. And secondly there's already mention about these figures that your are giving. 123Librarian (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

But this losses have been given by bbc, which is neither sponsored by India nor by Pakistan. So it is a neutral source Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it is, but the source itself mention that these figures given by Indian government in the portion of "Gain and losses" as you mentioned before. 123Librarian (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected Changes made by user:Taeyab on the 8th of April, 2025 should be reverted. The edits involve false numbers being added to the summary section with the war's result. It has long been accepted by neutral parties that the war ended with India annexing far more territory than Pakistan did. The present numbers are therefore projecting a false image.

The old edits and sources have been present on the page for years, and are supported by numerous neutral sources. The latest edits are, therefore, a deliberate attempt to malign India.

Suggestion for change: Revert back to page as of 1 April 2025, after the edit made by user:CrashLandingNew. The oldid is 1283412078. R Anant (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Template:Cait

The claim that India annexed "far more territory than Pakistan" during the war is factually disputed by several credible and neutral sources. Multiple historians and analysts agree that while India may have gained strategically important land, Pakistan captured a larger total area during the conflict, particularly in the Rajasthan desert.

Supporting Sources:

Origins of Political Extremism by Manus I. Midlarsky (Page 256):

“The most recent estimate has Pakistan occupying 1,600 square miles of Indian territory (1,300 of it desert). India conquered 350 square miles of Pakistan, but of greater strategic value, as it was located near the West Pakistani capital, Lahore, and the industrial city of Sialkot as well as in Kashmir.”

Magnificent Delusions by Husain Haqqani (Page 115):

“Pakistan had occupied 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, 1,300 of it in the desert, whereas India secured 350 square miles of Pakistani real estate. But the Indian-occupied Pakistani land was of greater strategic value...”

Battle for Pakistan by John Fricker (Page 121):

“Pakistan captured 1,200 square miles of Indian territory in the desert.”

Summary: The total land area captured by Pakistan during the conflict was greater, although India's gains were more strategically located. Hence, describing the war outcome in terms of "India annexing far more territory" is misleading and misrepresents the geographical and strategic realities.

Any neutral and historically accurate summary should reflect both:

The numerical advantage in territory held by Pakistan, and

The strategic significance of India's gains.

3 of the sources you mentioned are both Indian sources and cannot be considered 'neutral.' I am also an extended-confirmed user.

Taeyab (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the Template:Tlx template. request is clearly in dispute so out of scope for an edit request Cannolis (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Contentious edits

Template:Disdis There have been a furry of edits, changing large swathes of information, with no discussion and continuous edit warring. I have restored the last good version. This being a longstanding High Importance article, these sorts of changes MUST be done with consensus, not through edit summary exchanges. Please feel free to raise these discussions in this section or make a new one as necessary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CapnJackSp,

Changing the information was based on various sources done by a few editors over a long time, your restoring it to the "last good version" doesn't help the article. It would be right to revert if -

1. The sources used are not credible enough

2. The sources used dont represent neutrality (somewhat biased)

In this case, neither of these two scenarios are happening, as the sources are both neutral and credible enough. Again, informations used in the article do not rely on only one source but numerous sources. Therefore directly reverting the article is not the right thing in my opinion.

Your opinion on changing the information with consensus is a valid point, and editors are welcomed in doing so. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I note that @Taeyab has still not bothered to reply on the TP before restoring their preferred version with an edit summary. This will be reverted back to the stable version prior to the mess being created.Template:PbWith regards to the edits, there are two types of problems here. One is regarding the blatant disregard to actual editing procedure, and Two, is the content itself.Template:PbFor the first, you can go through the diffs below.Template:Pb1)[2][3][4][5]
2)[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]Template:PbThis is just last month, and I dont think anyone could reasonably argue that 14 reversions with no TP discussion is not an edit war. I note that Template:Noping has been very much involved in these edit wars. They have also been a habitual offender w.r.t. the BRD cycle, reverting other (often experienced editors attempting to intervene in the chaotic edits) with no consensus attempted. [20][21][22][23]Template:PbDespite being told to discuss on TP, they have continued to revert to their preferred version. Template:PbRegarding the content, it is an obvious and major undiscussed change that attempts to completely change the portrayal of the war by inserting dubious sources. The stable version, supported by very strong academic consensus, has been overwritten in this edit conflict by a new version that attempts to downplay the Pakistani losses. It is obvious that such a change must be discussed.Template:PbPinging (non banned) editors for the discussion - @RegentsPark @Cinderella157 @User:Extorc. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on the content issue, the new version stands in stark contrast to the stable version. The new figures rely on cherry picking each figure from separate sources to present a figure more favorable to Pakistan. The sourcing itself is dubious, using at best tangential sources like "Origin of Political Extremism". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

How is it more favorable to Pakistan? Using neutral edits instead of biased Indian news is favourable to India not Pakistan? In this circumstances, we should use neutral references, as it was used before. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The previous version was good enough, as it showed things transparently, such as indicating the actual number of soldiers killed in action & wounded for both india and pakistan.

Using documented history from actual neutral historians is a better thing to do instead of using pro indian/pakistan sources which contradict eachother. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

And about "downplay the Pakistani losses", your " last good version" states 3800 pakistani casualties whereas the older version stated 1500 killed and 4300 wounded, which is much more than 3800 and more specified & accurate. I don't understand why specifying the losses is a bad thing. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@CaptShayan The 3,800 dead source comes from a US Library of Congress research report which is itself based on UN figures. Official Indian figures put total number of Pakistani regulars dead at 3,200 (1992 official MoD history), with another 1,900 - 2,000 Pakistani Kashmiri insurgents killed in the mo the before the official war was declared. If anything, the official Indian version would be more favourable to Pakistan than the most credible neutral version Sid of Sid (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sid of Sid Its not about puting pakistan in favourable position but to show the actual information. The real agenda is not to show Pakistan's less loss and India's more loss but to state the actual facts from neutral sources. Again, we can not use Pakistani source or Indian source in the neutral claim. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@CaptShayan The 1,500 claim comes form an encyclopedia that cites the Pakistan Army's official statement. Encyclopedias are, themselves, not a good source - it'd be like referencing a Wikipedia article in a Wikipedia article. The most credible neutral source is the US LoC report which puts Indian dead at around 3k and Pakistani dead at just shy of 4k. The earliest available information on the conflict, a CIA report from October 1965, puts the floor of Pakistani casualties at 3k Sid of Sid (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sid of Sid According to CIA report Pakistan suffered from 3000–5000 wounded and killed meanwhile India suffered from 4,000 – 6,000 killed and wounded.

Secondly, thats not Pakistan Army's statement. Pakistan put it's military figures 800 killed but neutral figure give the casualties number 5,800 including 1500 killed. Source - Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th edition page 600. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the concerns raised above, which mischaracterize my actions and misrepresent both policy and the content dispute itself. While disagreements are natural in collaborative editing, it's important that we remain grounded in Wikipedia’s core guidelines rather than assumptions or one-sided narratives.

1. On Editing Conduct and “Edit Warring”

The claim that I’ve engaged in an edit war is based on a misunderstanding — or misapplication — of what an edit war actually is. According to WP:EW, an edit war involves repeatedly reverting others to impose your version without seeking consensus. But:

-I have not violated 3RR.

-My edits have been in response to abrupt, undiscussed changes to stable content.

Labeling reverts in a volatile article as “edit warring” — without acknowledging the disruption caused by the other party — is selective and misleading. It’s worth noting that my edits were also supported or defended by other editors, including @Colonel, who has offered well-reasoned, policy-based explanations that have been completely ignored by you in this conversation, leading me to believe you do not seek for a genuine conversation but rather to paint a false narrative of the situation.

2. On the Talk Page and Consensus

I haven’t ignored the talk page — but it’s also not required to discuss every minor change, especially when reverting disruptive edits or maintaining the stable version. That said, the inclusion of more neutral sources to present casualty figures was previously discussed by other users and had support. These edits weren’t out of nowhere; they followed from that ongoing effort to improve balance, not push a new agenda. What’s more concerning is the ongoing pattern of ignoring valid counterarguments, especially those raised by others like @CaptShayan, who has provided a number of points backed by sources and policy.

Ignoring arguments you disagree with isn’t how consensus is built.

3. On Content and Sources

The accusation that I am inserting “dubious” or “agenda-driven” material is not only unfounded, but veers into bad-faith territory. The sources cited are reputable, peer-reviewed, and consistent with WP:RS. Dismissing them without evaluating them on their merits sets a dangerous precedent — and risks turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber for one geopolitical narrative.

Let’s be honest: the so-called “stable version” leans heavily on a single national perspective. What had been done is introduce balance — not erasure — through neutral, sourced edits. That deserves engagement, not mischaracterization.

4. On the Tone and Targeting

It’s also important to point out that framing me as a “habitual offender,” and implying motive based on my nationality, is a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL. We are expected to evaluate edits — not editors. Personalizing content disputes only escalates tension and derails the process of collaboration. On checking you're own contributions it is easy to tell you have biased opinions. Your attempt at attempting to make other editors buy into your invalid claims will not work.

5. Moving Forward

I remain open to compromise, discussion, and even mediation if necessary. But we need to stop cherry-picking arguments, misrepresenting policies like WP:EW, and ignoring legitimate contributions from others. That’s not how consensus is built — and it certainly won’t help resolve the dispute.

Taeyab (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Pinged) I can't really help here. I merely followed up a request on this talk page to revert a sock edit. Sorry!RegentsPark (comment) 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• I actively watch this page and have intervened in some of the edits since this edit of 26 January 2025, which CapnJackSp would revert to. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS; however, this does not mean that all edits must be discussed at the TP. There needs to be reasonable reason to revert edits. I don't like it or the old version was stable are not reasonable reasons to revert but can be seen as WP:STONEWALLING. The ethos of WP is one of continuous improvement. Diffs allow us to see what changes have been made and it would be much more productive to address any questionable edits on a case by case basis. I will observe that not all sources are created equal and that is why we have WP:VNOT. Also, just because a source would appear to be written at arms length from the subject, it does not mean that they have not sourced information from either belligerent - ie while the source may be independent, it does not mean that all information sourced therein was sourced independently. Template:Pb Many of these edits relate to strengths and casualties. I am of the view that there is too much detail and nuance in this information for it to be reasonably summarised in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The nuance and detail requires the support of prose by way of explanation. For example, the amount of land captured or lost is not of itself representative of the prowess of either side. It does not consider the terrain and its strategic or tactical importance and this would require a critical analysis. I would caution though, that the analysis must represent RSs and not be that of WP editors. Just because there is a paremeter in an infobox does not mean that the parameter should or must be populated. Template:Pb Finally, this is a contentious topic and all of the participants in this discussion have been made aware of this. This means that a higher standard of editor conduct is expected. I know that many editors contributing to this article have nationalistic ties to the subject (I don't) and this is often a cause of disruption. We are here to write from an NPOV. This may mean that we identify and report the different nationalistic perspectives with appropriate WP:WEIGHT but we are not here to advance one over the other by partisan editing. Where there are issues of editor conduct that can be substantiated, this is not the place to make allegations or cast aspersion. I suggest that editors might review their comments, noting that two wrongs don't make a right. Template:Pb I hope this helps us find a way forward without unnecessary disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I kinda agree with you. As there was a ceasefire and according to the Tashkent Declaration, both of the countries returned the captured land area, it is not necessary to put that information there. Only casualties such are enough. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Casualties such as Killed, Wounded, lose of aircrafts & tanks. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Removed the territorial claims as per the above message & Tashkent Declaration. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are right, though territory was captured, both sides returned to pre-war boundaries, so I guess these don't need to be considered 'losses'. The recent addition of the territories lost has been a source of.. conflict within the last few days, to say the least. With an number of users (All of them appearing to be Indian Nationals) requesting the reversions of these changes. There is no need for it in the infobox under losses. Taeyab (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is too much nuance/detail about different figures and who said what even for that.

• Upon checking the restoration by Captain Jack Sparrow, I have to agree with him that the version he restored was at least the last longstanding version. Since then, the article has went through many significant changes, many of which are indeed problematic. Reverting the status quo especially in the light of this discussion is certainly not productive. >>> Extorc.talk 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Extorc which changes do you think are "problematic"? Adding neutral and non-biased sources? ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not every small edits need discussion on tp. While adding important & major informations, it was talked in the talk page before. See [24], [25], [26]. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Comsats777 and PWC786 are both ban evading socks. There is no reason to count their contributions when it comes to consensus building. >>> Extorc.talk 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

why not just revert it to before the controversial edit? Since it's controversial there is no accurate numbers. I think the format itself is a bad one.

Instead of neural claims which implies all neutral claims each claim should have a source of their own. But all claims should be valid. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

and all claims are valid. Instead of seeing the number, perhaps open the source and read it yourself? ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I read it and I replied to you in another comment why I said it. Absence of primary source is why they not credible. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Replacing or overwriting data instead of adding is the main problem. I think both parties should be satisfied as long as all the data remains instead of eliminating data.

And lastly Taeyab seems to not be a good faith actor himself/ herself. His edit history is very controversial. Not to mention he has been flagged and warned for his behavior too. So it's better to take these with a grain of salt. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

How is it controversial? Taeyab has given proper sources taken from books written by neutral people, not poor newspaper articles. And about replacing data, a neutral source is better than biased indian/pakistani source. I don't think it is suitable enough to take source of an indian/pakistani person which has not been cross-checked by any other guy. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No. I looked at it. Those numbers are not credible enough. He/she gave two sources but neither of those source themselves are taking data from a primary source. Primary sources are very essential in conflicting data.

Not surprising there aren't any primary source considering only UN observers were involved in the war. There were no third party observers besides them. And I can't find the numbers from them. Thus in absence of such a source the data becomes a disputed data.

So the closest thing we have are intelligence reports. These are more credible as they would have means to actually get information from the field.

Therefore the CIA report becomes the most credible source of the lot. And CIA report has no seperate section for killed individuals. So I am really surprised how anyone can claim killed numbers without even being on the field or even having indirect access like intelligence operatives.

The neutral claim section itself should be deleted and replaced by the CIA numbers. That means combining killed, wounded and captured numbers. Trying to seperate each of that will be nothing but non credible information. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Kindly read Encyclopedia of Wars page 602 and [27]. Both of these sources are used for killed stats. I don't think these 2 neutral books are 'biased' more than some indian/pakistani media sources. If you read it, you will see there are both Indian claims and Pakistani claims, but we have taken the neutral claim. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As i said they do not provide primary source. Neutral or not does not matter when the chain of source itself is broken. This is why i said the neutral section itself is a problem.

If there are conflicting neutral sources then which source should be "more neutral"? That will just open a deep rabbit hole.

Just put the data from the CIA report as its the most credible one. No self edits of the data. Just the raw numbers from the report. If anybody disputes that then bring a primary data source to support your argument. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

again, there are enough sources in the infobox. If you see there are INDIVIDUAL sources for each casualties which have been cross checked multiple times. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

And none are primary. They are cross checking with themselves and not the primary source. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright i digged into some stuff since this conflict interests me. I think the neutral claim section itself is disingenuous. Fact is there is no data accurate data regarding deaths. None of the sources provided there are credible as there were no other observers besides the UN in this war.

The most credible data I found is the CIA report. And it makes no mention of specific killed individuals. I suggest editing the section into a combined killed, wounded, captured number as done in the CIA report. Anything other than that will probably just be biased information. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

killed & wounded are specifically mentioned. Captured soldiers were released afterwards just like the territorial claims, hence that is not necessary to put. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Captured soldiers are the aftermath of war. Released soldiers are aftermath of the treaty. And honestly i do not agree with territory discussion too.

War is the kinetic phase of the conflict. And thus the results of the kinetic phase should be taken into account.

It is in the end of the entire conflict phase that should have the final territory adjustment and they should have a seperate entry. War is not equal to conflict itself. War is just the kinetic phase. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Kindly point it out which source do you think is biased. Because none of the major sources are from India/Pakistani author nor pro indian/pro pakistani, all of them are neutral. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

all sources are biased without a primary source. That's called the liberty taken by authors without any conclusive data. It's similar to how testimonies by themselves are not enough to prove things in a court. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this a court? And additionally there is no point of adding claimed territory whereas both of the countries exchanged the claimed areas. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

so you are self editing without any reference to primary source is more credible than an actual primary source? You are not making any sense.

I welcome disputes but the way you frame it is very immature. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Also by this [28] are you suggesting to add Indian claims and Pakistani claims? I mean that is a good thing we can do, but that would be some extra unnecessary information in the infobox. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is only bearing out why we should not be reporting casualties in the infobox but leaving it for discussion in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary? Thats the kind of information that is critical. Plus a neutral section requires a primary source of information. Without that its just some random data without any evidence or methodology. It becomes a he said she said scenerio without any documents to back up the claims.

I looked up both of those that are given as source for the edits here and neither of them cites from where they got the information from or even how.

This is why I said the CIA numbers are the most accurate and only those numbers should be there. Without any views, opinions or edits. 2409:40E6:1F:A604:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Much of the inappropriate changes have been left in, again without reaching consensus. Since the editors show no signs of wishing to self revert, I think we need an rfc. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I am coming here after the recent clashes, expecting to see a stable article to compare with the newly minted ones. Surprised (though not really) to see much recent activity here. I am especially vary of newer users making major edits without first gaining consensus at the Talk page which is absolutely the case here. Personally attacking users on the basis of their nationality is also unacceptable (Taeyab above) as is the use of LLMs (by the same user).

Coming to the content itself, the losses are cited to WP:3PARTY encyclopedias, already a red flag, which themselves don't cite their sources. I am not sure how reliable Facts on File is, but it calls the 1947 war a civil war which Gandhi helped to stop! This itself should render the source unacceptable. Calling these "neutral sources" is also unnecessary (as we don't give any info regarding the claims of any side).

Also conspicuous was the leaving out of territorial losses (included in the ib here for a long time) all the while claiming neutrality.

If any sources for these are to acceptable, these should be reliable secondary sources.

Agreeing with Template:Re, I will be removing these from the article for now both from the body and ib, subject to much nationalistic sabre rattling, unless better sources are brought to light and aptly incorporated into the body.

The only consensus here on this article for a long time has been that for the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Can add two different section in casualties — Indian Claim & Pakistan Claim, just like 2025 India-Pakistan strikes. As this is a controversial topic, doing so will make it easier for the people to understand. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't put much confidence in those as well. The first task is bringing reliable secondary even for partisan claims and then incorporate those into the body/section. The infobox is the least of our worries when the body itself cites even poorer sources. Gotitbro (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a bold move from someone who just got out of a 3 day ban. Taeyab (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re Read Wikipedia:Content not contributor. Anyhow my recent ban had nothing to do with this article or anything in the Indo-Pak article space. If you continue attacking users without addressing the core content and sourcing issues, this is going to ANI. This is the second time you to have done that in this very thread.

My edit was in line with what other uninvolved editors are saying above. If you can't address basic sourcing and content issues without besmirching other editors than you shouldn't be contributing here at all.

The same goes for your edits at Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948. Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What personal attacks have i made?? Taeyab (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re Further inviting previous participants for comments. I am reviving this on the basis of source reliability discussion which appeared to have stalled. Gotitbro (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with @Cinderella157?? this is not what Cinderella was going about. He/She was only suggesting the removal of the territorial losses which we all agreed on with consensus, not removing the entire losses. Im also still awaiting proof of my 'personal attacks.' Again you seem to be twisting the words of other mediators here. Taeyab (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That you are commenting about editors and not the content should be the first hint.

"All of them appearing to be Indian Nationals", "Disruptive changes from a user known for edit-warring" and "This is a bold move from someone who just got out of a 3 day ban." all fall under WP:PA.

You should drop this and address the content issues that have actually been raised. Continuing on this line is not going to be good for you.

I think I have been on this project long enough to know that an editor is saying. There is no consensus for territorial removal, itself partisan. And that Cindrella like others suggested a complete removal of claims at all. Gotitbro (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro, Cinderella didnt suggest to remove entire claims, they suggested to remove territorial claims as after the ceasefire both of the countries exchanged their captured land. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Since, there appears to be a co-ordinated effort to repeatedly introduce a preferred version of the article without a dint of effort to address sourcing issues I will be taking this to WP:INB.

Template:Re Asking for consensus while changing long stable articles is something. At Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 you have also made a complete misreprentation of the already dubious sources, the sources you added already do not delienate between Pakistani and Kashmiri troops, you inexplicably removed the "6,279" figure (already in a range). And then reinserted a state department ref in the lead which does not even mention the thing it is used to cite 'first Indo-Pak' war. You should either self-revert or directly address these issues. Gotitbro (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't add that claim, it was done before. But since you are now changing it after a long time, Id want a consensus. However, I don't think taking it to WP:INB would do anything better, as the pro indian editors will try to put their agenda. Similar thing could be done by Pro pakistani editors, so Id want a neutral consensus. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

NIB is the neutral where all major discussions and consensus regarding in the topic space (India-Pakistan) have taken place including the last major consensus for Kashmir-related articles back in 2020. That you don't know this is itself telling that Wikipedia:Competence is required (also the fact that you miss this clearly unambiguous comment from Cinderella above: "This discussion is only bearing out why we should not be reporting casualties in the infobox but leaving it for discussion in the body of the article.)

And again Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor.

PS: Wikiproject Pakistan is much less active. Gotitbro (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro taking it to WP:MIL would be a better choice. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

If you missed my comment previously, I mentioned it above weeks ago that while adding important informations, it was posted on talk before adding it directly.

See — [29], [30], [31]. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

You still aren't addressing sourcing and content issues and we are going around in circles.

I have started a discussion about this at NIB, previous discussions about Indo-Pak conflicts have also taken place there. Gotitbro (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think taking this to WP:INB is the right move. That’s a heavily one-sided WikiProject, and this is already a politically sensitive topic. Bringing it there risks introducing further regional bias rather than helping with neutral, source-based resolution which is the center of this debate. Since, according you, the issue is about sourcing, keep the discussion on the article’s talk page or AfD where it belongs. Escalating to a non-neutral venue will certainly not help neutrality. Taeyab (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use LLMs here, both of you clearly have no idea what INB is about. Gotitbro (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSN

WP:NPOVN

Here are some much more neutral options which you deliberately avoid. So i myself will bring this up on these venues. Taeyab (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• While commenting on the question of territory specifically, I have also stated above (twice) that I do not believe that what is presented in the strength and casualty sections of the infobox belongs there (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) because it is too detailed and nuanced for an infobox and thereby unsuitable for the infobox. Instead, it should be presented in the body of the article, where the nuance of who said what (etc) can be better presented in prose that is more suited to detailing and explaining nuance. Just because we have a parameter in an infobox does not mean that it can or should be used in any particular instance. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Template:Re Thanks for clarifying, I saw both of these comments of yours [and Extorc] above and implemented the same; though apparently some users could not see the unambiguity in those comments.

  If you would be so kind, to implement the change that would be great. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I obviously support your edit and believe that it was reasonable per WP:BRD but it has been challenged, so we are back to the D part of BRD - which hopefully brings us to a consensus consistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This discussion may become WP:RFCBEFORE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  The D of the BRD would have been the revert that moved the article back to the stable state. I have gone ahead and made the revert. WP:ONUS does apply, and however much some editors above might have tried to just stonewall unreliable info into an article, its just not something WP policies support.
  This is a high visibility page, especially given recent events, and the lopsided claims - attributed to dubious sources added without consensus - absolutely should not be allowed to stand. Even if we treat both the previous, stable version and current version as equally "contested", its best to keep both out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Haha, that's the longest discussion I've ever seen... It took me almost an hour to read it all. I’d like to share my opinion. Captain Jack Sparrow called the new references unreliable and ambiguous, but when I asked ChatGPT about these sources, it confirmed that they are highly credible and well-regarded. So, Captain Jack Sparrow, could you please explain why you believe The Encyclopedia of War and The Encyclopedia of Casualties and Other Figures are unreliable sources? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2025

Zorawar385 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The Territory Lost Section under Casualties & Losses heading is unverified and inconclusive, if Territory is Lost then it predictable of which country won he war. requesting to remove the last claim in Casualties & Losses

File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the Template:Tlx template. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 05:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

1,200 Pakistani civilians killed during the war

I found an article on the battle of kasur and it is reported that 1,200 civilians in kasur, punjab (pakistan) were killed by Indian army bombings.

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,834346-1,00.html Xenomire (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to expand 'Air War' section with radar coverage history

Hello editors, I'd like to suggest a sourced addition to the Air War section that highlights the critical role of Indian Air Force radar stations during the 1965 war. These installations, positioned along the Radcliffe Line in Punjab and Jammu, enabled timely interception of PAF raids and supported early warning coordination. A detailed and historically grounded reference documenting these radar operations — drawn from veteran accounts and archival synthesis — is available here: Radar Resilience: Tales of the Scanners on the Radcliffe Line

https://iafhistory.in/2023/09/03/radar-resilience-tales-of-the-scanners-on-the-radcliffe-line/

Proposed insertion: Radar stations along the India–Pakistan border provided critical early warning to the Indian Air Force, enabling interception of PAF aircraft and coordination of defensive operations. The establishment and functioning of these units along the Radcliffe Line has been documented through personal accounts and operational histories.

Happy to make the edit or leave it to the consensus of the group. Thanks! — Anchit Gupta (https://iafhistory.in) 49.36.191.38 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Second sentence is unnecessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Could be added in Indo-Pakistani air war of 1965. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is the casualties section keeps getting deleted?

I requested it to be reverted and it got deleted again? Ironman993 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaled/colorized image

An image in this article, posted in the section "Background", depicting a Pakistani militiaman, seems to have been upscaled and colorized using AI, due to having weird squiggly lines and weird colorization (look at the militiaman's right arm). I couldn't find an original image by searching, all I could find is a post on Reddit featuring a smaller picture with same colorization. Shouldn't this image be removed as per WP:AIIMAGES? It might not be fully AI generated but I still don't think it's suitable for use due to errors in colorization and upscaling.
Thanks in advance for the responses. Broadhead Arrow (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The uploading detais describe this as a colourised version [of the original] with a copyright release of "own work". Colourising an original does not dissolve the copyright of the original. Either this is an AI generated image or there is sufficient concern regarding the copyright status for us to delete this either way. Your opinion Nikkimaria? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If the original image is not known to be free, the derivative work should be treated as non-free regardless of how it was created. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have removed this image. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit war of 18–19 March 2025

There was a series of reversions 18–19 March 2025. I believe the right side of that reversion conflict may have given up and left a bad version in place, but it might be that the version left in place was mostly good and only a little bit bad.

• I start with the Template:OldID by Comsats777.
• The next version, Template:OldID by Pax98 reverted that edit and reintroduced an error that had been there before, Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• The next version, Template:OldID by LesIie reverted that edit, removing the reference error.
• The next version, Template:OldID by Pax98 reverted that edit, replacing the reference error.

Since then, the article has been edited 78 more times, by users including Steel1943, AmNaTi200, Maryshelagh, Gotitbro, MrGreen1163, User:Cinderella157, Shankargb, Jessicapierce and others, and red error message continues to scream at you, and nobody has fixed it.

I came to this article because it was listed in Category:CS1 errors: DOI, which happened because somebody entered two extra digits in a DOI, and as long as I was fixing that, I fixed a few other things. But I have no expertise in this subject, so I ask editors to review the back-and-forth of 18–19 March 2025 and determine if what we ended up with is OK. And will somebody please figure out what <ref name="auto" is supposed to be?

And will everyone else remember, if you edit an article more than once, you probably care about it, and if you care about it, and you see a screaming red error in the references, you should try to fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I looked around a bit and it seems that the previous editor had copied over references from the main article of the offending subsection - Battle of Phillora. I have replaced the empty named ref with the full citation from that article. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2025

2,862 Indian soldiers were killed; Pakistan lost 5,800 soldiers India lost 97 tanks; 450 Pakistani tanks were destroyed or captured — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40C2:104F:E682:78C0:FDFF:FE0D:A611 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done Please make request in the form change X to Y. You also need to provide sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)