Jump to content

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpicyBiryani (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 23 February 2021 (→Casualties claims). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeIndo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Infobox Issues

The infobox seems to have a number of issues. As far as I can see there are three major issues:

  • The "territorial changes" seem to be highly biased and spreads misinformation as it tries to depict as if India had control over the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir before the war which by no means is true, the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Maharaja of J&K only in 26th October while the war began on 22nd October. Moreover it uses the word "conquer" to show Pakistan's territorial gains which seems quite improper in any military scenario in the modern age. Therefore both the words "conquer" and "retained control" used to represent the territorial gains of Pakistan and India respectively are biased and do not represent the true scenario. The proper wording for both these cases should be "gained control" since none of the countries had control over the regions they gained control of prior to the war.
  • The flag of the modern state of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan) has been used to represent the tribal militia which played part on the Pakistani side. This is misrepresentation due to the fact that there was no entente called Azad Kashmir during that time nor did the tribal militias have an unified flag which could be used to represent them. The flag needs to be removed.
Regarding the first point, if you want wording changes, please find reliable sources that use the wording you support. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes clear that India intervened on behalf of the former ruler of the State whereas Pakistan intervened on behalf of the rebels. So "retained control" for one and "conquered" for the other are perfectly legitimate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, There was not even a single Indian soldier in Kashmir before the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947! Then how could you write Retained for Indian and Conquered for Pakistan? This seems to be pure WP:FAKE, You can google and find numerous sources! The war was initially started by thousands of Pakistani tribesmen armed by Pakistan Army. They marched even in the Srinagar and by 27 October were within 30 miles of their goal. On the same day Maharaja Hari Singh signed Instrument of Accession and thereafter Indian Troops were flown to the state! By November 1947, Indian forces has cleared the Kashmir valley, relieving the pressure on srinagar. In December the rebels launched new offensive in the southwest and heavy fighting continued till march 1948, thereafter Pakistan troops too entered in support of rebels. The heavy fighting continued till 31 December 1948. Thereafter UN mandated ceasefire on 31 December 1948, effective - 1 Jan 1949! A final ceasefire was agreed on 29 July 1949 with India Conquering about 67% of Kashmir Territory and Pakistan only gained approximately 33% Kashmir territory of which he named Azad Kashmir! [1] Therefore either replace 'Retained' word with 'Conquered' or simply write 'Gained' on both sides - 101.60.240.244 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term "conquer" does not appear in your source. It says India was "left in control of...", which is cognate with "retained control." - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, It seems like you neither had read the full source nor my full comment! It is there written that "India kicked back Pakistan armed rebels and pakistani troops till the UN mandated ceasefire and India thus gained 67% Kashmir territory. More reference: [2], [3] Therefore either replace 'Retained' word with 'Conquered' or simply write 'Gained' on both sides. - 115.184.75.45 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your "comment" is your opinion and WP:OR. I am not interested in debating it. If you have a reliable source that says India conquered territory, please product it. Otherwise, you should retire from this discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I already provided you the references! I think this "[1] this will be enough to write either gained or conquered on both sides! Writing Retained in Indian side and conquered in Pakistan side seems to a pure one sided and biased and moreover, this is just like changing the entire history! 115.184.75.45 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one short paragraph of 4 lines with wishy-washy coverage doesn't convince any one. Even then, this source only says it resulted in "falling within the Indian control." The word "conquered" does not appear. So this is of no use. One might say that, in the same way, Pakistan did not "conquer" territory either. It merely took over the territory that was already under the control of the rebels. I am sympathetic to that argument. If everybody is happy with such a change, I am happy to change "conquered" to "acquired control of" for Pakistan. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Well Kautilya3! Had the maharaja forces were able to defend Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh and India job was only to held its ground, then word "retained" would be correct! No doubt but was Maharaja Forces was able to defend it's ground? Ans- Nope! This refrence makes it clear that pakistan armed rebels were able to capture even Srinagar and were within 30 miles of their goal! Maharaja has already lost far amount of its land from pakistan and then on 27 October 1947, the maharaja signed Instrument of Accession! Indian Forces then recaptured lost grounds (which rebels and pak troops captured by defeating maharaja forces)! Thus India gained 2/3 Kashmir and pakistan only 1/3 that too lost much ground of what it's armed rebels captured before Indian troops entered battlefield! I suggest add Gained word for both! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]
It does not appear that additional citations are necessary in order to come to conclusion regarding the wording that should be used for the "territorial changes" section. It is quite clear with the sources provided in the article that prior to the eve of the war, the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir was neither part of India nor Pakistan. It is also quite clear with the sources provided in the article that after the signing of the ceasefire agreement, India had control over app. 2/3rd of the territory of the Former Princely State while Pakistan had control over app. 1/3rd of the territory of the Former Princely State. Therefore, I do not understand the confusion regarding the wording which in its current form is certainly biased as it implies that the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir was under Indian control prior to the eve of the war with the usage of the word "retain control" which is certainly not true. Therefore I would request Kautilya3 to provide exact grounds on which he believes that the current wording of the "territorial changes" section is correct. Blue Papa Boy (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MBlaze, you said yourself that India "recaptured lost grounds." That is not "gaining" or "conquering." Those terms are only used when new territory is gained which didn't originally belong to the country. So they have no place here. Blue PapaBoy, Sources are always necessary, especially when the issues are contentious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well ! That was just a typo mistake ! i mentioned well in the brackets that which rebels and pak troops captured by defeating maharaja forces ! Indian forces came later in the war and manage to gain 2/3 Kashmir ! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

More refs have been added to infobox regarding causalities. They all seem reliable. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=U05OvsOPeKMC&pg=PA946&dq=first+kashmir+war+1947+India+victory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAWoVChMIzqeV9uLixwIVRJCOCh1YIwZG#v=onepage&q=first%20kashmir%20war%201947%20India%20victory&f=false

infobox numbers

I am removing the number of wounded/killed from infobox as the sources are not third party. They are Indian sources and as we have seen earlier in numerous discussions, neutral sources are required to source these claims. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse to remove reliably sourced content that has included estimates from neutral sources. Look at the page history, these estimates remains unchallenged for many years. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IF there are neutral sources then cite them, do not blindly revert. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are Indian sources and this inherently biased I have added a short description about how they are Indian estimates. We could possibly add Pakistani sources also to the Indian casualties portion to even out the bias? 5.65.190.98 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of India section

2nd para in "Partition of India" section seems like original research. In short it is written that "Indian forces occupied much of Kashmir mainly because for some reasons Pakistan did not manage to send troops to Kashmir in due time and by that time India occupied that part". Which seems to be historically incorrect, we need to verify the source.--Human3015TALK  18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic incidents are corrected but the text is full of OR. In the first place, the section should be titled "Accession of Kashmir". The Partition was not applicable to Kashmir because it was a princely state. The main article link is also therefore spurious. The correct main article is Kashmir conflict. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War territorial change

As far I am concencered that 2/3 rd kashmir was signed by hari Singh to india not captured ....while Pakistan captured it in war Libra bro (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the section Infobox issues above. Do you have something new to add? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snedden's work

@Kautilya3

I invite you to review my changes to this article. If you are unable to find my references please tell me and I will link them up here. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBlaze Lightning revert

MBlaze Lightning reverted some of the new material added recently. I don't agree with his rationale about Christopher Snedden, who is a perfectly reliable source, but he has a point that this is undue here. I do intend to add a section on the Poonch uprising in the Kashmir conflict page, that is where it should be discussed. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 certainly began with the Pashtun invasion. What happened earlier is merely background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

meta-level discussions
Kautilya3 Yes, this can be added in Kashmir Conflict page but not here. We should avoid WP:UNDUE Ofcourse. And, another reason why i removed that refrence was because given ref itself says, Christopher Snedden has relied on primary documents, interviews, etc. Feel free to add this in Kashmir Conflict page. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]
There is no prohibition against scholars relying on primary sources. We are prohibited, not them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Ok, I didn't know that. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MBlaze you pretend to dont know many things. Anyways, how is this undue? Just like you like to add content related to sub-topic of Bangladesh War to all other articles, you dont to seem find that undue? First you try to rubbish the source, which was indeed reliable, then you say it was undue, and now you also say that it is POV? A clear and concise case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is partly my fault. Talha Zubair asked me to review it quite some time ago, but it slipped off my radar. But the first sentence did indeed stick out. The Poonch uprising can be regarded as the beginning of the "Kashmir conflict," but certainly not the Indo-Pakistani war. We should resist putting everything in every article. It becomes impossible to maintain the content that way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNDUE, The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

Pro-Pakistan revolt of Muslim population in Poonch, "massacres of Muslims in the eastern districts of Jammu." Is indeed WP:UNDUE here. And use of word like Which is India's claim is indeed POV. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious. Please don't put that crap into the article again. You are just refusing to get it. Or pretending not to get it. Stop WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT MBlaze Lightning -talk! 15:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

In the same section Following the Muslim revolution in the Poonch and Mirpur area and Pakistani backed Pashtun tribal intervention from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa aimed at supporting the revolution, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. is not undue, but providing context to the Muslim revolution is undue?? I think the above sentence, the way it has been framed is rather Indian POV. So stop pushing WP:POV.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is undue. If the Maharaja faced a revolution, it isn't India/Pakistan issue, even though there is considerable evidence that the revolution was instigated by Pakistan. But, at least, India wasn't involved. Christopher Snedden's view has been criticised by scholars. See Christopher Snedden. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing who instigated what? No sir, we are discussing the mention of whether the revolt should added or not. You want to further add about how or who caused it, we can discuss that in another section. So, let's concentrate at the matter at hand. Second, if a mention of how Bangalis revolted against the State of Pakistan be made in all and every Bangladesh War related article, and it's not considered undue in the interest of providing 'context' and on the basis of being cited from RS (albeit the source being criticized - every researchers/writer has been criticized by one side or the other, that's the concept of research), I dont see why cant this revolt and massacre be included here, and is being considered undue? —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TripWire, if I try to find out what interest you have in the Poonch revolt, you are nowhere to be found in articles like Azad Kashmir, History of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, Christopher Snedden, G. K. Reddy, or even Kashmir conflict. In fact, it is hard to find any content you have added anywhere. In fact, it doesn't appear that you are here to build a Wikipedia, but rather you are here to obstruct those who do. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously by Wikipedians, I would advise you to first prove yourself by producing some content in areas you claim expertise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit the personal attacks. And sorry if I missed the memo which required me to be participating in each and every article quoted by you to be able to edit the current one. You should stop worrying about 'what interest I have where' and concentrate more at the matter at hand, which I have already posted above. You rather see to that instead of discussing me as a person. BTW, you exactly know which content I have produced as you are almost every where in conflict with me on the related pages, and no, I dont know about the areas I claimed expertise in, would you be kind enough to highlight the same to me, as it seems you know quite an awful lot about me.
Coming back to the issue at hand, which you have tried to divert attention from; Pushtun uprising, as you have agreed, led to the the 1947-48 war, but you dont want to include the same in the article? You have been championing Bangladesh War articles and been supporting additions of all sorta, and also supported replicating the same content (which you didnt consider Undue) to almost all Bangladesh War related articles. When pointed out that it was indeed undue, you were nowhere to be seen, however here you are already leading the charge. Whois disrupting this encyclopedia? You want to add Punch revolt to Kashmir Conflict, sure, we'll discuss that there, but a synopsis of the same in this article wont hurt at all, unless you want to push the Indian POV already present. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not diverting anything. I have answered your objection point blank by saying that "the Christopher Snedden's view has been criticised by scholars. See Christopher Snedden." There is no evidence that you saw it and understood what is meant by my response. As per WP:NPOV, we write what is scholarly consensus, not your opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed my reply to your comment? We can only proceed further once you pay attention.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your response doesn't explain why you reinstated the Christopher Snedden reference this morning [4]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not paying attention. The edit-summary that I wrote while doing it i.e. Rv content removed by giving a misleading edit-summary and the additional explanation I gave should have sufficed, but then you are not helping.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the deletion of G.K.Reddy reference as well as Christopher Snedden reference (both of which you mentioned there) are part of copy-editing, for different reasons. But the factual content was not removed. Whenever any new content is added, any concerned editor can edit it or challenge it. If there is a disagreement between the two editors concerned, then the others can chip in. But you started an edit-war this morning, which led to the article getting frozen. I am afraid your interference here is unwanted. All that you are doing is to inflame passions on all sides without contributing anything of your own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain:
  • How removal of sourced content under the garb of copy-editing is part of copy-editing?
  • How, I by reverting your contentious edit, started an edit-war when Mblaze despite being on 1RR with your support is already tendentiously pushing POV, both by adding controversial content, and removing sourced one? This is irrespective of the fact that Mblaze who was sanctioned 1RR for edit-warring on similar pages is the only contentious editor on this article. Dont take my word for it, just go through the adjectives describing his edits at this talk-page alone.
Lastly, I keep this page and others related to it on my watchlist, and I dont need your permission to participate here when I see a tendentious editor hell-bent on converting Wikipedia into an Indian propaganda website. BTW, I didnt see that you have contributed anything to these articles other than leading the charge and encouraging contentious editors by supporting them on talk-pages, everywhere.
And you accuse me of all this while you supported a sockpuppet??—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced content (Verifiability) does not guarantee inclusion, says WP:V. These are of course not the subtleties that you have ever understood.
And, I have never supported MBlaze. I have reverted him and gave him an edit-warring warning. These are again not subtleties you have ever understood.
I am here because TalhaZubairButt invited me to review his new content, and the section in question is a summary of Kashmir conflict that I have extensively worked on. Again, this is completely outside your knowledge or expertise. So, just keep off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can proceed further once you learn to stop personal attacks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Content removed by misleading edit summary"

@TripWire: In this revert, revert, you call it misleading edit summary.

  • The Christopher Snedden attribution does not belong in the lead. In fact, it doesn't even say anything about the "war" between India and Pakistan. (I mentioned that above.)
  • G.K.Reddy's testimony is unnecessary because it is not contested that massacres took place in Jammu. One man's testimony is undue. Again this is not part of the "war." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that involved in this portion but the revolt was a catalyst to the war you have to be daft to think it played no part in conflict it was the major reason why he chose Hindu India for accession out of fear of a Muslim revolt how can you not realise that? 5.65.190.98 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
meta-level discussion
Kautilya the source does mention the conflict please read again when your less angry. It is not acceptable that a source should be removed just because it does not fit your Indian narrative. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The revolt has not been removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary says "copy-edit", which you indeed carried out, but in its garb, also removed following content, which was being discussed:
  • One of India's pre-eminent journalists, G. K. Reddy, witnessed the mass killings of Muslims in Jammu's eastern districts. (this had nothing to do with the current discussion)

I have removed some Blatant POV and UNDUE Weight contents. TripWire is intentionally pushing his point of view! Nobody can win over with baseless comments. TBZ addition is also based on Cherry Picked sources. Why is he adding The Hindu instead of Snedden book source to prove "it is India's claim? when he is atrributing to Christopher Snedden? You are supposed to add snedden refrence if you are atrributing him. I see, He is adding Gilgit muslims wanted to join pakistan and atrributing to Snedden but in the same line it is also written, But many of the Kashmiris in Kashmir Valley led by Sheikh Abdullah preferred India. Why ignoring it, then? Double Standard? And do not remove sourced contents i added in the Operation Bison Section as you did here. Respect WP:UNDUE, Stick to NPOV and STOP WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT & WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: Sorry but the massacres of Jammu Muslims is definitely not UNDUE here. It was the catalyst of the violent conflict between the Muslim rebels and the Maharajah. Read Victoria Schofield's work. According to her, Pakistan's justification for military involvement in Kashmir was to stop the stem of Kashmiri Muslim refugees and also to make sure that the Indian Army did not threaten Pakistan's borders. I agreee with @Tripwire, if Bengali rebellions can be mentioned on every page to do with the war, so should the massacre of Jammu's Muslims and the pro-pakistan rebellion in Poonch etc. Also for your question about the pro-Indian sentiment in the Valley, then that isn't relevant to the START of the conflict which was basically the anti-Maharajah rebellion in Poonch and the massacres of Jammu. Valley's populace played a limited role compared to Poonch, Jammu and Gilgit's population. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand, what is WP:DUE and what is WP:UNDUE. Adding an entire section on muslim massacre is blatant WP:UNDUE. here. In addition, Your edits relies on Cherry picked sources. You are also mis-presenting sources to suit your own point of view. I have corrected and shortened your edits to a manageable size (click here). You are supposed to work on the improvement, and if they fall short of encyclopaedic standards, then they will had to be removed. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: Please explain how exactly the massacre of Jammu's Muslims is UNDE to include here? I am familiar with the rules of DUE and UNDUE. That massacre instigated the anti-Maharajah conflict. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITTalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Reimagining Kashmir". The Hindu. 2013-03-01. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2016-03-19.

Edit warring

@TripWire and MBlaze Lightning: Talha Zubair asked me to review his new content quite a while ago, which I am doing and I will continue to do. Your reverts in interim are interfering in the process. If you proceed in this way, the page will get protected as it happened on the other pages. I request you to voice your concerns here, and not interfere with the article text. These issues cannot be settled by edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Will this protection apply to other sections of the text? I had way back inserted a simple statement about General Thapa's surrender of Skardu to Pakistani Army and now it seems it has been expanded upon (probably by MBlaze). I also want to further expand on that section. That section should be left open. Its not disputed yet.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
meta-level discussion
@TalhaZubairButt: You are blatantly mis-presenting sources and picking out a particular statement from the sources. Yes, I have expanded it to counter your POV additions per WP:BALANCE. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

@MBlaze: Keep your accusations to yourself. I used a different source to you which gave the simple statement that General Thapa surrendered Skardu. If you have used another source to add extra info then rest assured I will also use another source to add more info abt the same event.

And remove your Kashmir Valley people wanting to be India reference. YOU need to get consensus for it. IMO it is WP:UNDUE because the valley population had no role to play during the Poonch uprising. Anything, if at all, Valley related happened then it happened after the tribal invasion.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am requesting all parties to discuss objections on the talk page instead of reverting. No exceptions. IPs included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be familiar with the rules, then you wouldn't have to say, how it is UNDUE here. And, lol another lie coming from you? You used Khanna Meera: In a State of Violent Peace: Voices from the Kashmir Valley. source to support On 14th August Indian General Sher Jung Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army. While my addition is based on the same source, Thapa held the Skardu with hardly 250 men for whole six long months without any reinforcement and replenishment. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: I also used this source about Skardu surrender:

Barua, Pradeep (2005). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 9780803213449.

  1. REDIRECT [[5]]

This one said Indian army surrendered. Thats the main source I read and used.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how this is UNDUE here? It's you who need to gain consensus for your edits. You are mis-presenting sources and adding only a particular statement from the source. My this addition But many of the Kashmiris in Kashmir Valley led by Sheikh Abdullah preferred India. is based on the same snedden reference. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: Yes I believe it is WP:UNDUE. Not because its false. But because it doesn't fit in this section. Poonch and Gilgit revolted and were the epicentre of the anti-Maharajah rebellion, so it makes sense to have their pro-Pakistan sentiment there.

However the Kashmir Valley people were largely silent during this phase. However if you want to mention them as part of the resistance to the tribals which happened later later on then feel free to include their 'pro-India' (actually pro-Sheikh Abdullah) sentiment.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your entire edit is UNDUE on this page. Given that, This is an article on War which was initiated by the pakistan armed rebels. The thing you are trying to add is thing to be discussed in the Kashmir Conflict page. It is mentioned in the same snedden reference which you added in the article, just below the Gilgit muslim wanted to join pakistan. So your objections are nothing but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And nop. You added, On 14th August Indian General Sher Jung Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army.[52] and raiders after a year long siege.[53] while ref 52 is Khanna Meera source: In a State of Violent Peace: Voices from the Kashmir Valley. while my addition is based on the same source. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]
MBlaze, I think we have already been through this. The Muslims revolt was the casus beli of the 1947-48 war, how can it be undue? Just because you say so? The problem here is that any and each of the edits made on this article on any other Indo-Pak War related articles, which does not conform to the Indian POV become either WP:UNDUE, WP:POV or disruptive editing for you. It is now clear that you not here to build Wikipedia. Like I have said earlier, if you can add the revolt by Banglis against the State of Pakistan in ALL Bangladesh War related articles, which ultimately led to the Bangladesh War of Liberation, how on the earth can you, in the same breath not allow the revolt by Muslims in Kashmir which led to the 1947-48 War, is beyond anyone's comprehension. You can add stale info by copy/pasting pictures from one Bangladesh article to another Bangladesh article and vice versa, but dont find that undue. However, some fresh info which presents new facts, and is sourced makes you throw WP:UNDUE at just everyone not agreeing with your reverts! —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MBlazeLightening, a small glance at this talk page tells me that it is alone you who are the reason of the recent edit-war and the subsequent page protection. Most of the vocabulary you use here starts from WP:UNDUE and ends at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with WP:POV being interspersed in between the two. I suggest, unless you go through these polices, there is no use of engaging you here, as it would be a clear case of WP:SNOWBALL. Kutaliya3 on the other hand is doing a much better job in helping all of us reaching a consensus.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your response, It is certain that you have nothing smart to say. Here on WIkipedia, we go by what Reliable refrences say, not by the whims of one individual. WP:UNDUE is the classic policy which applies here. Given that the article is on war between India and Pakistan which certainly began with the Pakistan back militias and irregular forces invasion. Adding an entire section for muslim massacre in Jammu is blatant UNDUE, indeed. Unlike you, I don't do blatant reverts without any valid reason. There was a pure case of source-mispresenting and Cherry-picking in TBZ additions. I shortened it and corrected it in accordance with the given source, An Indian journalist G. K. Reddy witnessed the communal killings of Muslims in the Hindu Dominated Jammu region can be seen here. while in the same source, It is also written, the Hindus in the Kashmir Valley remained safe and protected. (Classic case of WP:CHERRYPICKING). Again, I corrected and shortened TBZ addition According to Australian academic Christopher Snedden, There was also an anti-Maharajah uprising in Gilgit, which showed that the people of Gilgit wanted to become a part of Pakistan. While it is written in the same snedden source just below the people of Gilgit wanted to become a part of Pakistan.; But many of the Kashmiris in Kashmir Valley led by Sheikh Abdullah preferred India. (Another classic case of WP:CHERRYPICKING and after TBZs objections, I will say, WP:IDONTLIKEIT).

And, Let me reply to your continuous baseless allegations. It is you who initiated unnecessary and unwanted edit war by doing blatant back to back reverts (this & this. You are supposed to follow WP:BRD, which you are clearly not doing. You do not intiate talk page discussion but do reverts. Why? Your behaviour is suicidial in itself because of your persistent WP:DE from past many days on Indo-Pakistani-Bangladesh related articles ([6], [7]. You were supposed to give reason for your blatant reverts here but now it is certain that you use Wikipedia as a platform for your POV pushing and that anything which goes against it shall be reverted by you with no valid reason whatsoever? In the name of restoring your POV version, You removed sourced contents from the Operation Bison section and also reverted minor corrections i did for no reason at all. If you continue with your Disprupting Editing, most probably You will meet the same fate as FLCC. Kautilya said right, that you have no contributions to these articles including Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, You do try to obstruct editors doing productive contributions and specially to those who are against your point of view. You are probably one of those handful of editors who have content disputes with so many editors on ARBIPA covered articles. If you don't respect Wikipedia policy, them I'm supposed to revert you. The primary reason, behind the edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjustice!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet[reply]

Anyone glancing at the section-headings at this talk-page will know who is bent on destroying this article in particular and wikipedia in general. BTW, you need not add fake hyperlinks to support your personal attacks. And just to give you and idea, let's say, if your CopyVio edit will not be reverted, it will destroy this article. I am just trying to follow Wiki's policies.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snedden

Too much space was wasted above on meta-level discussions rather than anything to do with the Christopher Snedden source. To get back to the topic, the newspaper review cited in the article calls the book "alternative interpretation of history." The key academic review of the book cited in the Christopher Snedden article calls it a "new spin" and mentions that Snedden ignores a large part of the evidence. Satish Kumar disagrees that an internal revolt in the State by itself cannot internationalise the dispute. All these assessments indicate that Snedden is putting forward new theories which go against the mainstream views. So this is in the nature of a WP:PRIMARY source.

My own assessment is that the book is primarily on the history of Azad Kashmir (The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir). It is based on the research carried out in Muzaffarabad, according to the author (see Acknowledgements, page xi). Indian sources and British sources are mostly ignored by the author. For these reasons, this book gives a partial view of the 1947 events, and the summative judgements made in it are WP:UNDUE for our article. We are required to represent the scholarly consensus, not a single author's views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mblaze vandalism

meta-level discussion

I am not sure whos sock you are but I can tell you are pushing the pov of a banned user with your behaviour I suggest you start providing proper arguments about why Indian sources should be trusted and neutral ones ignored. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is only proving that you are certainly not a newbie. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will eventually be exposed as a sock as usual these articles are filled with nationalist sockers such as yourself then all your edits will be reverted. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Lol please go ahead and it will end up in you getting a permanent ban. :- ) MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL another one bites the dust time to revert all your bs come back again after a few months so your new sock gets hunted down your probably occultzone or some other long time abuser but you will be found out eventually. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for 3 days; participants are invited to make good use of the talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible POV tag

I think a point of view tag needs to added as the infobox is highly biased towards figures conjured up by Indian sources not even one Pakistani source is provided what do you guys above think? 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Classic case of Indian point of view pushing I guess I will look for Pakistani sources and add them to the infobox. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both perspectives

Since it is being stated in the article lead that Pakistan started the war (with no credible source) then I think the best way forward would be to include both perspectives on why and how the Pakistani forces entered the Kashmiri revolution. Victria Schofield presents both perspectives here:

  1. REDIRECT [[8]]

India's and Pakistan's, both perspectives are provided.

Note that Victoria Schofield's books on Kashmir are known to be one of the best and most neutral.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does this impact the issues over which the article is now frozen? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@This is an area of dispute too. And will actually help clear up our understanding of the rest of the war events. I will be back to disussions on Talk page when I wake up. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am trying to check what the scholars say about the scope of the war. Here is the first: Fair, C. Christine (2014), Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Armys Way of War, Oxford University Press, p. 139, ISBN 978-0-19-989271-6
The 1947–1948 war began in October 1947, when thousands of Pakistani tribal lashkars (militia members), with extensive assistance from Pakistan’s new civilian government and elements in the military leadership, invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting source: Roy, Kaushik; Gates, Scott (28 February 2014), Unconventional Warfare in South Asia: Shadow Warriors and Counterinsurgency, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp. 89–, ISBN 978-1-4724-0579-1
(p. 90) Sardar M. Ibrahim Khan, a Muslim Conference leader, met Colonel Akbar Khan of the Pakistan Army and demanded arms. A Muslim League leader named Mian Iftikharuddin asked Akbar Khan to prepare a contingency plan to acquire Kashmir for Pakistan.... seems like background to the war.
(p. 91) In late October 1947, Pakistan encouraged the tribesmen (Mohamand, Waziris, Mashuds and Afridis) from its NWFP to move into Kashmir....
The source doesn't say when the war begins, but is describing the militarily significant events. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having consulted several sources, I am of the opinion that it is a mistake to draw the line at the tribal invasion. The antecedents of the tribal invasion have full bearing on the "war" that followed. I would be quite happy to extend the scope of the article to all the conflicts that have followed from June 1947 onwards, when the decision to partition India was taken. I am also happy for both Indian and Pakistani sources to be included as long as they satisfy the requirements of WP:HISTRS.

It is not clear what bearing the Jammu massacres have had on the war. I will create a new article on the Jammu massacres, something I have been wanting to do for a long time, and then we can summarise it here as necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 and meat puppetry

If you think Kautilya3 is a sock, file an SPI. If you believe meatpuppetry is involved, take your evidence to ANI. Throwing around accusations like this on a talk page is disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 8 April 2016 (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.

We need to discuss the vandalism this page has gone through with the actions of Knightwarrior25 socks and we also need to discuss what role a sock enabler such as Kautilya3 has on these pages maybe its a way of hiding behind a sock so to avoid attention to his own pov? or maybe he has a connection to the socks themselves. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking responsibility for all the edits that MBlaze Lightning has done. So, please don't bother reverting them. You should revert them only if you have policy-based reasons to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is to revert all socks and ignore all sock supporters such as yourself. You are hereby ignored from here on. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So they call you a meatpuppet interesting. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 what do u mean by taking responsibility? Are you saying you and him are one account? do explain FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is obviously in cahoots with banned users by his own admission. I will revert you without a second thought from here on. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per policy that I have linked above, and you don't appear to have read, any user can revert a blocked user's edits, and any user can reinstate them. The user that reinstates them takes responsibility. So, I am declaring now, to save you the trouble, that I will take responsibility for all of MBlaze's edits. So, you should revert them only if you have policy-based reasons to do so. Any revert that says "reverting blocked user" or "reverting sock edit" will be undone. If you don't follow the policy, I will be taking you to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per BS. No one can take responsibility for banned users your argument holds no water you will eventually follow the path of your banned sock chums. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[9] That is all I need to make sure Mblazes edits are removed and thus yours are also removed since your his meat puppet I have seen this before banned users come along add their crap and established users back them after getting caught out. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do I mean by taking "responsibility?" I mean what the policy says: Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. I think you need to stop game-playing and focus on improving Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Infobox

meta-level discussion
  • Why is there an edit war on the infobox? The sock's edits should be reverted out right and then any user looking to back them up as their own should get concensus for them before adding them back as I see there is no consensus achieved on the talk page to make those edits and as such, the status quo should prevail until consensus is achieved. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, read the policy on how to handle the edits of blocked users! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know the policy very well. Which is consensus and with discussion on talk page and not repeated reverts (whether you are correct or not). I will report the editwar (all parties) if this does not stop and nothing good will come for any one involved. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion took place on the talk page above, and concluded by RegentsPark. Are you actually making a point? What is it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has no concensus of content, just bickering. No wonder RP closed it. My point is that these reverts are very silly apart from some POV that MBL had been pushing. Why care whether the territory was "conquered" or "gained". India claims the state was acceded to it - if that is to be maintained, Pakistan captured the territory and India "retained" the rest. If that claim has no value, then simply state that the two countries controlled so and so territories at the end of the war. Why edit war instead of discussing it or getting views of editors who are not blocked and form a consensus. What was the problem with the version that was there for years anyway? No one was disputing it until the sock came along? I'm pointing to that (whatever it was, could be restored) - any amend to that would need a consensus. I've not even fully reviewed or endorsed any version but the editwar was obviously not a good sign. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, going by your (selective) understanding of the policy, I think the easiest way for someone to push a certain POV is (step by step guide as seen by MBL's modus-operandi and your support to his edits):

  • Create a sock account.
  • Disrupt the hell out of the articles (while gaining support from 'friends').
  • Edit-war your hearts out as you dont care about a block - you are already a sock anyways.
  • Succeed in pushing the POV (a sock account + edit-war/disruptive editing will surely get you there).
  • Then get blocked. But the content (read POV) you added is still there.
  • Your 'friends' then further support your past edits even after you are blocked.
  • Succeed (in pushing the POV).

Now Kautilya3, if this is how you want to build Wikipedia, I agree with your debate about keeping MBL's edits. If not, they cant stay. Most importantly, if the edits were so legit, there was no need for them to be added through a sock account. A clean account would have sufficed. But then the editor knew that his tendentious, contentious and POV-edits shall be challenged resulting into edit-wars and reports at ANI and ABPIRA sanctions. So, he decided not to risk his master account for such disruptive editing. Now you by supporting him are also doing the same.

BTW, the policy you mention says:

....[Only] obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand, but the presumption in ambiguous cases "should be to revert." Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor' (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBL is not the first editor that socked, nor will he be the last. Wikipedia is a lot bigger than any of us. The policies are there for a good reason. If you want to contest the policy, you need to go and do it on its talk page, not here.
I am not proxying or imitating anybody. I am just saying that I will take responsibility for all his content. That means that, if you want to delete any of it, you need to debate it with me. I hope that is clear enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you do go for reintroducing a sock's edits, they are treated as your edits and their previous existence have no value. So per policy, you will need to gain consensus (the foremost policy) for each edit you back up (if no one has reverted a sock's edit, only then there is a silent consensus, which too is the weakest for of consensus). In short, taking responsibility means doing all that you would do if you were to make those edits yourself. I'm not looking for a dispute here and may not be available to continue to reply here but since I did notice the editwar here and eventually commented here, I urge you to get a consensus with those who object or else let the status quo before the sock's edits prevail which in anycase should be the current version per WP:BRD. So again, if you really intend to continue here, best to discuss why those edits should be a part of this article with the reverting editors instead of discussing all this. You should know this well anyway, so that will be the last of it from my end. Feel free to discuss content and gain some good faith if you wish to retain a certain version. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am very well aware that, when I reinstate an edit, it becomes my edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, a debate with you, sure. So, here's the procedure:
  • MBL's edits should get reverted,
  • you then before re-adding them as your own edits must get a consensus.
Not that you should re-add MBL's content and then ask for a debate. Remember, you being the adding editor, the WP:BURDEN of consensus lies on you. So, debate it out first, and then the content may be added. But you know that already, dont you?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for any new rules. WP:EVASION is clear enough. You have right to revert sock edits, and I have a right to reinstate them. Then they become my edits, and you can raise policy-based objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New rules? No, there isnt any. It's the same old rule, that's the most basic of all rules: You want to add something, YOU need to get a consensus on it.Anybody or myself reverts a sock's edits, as per policy, that's my reason. Now you want to add it again (this becomes a dispute),so where's your consensus? That's what's missing here. So, please get one before adding the disputed content. But you know that already, dont you?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You want to add something, YOU need to get a consensus on it." Can you show me where you found this rule? -- Kautilya3 (talk)
So you want to waste time? If you dont know these basic, what else are you doing here? BTW, this may be helpful WP:CONSENSUS:

If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.

Also:

When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means (yes, you) "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.

But you dont seem to be doing it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. You are dodging my question. That is what I thought you would do.
For me to say anything on talk, you need to state an objection first, which you never did. Frankly, I don't think you have any clue what is going on here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are so predictable. Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too. Wikipedia is here to stay.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion needs to stop and focus on content. Kautilya3, if you want to give your reasoning on why it was "gained" and not "retained" by india (as I said, it was acceded to india already), feel free to discuss. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TopGun, I have always said that "retained" is the correct wording for India. [10]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is required

meta-level discussion

@Kautilya3 You seem to be a mature editor so I think this will be easy for you to understand. So here goes. Whenever a serial vandal and socker introduces a POV text and tries to disrupt wikipedia with his battleground behavior, he does it knowing that he is going to be caught one day, therefore according to policy the usual remedy is to REVERT ALL SOCKS. I hope the bold text was easy to understand. Now if an editor who is not a sockpuppet, like yourself, wants to reinstate the text he is NOT ALLOWED to by pass editing policies. I would like to make this clear by repeating myself for the sake of clarity, reinstating a socks edits does not mean you can bypass wikipedia guidelines. The policy that you need to follow for adding anything is quite clear. As per WP:BURDEN you need to provide the other editors with suitable evidence that your text should be added. Just because a socking vandal added something does not make it a shoe in, rather it should be reinstated after a lengthy discussion with extra suspicion. So as per norm, I am reverting your insertion and asking that you follow WP:BRD and provide us with some reasons to include your text. As you do not own wikipedia(YET), you're "taking responsibility" for a vandals edits means nothing to me or to anyone else. To us, you just reinstated a very suspicious piece of text, so you will need to provide reasoning as to why you think this should be added. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freeatlast, I am entirely in agreement that the blocked editor was guilty of edit-warring. But he wasn't the only one edit-warring. In any case, that chapter is over. I don't edit-war. So there should be no problem discussing the issues with me. The reluctance of the involved editors to discuss issues smacks of the same behaviour that got the other editor blocked (repeatedly). So, why are we wanting to go down the same route?
The re-revert that you did [11], just deleted references for no apparent reason. And the reference bot has put all of them back. So, I am afraid you are still engaging in the same meaningless edit-warring. Please bring up whatever issues there were, one by one, and we can address them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 I think you did not even read what I wrote. It is upto you to provide reasoning as to why this text should remain in the article. not for me to prove that it "should not". Please read WP:BURDEN FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not buying such arguments. Everything should be decided by policy-based discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is fine. I have already accepted it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 I said "you need consensus to re introduce a sockers contributions" You said "I am not buying that argument". Nothing more I can say here I am afraid, no matter how much I try to work with you if you disagree with basic wikipedia policies such as consensus there is nothing we can do. feel free to edit the page as you wish, you clearly think that you own this article and I am sick and tired of editors who think consensus is not required. So GL with editing the page I'll wait for someone else to revert you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Freeatlast, you have been here long enough to know how it works. The issue of consensus arises only after at least one editor has raised a policy-based objection. Nobody is ever asked to seek consensus prior to adding content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of terminology

@MalikAttaRasool: You have changed "Indo-Pakistani" to "Indo-Pak", which introduces change of terminology from the page title. This should not be done.

  • I am also not sure why you think this change is needed. What is wrong with "Pakistani"?
  • As far as I know, "Pak" is rarely used as an abbreviation in scholarly sources, and almost never in western sources.
  • Whatever term is used for this page's title should also be used for all other articles of the same kind. So this needs considerable discussion and consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kautilya3
Though Pakistani is a good world but Indo- Pakistani is wrong combination. No scholar has ever used it like this. Indo is short word for India and Pak a short world for Pakistan. So the correct combination is Indo-Pak. May I quote scholarly work of few authors.
Chari, P. R. (1995). Indo-Pak Nuclear Standoff, the Role of the United States. Manohar Publishers.
Bindra, Sukhawant Singh. Indo-Pak Relations: Tashkent to Simla Agreement. Deep & Deep Publications, 1981.
Sundarji, Krishnaswami. Blind Men of Hindoostan: Indo-Pak Nuclear War. UBS Publishers Distributors (P), Limited, 1993.
Kalra, Virinder S., and Navtej Purewal. "The Strut of the Peacock: Partition, Travel and the Indo-Pak Border." (1999).
As a logical person, I am sure, you will appreciate the correction. MalikAttaRasool (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Indo-" is not a short form. It is an adjective, meaning "Indian." Probably comes from Greek or Latin and used in English. "Pak-" is similarly used as an adjective, but only in the subcontinent, not in standard English. I am afraid very few English speakers would know what it means. Some even worry that it might be a derogatory term. So I would recommend against it. We would need a wider consultation to introduce the term here. I don't think it is worth the trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kautalia do I need to quote the work of western scholars to convince you that how the world is used? Reddy, C. Rammanohar. "Indo–Pak defence spending." S Asian J (2005). Gehlot, N. S., and Anu Satsangi. Indo-Pak Relations: Twists and Turns from Partition to Agra Summit and Beyond. Deep and Deep Publications, 2004. Kalis, Naseer Ahmed, and Shaheen Showkat Dar. "Geo-political Significance of Kashmir: An overview of Indo-Pak Relations." IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science. I am sure you are convinced for correct usage of Indo-Pak. So please relax. any one who understand Indo will surely know Pak. let us not mislead our youngsters by incorrect use of terms. I call upon author of article to correct the title. MalikAttaRasool (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British officers

In this edit, I have added the British commanding officers of both the Indian and Pakistani armies, with their allegiance noted as the British Indian army. The reason for this was subsequently explained in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Partition of India section.

Since then, a number of IP edits attempted to change their allegiance variously to "Pakistan" or "United Kingdom". These are wrong. The officers were the officers of the British Indian army who stayed on to serve the Indian/Pakistani armies as a service to the newly formed dominions. They reported to the Supreme Commander Claude Auchinleck, who in turn reported to the Joint Defence Council of the two dominions as well as the British cabinet. In Auchinleck's words, British officers could not be forced or ordered by the Indian Dominion governments to take actions that would be repugnant to their code of behaviour as officers or to their allegiance to the King.[1] So, it is not proper to regard them as members of the Indian/Pakistani armies. Neither did the officers take orders from the British army. After they returned to Britain, some of them were absorbed into the British army. However, they were not members of the British army when they were in the subcontinent.

If the IP's continue to alter the affiliations without explanations or discussion, I will ask for the article to be semi-protected. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Marston, Daniel (2014), The Indian Army and the End of the Raj, Cambridge University Press, pp. 261–262, ISBN 978-0-521-89975-8

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Baramula

Does the three day sack of Baramula deserve it's own section? The suffering of the people of Baramula for three days bought time for Indian Army forces to reinforce Srinigar. --Patbahn (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. We need a proper section on the tribal invasion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--DBigXray 16:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first photo is wrong

The photo titled "Indian soldiers during the 1947–1948 war." is from WW1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See https://web.archive.org/web/20110405210142/http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=BfMpdR9l1kE=&ParentID=a2GSpnDbruI= -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, It is wrong. The uniforms, kit and equipment is WWI Indian Army issue. I am looking for more evidence and shall revert shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head of State during the war

It is important to note that George VI was the head of both the Dominions during the war (a rare occurence in history), and thus the ex-Raj officials and newly appointed Governors-General all were fighting against each other (trying not to give the upper hand to the other party). Please add George VI as one of the belligerents (as head of state, with the Union Jack flag) in the infobox on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.241.69 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Eraze and Operation Snipe Subset

In June 1948, Brigadier Rajendra Singh, led the Ist Grenadiers, accompanied by the 2/4 Gurkha and captured Gurez. 1n 1949 Brigadier Rajendra Singh was the military administrator of Jammu and Kashmir for 2 years. Operation Snipe involves a mountain terrain warfare going up and through the Vijji Galli in Kashmir and this is a subset of Operation Eraze which leads to the capture of Gurez. The Operation Eraze continued to control the Zojilla Pass and some other critical passes.Φ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockbuddha (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of context about the start of the war (in the name of edit warring?)

An edit was made regarding how the war started: Tribesmen had invaded Kashmir because of Muslims being massacred (some of them also had family ties to Kashmiris who were being massacred). They didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Kashmir for no reason. You can check the exact wording of the edit for yourself. Initially, the source for that information was this article. Within less than an hour Kautilya3 removed it, claiming the source was not a good one. Going by what feedback was provided, I provided a source in accordance to what requirements were set. However, within one minute, Kautilya3 reverted it it yet again, despite there being a reliable source, now with the reason of edit warring. The reason the first edit was removed was due to what Kautilya3 claimed was a bad source and justified complete removal of the information. However, even with a source that fits requirements, Kautilya3 almost instantly reverted the edit, and then proceeded to place the blame me for edit warring. I'd agree the first edit being reverted, but I fail to understand why the second one being reverted in the name of edit warring from me is justified, as the only issue brought up with the previous edit had been solved with a reliable source. Wouldn't attempting to paint Pakistan as a plain aggressor by removing mentions of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir which led up to the war not be considered neutral? I understand Kautilya3 is an Indian and we all have our biases, whether we realise it or not. So why not bring it up on the talk page for discussion instead of instantly reverting the edit that you disagreed with and engaging in edit warring?

Re12345 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed at first that you had used a different source. So my edit summary didn't mention it. Nevertheless, this source is not great either. It is a research paper (a WP:PRIMARY source), from Korea - not known for expertise in South Asian affairs - published in some cornerplace journal, by an author about whom nothing is known, propounding his own theory of why the war happened. Does this sound like something that belongs in the infobox?
Secondly, did you read the page itself, and see what it says about how the war started? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New edits

Xeed.rice, this page is on discretionary sanctions (as it says so in one of the banners at the top). You need to be confident that you can obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits before you decide to make them, and you need to explain your rationale clearly in your edit summaries.

Why did you change the images in the infobox? What makes you think that the images you installed are in the "public domain"? And where did the upper image come from? It is not in the website you mentioned as the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khan of Mong

Extendon, This edit is entirely inappropriate in the context of this article, even if it were true. Please see reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 Thanks for the edit. I am not sure why this is considered inappropriate. It is from the official regimental history of the AK Regiment and provides some details about the agents in the battle. We can debate if this is state propaganda or not, however, this is what is reported by this official document. As I have suggested, we can qualify this statement with 'According to Pakistani official military sources', and therefore not commit to the veracity of the statement. This approach has been adopted throughout this article and I am not sure why in this case it is not a valid one? (Extendon (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)).[reply]
Official histories are WP:PRIMARY sources. They should be used cautiously and only when WP:SECONDARY sources cover them. On the Khan of Mong page, I have cited a secondary source which completely disagrees with the official history. So the official history should not be used. (By the way, it is not "Pakistan's official history" but rather "Azad Kashmir's official history". Pakistan never wrote any official history of the war, as far as I know.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 Thanks for the clarification. I agree this is Azad Kashmir's official history and I also agree that the secondary source might be disagreeing with this (though I have yet to read this to confirm, I will take your word for it). How about we provide both sources and clarify that 'according to Azad Kashmir's official history ... however, this is contested by other historians who claim that the real action was carried out by Pakistan's PAVO Cavalry". I think this would provide the level of caution that you suggest, as well as clarify any speculation around this topic. I am personally aware that Khan of Mong is commonly known in the AK as the 'Fath-e-Mirpur' so this would be a good opportunity to clarify that the claim may not be entirely correct. I think completely censuring the official history because a secondary source disagrees with this might be extreme in this case.(Extendon (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, it would be WP:UNDUE. The purpose of this page is to describe how the war happened. You should not even be touching it unless you have a solid WP:SECONDARY source on the war. (It is not just "contested" by other sources, it is entirely debunked.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 OK. I accept the point and agree to keep this point out. However, I have two further points on this section that we should consider. 1) if we consider the secondary source to be correct, namely that 'most of the action was carried out by Pakistan's PAVO Cavalry' then it is pertinent to the mechanics of the battle and should be mentioned here 2) if the scope of this section is purely on the mechanics of the battle, I don't see why we should have the subsequent statement about the atrocities carried out after it('women committing suicide/being sold in brothels'). It seems to have little to do with the mechanics of the war and unnecessarily introduces a judgemental tone in the narrative. I would, therefore, suggest we include the statement about PAVO Cavalary so that it does not appear as if the tribals executed the operation completely independently, and remove the subsequent statement about the treatment of women, which I believe is already treated in the 1947 Mirpur massacre section. Would you agree?

Request to Protect article as "Semi protect" or "Extended confirmed protection"

To prevent vandalism, I am requesting to change the protection to Extended confirmed protection or least Semi protect.❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection need to be made at WP:RfPP. Moreover, page protection is normally applied only if excessive vandalism/disruption occurs. If not, we just need to watch and revert. That is life over here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious LEAD revisions

Mehtar10, You have been WP:edit warring over dubious revisions to the lead. Your first source is a letter by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used. The second source is a book plagiarising Wikipedia.

Moreover, the MOS:LEAD is expected to summarise the body of the article. You are not permitted to introduce new contentious material in the lead. Please discuss your issues here, instead of WP:edit warring. All edits to this page are subject to WP:discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties claims

It seems that this article which is cited as a Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one. The article was published in 2014, while India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace was published in 1998, 16 years earlier. The claim of 6000 Pakistani soldiers killed originated from an Indian source.

This article states that there are no reliable figures on Pakistani casualties

This article states 1500 soldiers died on each side

It seems like the author of the The News International article just wrote whatever casualty figure they could find, and since there is no figure other than the Indian claim, they ended up writing that.

So I don't think labelling the figure of 6000 killed as a Pakistani claim is correct. I cannot find a Pakistani source other than this article that supports these figures. SpicyBiryani (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Researchgate is a social networking site while GlobalSecurity has been deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. This is a Pakistani source and supports the figures. I would really like to know why you removed this source on this edit and labelled the figure as "Indian claim". At times the figures are not believed differently by either sides, but they have mutual agreement. For example, India and Pakistan both agree that 1971 war saw more than 93,000 surrenders. I guess the same is the case here that's why you are seeing "Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one". Your personal research does not carry weight here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source, while your random article from 2014 is? GlobalSecurity is widely used across Wikipedia. Its founder, John Pike, is a leading expert on defence. There's an entire page on the website dedicated to the praise it has recieved. It is cited by NYT here and here as a source on US military history, here by Reuters, here, here and here by The Washington Post, here by CNN, and in multiple books, such as:
Moreover, it is cited by some 23,200 articles on Google Scholar.
Secondly, you are yet to produce an official statement by Pakistan regarding the casualties from this war. The assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here. SpicyBiryani (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Indian Army veterans were on both sides

Just want to point out that British Indian Army Veterans were on both sides, not just India. Brig. Habibur Rehman for example was a British Indian Army Veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5820:6A20:6C8F:EC9B:14E4:2679 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the infobox, it says Indian National Army, which is not the British Indian Army. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result field

Isra2003memon, you have been inserting "Pakistani victory" in the result field using your WP:Original research arguments. I am afraid this is not proper. Only facts mentioned in reliable sources can be added to Wikipedia. Given the contentious nature of the topic, multiple reliable sources would be needed to decide the result field. Please provide reliable sources for the content, or self-revert it. This page is covered under WP:ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948&oldid=1008484498"