OccultZone (talk | contribs) →RSN: re |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject India}}, {{WikiProject Pakistan}}. Tag: |
||
(463 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=6|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject India |
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|history=yes|history-importance=mid|assess-date=May 2012}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Pakistan |auto=yes|importance=mid|History=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject Military history|Indian-task-force=yes |
|||
|auto=yes |
|||
|importance=mid |
|||
|History=yes |
|||
|Punjab=y}} |
|||
{{WPMILHIST |
|||
|Indian-task-force=yes |
|||
|Pakistani-task-force=yes |
|Pakistani-task-force=yes |
||
|class=C |
|class=C |
||
|WWII-task-force=yes |
|||
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
||
Line 29: | Line 22: | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 3 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(360d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=6 |units=months }} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== |
== Territorial changes == |
||
{{Edit extended-protected|Battle of Chawinda|answered=yes}} |
|||
The territorial changes section says that {{talkquote|India captures around 460 km (180 sq mi) of Pakistani territory}} |
|||
While the source cited to it doesn't say that it was captured during the Battle of Chawinda, rather it was captured in the Sialkot region. So it should be removed as the Indian advance was halted at Chawinda they didn't gain any territory in this battle. [[User:LiamKhan469|LiamKhan469]] ([[User talk:LiamKhan469|talk]]) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:This appears to be a fair observation of the actual battle. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|Cinderella157 }}Then please remove it.[[User:LiamKhan469|LiamKhan469]] ([[User talk:LiamKhan469|talk]]) 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Request was made by a user banned for sockpuppetry <span style="text-shadow:red 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:monospace">[[User:Bop34|bop34]] • [[User talk:Bop34|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bop34|contribs]]</span> 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC: Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory == |
|||
{{atop|RfC started by a ban evading sock, closing it per [[WP:DENY]]. Anybody else willing to start an RfC must read [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] and the earlier RfCs. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 11:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
<s>In light of the sources mentioned below, should the result be changed from "inconclusive" to '''Indian defeat''' or '''Pakistani victory'''? Thanks --[[Special:Contributions/101.53.225.41|101.53.225.41]] ([[User talk:101.53.225.41|talk]]) 20:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)</s> Blocked sock |
|||
<s>Following are some independent sources that state that this battle result was an '''Indian defeat''' or a '''Pakistani victory''':</s> |
|||
{{collapsed top|title=Independent sources that states that this battle was a Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory}} |
|||
<s>#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=6f2opVxRGDcC Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization]<blockquote>India did not press the advantage and soon after''' suffered its own debacle in the Battle of Chawinda'''. When the Soviets offered mediation, New Delhi accepted, and India’s strategic condition remained unchanged</blockquote> |
|||
#{{citation |first=Steven J. |last=Zaloga |title=The M47 & M48 Patton Tanks |publisher=Osprey Publishing |location=London |year=1980 |ISBN=0-85045-466-2}}<blockquote>both [India and Pakistan] proved adept with smaller forces in a defensive role such as the 2nd Armd. Bde. at Asal Uttar and the 25th Cavalry at Chawinda, '''where they defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes'''</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Tx_DCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&redir_esc=y M48 Patton vs Centurion: Indo-Pakistani War 1965]<blockquote>Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwise, and an opportunity was lost. Even so, although '''Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive''' in the Sialkot region, they had shot their bolt and were exhausted. Pakistani armour had been battered, and stocks of artillery ammunition were nearly expended.</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Vr2SDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&redir_esc=y Commanding Military Power: Organizing for Victory and Defeat on the Battlefield]<blockquote>Among the notable defensive victories, however, were the Soviet defeat of the Japanese at Changkufeng Hill in 1938, Japan's repeated failures to retake Henderson Field on Guadalcanal between August and November 1942, the '''Indian failure to defeat the Pakistanis in the tank battle at Chawinda''' in the 1965 war fought between those countries, and Egypt and Syria's ultimately unsuccessful assaults on Israel through the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War.</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=XcADAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y Valour Enshrined: 1947-1979] an Indian source<blockquote>In the overall context, the '''Chawinda attack was a failure''' and in the confusion after an unsuccessful operation, the valour of those who fought and died went unheard and unsung. But in the Regiment, the battle of Chawinda will always be remembered and honoured as one more example of bravery in the unending saga of Maratha chivalry.</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=5a0NAQAAQBAJ From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965]<blockquote>'''with their successful defence of Chawinda''', and the Indians' inability to take the town must have been demoralising for the troops. The casualties inflicted on Indian troops in the last assault on 19 September effectively meant that 1 Armoured Division was also no longer able to carry out major offensive operations from that date. It appears that tensions amongst the senior commanders of this operation did not assist and it seems that there was also a failure to command from the front, from brigade commanders down. The Indian commander on the whole western front was highly critical of his own forces</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=O8JQCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA201&redir_esc=y Tank: 100 Years of the World's Most Important Armored Military Vehicle]<blockquote>During the Battle of Chawinda, the largest armoured engagement since Kursk,''' Pakistani forces halted an Indian invasion of their country'''. In September 1965, the Pakistanis '''blunted a thrust''' by the Indian 1st Armored Division as each side fielded more than 250 tanks. Pakistani armor included the M48 and improved Sherman tanks of World War II vintage, while the Indians committed both Centurions and Shermans to the fight. When it was over, the Pakistanis had lost an estimated 44 tanks, while the ''Indians suffered up to 120 destroyed'', although they later asserted that they had lost only 29 armored vehicles</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=nq1aAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume 2]<blockquote>The Indians then reinforce and push the Pakistanis back to their base at Chawinda, '''where the Indians are again halted on September 10'''. After the Indians defeat a counterattack, the Pakistanis take up defensive positions. Both sides now reinforce. Although the Indians substantially outnumber the Pakistanis in manpower, many of the Pakistani tanks are superior to those of the Indians, and their artillery has greater range. The Pakistanis are '''ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle'''.</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=3SqCDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections]<blockquote>On 12 September the Pakistanis tried without success to retake Phillora, and next day the Indians attempted to outflank Chawinda from the east but, in an impressive display of flexibility, the Pakistanis moved 19 and 20 Lancers and 1 FF (of 1 Armd. Div.) to its defence, and the '''Indian advance was halted after fierce fighting'''... An attack against Chawinda was planned for the 14th, but in a classic employment of good intelligence and efficient artillery the '''Pakistanis located the forming-up place of the Garhwali battalion that was to lead the assault and brought fire down on it. The battalion was forced to withdraw and the attack did not take place'''... On the night of 15/16 September the Indians again tried to outflank the main Pakistani force, this time by pressing west to Jassoran... then south to cut off Chawinda from the rear. Once the village was isolated, the Indians considered it would fall... '''but their armour was engaged so heavily by Pakistani anti-tank weapons that it could not advance further. The battalion held out until 17 September, when it was forced to withdraw to Jassoran'''</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/lieutenantgeneral-hamid-gul-general-ziaulhaq-s-spymaster-who-was-dismissed-by-benazir-bhutto-and-later-accused-of-supporting-terrorism-10461392.html The Independent]<blockquote>He was credited with contributing to what has been regarded as a''' victory for Pakistan in the Battle of Chawinda''', by holding back the Indian offensive towards Sialkot. The action has been described as the greatest tank battle since the Second World War, and Pakistan commentators called it “the graveyard of Indian tanks”. Hostilities were ended by a UN ceasefire.</blockquote> |
|||
#[https://thediplomat.com/2015/09/how-india-fought-pakistan-50-years-ago The Diplomat]<blockquote>The Indian and Pakistani armies fought each other another 15 days, during the course of which '''both armies won their share of tactical victories — India in Phillora and Khem Karan, Pakistan in Chawinda''' — but none decisive enough to alter the ultimate result of the war. A ceasefire was called by the UN on September 22 and the Tashkent Declaration was signed between Ayub and Shastri in January 1966, thus bringing an end to hostilities.</blockquote></s> Blocked sock |
|||
{{collapsed bottom}} |
|||
<s>*[[WT:MILHIST]] notified.--[[Special:Contributions/101.53.225.41|101.53.225.41]] ([[User talk:101.53.225.41|talk]]) 20:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment:''' I also have noticed that [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41393247 this source] is mentioned in the result field even though the source is talking about a stalemate at the whole Sialkot Front, not in this battle which was a part of Sialkot Front. --[[Special:Contributions/101.53.225.41|101.53.225.41]] ([[User talk:101.53.225.41|talk]]) 20:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)</s> Blocked sock |
|||
<s>'''Comment:''' As {{U|Mar4d}} has pointed out. Adding the link to previous RFC [[Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory?|2015 RfC]], here the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" but then it was removed with a one-sided 2018 "RfC". [[Special:Contributions/101.53.225.41|101.53.225.41]] ([[User talk:101.53.225.41|talk]])</s> Blocked sock |
|||
'''Comment''' Could I suggest that you provide fuller bibliographic details for the sources cited above. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC) It would also be useful to indicate which of these sources were not considered in the course of the previous RfC. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 02:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Survey (Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory)=== |
|||
*'''Comment''' sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with the "inconclusive" interpretation. I'd be curious if there are any military journals that look at this outcome. Since this is generally a contested subject, I suggest avoiding newspapers like The Independent or The Diplomat. The independent even says "what has been regarded as a victory" which begs the question, regarded by who? -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 20:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<s>::The sources that describe it as India's failure they at best fall in the Indian Defeat interpretation. If editors disagree with adding newspaper then I have no problem with it.-[[Special:Contributions/101.53.225.41|101.53.225.41]] ([[User talk:101.53.225.41|talk]])</s> Blocked sock |
|||
*101.53.225.41, what is your [[WP:RFCBRIEF|brief and neutral statement]]? At over 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{tlx|rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for {{user|Legobot}} to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography]]. The complex formatting may be exacerbating the problem. The RfC may also not be publicised through [[WP:FRS]] until a shorter statement is provided. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**{{to|Redrose64}} fixed format of initial statement. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' , [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <small>18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
**:{{ty}} --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 05:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**::''my pleasure!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:100%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</span>]]''''' <small>10:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Inconclusive/Speedy close''' [[MOS:MIL]] is the applicable guidance, with ''X victory'' and ''Inconclusive'' but not ''X defeat'' being permitted parameters for the result field. The parameter should represent the consensus of [good quality, independent] sources. We are explicitly cautioned against [[WP:OR]]. We should also consider the "immediate result" and not subsequent events that may have ''resulted from''. {{U|Indy beetle}} would suggest avoiding newspapers. I would agree. Furthermore, I would be cautious in using popularist histories (ie Bloomsbury and Osprey). The OP would state: {{tq|Now in the light of the sources mentioned above should the result be changed to Indian Defeat or Pakistani Victory?}} However, a goodly number of these source were explicitly considered during the preceding RfC only 18 months ago. I am not seeing what is new or changed that might reasonably lead to a different outcome. The sources would clearly indicate that the Indians failed to achieve their objective. However, this is not the same as a defeat for one side or a victory for the other. Leaving aside the newspaper sources, only two make anything like a categorical statement. Zologa would say: {{tq|the 25th Cavalry at Chawinda, where they defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes}}. But the 25th Cav was only part of the Pakistani force and the statement would be referring to an early phase of the battle, so we can scratch that one. Spencer Tucker (''A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume 2'') would say: {{tq|The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle.}} The problem is, the article is not telling us this and that India still retained control of Pakistani territory? The OP would ask us to read the other sources and draw a conclusion that this is either a Pakistani victory or an Indian defeat. However, when the sources aren't specifically saying as much, that would be [[WP:SYNTH]]. On the other hand, we do have two or three sources that are specifically calling it ''inconclusive'', ''indecisive'' or a ''stalemate'' (the immediate result following Chawinda). Both sides got a bloody nose and lacked the will to continue. One side withdrew and the other side couldn't follow. There is nothing new to discuss. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**Without being too familiar with the particulars, I would add that an option is always to add a bullet point under "Inconclusive" that says "See Outcome section". -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 05:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' {{sbb}} taken in their overall balance, and mostly in particular, these sources endorse "Inconclusive", and none speaks of a clear victory/defeat AFAI can see - without WP:OR interpretation of their content. {{tq|sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with … "inconclusive"}}. I endorse everything Indy beetle & Cinderella157 say below. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 06:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Previous RFC stands''' - Two sections above, you find a six-month long RfC barely a year ago, with wide-ranging comments from a variety of editors. It came out with the result of "no consensus"/"inconclusive". What has changed so that a new RfC is warranted again? [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] is not satisfied. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' In before we get further comments along the lines of "but past RfC was inconclusive"; the question wasn't answered then, and the closure itself acknowledged this; again, which of the multiple sources available on the subject clearly negated the Indian military's tactical failure in this battle? Quoting one of the participants from the last RfC, the ''"Indian military were unable to take Chawinda"''. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 14:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: Link to the [[Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory?|2015 RfC]], where the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" before it was removed post the one-sided 2018 "RfC". '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 14:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Pakistani victory.''' Sources have been clear all along that it was the overall conflict that was "inconclusive". The final battle of that conflict, at Chawinda, was a decisive victory for Pakistan. Had it not been so, then the overall outcome would not have been so "inconclusive", imho. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' , [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <small>18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*I was the closer of the 2015 RfC, and I've been asked to comment here by a message on my talk page. When I closed the 2015 RfC I knew nothing about the Battle of Chawinda, but since then I've learned a lot about it, having been required to defend my close against attempts to overturn it and having read a lot of commentary and sources.{{pb}}The battle of Chawinda was the final battle of an inconclusive war. Territorial changes after the battle were minimal and not material, and the Indian side likes to portray the Battle of Chawinda as a draw. This case is arguable, and if you cherry-pick the right reliable sources and pretend the others don't exist, you can justify the outcome of the 2018 RfC. But really, this ignores the fact that India outnumbered and outgunned Pakistan at Chawinda. The Indian Army attempted a set piece assault on fortified positions and was bloodily repulsed. The Pakistani side likes to portray it as a glorious last stand that held off the enemy onslaught until peace was achieved.{{pb}}Personally, I think the Pakistani side of it is less wrong than the Indian side. Pakistan was trying to hold India off, and succeeded. This was the best result for Pakistan that was militarily possible.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**Hear hear, well put – much to be said for the ability of people to [[The Territorial Imperative|defend their home territory]]. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' , [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <small>01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Comment''' For the record, I am confident that the IP editor who started this RfC is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{abottom}} |
|||
== RFC on the Result - Pakistani Victory/Indian defeat == |
|||
{{atop|RfC started by a ban evading sock, closing it per [[WP:DENY]]. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
<s>As already mentioned, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? an RFC concluded] that it was a Pakistani Victory. The decision was further reviewed and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=644921474#Reviewing_RfC_closure_:_Battle_of_Chawinda consensus] was once again in favor of the RFC - Pakistani Victory. |
|||
The participants of this short talk page [[Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive 2#Result|discussion]] concluded the battle was inconclusive. |
|||
Should the result of the Battle of Chawinda be "Pakistani Victory" or "Indian defeat"? [[User:Joooshhh|Joooshhh]] ([[User talk:Joooshhh|talk]]) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
We cannot say that Pakistan "won" this war, just like we cannot say that India "won" the 1965 war. {{U|TopGun}} should rather check the source again, it doesn't say anywhere or claims about India losing those many tanks were neutral claims, but they were Pakistani claims as per the quotation I had provided in the edit summary. Pinging {{U|WikiDan61}} as well who had reverted these kinds of edits before. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 14:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It's the battle Pak won, the infobox is not talking about war... secondly, do not ping users that you think share your point of view just to refuel a stale editwar started by a blocked sock puppet. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Your calculation of tanks to decide who won is [[WP:OR]]. We say what the sources say.. and a neutral source is present in the infobox that was [[User_talk:Nawabmalhi#Battle_of_Chawinda|further verfied]] by {{u|Nawabmalhi}}. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I didn't said that the losses of tanks assess who won or who lost. I have only said that the claims about Indian losses were Pakistani claims, not neutral claims as per the source. |
|||
::For long time, we didn't presented this non-reliable source, then why we have to do now? Read [[WP:BRD]]. A newspaper, especially when it is outdated, it should not be used for sourcing the events where expert view is required. There was no victory for Pakistan since UN mandated the ceasefire. Nawabmalhi probably had no idea, but it can be easily confirmed that how it was not a neutral claim. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 14:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can't be serious citing BRD to me, because you were the one who made the bold edit, and got reverted... so BRD applies to you. It is not BRRD. Anyway, outdated? That seems to be [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It was and is a neutral source; a party not involved in the conflict. Or would you rather cite only the sources that talk about the ceasefire and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesize]] them to state the fact that the war was a 'draw'? We are ''not'' talking about the war here. This result is of the battle only, not the war at large.. which is still concluded as ceasefire. Just FYI, a war usually consists of many battles and for it to be concluded as a draw usually it makes sense that each side won some of them. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::It was a new edit by {{U|Zerefx}} that was reverted by {{U|WikiDan61}}, so [[WP:BRD]] applies on every controversial changes that have been added without consensus even when they were reverted. Seems like [[WP:ILIKEIT]], since you can accept an outdated, non-scholarly newspaper for claiming the Pakistani' victory but not accept the scholarly sources that would state it as a 'stalemate'. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You need to get acquainted with [[WP:CCC]]. The edit you made was the first edit in every way as this was settled. ''Plus'', socks were involved which really takes away the credibility of those reverts (during the past). Now you independently reverted in the version by a blocked sock, which means you take full responsibility of the content you re-add. Hope that makes the situation clear.. since you are not reverting anymore, I don't see the point of discussing this as I'm quite clear in trying to familiarize you with the way it is done. Again, stalemate is for the war, not the battle plus we have multiple [[WP:RS]] to back the victory claim in the article. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Anything before 0ctober 2014 could be labelled as a [[WP:SOCK]] version? I don't think so. How many socks there were, and who was the sock? |
|||
:::::::Newspapers are not definitely reliable sources. You can read [[WP:NEWSORG]]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I can vouch for Pracharak0 and his IP to be a sock... will you please atleast own the edits you reverted in after a month of the article being in that state? Or would you apply BRD from the first version of the article? BRD is a repeating process (read the essay)...! There are multiple RS to support the claim. [[WP:NEWSORG]] is also satisfied as the reference is not making an analysis, rather reporting the victory. Emphases on 'reporting'... something that newspapers do and are reliable for. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Pakistani Victory''' It's cut and dry - as the reliable sources state - the Indians failed to attack, the Pakistanis successful defended themselves. [[User:Joooshhh|Joooshhh]] ([[User talk:Joooshhh|talk]]) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)</s> |
|||
===RSN=== |
|||
* '''Close RfC''' This seems ridiculous to make an RfC after a block evading IP created one a few weeks prior and now an account with 17 edits on a page that is [[WP:ECP|ECP]]? This does not seem like the correct protocol. – [[User:The Grid|<span style="color:navy">The Grid</span>]] ([[User talk:The Grid|<span style="color:navy">talk</span>]]) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{abottom}} |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023 == |
|||
Check [[WP:RSN#Newspaper sources]]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 12:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:RSN volunteers clearly call them [[WP:RS]].. hopefully you are satisfied now. But don't take the content dispute over to RSN as they are not aware of the context... the stalemate references are not about this battle in specific, but the war. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Out of 3/3 comments. First one only analyzed the other 3 references and deemed them to be "reliable", second one said that the source is on borderline and it can be used only for writing that "Pakistan claimed victory", something we already did.(read the last sentence of article) Third one said that these sources must not be used. Where you have seen somebody who claimed any of these two sources, and image and a newspaper to be [[WP:RS]]? Now since it is only a representation of what a military commander, a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source had said, how it can be considered as a reliable source? It was a UN mandated ceasefire. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry to say, but you are [[WP:COATRACK]]-ing the discussion by introducing the results for the war. "They are reliable sources" is the first reply you got... the rest of the discussion is not related to RSN rather to the results. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::He didn't talked about the first two, he only talked about the other 3 that I had also mentioned, he probably thought that I was only talking about the other 3 references. I needed to re-edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=636241804&oldid=636241415] my original message, just for repeating that I am actually concerned about the credibility of these 2 references that were introduced by {{U|Nawabmalhi}} along with other factual errors. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit extended-protected|Battle of Chawinda|answered=yes}} |
|||
:::::Just thought I'd stick my oar in. Whilst, without looking at detail at the 5 sources mentioned in the RSN, I'm happy to accept them all as reliable, they are not all suitable. I've commented on the 3 books there, but thought I add my comments on the suitability of the papers here. The [http://nativepakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Rare-newspaper-about-Pakistan-The-Australian-newspaper-14-September-1965-edition.-Pakistan-wins-tank-battle-Rare-newspapers.jpg first] is likely suitable, although it'd be better to see the whole article. Also, it's dated 14th (so presumably refers to 12th or 13th) - that's before the start date in the infobox, so the infobox dates for this battle needs work. All that said, we're 50 years on now, so there must be better secondary sources out there which would avoid the pitfalls of relying on primary. |
|||
Please add the following sections |
|||
:::::[http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/105862237?searchTerm=pakistani%20tank%20victory&searchLimits=l-decade=196 The second] is not suitable, as it's merely quoting the Pakistani commander. Again, there's the date issue.. |
|||
:::::The aptly-named {{u|Peacemaker67}} has linked to two sources [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0RBOnS8KsgcC&lpg=PA108&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false] and [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZsdjJZWqtg4C&lpg=PA35&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false], both of which seem to be more the sort of thing this article needs. The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar), making the case that both sides could successfully defend but were not good at conducting armoured attacks. Likewise, the first is pretty clear that the Pakistanis won (pp.108-9). Now, whether that's a major, minor or just plain victory, I'm not sure, but it's a victory. [[User:Bromley86|Bromley86]] ([[User talk:Bromley86|talk]]) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks for clarifying on the talkpage, it helps alot keeping us two going in circles here about the RSN discussion. Now that all the sources are reliable, atleast we can say that the RSN has achieved its purpose and that this is the right venue to have a single discussion about the dispute? --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::They are particularly supporting the previous summary that "Pakistan halts Indian invasion", but not more than that. There was no particular victory as per these sources. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Also check [[Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#Result_of_Battle_was_Ceasefire]], formally discussed about The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks, that suggests it as a "ceasefire". [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 14:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::What they were once supporting was the doing of sockpuppets... the original summary added with the sources can not sensibly be anything other than 'Pakistani victory' as assuming good faith, I can not blame the non socking editors of source falsifications (except for the ones who changed this to that version and ''yet'' keeping the sources that said it was a Pakistani victory.. that seemed like vandalism to me and that's how the socks were caught in the first place). I doubt that old discussion matters ([[WP:CCC]]) as that version was not in the article. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Check [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZsdjJZWqtg4C&pg=PA35&dq=%22Both+sides+had+suffered+heavy+losses+in+the+fighting,+and+confined+their+attacks+to+infantry+and+artillery+barrages+until+the+ceasefire+on+23+September%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n8x9VJ-iH6eGywPzyYDgCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Both%20sides%20had%20suffered%20heavy%20losses%20in%20the%20fighting%2C%20and%20confined%20their%20attacks%20to%20infantry%20and%20artillery%20barrages%20until%20the%20ceasefire%20on%2023%20September%22&f=false] Sources doesn't seem to be using terms like "victory" or "lost", but "ceasefire", so if they considered the result of the battle as ceasefire, it seemed right. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 14:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}{{ec}}I know about that discussion because I was a part of it... the user DS has is also a sockpuppet (just to point out the level of disruption on this article) and the discussion does not discuss the current sourcing and is not relevant. For the book, ofcourse it talks about the ceasefire, that was the result of the ''war''... it misses to give the result of this battle. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:While none of the sources refer it as "victory" to Pakistan. Now are you done? Whether DS is a sockpuppet or not, it doesn't change that the relevant sources consider the result as "Ceasefire" or "Inconclusive",[http://books.google.nl/books?id=N1WwvQYawZEC&pg=PA256&dq=chawinda+inconclusive&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NJx8VLDBB8mAywP5ioC4Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=chawinda%20inconclusive&f=false] have some [[WP:COMPETENCE|competence]]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 14:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::So, ''The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks''. See the concluding paragraph for that section where the book uses the word defeat.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZsdjJZWqtg4C&lpg=PA35&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q=%22In%20contrast,%20both%20proved%20adept%20with%20smaller%20forces%22&f=false] The other cite uses the expressions "routed", "forced to withdraw" and "heavy losses"; these are not good things to happen to your side![http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0RBOnS8KsgcC&lpg=PA108&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false] Add to that, this source (page 232), which uses the expression "thrown back".[http://m.friendfeed-media.com/6e9ec7f58014456d2d5fd015cc8af9d2974509c0] [[User:Bromley86|Bromley86]] ([[User talk:Bromley86|talk]]) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::That is only supporting for saying that Pakistan halted the Indian invasion, they had "defeated" with small force(unclear if he is referring to India or Pakistan), however when the author explicitly referred to the battle, he considered it to be a "ceasefire".[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZsdjJZWqtg4C&pg=PA35&dq=%22Both+sides+had+suffered+heavy+losses+in+the+fighting,+and+confined+their+attacks+to+infantry+and+artillery+barrages+until+the+ceasefire+on+23+September%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n8x9VJ-iH6eGywPzyYDgCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Both%20sides%20had%20suffered%20heavy%20losses%20in%20the%20fighting%2C%20and%20confined%20their%20attacks%20to%20infantry%20and%20artillery%20barrages%20until%20the%20ceasefire%20on%2023%20September%22&f=false] If they had "forced to withdraw", it was actually effected by UN mandated ceasefire. Heavy losses occurred on both sides per these. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::The highlighted text in your linked source does not say "the battle was considered to be a ceasefire" in any wording. It simply says the battle continued till the ceasefire. So that's pure [[WP:SYNTH]]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You forgot to add the main reason behind it, it clearly meant that there was no victory. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::1) The current sourcing clearly backs what it sources... 2) they were ''not'' being discussed in that discussion as far as I remember... this is the 3rd article you've joined up to restart a stale edit war (by socks) and it doesn't seem to be edited by you before. So you might want to stop fueling editwars (or apparently following other editors through their contributions history, I've already had my fair share of that - though I don't imply that you are doing it, but you do ''appear'' to be) before you point me to competence on simply pointing out the scope of a discussion. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Restoring to a former stale version is not an edit war. We have probably confirmed that the 2 new sources must not be used for claiming results. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::See [[WP:EW]]; any revert amounts to the EW concept (whether in part or as a whole), other than the fact that its not my place to tell you what an editwar is as you appear to have been editing since some time now. All I wanted to ask was not to do this as it will reflect bad and these things will add up to nothing good. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Since none of the new sources have been accepted and no other sources are supporting any of the similar result, there should no issue in reverting to version before Nawabmalhi. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity== |
|||
==More issues== |
|||
* [[Battle of Asal Uttar]] |
|||
* [[Battle of Chumb]] |
|||
* [[Battle of Chawinda]] |
|||
* [[Battle of Ichogil Bund]] |
|||
* [[Battle of Kasur]] |
|||
* [[Pul Kanjri#Pul|Battle of Pul Kanjri]] |
|||
== See also == |
|||
Since the above issue is not the only issue with the article, I have found some more. |
|||
* [[Indo-Pakistan Wars]] |
|||
* [[Operation Grand Slam]] |
|||
Thank you. |
|||
* On the battle, "Realising the threat, the Pakistani Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik rushed his Brigade to Chawinda.." and not found in any of the sources mentioned below. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/119.74.238.54|119.74.238.54]] ([[User talk:119.74.238.54|talk]]) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Quotes: "He ordered his staff officer to break communications with the higher headquarters..." "We advanced all day in short bursts, from cover to cover. The Indians ....." are not found anywhere, except 3 second-hand hosted[[WP:SELFPUB]] blogs that have copied this en.wiki article. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 15:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Spintendo|<span style="font-size:85%;color:#f00;border:2.5px solid red;border-radius:15px;"> <b>Spintendo</b> </span>]] 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::The article's been a mess and subject to long standing vandalism. I'll try to look in the history if any good sources were removed or check out the web. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:25, 10 February 2024
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Territorial changes
The territorial changes section says that
India captures around 460 km (180 sq mi) of Pakistani territory
While the source cited to it doesn't say that it was captured during the Battle of Chawinda, rather it was captured in the Sialkot region. So it should be removed as the Indian advance was halted at Chawinda they didn't gain any territory in this battle. LiamKhan469 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- This appears to be a fair observation of the actual battle. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157:Then please remove it.LiamKhan469 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Request was made by a user banned for sockpuppetry bop34 • talk • contribs 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157:Then please remove it.LiamKhan469 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
RFC: Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory
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.
In light of the sources mentioned below, should the result be changed from "inconclusive" to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory? Thanks --101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
Following are some independent sources that state that this battle result was an Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory:
Independent sources that states that this battle was a Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory
|
---|
|
*WT:MILHIST notified.--101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I also have noticed that this source is mentioned in the result field even though the source is talking about a stalemate at the whole Sialkot Front, not in this battle which was a part of Sialkot Front. --101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
Comment: As Mar4d has pointed out. Adding the link to previous RFC 2015 RfC, here the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" but then it was removed with a one-sided 2018 "RfC". 101.53.225.41 (talk) Blocked sock
Comment Could I suggest that you provide fuller bibliographic details for the sources cited above. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC) It would also be useful to indicate which of these sources were not considered in the course of the previous RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Survey (Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory)
- Comment sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with the "inconclusive" interpretation. I'd be curious if there are any military journals that look at this outcome. Since this is generally a contested subject, I suggest avoiding newspapers like The Independent or The Diplomat. The independent even says "what has been regarded as a victory" which begs the question, regarded by who? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
::The sources that describe it as India's failure they at best fall in the Indian Defeat interpretation. If editors disagree with adding newspaper then I have no problem with it.-101.53.225.41 (talk) Blocked sock
- 101.53.225.41, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the
{{rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The complex formatting may be exacerbating the problem. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)- To editor Redrose64: fixed format of initial statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- my pleasure! Paine 10:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- To editor Redrose64: fixed format of initial statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Inconclusive/Speedy close MOS:MIL is the applicable guidance, with X victory and Inconclusive but not X defeat being permitted parameters for the result field. The parameter should represent the consensus of [good quality, independent] sources. We are explicitly cautioned against WP:OR. We should also consider the "immediate result" and not subsequent events that may have resulted from. Indy beetle would suggest avoiding newspapers. I would agree. Furthermore, I would be cautious in using popularist histories (ie Bloomsbury and Osprey). The OP would state:
Now in the light of the sources mentioned above should the result be changed to Indian Defeat or Pakistani Victory?
However, a goodly number of these source were explicitly considered during the preceding RfC only 18 months ago. I am not seeing what is new or changed that might reasonably lead to a different outcome. The sources would clearly indicate that the Indians failed to achieve their objective. However, this is not the same as a defeat for one side or a victory for the other. Leaving aside the newspaper sources, only two make anything like a categorical statement. Zologa would say:the 25th Cavalry at Chawinda, where they defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes
. But the 25th Cav was only part of the Pakistani force and the statement would be referring to an early phase of the battle, so we can scratch that one. Spencer Tucker (A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume 2) would say:The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle.
The problem is, the article is not telling us this and that India still retained control of Pakistani territory? The OP would ask us to read the other sources and draw a conclusion that this is either a Pakistani victory or an Indian defeat. However, when the sources aren't specifically saying as much, that would be WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, we do have two or three sources that are specifically calling it inconclusive, indecisive or a stalemate (the immediate result following Chawinda). Both sides got a bloody nose and lacked the will to continue. One side withdrew and the other side couldn't follow. There is nothing new to discuss. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)- Without being too familiar with the particulars, I would add that an option is always to add a bullet point under "Inconclusive" that says "See Outcome section". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose (Summoned by bot) taken in their overall balance, and mostly in particular, these sources endorse "Inconclusive", and none speaks of a clear victory/defeat AFAI can see - without WP:OR interpretation of their content.
sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with … "inconclusive"
. I endorse everything Indy beetle & Cinderella157 say below. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Previous RFC stands - Two sections above, you find a six-month long RfC barely a year ago, with wide-ranging comments from a variety of editors. It came out with the result of "no consensus"/"inconclusive". What has changed so that a new RfC is warranted again? WP:RFCBEFORE is not satisfied. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment In before we get further comments along the lines of "but past RfC was inconclusive"; the question wasn't answered then, and the closure itself acknowledged this; again, which of the multiple sources available on the subject clearly negated the Indian military's tactical failure in this battle? Quoting one of the participants from the last RfC, the "Indian military were unable to take Chawinda". Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Link to the 2015 RfC, where the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" before it was removed post the one-sided 2018 "RfC". Mar4d (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Pakistani victory. Sources have been clear all along that it was the overall conflict that was "inconclusive". The final battle of that conflict, at Chawinda, was a decisive victory for Pakistan. Had it not been so, then the overall outcome would not have been so "inconclusive", imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- I was the closer of the 2015 RfC, and I've been asked to comment here by a message on my talk page. When I closed the 2015 RfC I knew nothing about the Battle of Chawinda, but since then I've learned a lot about it, having been required to defend my close against attempts to overturn it and having read a lot of commentary and sources.The battle of Chawinda was the final battle of an inconclusive war. Territorial changes after the battle were minimal and not material, and the Indian side likes to portray the Battle of Chawinda as a draw. This case is arguable, and if you cherry-pick the right reliable sources and pretend the others don't exist, you can justify the outcome of the 2018 RfC. But really, this ignores the fact that India outnumbered and outgunned Pakistan at Chawinda. The Indian Army attempted a set piece assault on fortified positions and was bloodily repulsed. The Pakistani side likes to portray it as a glorious last stand that held off the enemy onslaught until peace was achieved.Personally, I think the Pakistani side of it is less wrong than the Indian side. Pakistan was trying to hold India off, and succeeded. This was the best result for Pakistan that was militarily possible.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hear hear, well put – much to be said for the ability of people to defend their home territory. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment For the record, I am confident that the IP editor who started this RfC is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. Girth Summit (blether) 11:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
RFC on the Result - Pakistani Victory/Indian defeat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As already mentioned, an RFC concluded that it was a Pakistani Victory. The decision was further reviewed and consensus was once again in favor of the RFC - Pakistani Victory.
The participants of this short talk page discussion concluded the battle was inconclusive.
Should the result of the Battle of Chawinda be "Pakistani Victory" or "Indian defeat"? Joooshhh (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Pakistani Victory It's cut and dry - as the reliable sources state - the Indians failed to attack, the Pakistanis successful defended themselves. Joooshhh (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)- Close RfC This seems ridiculous to make an RfC after a block evading IP created one a few weeks prior and now an account with 17 edits on a page that is ECP? This does not seem like the correct protocol. – The Grid (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023
Please add the following sections
==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity==
- Battle of Asal Uttar
- Battle of Chumb
- Battle of Chawinda
- Battle of Ichogil Bund
- Battle of Kasur
- Battle of Pul Kanjri
== See also ==
Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)