![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justudassar ( talk) 14:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
TopGun , OccultZone , Rsrikanth05 , Well dude if you will see the history of Battle of Chawinda , 1 month ago "Mar4d" has edited the chawinda battle and added stupid claim about territory lost!
he added this " Over 4,140 km territory lost " to the casualties2 ( INDIA ) section!
well we all know that battle of chawinda was fought in the Sialkot sector that is in Pakistan. Then how can India lost territory there? He mentioned "Over 4,140 km".
well dude chawinda was a battle and a part of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ,
whole worlds knows that War of 1965 was won by India because it held more territory of enemy, took more causality on enemy ..... And so on,
well if you will see the " Assessment of losses" or Neutral Claims in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, it was mentioned by almost all the independent sources that India held 1,840km2 land of Pakistan and Pakistan held ~ 540km2 land of India at the end of hostilities.
even Pakistan owns fabricated history doesn't claim about " 4,140 km2 " ,
then how can someone mention imaginary claims on the Much debated Battle of Chawinda , although it was the battle and fought well Inside pakistani territory in the Sialkot sector, so mentioning whole war losses in the battle that doesn't even match with the reality ...... , only a stupid can do this,
are you guys sleeping when he edited the Battle of Chawinda it, why you all are not reverting the edit done by that stupid, and why you don't let me do revert it?
thanks for your kind attention and I will request you to revert that change done by Mar4d ( 1 Month ago ) ,
Thank you! Astral Prince ( talk) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astral Prince ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks dude!
Astral Prince (
talk)
10:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well this article Battle of Chawinda is full of WP:FAKE , uses fake claims which don't even supported by mentioned references.
it claims that Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda . The three reference mentioned there didn't claim pakistani victory, rather it was a stalemate, that we all know. Only thing Pakistan did is that they didn't let Superior Indian forces advance further and U.N Mandated ceasefire. This is how the battle ended.
have a look to the infobox [1] This is what mentioned earlier in Wikipedia I,e,. Result = stalemate , and un mandated ceasefire.
here are the reference mentioned in Wikipedia that claims the battle a stalemate but Few Pakistanis have written " Pakistan victory " in the result section that is WP:FAKE .
Reference 4 " [4] " only claims 25 Cavalry defeated there better equipped but clumsier foes like 2 armoured brigade defeated there opponent in Asal Uttar. It didn't claim pakistani victory at all.
so Make few changes in the article mention stalemate in the result section. thank you Astral Prince ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
39.32.36.230 ( talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Indian doesn't crossed to mahadrapur because that would mean having crossed sialkot cantonment which is impossible
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Chawinda. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
MBL would you like to explain your recent edits? As, 1) the source you provided does support the figure you added. 2) Why would you remove the Indian claim text and present it as a fact, especially when Indian loses are also mentioned in the infobox as a claim? This is pure POV pushing.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, the onset of providing the correct source is on the adding editor (MBL in this case). You could have saved everybody's time only if you had done what you are suggesting me to do; checked the source provided by MBL for its correctness, especially when the error was pointed out. You instead considered it appropriate to lecture others. Anyhow, going by the third party source being neutral rule, I would suggest to include Steven J. Zaloga as a neutral source too.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Four sources are used for claiming "Pakistani victory".
The result should be ceasefire since the battle stopped after the ceasefire mandated by the UN. Razer( talk) 04:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the article and sources, listing the result as an outright Pakistani victory makes no sense because Pakistan did not actually gain anything other than simply halting an Indian invasion. Also, the reliable sources also don't list this as victory for Pakistan: [5] -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 01:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed 3 completely vandalizing edits by User:Anzan7 on 3 separate wiki pages, including this one, regarding India–Pakistan relations. Not sure if this is just mischief or a deliberate plan for vandalism. I gave benefit of doubt to user:Anzan7 by notifying him about the arbitration results about India Pakistan topics. thanks Sdmarathe ( talk) 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Result Pakistan victory Abdul alim mia ( talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Aman.kumar.goel. I didn't know that there was discussion before the result field was changed. The current sources are certainly much better than the old ones, they are newer and broader, and therefore more neutral. In response to S Marshall, these sources are indeed saying that the result of Battle of Chawinda was a draw, not that the overall war was a draw.
Honestly, I don't know how scholars decide the wins or losses. Pakistan retained Chawinda. In that sense, it had won. But is that all there is to it? Indians certainly knew that whatever territory they won, they would eventually have to give back. And Chawinda is not such an important piece of territory that it would make a difference for anything. But the Indians got Pakistan (a) to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, and (b) to agree to a truce without any concessions on Kashmir. In that sense, it seems to me that India achieved whatever it was trying to achieve in Chawinda. Knowledgeable scholars would understand the big picture. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, and thank you all very much!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Undone against consensus and the facts that appear in every source. Pakistan held on to Chawinda. India did not take Chawinda. No reliable source denies those two facts.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
... stemmed the advance in this sector ...,
The Pakistanis had halted the Indian assault on Chawinda ...,
Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwiseand
Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region .... The rest is just "icing on the cake". The real meat of the matter was that it was a clear victory for Pakistan. Indian military were unable to take Chawinda because the Pakistani military did not let them take Chawinda. The war's result was decidedly inconclusive; however, the battle for Chawinda resulted in a clear, conclusive victory for Pakistan (even according to the source you quoted above). This is not just a matter on which editors may agree or disagree. This is a matter of what the sources say, and even Higgins indicates that the battle of Chawinda was won by Pakistan. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Response to MBlaze: I had organised the references into two groups (those supporting Pakistani victory and those calling it a stalemate). There should be no need to remove this while you argue about what the result field should say.
I am happy to remove Fricker, which reads like a propaganda piece to me anyway, but Shahid Amin is fine with an OUP book.
Cohen and Dasgupta, who are strategic experts, have called it a "debacle" for India. A bit overstated, but not far off the mark if you read the detailed military assessments. Yes, Pakistan was on the verge of defeat. But India wasn't able to take adantage of that since its own armour had been sent back for refitting. [1] India threw infantry regiments in front of Pakistani shelling from Chawinda. They got cut to pieces and ran away (literally!). [2]
When the Indian prime minister asked the Army chief, do you want a couple more days to achieve your "spectacular victory", the Army chief replied, "no we are done" (my paraphrasing). [3] So, Johri's idea that Pakistan "got saved" by the ceasefire doesn't hold water. In 20th century wars, you don't get an infinite amount of time to do your job. Either you get it done or call it off. And look at those casualty numbers! It would be considered criminal if it happend today. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justudassar ( talk) 14:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
TopGun , OccultZone , Rsrikanth05 , Well dude if you will see the history of Battle of Chawinda , 1 month ago "Mar4d" has edited the chawinda battle and added stupid claim about territory lost!
he added this " Over 4,140 km territory lost " to the casualties2 ( INDIA ) section!
well we all know that battle of chawinda was fought in the Sialkot sector that is in Pakistan. Then how can India lost territory there? He mentioned "Over 4,140 km".
well dude chawinda was a battle and a part of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ,
whole worlds knows that War of 1965 was won by India because it held more territory of enemy, took more causality on enemy ..... And so on,
well if you will see the " Assessment of losses" or Neutral Claims in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, it was mentioned by almost all the independent sources that India held 1,840km2 land of Pakistan and Pakistan held ~ 540km2 land of India at the end of hostilities.
even Pakistan owns fabricated history doesn't claim about " 4,140 km2 " ,
then how can someone mention imaginary claims on the Much debated Battle of Chawinda , although it was the battle and fought well Inside pakistani territory in the Sialkot sector, so mentioning whole war losses in the battle that doesn't even match with the reality ...... , only a stupid can do this,
are you guys sleeping when he edited the Battle of Chawinda it, why you all are not reverting the edit done by that stupid, and why you don't let me do revert it?
thanks for your kind attention and I will request you to revert that change done by Mar4d ( 1 Month ago ) ,
Thank you! Astral Prince ( talk) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astral Prince ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks dude!
Astral Prince (
talk)
10:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well this article Battle of Chawinda is full of WP:FAKE , uses fake claims which don't even supported by mentioned references.
it claims that Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda . The three reference mentioned there didn't claim pakistani victory, rather it was a stalemate, that we all know. Only thing Pakistan did is that they didn't let Superior Indian forces advance further and U.N Mandated ceasefire. This is how the battle ended.
have a look to the infobox [1] This is what mentioned earlier in Wikipedia I,e,. Result = stalemate , and un mandated ceasefire.
here are the reference mentioned in Wikipedia that claims the battle a stalemate but Few Pakistanis have written " Pakistan victory " in the result section that is WP:FAKE .
Reference 4 " [4] " only claims 25 Cavalry defeated there better equipped but clumsier foes like 2 armoured brigade defeated there opponent in Asal Uttar. It didn't claim pakistani victory at all.
so Make few changes in the article mention stalemate in the result section. thank you Astral Prince ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
39.32.36.230 ( talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Indian doesn't crossed to mahadrapur because that would mean having crossed sialkot cantonment which is impossible
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Chawinda. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
MBL would you like to explain your recent edits? As, 1) the source you provided does support the figure you added. 2) Why would you remove the Indian claim text and present it as a fact, especially when Indian loses are also mentioned in the infobox as a claim? This is pure POV pushing.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, the onset of providing the correct source is on the adding editor (MBL in this case). You could have saved everybody's time only if you had done what you are suggesting me to do; checked the source provided by MBL for its correctness, especially when the error was pointed out. You instead considered it appropriate to lecture others. Anyhow, going by the third party source being neutral rule, I would suggest to include Steven J. Zaloga as a neutral source too.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Four sources are used for claiming "Pakistani victory".
The result should be ceasefire since the battle stopped after the ceasefire mandated by the UN. Razer( talk) 04:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the article and sources, listing the result as an outright Pakistani victory makes no sense because Pakistan did not actually gain anything other than simply halting an Indian invasion. Also, the reliable sources also don't list this as victory for Pakistan: [5] -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 01:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed 3 completely vandalizing edits by User:Anzan7 on 3 separate wiki pages, including this one, regarding India–Pakistan relations. Not sure if this is just mischief or a deliberate plan for vandalism. I gave benefit of doubt to user:Anzan7 by notifying him about the arbitration results about India Pakistan topics. thanks Sdmarathe ( talk) 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Result Pakistan victory Abdul alim mia ( talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Aman.kumar.goel. I didn't know that there was discussion before the result field was changed. The current sources are certainly much better than the old ones, they are newer and broader, and therefore more neutral. In response to S Marshall, these sources are indeed saying that the result of Battle of Chawinda was a draw, not that the overall war was a draw.
Honestly, I don't know how scholars decide the wins or losses. Pakistan retained Chawinda. In that sense, it had won. But is that all there is to it? Indians certainly knew that whatever territory they won, they would eventually have to give back. And Chawinda is not such an important piece of territory that it would make a difference for anything. But the Indians got Pakistan (a) to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, and (b) to agree to a truce without any concessions on Kashmir. In that sense, it seems to me that India achieved whatever it was trying to achieve in Chawinda. Knowledgeable scholars would understand the big picture. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, and thank you all very much!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Undone against consensus and the facts that appear in every source. Pakistan held on to Chawinda. India did not take Chawinda. No reliable source denies those two facts.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
... stemmed the advance in this sector ...,
The Pakistanis had halted the Indian assault on Chawinda ...,
Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwiseand
Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region .... The rest is just "icing on the cake". The real meat of the matter was that it was a clear victory for Pakistan. Indian military were unable to take Chawinda because the Pakistani military did not let them take Chawinda. The war's result was decidedly inconclusive; however, the battle for Chawinda resulted in a clear, conclusive victory for Pakistan (even according to the source you quoted above). This is not just a matter on which editors may agree or disagree. This is a matter of what the sources say, and even Higgins indicates that the battle of Chawinda was won by Pakistan. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Response to MBlaze: I had organised the references into two groups (those supporting Pakistani victory and those calling it a stalemate). There should be no need to remove this while you argue about what the result field should say.
I am happy to remove Fricker, which reads like a propaganda piece to me anyway, but Shahid Amin is fine with an OUP book.
Cohen and Dasgupta, who are strategic experts, have called it a "debacle" for India. A bit overstated, but not far off the mark if you read the detailed military assessments. Yes, Pakistan was on the verge of defeat. But India wasn't able to take adantage of that since its own armour had been sent back for refitting. [1] India threw infantry regiments in front of Pakistani shelling from Chawinda. They got cut to pieces and ran away (literally!). [2]
When the Indian prime minister asked the Army chief, do you want a couple more days to achieve your "spectacular victory", the Army chief replied, "no we are done" (my paraphrasing). [3] So, Johri's idea that Pakistan "got saved" by the ceasefire doesn't hold water. In 20th century wars, you don't get an infinite amount of time to do your job. Either you get it done or call it off. And look at those casualty numbers! It would be considered criminal if it happend today. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
References