This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Restrictions placed: 6 December 2023 |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
The figure for 798 losses refers to total deaths during the period and does NOT in fact reference those incurred during the mobilization itself. It includes for example casualties taking the (regular) artillery duels as well as counter-insurgency operations in J&K as well as the Indian North-East.
Request Moderators to edit the same.
What are people's opinions about merging Terrorist attack on Indian Parliament (2001) with this article? PBP 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} An anonymous troll edit-warred an edit [1] into the article before it was protected. The edit was thus:"In the end India ended up with 800 dead soldiers and its frantic deployment of troops along the border cost a billlion dollars.". The "source" fror this factoid was a guardian op/ed [2] by a controversial far-left and pro- Islamist author named Arundhati Roy, known to tout " preposterousness" and factual inaccuracies. An op/ed cannot be used as a reliable source for facts (it can, fo course, be used as an attributable opinion) unless there has been independent verification. Furthermore, the guardian article does not mention a "billion dollar loss", surely a fantasy for a low-budget country.It's tedious to guard wikipedia against such misrepresentation, and an admin should investigate such careful manipulation. Ghanadar galpa ( talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ghandar please stop acting like a child and face the facts rather than claiming its a pro islamist writer all your articles are from right wing hindu websites and from anti pakistani writers you dont see me moaning about them its time to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 ( talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) And Ghanadar open your eyes it states india lost 1 billion in british pounds thats around 2 billion dollars low bugdet country lol how comes india spends 20 billion dollars on arms a year get real i know your a patriot but you need to realise facts.
Ghanadar your going to far now first you claim thats i take info from right wing sites then you say its a hate speech. factual inaccuracies. This link will take you to a right wing fundamentalist hindu MP from the BJP (a extreme hindu party which murders minoritys in india) unless Ghanadar is blind he to will realize what a fool he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 ( talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ghanadar the troll which probably calls all muslims "DALIT" needs to realize his patriotism for hindustan want get him anywhere this propaganda is very common with extreme hindus who go out and rape women and children like they did in gujarat in 2002 the right wing hindus like bjp hire ghanadar to mask reality and the hypocrasy of Ghanadar who uses websites run by fanatical hindus who have nothing better to do than force people in hinduism shows how his sources are unreliable BJP give me a break your hypocrasy and support for hindu terrorist sources wont give you any rewards ghanadar move away from fundamentalist websites.
I strongly urge the nationalists extreme people of India to move away from self comforting propaganda its everywhere on wikipedia and poeple from all around the world also state how pathetic these militants of india are with there biased weasel articles showing them as heroes leave that to bollywood.
As usual the indians such as Arejay gang up on pakistani editors and try to get them block they dont like to look at there actions but try to get editors who expose double standards blocked i want a non indian moderator please.
Ghanadar ignorance knows no limit if you feed puppets like abdul kalam who doesnt even practice islam properly they will follow there masters like the extreme party BJP. LOL BJP is not anti islamic tell that to the women and young girls who were raped by these hindu cowards of BJP.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/23cnd-india.html?hp
Could the editors adding the war infobox please defend their actions here? There's no point in creating an edit war. Lets draw a conclusion from here and decide on the next course of action. Thanks. S3000 ☎ 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Poor dude died in 1997. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 09:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Some people here continue to amaze me. This was a standoff, not an actual conflict. Therefore, having a template with sections such as "combatants", "commanders", "strength" and "casualties" is plain silly. Having this template not only undermines the credibility of this article but also adds to the confusion. I see that no consensus was achieved before the template was added and I cannot think of any logical argument in support of keeping this template. -- Nosedown ( talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, we know for certain that the number isn't "none"--it has to be no less than 6, since reference 16 (covered in the May-June section) verifies 6 Pakistani soldiers killed. But it's ludicrous to think the number isn't in the many hundreds--unless Pakistan's military is somehow that much better than Indias, that they can inflict over 700 deaths while taking nearly none of their own. Until we know for sure, we have to write "unknown" in the infobox, not "none". Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
You do have a point, and 'unknown' itself isn't really something much to debate about in terms of neutrality when there's a reasonable argument. How about putting a cn tag with 'unknown' so that some one might find a reference that actually states the causalities are not known - that would kill a later debate on this. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
[5] TG is adding, what in my opinion is weasel wording to try ang get around the need for a citation needed tag. Adding the word allegedly instead of finding a source for the Pakistani denial is almost certainly not right. In fact WP:ALLEGED bears this out. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined Without the Pakistani denial being sourced then there are no way to know that the wrongdoing is undetermined. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think correct attribution was the purpose of the removal on pretext of WP:WEASEL as the word was completely removed instead to leave WP:POV issues. The last comment by DS further backs up my clarification. I agree with the current form of attribution. The 'weasel' and other tags can be removed since this is fixed. I'll look for the denial source (though that is not related to the claim but to the sentence about denial). -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The two sources recently added [8] do not support the statement. The sources give are Pakistan denying having anything to do with the attacks, not denial of ISI support for the group. Also is World Socialist Web Site really a reliable source? Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the figures of the Indian Army casualties in the infobox. There had been a demand from a user regarding "sources". The reliable sources from the famous Indian newspaper " Times of India" were already present. Could someone explain me why I was reverted? Fai zan 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
At the end of "Confrontations" in May–June is the following suppose to be references? "This was the only operation to include Cadets in the history of Indian Defence [9] [10]." Adamdaley ( talk) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Cipher21 express your concerns here— Echo1Charlie ( talk) 13:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Please self-revert your latest edit to 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, otherwise administrators may take action against you for violating WP:1RR. Cipher21 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Just wait NarSakSasLee I'm coming to that point. Give me some time to finish — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Since 2005 Yeshua has been a research coordinator and editor of the annual reports of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munition Coalition. He's also a research coordinator at https://www.minesactioncanada.org/ , so this information is seems to be reliable, unbiased. — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem with the Quint article is that it does not quote the defence minister directly at all, whereas the other actually does quote him in sufficient detail. In this case it is perfectly acceptable to use TOI as a reliable source. Cipher21 your input would be welcome here. NarSakSasLee ( talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOI challenging WP:TOI https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms - quoting defence minister, casualty 798. — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
NarSakSasLee We can't include both as
Echo1Charlie and NarSakSasLee, some things need to be made clear:
Cipher21 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Cipher21 The problem is.,
—— Echo1Charlie ( talk) 15:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I strongly object this, need third opinion, BTW I have submitted it for third opinion. — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 06:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Echo1Charlie, despite numerous attempts to communicate with you in good faith, you have refused to get the point. It is tiresome for NarSakSasLee and I to repeatedly explain the same thing to you, only for you to completely disregard what we say. Cipher21 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"You attempted to portray the editors of this discussion (myself and Cipher21) as having said something we never did" -so NarSakSasLee you don't want to cite this ( ( https://web.archive.org/web/20130419044936/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-05-01/india/27277371_1_bullet-proof-jackets-jammu-and-kashmir-soldiers-face) report ( WP:TOI March 2003 —which says the casualty is 1874?——17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Echo1Charlie ( talk)
"However, Pakistan has been frequently accused by various countries other than India of backing designated terrorist groups, as well as by sending state-trained terrorists across the Line of Control and de jure India–Pakistan border to launch attacks in India proper." (with credible sources belonging to US State Department)
Removal of: Anything related to Kashmir insurgency.
This in my opinion is a fair compromise and add well needed context and information to readers. Cipher21 Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of large amounts of information from the lead citing a "general rule of thumb" is not constructive. Editors wishing to change the layout of the lead should discuss their proposals here. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The citation very clearly states the standoff was a failure on India's part. I don't see why @ User:CapnJackSp is restoring @ Smahwk's removal of well sourced material on the basis of their personal opinion.
Are notable academic journals published by MIT Press and edited by Harvard contentious
but
WP:OR justifiable in IPA now?
Solblaze (
talk) 11:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The Indian strike corps remained deployed at tremendous cost to equipment and morale, awaiting Delhi’s authorization until October, when Operation Parakram was ofªciallycalled off and the strike corps returned to their cantonments. Indian military and strategic analysts describe Parakram as a costly and ill-conceived mobilization that “ended as an ignominious retreat after having failed to secure even its minimum objectives.”[1]
For its part, the Indian Army attributed the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan to the slow mobilization of India's ground forces, which permitted international pressures to dissuade its political leaders from launching a reprisal and gave Pakistan time to countermobilize, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale conflict in the event of a limited Indian attack.[2]
failure of the military standoff,
failed to secure even its minimum objectives, and
ignominious retreatare you unable to understand? Solblaze ( talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
failure of the military standoff(Clary, Narang 2019) Solblaze ( talk) 08:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Pakistan put its military into full combat readiness the same day- which, as the article reads, was 14 December 2001. Regardless though, X failure is not a supported result per MOS:MIL.
And why does a failure of the initial operation translate to an overall failureThe whole standoff was initiated by India as part of Operation Parakram. The two terms are used interchangeably. It's not our place to question this anyway, because Narang and Clary have explicitly called the whole standoff a failure. Solblaze ( talk) 08:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The two terms are used interchangeably.The article does not tell us that. More importantly, it does not tell us why this should be the case.
Narang and Clary have explicitly called the whole standoff a failure.I do not question this. However, there is nuance to this (their opinions) and a good part of why they have formed their opinions is missing from the article. As i have indicated, the article requires substantial improvement. Nonetheless, the guidance of MOS:MIL is clear and the response does not change what the article and the guidance is telling us the entry against the result parameter should be. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is rife with POV issues on both sides. That Pakistan had a role in the Parliament Attacks is not disputed by any serious scholar - we need not whitewash it by giving much of any credence to Pakistan's ludicrous claims of uninvolvement. At the same time, Parakram was a gigantic failure; there's no two ways about it. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Our examination of the 2001–2002 Indo-Pakistani crisis supports the overall analytical consensus that coercive methods, under certain circumstances, accomplish little [...] Despite careful attempts by Indian elites to apply the principles of “forceful persuasion” to end the crisis on terms favorable to India (the stronger power in the dispute), the Indian strategy failed to accomplish most of its objectives...
We will show in detail that coercion as a method did very little to advance Indian goals, had high costs, and did not significantly improve chances of a diplomatic breakthrough with Pakistan’s military elite on Kashmir...
Such an argument [from the Indian Army about Parakram being succesful], however, was mostly self-serving; India had in fact failed to accomplish the stated goals of its dramatic military mobilization... [T]he Nadimarg Terrorist attack, as well as many others like it, revealed that India’s strategy failed to prevent significant terrorist incidents and civilian deaths, the primary avowed aim of the coercive policy.
What exactly did India’s massive military mobilization in the wake of the 13 December 2001 attack accomplish? India won a Pyrrhic victory. The largescale military mobilization cost India much in wear and tear on its military equipment. The mobilization, which failed to achieve a genuine resolution of the crisis, undermined the morale of the armed forces. Significant numbers of Indian troops and other military personnel had to withstand considerable physical hardship over an extended time span with extreme fluctuations in climatic conditions during a situation of high alert.
Despite the significant display of military clout, Pakistan did not comply with India’s immediate demand to hand over the twenty individuals sought for terrorist acts in India. Furthermore, despite several promises to the contrary, including those made at the highest level to American officials, Pakistani authorities failed to stop the infiltration of terrorists into Indian-controlled Kashmir. The only meaningful accomplishment of this Indian exercise of coercive diplomacy was to draw the United States into the fray as a significant player to try and curb Pakistan’s continuing support to the insurgency and to acts of terror. This achievement came at the cost of abandoning India’s longstanding aversion to the involvement of the United States in subcontinental affairs.
[An] incoherence marks India's use of "coercive diplomacy," launched against Pakistan following the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in Operation Parakram of 2001-2002. It involved mobilizing a large number of troops who were then recalled, without any demonstrable goals having been achieved or explanations offered. This lack of clarity about broader goals affects the global perception of India's foreign policy as a whole.
TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)..Although tensions remained high over the coming months, and war still appeared likely in the early summer of 2002, Operation Parakram quickly lost momentum. The result was a ten-month standoff that ended with India’s quiet withdrawal rather than a military clash. Musharraf’s public statements aside, India had failed to achieve an end to Pakistani support for terrorism within India. This failure was made clear in the years following Operation Parakram as the death toll from terrorist attacks in Kashmir continued to rise. The Indian Army’s postmortem analyses of Operation Parakram sought to understand why India had been unable to achieve signicant political aims through its military deployment...
The conflation of a standoff with an operationThe operation IS the standoff, and as I've mentioned for the third(?) time, Narang and Clary use the terms exchangeably. Is this really the hill you want to die on? Solblaze ( talk) 06:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The Indian strike corps re-
- mained deployed at tremendous cost to equipment and morale, awaiting
- Delhi's authorization until October, when Operation Parakram was ofªcially
- called off and the strike corps returned to their cantonments. Indian military
- and strategic analysts describe Parakram as a costly and ill-conceived mobili-
- zation that "ended as an ignominious retreat after having failed to secure even
- its minimum objectives."
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); line feed character in|quote=
at position 28 ( help)
For its part, the Indian Army attributed the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan to the slow mobilization of India's ground forces, which permitted international pressures to dissuade its political leaders from launching a reprisal and gave Pakistan time to countermobilize, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale conflict in the event of a limited Indian attack.
This page should be protected as it is clearly Pakistani victory (I have edited and Givin references) and IP address Indians keep on changing it. 2407:D000:1A:3218:95AC:5B89:8A92:BA42 ( talk) 08:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a obvious Pakistani victory, I have many references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] WikiHence ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the number of casualties in the attack on the Indian Parliament from five to nine, Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/parliament-attack-victims-remembered/article2711970.ece Themapinator ( talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Restrictions placed: 6 December 2023 |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
The figure for 798 losses refers to total deaths during the period and does NOT in fact reference those incurred during the mobilization itself. It includes for example casualties taking the (regular) artillery duels as well as counter-insurgency operations in J&K as well as the Indian North-East.
Request Moderators to edit the same.
What are people's opinions about merging Terrorist attack on Indian Parliament (2001) with this article? PBP 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} An anonymous troll edit-warred an edit [1] into the article before it was protected. The edit was thus:"In the end India ended up with 800 dead soldiers and its frantic deployment of troops along the border cost a billlion dollars.". The "source" fror this factoid was a guardian op/ed [2] by a controversial far-left and pro- Islamist author named Arundhati Roy, known to tout " preposterousness" and factual inaccuracies. An op/ed cannot be used as a reliable source for facts (it can, fo course, be used as an attributable opinion) unless there has been independent verification. Furthermore, the guardian article does not mention a "billion dollar loss", surely a fantasy for a low-budget country.It's tedious to guard wikipedia against such misrepresentation, and an admin should investigate such careful manipulation. Ghanadar galpa ( talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ghandar please stop acting like a child and face the facts rather than claiming its a pro islamist writer all your articles are from right wing hindu websites and from anti pakistani writers you dont see me moaning about them its time to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 ( talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) And Ghanadar open your eyes it states india lost 1 billion in british pounds thats around 2 billion dollars low bugdet country lol how comes india spends 20 billion dollars on arms a year get real i know your a patriot but you need to realise facts.
Ghanadar your going to far now first you claim thats i take info from right wing sites then you say its a hate speech. factual inaccuracies. This link will take you to a right wing fundamentalist hindu MP from the BJP (a extreme hindu party which murders minoritys in india) unless Ghanadar is blind he to will realize what a fool he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 ( talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ghanadar the troll which probably calls all muslims "DALIT" needs to realize his patriotism for hindustan want get him anywhere this propaganda is very common with extreme hindus who go out and rape women and children like they did in gujarat in 2002 the right wing hindus like bjp hire ghanadar to mask reality and the hypocrasy of Ghanadar who uses websites run by fanatical hindus who have nothing better to do than force people in hinduism shows how his sources are unreliable BJP give me a break your hypocrasy and support for hindu terrorist sources wont give you any rewards ghanadar move away from fundamentalist websites.
I strongly urge the nationalists extreme people of India to move away from self comforting propaganda its everywhere on wikipedia and poeple from all around the world also state how pathetic these militants of india are with there biased weasel articles showing them as heroes leave that to bollywood.
As usual the indians such as Arejay gang up on pakistani editors and try to get them block they dont like to look at there actions but try to get editors who expose double standards blocked i want a non indian moderator please.
Ghanadar ignorance knows no limit if you feed puppets like abdul kalam who doesnt even practice islam properly they will follow there masters like the extreme party BJP. LOL BJP is not anti islamic tell that to the women and young girls who were raped by these hindu cowards of BJP.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/23cnd-india.html?hp
Could the editors adding the war infobox please defend their actions here? There's no point in creating an edit war. Lets draw a conclusion from here and decide on the next course of action. Thanks. S3000 ☎ 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Poor dude died in 1997. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 09:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Some people here continue to amaze me. This was a standoff, not an actual conflict. Therefore, having a template with sections such as "combatants", "commanders", "strength" and "casualties" is plain silly. Having this template not only undermines the credibility of this article but also adds to the confusion. I see that no consensus was achieved before the template was added and I cannot think of any logical argument in support of keeping this template. -- Nosedown ( talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, we know for certain that the number isn't "none"--it has to be no less than 6, since reference 16 (covered in the May-June section) verifies 6 Pakistani soldiers killed. But it's ludicrous to think the number isn't in the many hundreds--unless Pakistan's military is somehow that much better than Indias, that they can inflict over 700 deaths while taking nearly none of their own. Until we know for sure, we have to write "unknown" in the infobox, not "none". Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
You do have a point, and 'unknown' itself isn't really something much to debate about in terms of neutrality when there's a reasonable argument. How about putting a cn tag with 'unknown' so that some one might find a reference that actually states the causalities are not known - that would kill a later debate on this. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
[5] TG is adding, what in my opinion is weasel wording to try ang get around the need for a citation needed tag. Adding the word allegedly instead of finding a source for the Pakistani denial is almost certainly not right. In fact WP:ALLEGED bears this out. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined Without the Pakistani denial being sourced then there are no way to know that the wrongdoing is undetermined. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think correct attribution was the purpose of the removal on pretext of WP:WEASEL as the word was completely removed instead to leave WP:POV issues. The last comment by DS further backs up my clarification. I agree with the current form of attribution. The 'weasel' and other tags can be removed since this is fixed. I'll look for the denial source (though that is not related to the claim but to the sentence about denial). -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The two sources recently added [8] do not support the statement. The sources give are Pakistan denying having anything to do with the attacks, not denial of ISI support for the group. Also is World Socialist Web Site really a reliable source? Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the figures of the Indian Army casualties in the infobox. There had been a demand from a user regarding "sources". The reliable sources from the famous Indian newspaper " Times of India" were already present. Could someone explain me why I was reverted? Fai zan 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
At the end of "Confrontations" in May–June is the following suppose to be references? "This was the only operation to include Cadets in the history of Indian Defence [9] [10]." Adamdaley ( talk) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Cipher21 express your concerns here— Echo1Charlie ( talk) 13:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Please self-revert your latest edit to 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, otherwise administrators may take action against you for violating WP:1RR. Cipher21 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Just wait NarSakSasLee I'm coming to that point. Give me some time to finish — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Since 2005 Yeshua has been a research coordinator and editor of the annual reports of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munition Coalition. He's also a research coordinator at https://www.minesactioncanada.org/ , so this information is seems to be reliable, unbiased. — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem with the Quint article is that it does not quote the defence minister directly at all, whereas the other actually does quote him in sufficient detail. In this case it is perfectly acceptable to use TOI as a reliable source. Cipher21 your input would be welcome here. NarSakSasLee ( talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOI challenging WP:TOI https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms - quoting defence minister, casualty 798. — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
NarSakSasLee We can't include both as
Echo1Charlie and NarSakSasLee, some things need to be made clear:
Cipher21 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Cipher21 The problem is.,
—— Echo1Charlie ( talk) 15:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I strongly object this, need third opinion, BTW I have submitted it for third opinion. — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 06:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Echo1Charlie, despite numerous attempts to communicate with you in good faith, you have refused to get the point. It is tiresome for NarSakSasLee and I to repeatedly explain the same thing to you, only for you to completely disregard what we say. Cipher21 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"You attempted to portray the editors of this discussion (myself and Cipher21) as having said something we never did" -so NarSakSasLee you don't want to cite this ( ( https://web.archive.org/web/20130419044936/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-05-01/india/27277371_1_bullet-proof-jackets-jammu-and-kashmir-soldiers-face) report ( WP:TOI March 2003 —which says the casualty is 1874?——17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Echo1Charlie ( talk)
"However, Pakistan has been frequently accused by various countries other than India of backing designated terrorist groups, as well as by sending state-trained terrorists across the Line of Control and de jure India–Pakistan border to launch attacks in India proper." (with credible sources belonging to US State Department)
Removal of: Anything related to Kashmir insurgency.
This in my opinion is a fair compromise and add well needed context and information to readers. Cipher21 Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of large amounts of information from the lead citing a "general rule of thumb" is not constructive. Editors wishing to change the layout of the lead should discuss their proposals here. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The citation very clearly states the standoff was a failure on India's part. I don't see why @ User:CapnJackSp is restoring @ Smahwk's removal of well sourced material on the basis of their personal opinion.
Are notable academic journals published by MIT Press and edited by Harvard contentious
but
WP:OR justifiable in IPA now?
Solblaze (
talk) 11:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The Indian strike corps remained deployed at tremendous cost to equipment and morale, awaiting Delhi’s authorization until October, when Operation Parakram was ofªciallycalled off and the strike corps returned to their cantonments. Indian military and strategic analysts describe Parakram as a costly and ill-conceived mobilization that “ended as an ignominious retreat after having failed to secure even its minimum objectives.”[1]
For its part, the Indian Army attributed the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan to the slow mobilization of India's ground forces, which permitted international pressures to dissuade its political leaders from launching a reprisal and gave Pakistan time to countermobilize, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale conflict in the event of a limited Indian attack.[2]
failure of the military standoff,
failed to secure even its minimum objectives, and
ignominious retreatare you unable to understand? Solblaze ( talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
failure of the military standoff(Clary, Narang 2019) Solblaze ( talk) 08:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Pakistan put its military into full combat readiness the same day- which, as the article reads, was 14 December 2001. Regardless though, X failure is not a supported result per MOS:MIL.
And why does a failure of the initial operation translate to an overall failureThe whole standoff was initiated by India as part of Operation Parakram. The two terms are used interchangeably. It's not our place to question this anyway, because Narang and Clary have explicitly called the whole standoff a failure. Solblaze ( talk) 08:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The two terms are used interchangeably.The article does not tell us that. More importantly, it does not tell us why this should be the case.
Narang and Clary have explicitly called the whole standoff a failure.I do not question this. However, there is nuance to this (their opinions) and a good part of why they have formed their opinions is missing from the article. As i have indicated, the article requires substantial improvement. Nonetheless, the guidance of MOS:MIL is clear and the response does not change what the article and the guidance is telling us the entry against the result parameter should be. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is rife with POV issues on both sides. That Pakistan had a role in the Parliament Attacks is not disputed by any serious scholar - we need not whitewash it by giving much of any credence to Pakistan's ludicrous claims of uninvolvement. At the same time, Parakram was a gigantic failure; there's no two ways about it. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Our examination of the 2001–2002 Indo-Pakistani crisis supports the overall analytical consensus that coercive methods, under certain circumstances, accomplish little [...] Despite careful attempts by Indian elites to apply the principles of “forceful persuasion” to end the crisis on terms favorable to India (the stronger power in the dispute), the Indian strategy failed to accomplish most of its objectives...
We will show in detail that coercion as a method did very little to advance Indian goals, had high costs, and did not significantly improve chances of a diplomatic breakthrough with Pakistan’s military elite on Kashmir...
Such an argument [from the Indian Army about Parakram being succesful], however, was mostly self-serving; India had in fact failed to accomplish the stated goals of its dramatic military mobilization... [T]he Nadimarg Terrorist attack, as well as many others like it, revealed that India’s strategy failed to prevent significant terrorist incidents and civilian deaths, the primary avowed aim of the coercive policy.
What exactly did India’s massive military mobilization in the wake of the 13 December 2001 attack accomplish? India won a Pyrrhic victory. The largescale military mobilization cost India much in wear and tear on its military equipment. The mobilization, which failed to achieve a genuine resolution of the crisis, undermined the morale of the armed forces. Significant numbers of Indian troops and other military personnel had to withstand considerable physical hardship over an extended time span with extreme fluctuations in climatic conditions during a situation of high alert.
Despite the significant display of military clout, Pakistan did not comply with India’s immediate demand to hand over the twenty individuals sought for terrorist acts in India. Furthermore, despite several promises to the contrary, including those made at the highest level to American officials, Pakistani authorities failed to stop the infiltration of terrorists into Indian-controlled Kashmir. The only meaningful accomplishment of this Indian exercise of coercive diplomacy was to draw the United States into the fray as a significant player to try and curb Pakistan’s continuing support to the insurgency and to acts of terror. This achievement came at the cost of abandoning India’s longstanding aversion to the involvement of the United States in subcontinental affairs.
[An] incoherence marks India's use of "coercive diplomacy," launched against Pakistan following the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in Operation Parakram of 2001-2002. It involved mobilizing a large number of troops who were then recalled, without any demonstrable goals having been achieved or explanations offered. This lack of clarity about broader goals affects the global perception of India's foreign policy as a whole.
TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)..Although tensions remained high over the coming months, and war still appeared likely in the early summer of 2002, Operation Parakram quickly lost momentum. The result was a ten-month standoff that ended with India’s quiet withdrawal rather than a military clash. Musharraf’s public statements aside, India had failed to achieve an end to Pakistani support for terrorism within India. This failure was made clear in the years following Operation Parakram as the death toll from terrorist attacks in Kashmir continued to rise. The Indian Army’s postmortem analyses of Operation Parakram sought to understand why India had been unable to achieve signicant political aims through its military deployment...
The conflation of a standoff with an operationThe operation IS the standoff, and as I've mentioned for the third(?) time, Narang and Clary use the terms exchangeably. Is this really the hill you want to die on? Solblaze ( talk) 06:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The Indian strike corps re-
- mained deployed at tremendous cost to equipment and morale, awaiting
- Delhi's authorization until October, when Operation Parakram was ofªcially
- called off and the strike corps returned to their cantonments. Indian military
- and strategic analysts describe Parakram as a costly and ill-conceived mobili-
- zation that "ended as an ignominious retreat after having failed to secure even
- its minimum objectives."
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); line feed character in|quote=
at position 28 ( help)
For its part, the Indian Army attributed the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan to the slow mobilization of India's ground forces, which permitted international pressures to dissuade its political leaders from launching a reprisal and gave Pakistan time to countermobilize, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale conflict in the event of a limited Indian attack.
This page should be protected as it is clearly Pakistani victory (I have edited and Givin references) and IP address Indians keep on changing it. 2407:D000:1A:3218:95AC:5B89:8A92:BA42 ( talk) 08:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a obvious Pakistani victory, I have many references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] WikiHence ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the number of casualties in the attack on the Indian Parliament from five to nine, Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/parliament-attack-victims-remembered/article2711970.ece Themapinator ( talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)