Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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: You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) 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. Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help: Pakistan India The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Page views of this article over the last 90 days: Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

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

This article is still sort of incomplete. I need to add more information to it. The terrorist attack is only a part of the standoff — it triggered the standoff but cannot be considered synonymous with the standoff itself. Thanks AreJay 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{

We have a saying that the "wrong version" is the one that is protected. Until the article is unprotected, admins won't make content changes like this. I hope everyone will discuss the dispute that led to protection, so that the protection can be lifted promptly. — Carl (

CBM · talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree, the Guardian article is clearly a POV. If used, it must be represented as such.(Anonymi (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ghanadar lies

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.[reply]

Care to find a source other than an op-ed by a crank that backs up such statements? Please don't get some

Jamaati rag to substitute, even Arundhati Roy is better.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

...As opposed to militant Pakistanis who cite websites covertly managed by the

1971 Bangladesh atrocities?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: 86.162.66.42 please stop your name-calling. Please refer to

WP:NPA. We respect your point-of-view; let's move away from namecalling and have a mature discussion. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly, if we're citing op-eds, it needs to be made clear that it is someone's opinion. If the source for the figures were mentioned in the op-ed, that information should be incorporated into the article. Given both Indian and Pakistani media's propensity to, shall we say, "fluff" facts as it relates to war, I think it is best to use a neutral source. That's not to say that Indian and Pakistani sources shouldn't be included; the absolutely must, but the must be qualified (eg. "According to studies performed by the Indian/Pakistani government, an estimated loss of $xxx occurred"). AreJay (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a fringe crank like Arundhati Roy is notable enough for this article. Furthermore, I fully support dropping all identifiably Indian or Pakistani sources and restrict the article to western ones. However, given that most of what the Indian media says pretty much agrees with western assessments, I strongly suspect that every reliable source will be denounced by the ip troll as "kaffir Hindu propaganda". This sort of association fallacies are quite common in the discourse of fanatic Islam in the Indian subcontinent, and wikipedians are under no obligation to give them any credence.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree, but to discount Indian and Pakistani POVs in an article that is ostensibly about the larger India Pakistani feud would be to create in an article that is devoid of either Indian or Pakistani color on the subject. I think it's fair to represent both views; while I personnally don't like Arundhati Roy or her views, she and people like Praful Bidwai have their fair share of followers (and detractors) and if her comments add light to an opinion shared by some, I feel it should be represented in the article (even if it is represented with a caveat indicating her political leanings and the fact that her op-ed was just that - an op-ed).

I'd like to see this discussion move away from namecalling on both sides of the ball. Let's move to constructively present facts and allow readers to derive their own opinions. Perhaps I can recommend

WP:WTA to my Indian and Pakistani friends. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You are going to get blocked if you come out

attacking people are spewing rascist comments on anyone that doesn't agree with you. I am not "moderating" this discussion; never claimed to be. All I wanted to see was a mature discussion between Indians and Pakistanis. If you read what I wrote, I actually said all viewpoints, where properly referenced, should be incorporated into the article. Can't say fairer than that. If you can present your side of the argument, without abusing others and making outlandish rascist statements; do so. This is for your own benefit to ensure your views get incorporated into the article. If you choose not to, that's fine as well. The result of that will be that only "Indian" views get represented in the article. Entirely your choice. AreJay (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

BJP is anti-Muslim? Tell that to

Abdul Kalam. Both Muslims, both BJP supporters or members.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

India lost 800 troops during there anticipation they were ready and in the correct position to attack there poor tactics leaded to 800 deaths who were all soldiers so india suffered casualties during the standofF with Pakistan.

The war box was already there originally why change it now is it due to indias looses plz dont bring pro india bias into reality

First, this infobox doesn't belong in this article since it is basically meant for wars, both official and unofficial. Since actual fighting didn't break out between India and Pakistan (unlike '49, '65, '71 and Kargil), the 2001-2002 confrontation cannot be called a war, or even a skirmish. I am therefore removing it from the article. Second, no official data on the losses pertaining to Indian and Pakistani soldiers during the buildup was ever released by either government. Any data presented therefore is an estimate made by third party sources. This estimate, if include, must be unaccompanied by a caveat that explains the fact that this is someone's opinion and not a statement of fact. I have no problem including a statement about the estimated 800 Indian troop deaths, so long as it is clearly stated that this is FAS's estimate and that the factual accuracy of this cannot be confirmed. To simply state that 800 Indian troops died during the buildup to the war is disingenuous. AreJay (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arejay said everything I had to say. Yes, there's been no official confirmation on the deaths of those 800 soldiers. It's only speculated. And for your info (in a neutral tone) India never lost to anybody. It wasn't a war, so there's nothing to win or lose. True wars between the countries were ('49, '65, '71, Kargil ans Siachen). War was actually declared per se by the governments. And there were true winners and losers. I don't need to continue.  S3000  ☎ 12:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India lost 1776 lives to its own mines and unexploded ordnances. This was confirmed by the then defence minister George fernandez in a parliament session. Why this edit has been reverted by the user Shovon76. I also gave a valid link published online. I request the moderators to show the actual lives lost by Indian army. Because there was no other mention about the lives lost in the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.188.167 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That number seems a little excessive to me. Can you provide a link that shows that 1776 people died? The only number I've seen so far is from FAC which says 800. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided by

WP:RS. That's why I had reverted the edit. Shovon (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. One quick point though, the author seems to have sourced her data from an ICBL report from 2004. Normally, if this pertained directly to the troop build up in this article, I would review that report and use that as the source. However, having read through Fatima's op-ed, it says that 1,776 deaths have occurred due to mines and unexploded ordance. This has nothing to do with troop build up or the 2001-2002 Indo-Pak stand-off, and therefore shouldn't be in this article anyway. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same old story indian editors trying to cover up the blunders made by the indian army first you remove the sourced fact which stated 800 indians died due to the build up now you remove another fact that another 1700 died due to there own weapons lol its pathetic cant you indians just accept the truth 86.156.214.36 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what was written in the op-ed, it says that 1700 Indian soldiers have died as a result of mines. Indian soldiers have been dying from mines in Kashmir since 1989 – this has nothing to do with the Indo-Pak 2001-2002 buildup. You would have realized this had you read the article. If you don't, then I'm sorry, but your level of comprehension isn't sufficient to continue this discussion. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source states (correctly) that India has lost 1776 of it's own service personnel. However it has nothing to do with the "2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff", and it seems those figures have been collated since the minefields were first laid. Your use of language such as this; "its pathetic cant you indians just accept the truth", makes it appear to me that you are try to push some agenda, as you have also added the same incorrect information to the "Indian Army" article, trying to make the figure sound as if the 1776 casualties happened during the 2001-2002 Indian-Pakistan standoff. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1776 casualties mentioned in the report is not the lives lost, but (375 killed, 1,401 injured) as per the ICBL report from 2005 [3]. The newspaper Times of India has an article on the lives lost during operation Parakram as 798 [4], quoting the then defense minister George Fernandez's statement to the Indian parliament. For the record, I'm an Indian and would be pleased to have facts recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.25.91 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it is editors who choose to indulge in posturing that imply that one's national identity disqualifies one from being objective and report on factual data. I am more than happy to use George Fernandez's quote, as well as the 800 listed by FAS in the article, as long as the source of the data is clearly indicated in the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor dude died in 1997. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

LOL.. this template was added by someone in Islamabad, Pakistan. Why am I not surprised.. --Nosedown (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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!

• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_June_3/ai_86623659
  • In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-05-25 07:17:17, 404 This requested article does not exist.
  • In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-06-10 08:47:39, 404 This requested article does not exist.

--

• http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/15/top1.htm
  • In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-05-25 07:17:30, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
  • In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-06-10 08:51:44, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'

--

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)[reply]

I didn't see that reference, thanks for pointing out. Per now, we should make it "6" as we have a reference. We cant put "unknown" there because now we do have a known number. It is quite possible for that figure to be true as the war never occurred and many of the casualties happened due to artillery fire or from own mines. In anycase, we cant put things in infobox because it is hard to believe them instead of relying on citations. 6 should be added till a larger number is found. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's....I'm going to say it, even if it's arguably incivil: that's absolutely positively insane. The news article does not state that the number of casualties was 6. It says that the number of casualties from a single fight was 6. And putting something like ">6" implies something not true. We have no source that speaks to the number of casualties, so none can be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no source either which would state that there were any more causalities than that number (from that fight) other than a gut feeling... --lTopGunl (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a source stating anything for the number of casualties for the standoff, so you cannot put anything in the box. And I'm not saying that the number of casualties from that fight was greater than 6. I'm saying that the number of casualties in that specific fight has no correlation to the total number of casualties. We cannot speculate, and putting "more than 6" implies something that isn't true. Unless sources appear, that box will simply have to stay as "unknown". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sure, I just added it. It seems a little odd to me (like we want a source stating that the number is unknown), but I can see why you think it might help. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[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

Denial has no relation in itself to the allegation. This is a 'claim' as previously termed in the sentence. 'Allegedly' is the right word here per

WP:WEASEL before quoting it. Also your continued following of my edits is not going unnoticed. The only possible way you got here is from my contributions given your previous history and block because of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Again with the paranoia. See [6] this list as to how I got here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would have agreed if I wasn't seeing many of this 'coincidences' after a history like that. You've violated

WP:3RR by adding that tag in the end instead of discussing content. It does not matter what content you add, your edits still count to 3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Feel free to report me. Your inability to follow the same

essay you continually cite is highly amusing Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BRD applies to you here. You need to discuss on the first revert instead of readding content. Even your tagging is incorrect. You are assuming a dispute here. No weasel words have been used. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

LMFAO, god your a card sir. You added content, it was reverted, you should have discussed instead of edit warring. Perhaps you need to reread your favorite essay ) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, this was already listed as a claim in the same sentence. I just made it coherent. Your assertion of weasels is completely incorrect. POV attribution is not usage of weasel words. Feel free to call in

WP:30. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

POV Attribution means you actually say who made the claim, not just add "allegedly" (which Darkness shines is correct falls under "words to avoid"). I've fixed the problem by, you know, reading the source, finding out whose POV it is, and saying that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that if the claim that Pakistan denies it is not sourced in a few days, I'm taking it out. This is a very contentious claim, which must be sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No it was not,[7] It is not a claim, it is a statement of fact. You must have missed my previous post. '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. So you see, without the Pakistani denial being sourced it is not a claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think correct attribution was the purpose of the removal on pretext of

• Added references for denial as requested by Qwyrxian. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ISI-Pakistan are not two different things. ISI does not necessarily release its own press details. You've been previously clarified about this. Also, the statement is "Pakistan denied this charge". This is clearly mentioned in the sources. You should self revert the 'failed verification' tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand. You may not use a source in which Pakistan says they had naught to do with the terrorist attack to say the ISI have not supported them, especially as one of your source's says they have. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at the sentence in the article again. It doesn't mention ISI. And certainly ISI is an organization of Pakistan. Pakistan's denial is the official one. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to listen, India claimed that the attacks were carried out by two Pakistan based Terrorist groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), both of whom India has said are backed by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency,[4] a charge Pakistan denied One follows on from the other. You need a source which says they deny ISI support of the groups, or any Pakistani denial of support for the groups. Using a source whic hsays they had nothing to do with the attacks = they deny having supported the groups is

WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources are clear in context here about the denial. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only in your own mind. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the figures of the Indian Army casualties in the infobox. There had been a demand from a

Sorry Faz, I had not seen them in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Faizan 08:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929150119/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929150119/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604034533/http://ipripak.org:80/papers/india-pakistan.shtml to http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml

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.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031130174834/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=25384627 to http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=25384627
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106131408/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/25/india.pakistan.kashmir.missiles/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/25/india.pakistan.kashmir.missiles
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919042907/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C09%5Cstory_9-8-2009_pg3_5 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C09%5Cstory_9-8-2009_pg3_5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202061336/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-5/Sunils.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-5/Sunils.html

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.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cipher21 express your concerns here—Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie, the edit summary is sufficient for such statements. However, I agree that it is best we discuss further changes here. Cipher21 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher21 I anticipated this revert, I too have some opinion regarding citations in casualty section. But let me clear your concerns first. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie, My concerns are in the edit summaries visible in the article's history page. Cipher21 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your latest edit to

Is that your concern

Cipher? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What is your objection regarding this change [11] replacing

WP:HINDU

?

Read the above, and I'd appreciate it if you linked to a diff of my statement instead of making it seem like I made it here. Cipher21 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your objections regarding the said change here, rather than being "I said there, read that" etc, after all we are here for a discussion right? Please state your objection here, so that I can explain the rationale behind the edit and we can reach a consensus at the earliest. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSEDITORIAL. So you haven't "replaced" TOI with The Hindu or Indian Express. Furthermore, TOI is considered reliable in this case. It is quoting the Defence Minister of India, so its bias towards the Indian government doesn't matter. Cipher21 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am in agreement with Cipher21. The edit summary adequately explains why it is okay to quote the Indian defence minister using TOI. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me finish NarSakSasLee.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be deliberately confusing what an opinion piece is verses a quotation. Quoting the Indian defence minister is not opinion. He is a representative of the Indian government. Once again, there is nothing wrong with including that within the article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait NarSakSasLee I'm coming to that point. Give me some time to finish —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but LinkedIn isn't a reliable source either - it's self published. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability of opinion piece -
  WP:RSEDITORIAL - "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability" - here the article/ Op-ed is co-written by Yeshua Moser Puangsuan his credentials can be found here [12]
  - "he's a human rights and disarmament activist, author, lecturer and nonviolence trainer/educator. He is the co-author of Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders (University of Hawai’i Press, 2000) which is regarded as both ground breaking and authoritative. He currently is a Consultant to the International Peace Bureau in Geneva and serves on the board of the AJ Muste International Nonviolence Trainers Fund.

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)[reply]

• WP:TOI or quint? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

Do I need to submit the tape of that day's parliamentary session??! Silly reasons—Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can do anything you want, except misrepresent sources. If contradictory statements are being made they should both be included. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote - "At the end of July 2003, the then defence minister George Fernandes informed the Lok Sabha that India had lost 798 soldiers – even without formally going to war. These fatalities were caused by ammunition-related accidents, mine-related fatalities and in some cases, ‘friendly fire’. In contrast, the 1999 Kargil War resulted in the death of 527 Indian troops." - https://www.thequint.com/news/india/no-nation-must-stumble-into-war-lessons-operation-parakram-post-uri-attack-pakistan-soldiers-jawans-kashmir-modi#read-more —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are two different incidents here. The 798 figures comes from casualties up to 2003 (with no start date as to the actual casualties), and the other is within a very specific time frame of 2001 to 2002. It is entirely possible the 798 figure has been confused by the wider media as to the casualties for the entire war. This is why I said I'm not opposed to having both figures included. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"During Operation Parakram up to July 2003 a total number of 798 Army personnel suffered fatal casualties — that literally covers casualty from December 2001 (starting date) to july 2003 covering the end dateof the standoff i.e 10 June 2002, that literally means total casualty of the stand off is 798 as of 2003 June! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So why not include both? That's my point. The question here is then why are you POV pushing for 798 when he clearly said 1,874 as well? NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NarSakSasLee We can't include both as

1. . Of cource
   WP:TOI
2. .
   WP:TOI, got it??! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Echo1Charlie and NarSakSasLee, some things need to be made clear:

1. WP:TOI
   is in some cases considered unreliable due to its pro-Indian (government) bias, not faulty or fabricated reporting. What this means is, if TOI claims 1000 Pakistani soldiers died in a conflict, Pakistan claimed 100 died and NYT claims 10 died, that means we cannot consider TOI as the solely authoritative source among the three. TOI's figure will be labelled "Indian Claim," Pakistan's "Pakistani Claim" and NYT's something along the lines of "Neutral Figure." However, if India officially claims 798 of its own soldiers died and Pakistan, NYT or any other RS do not make any counter claims to this statement, it will be included without objection. Similarly, if TOI makes some claim about Pakistan which is unsupported by other RS or only by the Indian media/government, it will be considered unreliable.
2. Even taking TOI's bias into account, this figure originates from the Indian Government. On what basis is it to be excluded?
3. WP:RSEDITORIAL
   states, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Yeshua Moser Puangsuan's statements can be attributed to himself, not the platform he wrote on.
4. There is a difference between killed, and killed or injured. 798 Indian soldiers were killed, while 1874 were either killed or injured. Neither statement contradicts the other, so I don't see how TOI (or The Quint) is contradicting itself.
5. There is also a difference between the casualties during the conflict and causalities from laying mines during a whole other time period. If between 2001 and 2005 1776 soldiers died while laying mines, why does Echo1Charlie insist on this statistic replacing number of Indian soldiers killed or injured during the conflict? Including this figure in addition to the latter (as I did) seems reasonable, as it is somewhat relevant additional information. However, I fail to see any reason to remove the former. Neither can an opinion piece replace the words of the Defence Minister of India, nor are the two statements mutually exclusive.

Cipher21 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher21 The problem is.,

1. Reliability of
   WP:TOI
   in July 2003 reported that casualty is 798 again quoting the defence minister (same person)
2. What figures? 1874 or 798? If you go with 798 you can cite quint, the wire and theprint
3. I don't think attribution is necessary in infobox
4. "798 Indian soldiers were killed, while 1874 were either killed or injured." — 1874 figure by
   WP:TOI in their March 2003 report is corrected by them in their July 2003 report, it's corrected to 798 - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms
   , the new figure is also supported by other sources such as thequint, thewire and theprint
5. Where does it states that casualty is from fighting? - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/op-parakram-claimed-798-soldiers/articleshow/104948.cms -
   The Stimson Center page 29 https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94299/To_the_Brink.pdf
   , Strategic analysis article - file:///C:/Users/sarath/Downloads/StrategicAnalysisArticle.pdf Strategic Analysis Vol. 34, No. 4, July 2010, 594–610 - also support this claim - casualty due to mine laying and demining not fighting, If you ask I can provide more sources to backup this claim.

——Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with

WP:CANVASSING an administrator

directly to take his side in an ongoing discussion—thankfully that administrator did not take the bait).

—NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NarSakSasLee, It's not related to this article, but this article [[14]] You've apperently broken the 3RR rule there, but why you didn't got blocked because my 3RR warning to your talkpage and your 4th edit were around same time - 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC), details of the report can be found here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NarSakSasLee reported by User:Echo1Charlie (Result: Fully protected one week) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object this, need third opinion, BTW I have submitted it for third opinion. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed over there because there's more than two editors involved in this, which makes sense because there is more than enough people here to reach consensus, you're just refusing to respect the process because you want to POV push by selectively choosing sources. This is not acceptable behaviour. We have already told you we are okay with including both sources but you're refusing to even listen to this. And as further evidence of your grossly inappropriate behaviour, when you did make that request for a third opinion, you filed that report fraudulently in a deliberate attempt to mislead others. You attempted to portray the editors of this discussion (myself and Cipher21) as having said something we never did and you also made up TOI having "corrected" itself when it never did (it simply quoted two different statements that the defence minister had made - TOI has never issued an apology for making any errors in the two articles that they have written that are being discussed here). NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

NarSakSasLee, I guess we have consensus on this revision. Shall I restore it? Cipher21 (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher21 Absolutely. Enough time has been wasted circling around the issue again and again. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You attempted to portray the editors of this discussion (myself and Cipher21) as having said something we never did" -so

I just want to add that the US State Department isn't a reliable source. It lists groups like the Iran Revolutionary Guards as terrorists despite it being a government paramilitary of a sovereign nation. It's decisions are based on politics not neutrality. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your views on whether or not the US State Department is neutral or not, this is intended to portray and reflect the US government's views on this issue. Similiar to how you may feel that the Times of India is biased towards the Indian government but you added quotations from the Indian defense minister from that platform. The same logic applies

talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't mind what the US State Department says, I was just interjecting to say its not a credible source for neutrality. I don't mind including it as long as the claim is given credit to whoever said it (as well as any opposing opinion included for the purposes of NPOV). I thought you meant to include the statement without saying who said what. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

It's been half a month and no justification for this. Thus, it is being reverted.

Also, did I forget to mention Narang is probably one of the most well known, credible, and overqualified authorities on the topic in the world? Solblaze (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The part you are quoting out of context (which you now have reinforced with a bunch of POV changes to the lead), refers to the fact that India mobilised but did not invade. "Failure to invade pakistan" would be technically correct - But presenting it out of context in a POV form is quite wrong. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narang, Clary, and even Indian analysts have explicitly branded Parakram a failure. Here are the citations which you have either not bothered to read, or deliberately ignored.

• 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]

Repeatedly calling everything you don't like the sound of POV pushing does not change that fact. You are advised to adhere to the behavioral standards expected when contributing to contentious topic areas, or administrative action may be taken against you. Solblaze (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, you are presenting words out of context. Putting "Indian Failure" in the infobox as as a one liner in lead is completely unsupported by RS.

Just a tip - If you want to throw threats of admin action with policy links, use the correct link. The allegation you were making should have been liked to

WP:IDHT. And POV text is different from POV pushing, read up on that too - Dont put words in my mouth. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

In the spirit of

WP:AGF, I ask for the (I've lost count of how many times), what part of failure of the military standoff, failed to secure even its minimum objectives, and ignominious retreat are you unable to understand? Solblaze (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyway, since you have failed to justify your reverts of sourced content with anything other than your personal opinion, the content will be restored. Solblaze (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response, hadnt seen this till it came up on my watchlist.

Again, I will point out that the lead/infobox as of now is accurate - The skirmish maintained the status quo, and nuclear war, which seemed likely, didnt happen.

In terms of technicalities, India captured a frew Hills from Pakistan post Kargil - But we dont write "Indian capture of such and such territory", because its not the main result of the standoff. The same way, stating a minority view in the lead and infobox is inappropriate. It has been given the

WP:DUE coverage in the article body. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Again,

overwhelmingly viewed as an Indian failure by scholars and even Indian analysts. Solblaze (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, your opinion on the due weight of a couple of sources is incorrect, and even then, the "standoff" didnt fail. The mobilisation failed to proceed to a war due to the various reasons listed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

failure of the military standoff (Clary, Narang 2019) Solblaze (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the obtruse reading of two sources to try and overrule the vast majority of sources is not worth my time arguing over. You do not have consensus to implement this change, if you attempt to do so you will be reverted. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pray cite the vast majority? Who, I assume, will be as reliable as Clary/Narang. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to run through the articles cited in our page and identify how many of them declare the standoff (not operation parakram) as being an "Indian failure"

As you may know, the onus to prove both

Wikipedia:DUE lies on those arguing for inclusion. To justify that inclusion, you need to show it is the majority opinion, not the other way around. The fact that most dont refer to it in this manner is proof that it is not the majority opinion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• As I said on ARE, the current result parameter violates
  MOS:MIL and should be avoided. @Cinderella157: you too take a look. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If you insist on changing it to "Pakistani Victory," (Narang also goes on to mention how the standoff was a success of the Pakistani nuclear posture IIRC), I am not sure about the technicalities surrounding it. Solblaze (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "X failure" seems concise enough anyway. MOS:MIL's talk page can provide more guidance on this. Solblaze (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been pinged into this discussion, presumably as a neutral third opinion with some experience in Indo-Pakistani conflicts and mediating such contentious discussions. My first observation is that this article requires some serious work. To the matter at hand, the article title calls this a standoff. A standoff is intrinsically inconclusive.
  MOS:MIL
  .

In accordance with

MOS:MIL

explicitly permits us to populate the result parameter in this way.

I have edited the infobox accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why does a failure of the initial operation translate to an overall failure The 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)[reply]

I agree with Inconclusive, since the old one was also slightly incorrect and skimmed over many of the nuances - Status quo ante bellum wont be correct either, as Pakistan did lose territory in the standoff. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells us that Operation Parakram was a mobilisation and deployment. The operation ceased once the mobilisation and deployment had occurred - unless the article tells us that there was more, and it doesn't. An operation has a scope and objectives. Its success or failure can only (reasonably) be assessed against these. The article does not tell us what these were - what the operational plan said they were. 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Parakram was a failure (gigantic is debatable, I assume you are stating as your opinion). However, to extend it to the standoff in its entirety is incorrect.

Indeed, the standoff had successes as well, including capture of strategic territory and forcing several statements from the Pakistani government that it would not have undertaken otherwise. We dont include the opinion of every person in the lead, only the portions that RS focus on as a whole. You will need more than citations to two commentators and two misleading citations to put that in the lead.

I would also urge you to gain consensus before edits, instead of reverting to contested versions. Further commentary of mine, as you might know, is at the ARE page. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clary and Narang are literally among the foremost experts in IR and nuclear posturing. Please cease with the strawman that they are random academics with an opinion. Find me sources as good as them and we will discuss. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to concede that Parakram was a failure but not the standoff. Let's consult the opinions of Sumit Ganguly, a doyen-proffessor of political science at Indiana University:

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.

Sure, this looks quite like "inconclusive"; afterall, he did use the word "victory". Anyway, Ganguly is just another "person" and shabby too - he, for one, appears to have missed Captain Jack Sparrow's point about the "capture of strategic territory", etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata K. Mitra reviewing Ganguly's Indian Foreign Policy: Oxford India Short Introductions which takes a similar line, remarks:

[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.

But, Mitra is just another "person". TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter C. Ladwig III goes:

..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...

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear as daylight from the above sources, India mounted the standoff and months later, returned home having achieved almost nothing of significance. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the only scholar — of repute — who claimed the outcome of the standoff to have been ambiguos, was Srinath Raghavan. He had published the paper during his PhD though I cannot find it now. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are still extrapolating from sources far more than summarisation permits. The conflation of a standoff with an operation to justify your point of view is something pointed out to you and yet not addressed.

As for the only source that does talk of the standoff as a whole, Ganguly, summarised it as a "Pyrrhic Victory", i.e. a victory but with high costs. To then cite this amongst your list of sources to support "failure" is astounding. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conflation of a standoff with an operation The 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)[reply]

How can you accuse others of not obtaining consensus when you yourself are the only one revert-warring your preferred revision back based off your personal assessments, completely discarding what scholars have to say in the process? Solblaze (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting to the state before your contentious edits. The issue with leaving as is (which I did leave it as for a while, to avoid starting another edit war), is that there is a mass removal of content that is especially inviting for vandals to push stuff in (as one did, which was why I moved back to the stable version). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Please protect this page

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)[reply]

Pakistan victory in this Standoff.

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)[reply]

Some moderator please fix this. WikiHence (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel case WikiHence (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ Kumar, Sunil. "India's National Security Dilemma." Asian Affairs, vol. 31, no. 3, 2004, pp. 131-155.
2. ^ Ganguly, Sumit, and S. Paul Kapur. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Islamist Militancy in South Asia." The Washington Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, 2010, pp. 47-59.
3. ^ Chari, P.R. Indo-Pak Nuclear Standoff: The Role of the United States. Manohar, 2009. ISBN 978-8125034802.
4. ^ Kampani, Gaurav. New Delhi's Long Nuclear Journey: How Strategic Restraint Challenged India's Security. Lexington Books, 2019. ISBN 978-1498595392
5. ^ Bhattacharji, Preeti. "India Recalls Troops from Border." CNN, 16 Oct. 2002, edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/16/india.pakistan/. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023.
6. ^ "The Futility of Operation Parakram." The Hindu, 27 Dec. 2002, www.thehindu.com/2002/12/27/stories/2002122700251000.htm. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023
7. ^ Ali, Shanthie Mariet. "The Failure of Operation Parakram." Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 12 Jan 2012, www.ipcs.org/article/india/the-failure-of-operation-parakram-3654.html. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

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)[reply]

Themapinator, I don't see the number of casualties mentioned as five or nine in 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Prelude. Am I looking in the wrong place? --Ferien (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]