Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Battle of Phillora

Bias

This whole article is derived from a single heavily biased website which is called Bharat Rakshak what makes it even worser is that there is only one source and one which is extremely pro indian basically it requires a neutral source and one which is not filled with heavy bias Errormeek (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has already decide by wiki team that bharat rakshat is a credible source, if have other sources you welcome to cite them. Removing the POV tag 69.120.197.58 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have did some copy-editing + i tried to militralise this article by giving only info that is related to the operation, i have removed the stuff that was making the article POV. I hv used a reliable third party source as a references. Now the article reads quite neutral.
Any thoughts ?

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Do we have Pakistani side of claims about tanks destroyed ? do we have neutral side of estimates regarding how many tanks were destroyed ? No we dont have...
Wht we just have is indian side of claims that are widely discarded by third party sources. Under these circumstances is'nt it good in the name of NPOV to just mention Unknown along with available indian side of claims ???? It more close to being neutral is'nt it ? More over the fact is that how many tanks were destroyed is still a myth so its already Unknown theoretically and practically. (not particularly; practically, as pakistani army must have known how many of their tanks were lost but they are silent. a tradition that all armies follow).

Any thoughts ??? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't neutral. If we only have claims from the Indian army, then that's what it is. Unless, another number is provided, it cannot be added to the article. Stating that the number is "unknown" is false and untrue. There is a known number, if another one arrives, it can be added if consensus supports that number. warrior4321 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
look, indian numbers as exaggrated right ? and pakistan isnt providing its side of number (they dont even talk about this battle) then whts the sum ? the sum is ....
India= 1-1=0
Pakistan= 0
Total= 0


and 0 = unknown isnt it ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of ceasefire

I am adding a line about UN resolution ceasefire being passed on 22 and war ending on 23. An extra day is given after ceasefire is signed because some soldiers on front might not know about it and thus soldiers should still remain alert, but those who have received the message could stop fighting immediately to minimize bloodshed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


read this [1] it mentions clearly on page 192 tht indian offensives were ceased with the retreat of 1st armoured division from sialkot front on 21st september(one and a half day before ceasefire). Thus pak had destroyed capability of indians of further offense on that front, making chawinda a decisive victory (according to ur second definition, enemy capability of fighting was fractured.)
so i urge u not to revert my edits or change wordings until u have an authentic reference to challange mine.

Regadrs

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of cited sources

Some individuals have been vandalizing cited sources including neutral ones like The Cambridge history of India. I would like to ask these individuals to do not make changes ion cited text unless they have reliable references countering the text.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its a general consensus in case of india vs pakistan that we relay upon third party sources, so please provide a thrid party source written by some third party author to verify your claims, sources by indian writers are obviously not acceptable when you are talking about a highly controversial issue of india vs pak.
As a matter of fact if an indian publishes his book with his "views" from Cambridge or if he publish it from banglore ... its considered same, country you live in dosnt changes your biases and views. Did i ever gave a references for chawinda or assal uttar from some pak writer residing in USA ? because its unfair to claim some thing "reliable" when you know in ur heart that it isnt. Obviously if india had a decisive victory at phillora then it must be found in third party sources, and you must not have any problem in searching such sources.
until you support your claims with a reliable third party source, your edits will be considered POV and it isnt vandalism to revert POV. So i am having the article back to neutral as it was before you started the edit war. Hope you understand the wiki policies.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i could find cambridge history of india by s.Chand (who is onviously indian ! ) i found this .. cambridge history of india by rapsam james [2] and phillora isnt even mentioned in the book nor does the contents of the books deals with part of indian history related to indo pak wars..... if there is some other version of cambridge history of india which covers this topic ... so kindly show it to me for verification.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that none of the author of The Cambridge history of India, Volume 6 ,ie. Edward James Rapson, Sir Wolseley Haig, Henry Dodwell, Sir Robert Eric Mortimer Wheeler, Richard Burn (Sir.) or editors Edward James Rapson, Sir Wolseley Haig, Henry Dodwell, Richard Burn (Sir.) is an Indian and it is a reliable source by wiki standards. Also as you can see almost the whole article is made up of Indian sources as rest of the neutral countries only care about the war as a whole and the battle was not big enough for the rest of the world to attract international attention, so does this mean you believe the battle never took place and want to remove the article as well???I cited the best I could find. You are free to add more neutral or Pakistani sources if you find, but unless you you have a reliable source countering the text do not revert. I request you to follow the words you have used above "i urge u not to revert my edits or change wordings until u have an authentic reference to challange mine."--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


as i have given reference above that there is no mention of indo pak wars in cambridge history of india at least in the version who reference is given by you more over u only gave the reference of book wht about the page number ? and i am saying it again i can bombard the article with pakistani sources which will abviously mention phillora as a minor skirmish which involved less then 40 tanks ! but wht will it do ? will it help making the article neutral ?wht are your intensions ? indian propaganda ? or a neutral source of knowledge for others ? if its indian propaganda then its vandalism and if you wanna make the article a neutral source of knowledge for others then you cant achieve it by adding controversial sources.
If you think adding indain sources is okey then lets have a third opinion on it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page that says that the battle was decisive and that India achieved victory destroying 66 Pakistani tanks is on page no 1013. It is in the volume 6 of the series as I said. I realize that by mistake I have given wrong isbn number of volume 3 as I was going through multiple volumes before editing, so please search by title, volume and authors that I have given on google books. I will correct the mistake as soon as possible. The you are welcome to add Pakistani sources but it will not change the fact that multiple Indian sources including Directorate of Public Relations and at least one neutral source state it to be a decisive Indian victory. We can then hopefully add the result from Indian, Pakistani and neutral POV--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link if you are not being able to find it. The Cambridge history of India, Volume 6 --UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


its ironic all the authors of cambridge history of india who were considered a neutral source of knowledge for battle of phillora were actually dead when the battle took place on 11th september 1965... they are Edward James Rapson, Sir Wolseley Haig, Henry Dodwell, Sir Robert Eric Mortimer Wheeler, Richard Burn (Sir.)
surprised ? may be .... its becasue the cambridge history of india is been written by several authors who's combine version was published in later years obviously with the names of those authors. actually it was cambridge history i.e history written by authors affiliated from cambridge press/university.
see these references that confirms that all the above mentioned historians were dead or at least 100 years old (which is impossible obviously ) at the time of the battle.
Edward James Rapson [3]
Sir Wolseley Haig [4]
Henry Dodwell
Mortimer Wheeler (he wrote indian history only till the period of ashoka.[5])
RICHARD BURN [6] and see his book [7] written in 1820
obviously other books having their name as author and modern date, are later publications.
So there is only one historian left who added material to it that deals with aftermaths of 1965 war i.e s.Chand.
So its obviously not a reliable source for the said topic.
best of luck for other neutral sources.

Regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these are the main authors and The Cambridge history of India uses multiple authors to write any single volume of the series. This fact only makes the reference more neutral rather than not. Also please read the reference properly, S.Chand is the name of the well known publication house and not and author of the book. It has tie up with Cambridge press/university for publishing and sale of materials their study in the Indian subcontinent. Also think twice before you accuse Cambridge to produce unreliable false materials.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


lolzz dude my question is still unanswered ... who wrote that indo pak war part ? was that those five dead author's ghost or something ?

until you have the answer ... your source is not only unreliable but also rather hilarious !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the individual author is written at starting of each chapter. Moreover it clearly is a reliable and neutral source as the book is encyclopedic in structure it is the responsibility of Cambridge University considers to be correct. If you are still not convinced then I would have to say I would not go any further explaining that a publisher is not an author of book, Cambridge University is neutral and does not have any individual motives to show that a particular side won for which you might think that they did not or where to find author's name as I am not here to convince you but to improve articles based on reliable sources and I very well know that it is a reliable source.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


my be u r here for some thing else ! .... whats the name of suthor who wrote the indo pak part ? ofcouse you havent read it ur self u just have did a source shopping and found this one proving ur point, you dont even know who wrote it !
Dont go for cambridge's brand name, as u have ur self said its just a collection of books written by several historians ... who knows the one who write the indo pak part was indian ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly know the name of the author who wrote the indo-pak part but I am not required to give it till I mention the main authors and the page number in the book. However it seems to me that you are here only for rejecting all sources through various theories like the publisher might have wrote the book, terming the reference as hilarious because it includes works from 18-19th century historians or that the person who wrote the line might be an jingoistic Indian who might have been recruited by Cambridge to spread Indian propaganda, unless it says exactly fit your POV. Even if I give you the name of the author who wrote the exact line you might come up saying that, a lot of "Indian students" study at Cambridge and they might have convinced the author and the officials including the head from Cambridge University Press Department who finally review the work before getting published to agree to something that was false according to you and collaborate against Pakistan. I am happy that at least we are not discussing on something published by US President's office or United Nation otherwise you might have said that it was an Kenyan or South Korean source as Barack Obama's father was from Kenya and Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. You would also possibly call mechanical science books as hilarious because it includes works from Newton who was also dead long before the book was published. Thus I am not interested in participating in this discussion and continue to give information of "who wrote which line in the book" and nullify your attempts to prove it as an unreliable source, unless you provide reliable sources with counter proofs. I would simply add the name of author when I correct the isbn number.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unprotecting the article; please do not start up the edit war again. If I see one revert from either of you to each others' edits on here, that will prompt me to undo your action and give you one final warning (next is a block for disruptive editing, unfortunately). Does this seem fair? Per this and [this], I am going to let UplinkAsh make the changes he has proposed; it seems as though this source is acceptable. Airplaneman ✈ 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)--Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made certain changes to this page regarding the number of Indian Tank losses and number of pak tanks destroyed. I hav cited verifiable sources from both countries to support my edits. I would suggest people must expand this article as it still looks like a stub.

results

Undid revision 462141947 by TopGun (talk) The Result is for the battle. stop adding information based on your personal likeness. If your Logic is to be followed the every battle article on wikipedia will have a REsult containing a paragraph instead of the direct result. Every small battle is followed by anpother. the infobox results are never given that way. such info goes in the article. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add a paragraph to it. Stop exaggerating. And the victory was not decisive since those divisions went to join the follow up battle. This makes the victory tactical. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont talk in thin air. give citations whenever you make such claims. the result is properly cited . you can read them to your likeness. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [8] --lTopGunl (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the above citation it supports the Claim for the Indian Success. About any other follow up event etc, they go into the article and its already there. and There is no particular reason making it fit to add it up in the infobox as i said above and i will repeat it If your Logic is to be followed the every battle article on wikipedia will have a REsult containing a paragraph(of multiple lines) instead of the direct result. Every small battle is followed by another. It does not mean that the infobox results needs to include all those follow ups as well. learn to make things simple and to the point. and refrain from reverting stuff in the article again and again without a consensus. if not you are welcome to goto DRN etc. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources point that there was a follow up battle and the same forces from both sides competed there. This is essential (and not 'making it long') so as not to mislead. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we are talking about the result of the Battle in the infobox. so its rightly there. go and read other thousands of battle pages and their infobox on wikipedia. almost all of them have some or the other follow up. but they clearly and precisely point only the result of the battle and never mention that after this the troops went here and the troops went there. be reasonable in your logic. you are pursuing nothing more than a fruitless arguement (with edit war) here--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, 'all the other' battles aren't an example of this (maybe a good article about a battle with the same scenario would be). The battle was not fought till end and rather Pakistani forces retreated to join at Chawinda. This was the result. And even so, the victory by no means was 'decisive', since the same forces fought back at Chawinda continuing the battle. Had it been decisive, the battle would have been over. That is factually wrong. And lets keep the talk page discussion to the content and not talk about each other's logic or put on personal comments (if at all you are interested in improving the content?). If you think the argument is fruitless, let me remind you, you are hear on your own accord and not forced to comment. In the edit summaries you tell me to get a consensus on talk as if you didn't get reverted by another user and here you are calling the discussion fruitless when it has barely started (even though I gave a source). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided does not state that the battle was tactical while the present sources state it as decisive. Please stick to references. We are not historians to decide which battles should be called tactical based on whether there was a follow up battle or not.

I would here also present an example where a battle can be decisive even though loosing forces withdrew and continued to fight on. Please read Battle of Gaugamela and Battle of the Persian Gate. Here the first one is decisive even though loosing forces continue to fight on.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my source with respect to the battle continuing at another place and the part of the result which mentioned the follow up battle. It does state that. Just saw your examples. In Battle of the Persian Gate, the result was: "Almost everyone killed or captured". How do you even think you can compare that to this? Battle of Gaugamela, just compare the losses! Even if they weren't so decisive as per the infobox figures they are still tagged with disputes and wouldn't have served as examples, but that would be a debate for that case. Your examples only favor my comment. The examples show extremely heavy losses on the loosing side and yet Battle of the Persian Gate does not use the word decisive. In any case, the battle was tactical and not decisive. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is interested in your views or whatever logic you use to come to that view. You can continue to change you reasoning to support your views. First it was follow up battle, now it is to compares losses. WP works on references. "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", read WP:V. The present references say it was decisive so your original research or reasoning is of no value.

I do not know what you made of my example. The example was Battle of the Persian Gate took place despite decisive victory at Battle of Gaugamela. So even your logic "Had it been decisive, the battle would have been over" is wrong. The scale of losses is irrelevant when deciding victory. Read Battle of Thermopylae.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No my reasoning has not changed, and I'm not giving my personal views but my comments base on the citation I gave. Yes, it is the argument of follow up battle still. The comparison of losses was to your example and not my argument. That was to say the cases are very different and the two separate battles that had their own different amounts of losses at different times are not comparable to this. The word decisive could have been used in the example you gave but the losses sustained in that case are not comparable to this battle. Hence your example is irrelevant. I know the policies and I'm not giving WP:TRUTH here rather I gave a verifiable reference that stated that the battle latter continued. Read WP:HEAR. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never told you to compare losses. The statement "Battle of Gaugamela, just compare the losses!" was made by you not me. As I already said the example was Battle of the Persian Gate took place despite decisive victory at Battle of Gaugamela and was only regarding result of the battle.

If you think this type of battle is unique in the history of world and cannot be compared to any other battles, you can continue to think so. Well I have explained enough as simple language as possible but if you continue WP:IDHT I have nothing more to say since I don't want to use it as a forum WP:NOTFORUM. Your reference does not say the battle was tactical while multiple references presently say it was decisive. Feel free to escalate the matter if you wish before making changes. The result cannot be changed based on your thinking with no reliable reference clearly supporting you view rejecting multiple reliable sources.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you might not have told me that, but when you give an example all the aspects come into play to check if the example is comparable to our case. Let me point it out to you; "Almost everyone killed or captured" in the first example you gave (the battle fought first). Now the next battle is certainly not the same taking place after a year. Where as in our case, the (same) Pakistani forces just retreated to fight again at Chawinda. So the follow up mention is necessary here. I think you WP:HEAR my point now.
The reference I've given is to support the follow up battle and not whether the battle was decisive primarily although it does imply that a follow up battle would mean that the victory was not decisive. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the (same) Pakistani forces just retreated to fight again at Chawinda another mindless wp:OR by lTopGunl what makes you think it was the Same troops. and if its Indo pak war of course it will be the indo pak forces fighting in whatever follow up war. dont expect UK forces to come up in the next battle, . u are just arguing illogically, learn to convince using facts and arguments not by illogical wp:ORs--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the dumbest counter argument ever. If you don't remain civil, you won't be met with good faith. Read the citation! And the citations already in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the only citation you used above is [9] i dont see its same forces as you wrongly claim or did i miss something (clarify) ? this source just says about the chronology of battle of phillora and Chawinda. thats true, and has already been shown by various citations.(and by the way i rarely see wp:GOODFAITH from you) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't expect it when you take the discussion away from the content. The citation clearly states about the follow up battle which took place after a delay of four days. And other citations have mentioned that too. Just because I've shortened the term to "follow up" for the infobox purpose, it doesn't mean it's not cited. And another user has reverted you as per that, which means this is not about just me saying this. So let's stick to the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously arent the same forces like you claimed above. The cite confirms the fact that 4 days after this battle another battle occured. The Fact that another battle occcured is redundant extra information for the infobox.I think you need to refer to other Battle Articles on wiki about it. The Result means Result and the result of the battle it should be, not what followed four Days later the ending of this war. (it is for the larger war, not a part of this battle in question)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d The result is in accordance with the source do not change--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Phillora