Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

Result field

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts/Archive 4

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flags in infobox

Adiiitya, you have reinstated flags to the infobox with this and subsequent edits. This is quite contrary to the relevant guidance at MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, which is explained in fuller detail at MOS:MILFLAGS, particularly when it uses many sub-national flags which have no meaning defined by use in the article. Flags in the infobox must serve a useful purpose. MOS:MILFLAGS explains how they might do this. However, because there are only two belligerents in this war, they do not serve a useful purpose as defined in MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As I already stated, the flags have their meaning, and they summarize the diffence branches of the forces which take part in the war. Moreover, there are some articles in wikipedia where flagicons are approved even when there are just two belligerents. ĀDITYA 13:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ICON, It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians. While the flags may be intended to convey information, they don't, because their meaning is not established for the reader. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments do not carry any particular weight. It would need to be demonstrated that such other content represents best practice, which usually means compliance with the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Our readers are not expected to be Military historians, but we as wikipedia editors, are expected to provide the knowledge. The flags used in the article are not the new ones, but the ones used during the war of 1965.

There weren't more than two countries involved, but there were many units of armed forces involved.

Adding the flags of the units resolve the problem of adding written ranks like Admiral or Chief of Army Staff which would have made the wikibox unnecessary lengthy. ĀDITYA 08:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Adiiitya, per Template:Infobox military conflict: Ranks and position titles should be omitted. Your comment indicates a lack of understanding of the pertinent guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

About territorial losses and gain

Hello guys!

Here is mentioned that Pakistan mostly occupied territory in Kashmir but that's not true Pakistan mostly occupied territory in rajisthan 1200 sq miles.

Source: History of Indo-Pak War of 1965. Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmed (ret). ISBN 969-8693-01-7

And secondly 1617 sq. miles of territory was occupied by Pakistan as compared to 446 sq. miles of territory occupied by india

source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1429931

PWC786 (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral sources say otherwise, and you must immediately stop disrupting Battle of Basantar, Aziz Khan (general) and Pakistan Army by adding poor sources. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/kargil-war-india-pakistan-general-pervez-musharraf-5312505/lite/

That's an indianexpress article about Dalunang Operation that conducted by Aziz khan. PWC786 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Time to update tank losses

Enough already - OP blocked as a sock, Pax98 level 4 warned for harassment.

According to the book "The Battles of the Cold war, 1948-1999" by Tucker-Jones both India and Pakistan suffered from 200 tank losses. PWC786 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Come on, man!! Tucker-Jones didn't even mention the 1965 war in passing in that book!! Here - The Battles of the Cold war, 1948-1999" by Tucker-Jones And besides, where is your evidence for these 200 Indian tank losses, again?? I mean, we have got over 180 pieces of captured tank wreckages, images of which can be found all over the internet!! Where the hell are yours?? Pax98 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC) No, he mentioned you can checkout page number 78 PWC786 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Ok, so what?? What did he base his claim on?? Where did he obtain his figures from?? At least, in India's case, we have got actual verifiable evidence in our hands in the form of over a 180 pieces of captured Pakistani tanks, images of which can be found all over the internet!! What do you have?? Pax98 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC) My dear Wikipedia is not work as you want Wikipedia works on the bases of neutral refrences and your claim 180 pieces captured is based on your imagination not even any single military historian agree on that. Either they site that any of their books. PWC786 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC) 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Here, a hundred and five of them to be exact , all from just one single encounter, in the sugarcane fields around Asal Uttart!! I guess this picture is my imagination as well, LMAO!! Pax98 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Again where is the source? Reddit is not a reliable source, reddit is a discussion place for people and secondly there's no more than 30 tanks in picture too. PWC786 (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC) 🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's just from one angle, LMAO!! Major Agha Humayun Amin, a military historian himself admits that Pakistan lost a little over 100 tanks in the Asal Uttar engagement alone, including 78 or so Pattons!! Just give up now, kiddo, it's getting embarrassing(and boring too). Just ake the L like a grown-up. Pax98 (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Two major tank battles fought between India and Pakistan in 1965 war Battle of Asal uttar and Battle of Chawinda and in these battles both countries lost most of their tanks. David R.higgins a military historian written that in his book Patton Vs Centurion in battle of Chawinda Pakistan lost 61 tanks meanwhile India lost 180 tanks and A.H Amin is stated that India lost up to +100 tanks in battle of Chawinda. And in battle of asal uttar Pakistan lost around 97 tanks meanwhile India lost 32 tanks. PWC786 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC) 🤣🤣🤣🤣 180!! India's 1 Armoured Division didn't even have that many operational tanks in Chawinda, LMAO!! The division had only 4 tank regiments under its command, which means at most they could have mustered 45X4 = 180 tanks in total but by the time Chawinda started, it had suffered some attrition and the regiments were not at full strength!! Ergo, what you're claiming here would be a mathematical impossibility. As I said, just give up. The Indian Army lost only 29 tanks in the whole Sialkot offensive. Just accept the fact and go to bed. Pax98 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Again you have no source of your claims. Give me the reference of any neutral historian or military historian who claim that India only lost 29 tanks? So, my friend read the book and I mentioned. Even declassified CIA report claims that India lost up to 300 tanks in 1965 war. And all book that I have ever read all mentioned that India lost up to 100 tanks in battle of Chawinda. PWC786 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Again you have no source of your claims. Give me the reference of any neutral historian or military historian who claim that India only lost 29 tanks?" - I'll ask you this for one last time - where the hell is your evidence?? Where are the wrecks of these 100+ destroyed Indian tanks??!! Just face it kiddo, you don't have any evidence because it never happened!! It was all fabricated, and cooked up within the walls of GHQ Rawalpindi by your top brass as a face-saving measure and to pacify the dumb gullible masses. I mean, you losers downed just one decrepit old Mig-21 and then flooded the whole damn internet with videos and memes of it!! You would have done the same with those tanks too, if you actually had something. "So, my friend read the book and I mentioned." - I already did, 'friend'!! And the 'book' is worth less than a piece of used toilet paper!! The author simply parroted the lies of your army officials without doing any thorough investigation of his own. And besides, I don't have to look for those 'neutral' sources because I can do simple math!! For fuck's sake, we sold out some 150 or so Centurion tanks to South Africa in the 80s and that would have been simply impossible had we lost that many tanks in Chawinda, given how few of those we had to begin with!! "Even declassified CIA report claims that India lost up to 300 tanks in 1965 war." - Ahhh... that declassified CIA fan fiction you mean, LMAO!! That same fan fiction also claims that India had started the war with more than 1500 tanks when in reality, we didn't even have half of that!! Yeah, those figures are about as believable as allah. 🤣🤣 "And all book that I have ever read all mentioned that India lost up to 100 tanks in battle of Chawinda." - Yeah, that's cause those sources never bothered to fact-check the lies that came out of your army's mouth and just went with them. And by the way, most of those 'NEUTRAL' authors happen to be Americans, do I need to say more?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Pax98 (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC) My sources is historians book not imagination just like you who's deny every reference and happy with his delusional math and thought. Not Western every historian that's not Indian and pakistai is neutral because their country is not fought in this war so they must be have no biases about the war. T PWC786 (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC) 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Thik hai fir, tu article edit karwake dikha. "My sources is historians book" - Nah, it's just your own wishes, or else you wouldn't have so readily discounted the views of other historians whose views do not align with yours. "ho's deny every reference and happy with his delusional math and thought." - Learn to speak proper English, you're butchering the language. "Not Western every historian that's not Indian and pakistai is neutral because their country is not fought in this war so they must be have no biases about the war." - 🤣🤣 If only it was that easy, lol. Don't be so naïve, grow up. Pax98 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "meanwhile India lost 32 tanks." - 🤣🤣 Why stop at 32?? Make it 32 thousands instead, I mean if you gotta lie then might as well make it big, right?? Pax98 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Again that's not my claim that's the claims of two military historian OSCAR E. GILBERT & ROMAIN CANSIÈRE write that in their book India lost 32 tanks in Asal Uttar PWC786 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Who gives a shit?? Even Zaloga, who happens to be among the most biased sob, puts Indian losses at Asal Uttar at 10 tanks, as does the official Indian history of that war. Pax98 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC) And anyway, where's your photographic evidence of 200 destroyed Indian tanks??!! I don't see you hold your own claim to such a high standard of scrutiny??!! Hypocrisy much, ehh kiddo?? 🤣🤣 Pax98 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Book: M48 Patton Vs Centurion by David.R.H, Page: 77 PWC786 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Yeah, I've read that one and the author pulled the figures out of his ass to put it gently. Pax98 (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Source: Tucker-Jones, Anthony (2021). Tank Battles of the Cold War, 1948-1991. Havertown: Pen & Sword Books Limited. ISBN 978-1-5267-7801-7 PWC786 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Regarding the recent edits to the strengths and casualty sections of the infobox by Pax98 and PWC786: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a simple summary of key facts. It is not a place for detail nor is it a place to try to capture nuance. There is way too much detail in the infobox and the place for this is in the body of the article. An analysis of the tanks in the war is a key issue for the article, where the types and numbers on each side and their losses are important elements of this analysis. There is a table at Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Assessment of losses. This is where we should be focusing our attentions and not the infobox. We might also tabulate the initial strengths but better still, we might combine both sets of information to give a more complete picture. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC) No, I am not lying. I am giving proper reference and page number also. Anyone can read that. PWC786 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Fatal casualties of 1965 war

According to these two references india suffered from 3,712 killed and 7,638 wounded meanwhile Pakistan suffered from 1,500 killed and 4,300 wounded. Even the number that Indian parliament give according to them india suffered from ~3,200 killed and ~8,000 wounded. But here is written that india suffered from only 3,000 casualties and Pakistan 3,800 while giving only 1 reference. Comsats777 (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

References

OP has already been banned for being a sock account and the sources posted are non-credible, yet the changes have been made. I do not have the permissions to make those edits. Someone please fix this

According to an October 1965 (just a few days after the war ended) CIA report, the Pakistanis suffered between 3,000 and 5,000 dead.

An official history, that is still technically classified, puts Indian military dead at 2,862 and Pakistani at ~5,800. When calculating the number of Pakistani dead, the Indian history also includes the insurgents neutralised in Kashmir during Pakistan's "Operation Grand Slam". Going through the text and subtracting the number of insurgents killed gives us a number of around 3,200 Pakistani regulars dead.

Sid of Sid (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In your given CIA report written that in between 3,000 to 5,000 Pakistani soldiers killed and wounded. But you are saying 3000–5000 dead. And the second reference you are giving is Indian military publications website Raksha Bharat and here is written that these figures is according to Indian official history. Hilal publication a Pakistani military publication who's given the numbers of Pakistani official history like there's written that only 1,000 Pakistani soldiers killed and 9,000 Indian soldiers killed.[1] Find neutral source. 123Librarian (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@123Librarian

A couple notes on source issues for the Indo-Pak Wars and how they impact our understanding. These notes should clear up your qualms about "neutral sources".

• Brigadier Siddique Salik, a staff officer on General Nazi's staff, wrote in his Witness to Surrender (OUP; 1979) that the Pakistan Armed Forces do not condone the publication of any account that does not abide by the official party line
• Further, despite the fact that Brigadier Salik was a decorated Pakistani officer, he was denied access to official sources when he was writing his history of the 1971 War
• All we have for the Pakistani side of sources is rhetoric - in all their wars. The army says a number and it is accepted as fact
• Another example is the suppression of the full report of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, which investigated Pakistani losses in 1971 (this report has still not seen the light of day, only an IMMENSELY abridged version is available)
• India only began commissioning official histories of its 3 wars with Pakistan and 2 with China in 1992
• Historians were given full access and allowed to pull from whatever source base they seemed fit
• Furthermore, the Indian "versions" are not so easily waylaid by over-reporting of casualties
• When the casualty figures for the Pakistani side are not known, they are simply not mentioned (eg. 1st and 2nd Battles of Hilli in 1971, or the infantry losses in the Battle of Asal Uttar in 1965)
• When they are mentioned, they are based on number of bodies recovered and not an abstraction

Some notes on 1965 specifically:

• The war of 1965 has been a contentious one for anyone looking to tot up loss rates
• As foreign observers have mentioned, it has been incredibly difficult for even neutral parties to do so - the declassified CIA reports are almost certainly the ones that get closest
• Furthermore, the Indian historians' rough estimate of ~3,200 Pakistanis KIA (excluding the number of militants killed) is much closer to credible international estimates than to the ones posted by OP, which are based on the Pakistani party line

The Indian version can also be corroborated by looking through memorials and the death notices issued by the Army in the Gazette of India (if anyone has the patience to do so, which I don't).

My point is that we need to represent the facts as best we can. If need be, all 3 main sources should be mentioned - the "official" Pakistani count, the CIA estimates and the Indian count (which would include the distinction between insurgent and soldiers in stead of being just a sum total of 5,800)

Sid of Sid (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

1965 war Pakistan official history is written by Major General Shukat riza and 1971 war Pakistan official history is written by Fazal Muqeem khan who had complete access to source, you can read that. The second thing is that you are twisting things just to make your claim true just like you did by using CIA report. CIA report says that India lost 300 tanks Pakistan lost 250 tanks, India lost 4,000 to 6,000 troops killed and wounded and Pakistan 3,000 to 5,000 killed and wounded. But you in upper section wrongly claimed that 3,000 to 5,000 dead. And the strength size is CIA report is ~950,000 solider meanwhile Pakistan is only ~180,000. India 1,500 tank, Pakistan 900 tanks that's all figures conflict with all other scholar figures. That 5,800 pakistan killed only claims by some Indian account you can write that in Indian claim section not in neutral that's all I can say. And your claim that Pakistan don't write his official history is also a false claim. And you only source after CIA report is Bharat raksah that's is extremely biased source how you can even think about that it should to write in neutral portion. Your another false claim about 2 war of China India the fact is that China and India fought only 1 war in 1962, in 1967 there was only a 2 day Border skirmishes and you are falsely calling it a war just because India don't get defeat in it if that's a war then 2021-2022 India China skirmishes also a war. 123Librarian (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

> Bharat Rakshak is extremely biased source

Are you blind? It is not, itself, a source. It is a repository. The files that it has linked are PDFs of the 1992 copy of the 1965 Indo-Pak War's history.

> other scholar figures

Again, no. Most scholarly works on this war forego all attempts at talking about casualties (eg. S. N. Prasad's 1965 Indo-Pak War: A History, for an Indian perspective, or Farooq Bajwa's From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965, for a Pakistani perspective).Those that do, such as OP's original sources, provide completely baseless figures and numbers.

> your claim that Pakistan don't write his official history is also a false claim

This has been proven to be true time and time again, most often by Pakistani officers themselves. It can be best observed in the officers' accounts of the 1971 war. Consult the following works to understand their criticisms of how the Pakistan Army stifles any attempts at a free and fair history.

• Brig S. Salik, Witness To Surrender (Oxford University Press; 1977)
• Maj-Gen Khadim Hussain Raja, A Stranger in My Own Country (Oxford University Press; 1979)

For more academic critiques of Pakistan's concerted efforts to silence any semblance of fact, consult the work of Yasmin Saikia. A tranche of historians from the 80s and 90s have worked on the Indo-Pak wars of the previous decades and they all say the same thing - Pakistan cannot be trusted with its official figures and narratives.

> CIA report says that India lost 300 tanks Pakistan lost 250 tanks

This has long since been understood to be an incorrect assessment, especially in the face of Pakistani armoured losses as photographically evidenced after the Battles of Chawinda and Asal Uttar (the former of which has grossly overreported Indian losses once more on its wiki article).

Furthermore

The sources OP (who I also suspect is you, given your account's short history and only contribution being to this talks' page) has used to cite his 1,500 claim is completely useless. It, itself, cites no sources and has almost certainly consulted EXTREMELY outdated research on the topic, likely referring to articles published in Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 18, Issue No. 4, DOP Winter 1965 . These numbers are, themselves, based on reporting sanctioned by the Pakistani military authorities which are demonstrably unreliable. Meanwhile, a US Library of Congress history of Pakistan puts Pakistani dead in the war at 3,800. Unlike OP's sources, the LoC monograph has 60 pages of references and dozens of pages of appendices. Sid of Sid (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Shelling of Padhana

I believe I have heard of the lifting and bombing of Padhana in this war . Shall we find sources to add to this ? ਪਿੰਡ ਮੌੜੇ ਖੁਰਦ (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

yes, you may do it if the sources are not biased. @ਪਿੰਡ ਮੌੜੇ ਖੁਰਦ ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indo-Pakistani war of 1965's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

• From East Pakistan: lsi.gov.in:8081/jspui/bitstream/123456789/7452/1/1422_1951_POP.pdf
• From Ayub Khan: "Pakistan: Ayub 's Acid Test". TIME. 14 April 1961.
• From Hindi: "Sequence of events with reference to official language of the Union". Department of Official Language. Archived from the original on 2 August 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2025

Hello user, I have observed that there are some misinformation regarding the "territories lost" in the infobox section. Because according to Neutral sources Pakistan lost 1840 sq. km of territory while India lost 540 sq. km of territory during the course of the war. I request that the error be rectified.

Thank you Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources to back up your suggested change. RegentsPark (comment) 14:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Are India's plans to celebrate 1965 war 'victory' in 'bad taste'? - BBC News

Read this article. In the 'Gains and Losses' section it is clearly written.

Thank you Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Are India's plans to celebrate 1965 war 'victory' in 'bad taste'? - BBC News

Read this article and go to the "Gains and Losses" section.

Thank you Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, your given article crealy point out that these territory and material losses given by India. We don't write these figures in neutral portion. And secondly there's already mention about these figures that your are giving. 123Librarian (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

But this losses have been given by bbc, which is neither sponsored by India nor by Pakistan. So it is a neutral source Aranyadeep2008 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it is, but the source itself mention that these figures given by Indian government in the portion of "Gain and losses" as you mentioned before. 123Librarian (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2025

Changes made by user:Taeyab on the 8th of April, 2025 should be reverted. The edits involve false numbers being added to the summary section with the war's result. It has long been accepted by neutral parties that the war ended with India annexing far more territory than Pakistan did. The present numbers are therefore projecting a false image.

The old edits and sources have been present on the page for years, and are supported by numerous neutral sources. The latest edits are, therefore, a deliberate attempt to malign India.

Suggestion for change: Revert back to page as of 1 April 2025, after the edit made by user:CrashLandingNew. The oldid is 1283412078. R Anant (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim that India annexed "far more territory than Pakistan" during the war is factually disputed by several credible and neutral sources. Multiple historians and analysts agree that while India may have gained strategically important land, Pakistan captured a larger total area during the conflict, particularly in the Rajasthan desert.

Supporting Sources:

Origins of Political Extremism by Manus I. Midlarsky (Page 256):

“The most recent estimate has Pakistan occupying 1,600 square miles of Indian territory (1,300 of it desert). India conquered 350 square miles of Pakistan, but of greater strategic value, as it was located near the West Pakistani capital, Lahore, and the industrial city of Sialkot as well as in Kashmir.”

Magnificent Delusions by Husain Haqqani (Page 115):

“Pakistan had occupied 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, 1,300 of it in the desert, whereas India secured 350 square miles of Pakistani real estate. But the Indian-occupied Pakistani land was of greater strategic value...”

Battle for Pakistan by John Fricker (Page 121):

“Pakistan captured 1,200 square miles of Indian territory in the desert.”

Summary: The total land area captured by Pakistan during the conflict was greater, although India's gains were more strategically located. Hence, describing the war outcome in terms of "India annexing far more territory" is misleading and misrepresents the geographical and strategic realities.

Any neutral and historically accurate summary should reflect both:

The numerical advantage in territory held by Pakistan, and

The strategic significance of India's gains.

3 of the sources you mentioned are both Indian sources and cannot be considered 'neutral.' I am also an extended-confirmed user. Taeyab (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. request is clearly in dispute so out of scope for an edit request Cannolis (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Contentious edits

There have been a furry of edits, changing large swathes of information, with no discussion and continuous edit warring. I have restored the last good version. This being a longstanding High Importance article, these sorts of changes MUST be done with consensus, not through edit summary exchanges. Please feel free to raise these discussions in this section or make a new one as necessary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CapnJackSp,

Changing the information was based on various sources done by a few editors over a long time, your restoring it to the "last good version" doesn't help the article. It would be right to revert if -

1. The sources used are not credible enough

2. The sources used dont represent neutrality (somewhat biased)

In this case, neither of these two scenarios are happening, as the sources are both neutral and credible enough. Again, informations used in the article do not rely on only one source but numerous sources. Therefore directly reverting the article is not the right thing in my opinion.

Your opinion on changing the information with consensus is a valid point, and editors are welcomed in doing so. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I note that @Taeyab has still not bothered to reply on the TP before restoring their preferred version with an edit summary. This will be reverted back to the stable version prior to the mess being created.

With regards to the edits, there are two types of problems here. One is regarding the blatant disregard to actual editing procedure, and Two, is the content itself.

For the first, you can go through the diffs below.

1)[2][3][4][5]
2)[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

This is just last month, and I dont think anyone could reasonably argue that 14 reversions with no TP discussion is not an edit war. I note that Taeyab has been very much involved in these edit wars. They have also been a habitual offender w.r.t. the BRD cycle, reverting other (often experienced editors attempting to intervene in the chaotic edits) with no consensus attempted. [20][21][22][23]

Despite being told to discuss on TP, they have continued to revert to their preferred version.

Regarding the content, it is an obvious and major undiscussed change that attempts to completely change the portrayal of the war by inserting dubious sources. The stable version, supported by very strong academic consensus, has been overwritten in this edit conflict by a new version that attempts to downplay the Pakistani losses. It is obvious that such a change must be discussed.

Pinging (non banned) editors for the discussion - @RegentsPark @Cinderella157 @User:Extorc. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on the content issue, the new version stands in stark contrast to the stable version. The new figures rely on cherry picking each figure from separate sources to present a figure more favorable to Pakistan. The sourcing itself is dubious, using at best tangential sources like "Origin of Political Extremism". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

How is it more favorable to Pakistan? Using neutral edits instead of biased Indian news is favourable to India not Pakistan? In this circumstances, we should use neutral references, as it was used before. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The previous version was good enough, as it showed things transparently, such as indicating the actual number of soldiers killed in action & wounded for both india and pakistan.

Using documented history from actual neutral historians is a better thing to do instead of using pro indian/pakistan sources which contradict eachother. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

And about "downplay the Pakistani losses", your " last good version" states 3800 pakistani casualties whereas the older version stated 1500 killed and 4300 wounded, which is much more than 3800 and more specified & accurate. I don't understand why specifying the losses is a bad thing. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@CaptShayan The 3,800 dead source comes from a US Library of Congress research report which is itself based on UN figures. Official Indian figures put total number of Pakistani regulars dead at 3,200 (1992 official MoD history), with another 1,900 - 2,000 Pakistani Kashmiri insurgents killed in the mo the before the official war was declared. If anything, the official Indian version would be more favourable to Pakistan than the most credible neutral version Sid of Sid (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sid of Sid Its not about puting pakistan in favourable position but to show the actual information. The real agenda is not to show Pakistan's less loss and India's more loss but to state the actual facts from neutral sources. Again, we can not use Pakistani source or Indian source in the neutral claim. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@CaptShayan The 1,500 claim comes form an encyclopedia that cites the Pakistan Army's official statement. Encyclopedias are, themselves, not a good source - it'd be like referencing a Wikipedia article in a Wikipedia article. The most credible neutral source is the US LoC report which puts Indian dead at around 3k and Pakistani dead at just shy of 4k. The earliest available information on the conflict, a CIA report from October 1965, puts the floor of Pakistani casualties at 3k Sid of Sid (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sid of Sid According to CIA report Pakistan suffered from 3000–5000 wounded and killed meanwhile India suffered from 4,000 – 6,000 killed and wounded.

Secondly, thats not Pakistan Army's statement. Pakistan put it's military figures 800 killed but neutral figure give the casualties number 5,800 including 1500 killed. Source - Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th edition page 600. ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the concerns raised above, which mischaracterize my actions and misrepresent both policy and the content dispute itself. While disagreements are natural in collaborative editing, it's important that we remain grounded in Wikipedia’s core guidelines rather than assumptions or one-sided narratives.

1. On Editing Conduct and “Edit Warring”

The claim that I’ve engaged in an edit war is based on a misunderstanding — or misapplication — of what an edit war actually is. According to WP:EW, an edit war involves repeatedly reverting others to impose your version without seeking consensus. But:

-I have not violated 3RR.

-My edits have been in response to abrupt, undiscussed changes to stable content.

Labeling reverts in a volatile article as “edit warring” — without acknowledging the disruption caused by the other party — is selective and misleading. It’s worth noting that my edits were also supported or defended by other editors, including @Colonel, who has offered well-reasoned, policy-based explanations that have been completely ignored by you in this conversation, leading me to believe you do not seek for a genuine conversation but rather to paint a false narrative of the situation.

2. On the Talk Page and Consensus

I haven’t ignored the talk page — but it’s also not required to discuss every minor change, especially when reverting disruptive edits or maintaining the stable version. That said, the inclusion of more neutral sources to present casualty figures was previously discussed by other users and had support. These edits weren’t out of nowhere; they followed from that ongoing effort to improve balance, not push a new agenda. What’s more concerning is the ongoing pattern of ignoring valid counterarguments, especially those raised by others like @CaptShayan, who has provided a number of points backed by sources and policy.

Ignoring arguments you disagree with isn’t how consensus is built.

3. On Content and Sources

The accusation that I am inserting “dubious” or “agenda-driven” material is not only unfounded, but veers into bad-faith territory. The sources cited are reputable, peer-reviewed, and consistent with WP:RS. Dismissing them without evaluating them on their merits sets a dangerous precedent — and risks turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber for one geopolitical narrative.

Let’s be honest: the so-called “stable version” leans heavily on a single national perspective. What had been done is introduce balance — not erasure — through neutral, sourced edits. That deserves engagement, not mischaracterization.

4. On the Tone and Targeting

It’s also important to point out that framing me as a “habitual offender,” and implying motive based on my nationality, is a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL. We are expected to evaluate edits — not editors. Personalizing content disputes only escalates tension and derails the process of collaboration. On checking you're own contributions it is easy to tell you have biased opinions. Your attempt at attempting to make other editors buy into your invalid claims will not work.

5. Moving Forward

I remain open to compromise, discussion, and even mediation if necessary. But we need to stop cherry-picking arguments, misrepresenting policies like WP:EW, and ignoring legitimate contributions from others. That’s not how consensus is built — and it certainly won’t help resolve the dispute. Taeyab (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• (Pinged) I can't really help here. I merely followed up a request on this talk page to revert a sock edit. Sorry!RegentsPark (comment) 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2025

Zorawar385 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The Territory Lost Section under Casualties & Losses heading is unverified and inconclusive, if Territory is Lost then it predictable of which country won he war. requesting to remove the last claim in Casualties & Losses