What's new

Indians and Wikipedia

Pakpak

Pakpak

ODI Debutant
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Runs
9,250
I was on Wiki this morning and boy have the Indians been active. Every battle that was inconclusive is edited as an Indian victory and any Pakistani victory is labelled as inconclusive (example is Chawinda :)) ). Hilariously all the pages are locked so can't be edited further easily either.

Sadly this kind of propaganda is where they excel at and we don't. Though it helps they have a billion more people than us who do nothing but trawl online for such things. Some examples of those are here on PP as well I suppose.
 
Another example is 1965, which can be best described as a stalemate since neither side enjoyed any sort of decisive advantage. And despite outnumbering Pakistan 3:1 in men India lost 3000 to Pakistan's 3800, lost 3 times more planes (75 vs 20) and around only a 100 tanks less, the Wiki articles labels all this as neutral claims. The entire article also claims the war was a standoff and in the past the result was always written as stalemate, yet now despite all the above still there someone has edited it and locked to ''Indian victory'' :))
 
On every ind pak isue Wikipedia is as credible as Indian media and its desi style literature is so much teasing that the subject or the incident repeat in almost every sentence.
 
And I don't blame them. In fact they are doing what should be done when it comes to their country. We are the ones with no patriotism. Good for them. We should be doing it everywhere as well. That's how wars are fought today. Through media and information.
 
Or may be the articles are protected to save them from Pakistani propoganda. There are neutral sources on what happened in 1965.

India captured 2.5 to 3 times more territory than Pakistan and Pakistan who started the war to get Kashmir had to run back to save Lahore.

May be while giving the losses record, poster should have given the record of who captured how much territory
 
Last time I checked Wikipedia about Kargil and all indo Pak wars was way back in 2015. The info is still the same as it was back then . Stop making yourselves a fool. There is a reason why Pakistan never got Kashmir. You can keep living in your la la land of your media claims controlled by the lumber one army.
 
hqdefault.jpg
Thank god someone took this picture. Otherwise Pakistani public would have labeled this as Hindu Yahoodi sazisss or would have asked for evidence.
 
Pakpak said:
And I don't blame them. In fact they are doing what should be done when it comes to their country. We are the ones with no patriotism. Good for them. We should be doing it everywhere as well. That's how wars are fought today. Through media and information.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Indians are always trying to do something for their country in whatever way they can while we have so many asteen k sanmp who are willing to sell their soul.
 
Pakpak said:
I was on Wiki this morning and boy have the Indians been active. Every battle that was inconclusive is edited as an Indian victory and any Pakistani victory is labelled as inconclusive (example is Chawinda :)) ). Hilariously all the pages are locked so can't be edited further easily either.

Sadly this kind of propaganda is where they excel at and we don't. Though it helps they have a billion more people than us who do nothing but trawl online for such things. Some examples of those are here on PP as well I suppose.
Click to expand...
DOnt worry we also excel at this propoganda

We celebrate defence day for the 1965 war as Pakistanis think we won this war.

Infact, once this whole class and a teacher of mine turned against me when i said that the 1965 war was a stalemate. We are made to believe that we won that war
 
SpiritOf1903 said:
That picture is '71
Click to expand...

I did make the point in other threads that one of the reasons India doesn't want a war with Pakistan is that the '71 war which Indians like to brag about was a unique situation where the Pakistan army was caught on the other side of India in a war ostensibly in a civil war with East Pakistan. India's intervention was opportunistic and caught the Pakistan forces by surprise and left stranded. A war over Kashmir would be an entirely different prospect and probably reflect the '65 war where India suffered heavy losses in proportion to their size and budget.
 
1965 was a stalemate

At the end of war both the army returned to their original position and left whatever they gained.
 
slipcatch said:
Soldier, you were victorious, we are well aware of how you were directing the war from the comfort of your home.

You have made India proud.

Congrates.
Click to expand...

:))) ok this one was hilarious

As for the 65 war, i thought indians agreed that it was stalemate, because both armies left what they had gained.

But Pakistanis believe that we won.
 
[MENTION=34705]cric[/MENTION]ektjoshilla do bother to read about the tashkent declaration

btw if India captured more land, why they agreed to sign the tashkent declaration?
 
Major said:
:))) ok this one was hilarious

As for the 65 war, i thought indians agreed that it was stalemate, because both armies left what they had gained.

But Pakistanis believe that we won.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Pakistan ever wanted to gain any territory from India. It has always been about to keep them engaged.

Neither of the country has ever won any war post independence, as Captain mentioned, the only reason Indian believe they won war in 71' because of a civil war in Pakistan and East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

The only country that has even won any war was Pakistan in 1947, becoming Independent.
 
Last edited:
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I did make the point in other threads that one of the reasons India doesn't want a war with Pakistan is that the '71 war which Indians like to brag about was a unique situation where the Pakistan army was caught on the other side of India in a war ostensibly in a civil war with East Pakistan. India's intervention was opportunistic and caught the Pakistan forces by surprise and left stranded. A war over Kashmir would be an entirely different prospect and probably reflect the '65 war where India suffered heavy losses in proportion to their size and budget.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. In 1971 India attacked us in the East where we had 30,000 men and almost zero airforce fighting a rebellion and Indians at the same time. India attacked the West too but we did pretty well in the Western theatre despite their full efforts.
 
Major said:
[MENTION=34705]cric[/MENTION]ektjoshilla do bother to read about the tashkent declaration

btw if India captured more land, why they agreed to sign the tashkent declaration?
Click to expand...

Look up any neutral source, India had captured 2-3 times more territory. Including the strategic Haji Pir Pass.

The Tashkent declaration was signed due to international pressure by soviets and US.

If you read you will know that the ceasefire between the two countries was also due to huge international pressure.
 
slipcatch said:
I don't believe Pakistan ever wanted to gain any territory from India. It has always been about to keep them engaged.

Neither of the country has ever won any war post independence, as Captain mentioned, the only reason Indian believe they won war in 71' because of a civil war in Pakistan and East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

The only country that has even won any war was Pakistan in 1947, becoming Independent.
Click to expand...

Adding Salt to the facts doesnot R3verse what happened.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Look up any neutral source, India had captured 2-3 times more territory. Including the strategic Haji Pir Pass.

The Tashkent declaration was signed due to international pressure by soviets and US.

If you read you will know that the ceasefire between the two countries was also due to huge international pressure.
Click to expand...

Where did i said that india did not capture more territory?

At the end, they return the land both countries. It was a stalemate.
 
Major said:
Where did i said that india did not capture more territory?

At the end, they return the land both countries. It was a stalemate.
Click to expand...

It was a peace agreement due to international pressure, on the battlefield India had the upper hand.
 
cricketjoshila said:
It was a peace agreement due to international pressure, on the battlefield India had the upper hand.
Click to expand...

According to sources, Indian PM called his general from Tashkent before signing the treaty. The general indicated that they have almost exhausted the ammunition. It was later found out that India had used only 20 to 30 percent of their capacity while Pakistan was running at 80 percent. It was a stalemate at the end. It would have been a decisive victory if India pressed on. It is consdered a victory by India because they captured more land. It is considered by Pak a victory because the casualties were disproportional and the land lost wasn't considerable. However, Indian army's presence in Lahore was the reason for a moral victory for India.
 
Major said:
Where did i said that india did not capture more territory?

At the end, they return the land both countries. It was a stalemate.
Click to expand...

In wars no one ever wins, both sides eventually lose.
The day everyone realises that will be the day half the problems of world will end.


Coming to 1965 indian army captured more land however if you think of it rationally the decision to withdraw was right.

1. The International pressure was immense, India was not a huge powerhouse and was dependant on international community (mainly Russia) at that time.
2. If we had kept the land the area would always be in turmoil and we will waste resources and lives protecting that area.
India were already a poor country at that time and to waste money on occupying a Pakistani territory would have made sure the economy suffers a lot. Which would have led to civil rights in other parts of India due to lack of opportunities and growth.

So there was no practical benefit in keeping the occupied land.
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:
rhony said:
According to sources, Indian PM called his general from Tashkent before signing the treaty. The general indicated that they have almost exhausted the ammunition. It was later found out that India had used only 20 to 30 percent of their capacity while Pakistan was running at 80 percent. It was a stalemate at the end. It would have been a decisive victory if India pressed on. It is consdered a victory by India because they captured more land. It is considered by Pak a victory because the casualties were disproportional and the land lost wasn't considerable. However, Indian army's presence in Lahore was the reason for a moral victory for India.
Click to expand...

When did that happen? They were near it and bragged they would have tea in Lahore Gym khana. Which never happened ofcourse.

As for ammunition who knows, China also threatened India if the war dragged on. Pakistan's biggest mistake was not taking the chance when during 1962, India would have never sat back in our position.
 
big_gamer007 said:
In wars no one ever wins, both sides eventually lose.
The day everyone realises that will be the day half the problems of world will end.


Coming to 1965 indian army captured more land however if you think of it rationally the decision to withdraw was right.

1. The International pressure was immense, India was not a huge powerhouse and was dependant on international community (mainly Russia) at that time.
2. If we had kept the land the area would always be in turmoil and we will waste resources and lives protecting that area.
India were already a poor country at that time and to waste money on occupying a Pakistani territory would have made sure the economy suffers a lot. Which would have led to civil rights in other parts of India due to lack of opportunities and growth.

So there was no practical benefit in keeping the occupied land.
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

Pretty much common sense post.
 
Pakpak said:
When did that happen? They were near it and bragged they would have tea in Lahore Gym khana. Which never happened ofcourse.

As for ammunition who knows, China also threatened India if the war dragged on. Pakistan's biggest mistake was not taking the chance when during 1962, India would have never sat back in our position.
Click to expand...

Around Lahore. Yes you are right. They did not move forward as there was expectation of cease fire and they would have had to return it.
 
rhony said:
Around Lahore. Yes you are right. They did not move forward as there was expectation of cease fire and they would have had to return it.
Click to expand...

Not really, they didn't move forward as their advance was halted after Pakistan started moving all their divisions to counter Indian offensives. Chawinda saw to an end in Indian offensives right before the ceasefire. Even before the ceasefire both sides had settled into defensive positions.
 
Pakpak said:
Not really, they didn't move forward as their advance was halted after Pakistan started moving all their divisions to counter Indian offensives. Chawinda saw to an end in Indian offensives right before the ceasefire. Even before the ceasefire both sides had settled into defensive positions.
Click to expand...

I see. But again my sources are Wikipedia :))
 
big_gamer007 said:
In wars no one ever wins, both sides eventually lose.
The day everyone realises that will be the day half the problems of world will end.


Coming to 1965 indian army captured more land however if you think of it rationally the decision to withdraw was right.

1. The International pressure was immense, India was not a huge powerhouse and was dependant on international community (mainly Russia) at that time.
2. If we had kept the land the area would always be in turmoil and we will waste resources and lives protecting that area.
India were already a poor country at that time and to waste money on occupying a Pakistani territory would have made sure the economy suffers a lot. Which would have led to civil rights in other parts of India due to lack of opportunities and growth.

So there was no practical benefit in keeping the occupied land.
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

The threat was of aid cut off. Thats why before the 1971 war Indira Gandhi signed the Indo Soviet treaty and that virtually insulated India from any threats.
 
rhony said:
Around Lahore. Yes you are right. They did not move forward as there was expectation of cease fire and they would have had to return it.
Click to expand...

The battle of Chawinda ended because ceasefire was declared. The ceasefire was declared due to international pressure and hence there was no fresh effort to push forward once the battle had reached a middle phase.
 
Pakpak said:
Another example is 1965, which can be best described as a stalemate since neither side enjoyed any sort of decisive advantage. And despite outnumbering Pakistan 3:1 in men India lost 3000 to Pakistan's 3800, lost 3 times more planes (75 vs 20) and around only a 100 tanks less, the Wiki articles labels all this as neutral claims. The entire article also claims the war was a standoff and in the past the result was always written as stalemate, yet now despite all the above still there someone has edited it and locked to ''Indian victory'' :))
Click to expand...

a_tahir said:
1965 war WASN'T an indian victory. It is a known fact.
Click to expand...

Cpt. Rishwat said:
I did make the point in other threads that one of the reasons India doesn't want a war with Pakistan is that the '71 war which Indians like to brag about was a unique situation where the Pakistan army was caught on the other side of India in a war ostensibly in a civil war with East Pakistan. India's intervention was opportunistic and caught the Pakistan forces by surprise and left stranded. A war over Kashmir would be an entirely different prospect and probably reflect the '65 war where India suffered heavy losses in proportion to their size and budget.
Click to expand...

The 1965 war started with the Pakistani Operation Gibraltar, which was an attempt to wrest Kashmir by force. It failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar

During the war, the most likely casualties are that India lost more planes, and Pakistan lost more men and tanks.

The Indians seized a lot more of Pakistani territory, with their Army reaching the outskirts of Lahore. The Indian PM Shastri agreed to return the greater amount of Pakistani territory seized, which was likely due to his being a pacifist (someone who grew up in the age of Gandhi). He probably should have driven a harder bargain, possibly getting Pakistan to agree to Indian controlled Kashmir being part of India in return for seized Pakistani territory. Historically the side which has won more territory gets concessions from the loser when peace is agreed upon, but apparently Shastri did not believe that wars should lead to gains.

According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States "Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India"" (the Pakistani martial superiority that our friend [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] keeps talking about).

The Wikipedia article lists 12 neutral:

Clear Indian victory (7): Library of Congress Country Studies; Library of Congress Country Studies; Arif Jamal; Devin T. Hagerty; Gertjan Dijkink; David Van Praagh; and William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek.

Likely Indian victory (4): Stanley Wolpert; Dennis Kux; Robert Johnson; John Keay; and Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz.

Neither (1): Office of the Historian within the U.S Department of State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Neutral_assessments

If you believe that Wikipedia is inaccurate, then get an account and edit it instead of whining. The difference between posting to an internet forum and Wikipedia is when you post something on Wikipedia which is not backed by a "Reliable Source", it is susceptible to deletion by other editors.
[MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION]joshilla [MENTION=147345]Stalin[/MENTION]
 
Pakpak said:
Pretty much. In 1971 India attacked us in the East where we had 30,000 men and almost zero airforce fighting a rebellion and Indians at the same time. India attacked the West too but we did pretty well in the Western theatre despite their full efforts.
Click to expand...

Cpt. Rishwat said:
I did make the point in other threads that one of the reasons India doesn't want a war with Pakistan is that the '71 war which Indians like to brag about was a unique situation where the Pakistan army was caught on the other side of India in a war ostensibly in a civil war with East Pakistan. India's intervention was opportunistic and caught the Pakistan forces by surprise and left stranded. A war over Kashmir would be an entirely different prospect and probably reflect the '65 war where India suffered heavy losses in proportion to their size and budget.
Click to expand...

It was Pakistan which attacked India first. If they were aware of their inability to fight war on two fronts, they shouldn't have initiated the war in the first place.
 
Last edited:
LastManstanding said:
It was Pakistan which attacked India first. If they were aware of their inability to fight war on two fronts, they shouldn't have initiated the war in the first place.
Click to expand...

We attacked because Indians had been openly funding rebels to the point where entire East Pakistan was up in flames. India would attack us too if a revolt on the scale of Bangladesh took place in Kashmir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FearlessRoar
"Nothing changes, we played against them seven months back in Asia Cup and World Cup": Rohit Sharma
Replies
10
Views
1K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Technics 1210
More than a game - Modi and India's cricket supremacy
2
Replies
90
Views
5K
guard
G
Stewie
US mainstream conservative media exposed. Tucker's true feelings about Trump revealed
Replies
21
Views
1K
daytrader
daytrader
MenInG
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] "Mentally and skill wise I have all it takes to play for Pakistan": Omair Bin Yousuf
2
Replies
119
Views
8K
amvbfm
A
MenInG
Post of the Week: In memory of our dear departed friend, DHONI183
Replies
10
Views
2K
Poseidon
P
Back
Top