Talk:Indo-Pakistani air war of 1965

message: It seems to me that the article specifically chronicles only the Indian side of things and significantly neglects the Pakistani side. It appears lopsided.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.14.62 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed 

message: I have updated the assessment of this article from Stub to Start as there is too much content now for it just to be a stub. I have attempted to fix some of the problems that I found with this article, but I have no knowledge of the subject at all. I can only help with copy editing. As such it requires a few experts to bring this article up to a B class standard. I believe that the following improvements could be made:
* add a lead or introductory paragraph that concisely summarises the whole article;
* add some pictures;
* add in line citations: for a successful B class rating an article needs at least one in line citation per paragraph, more if multiple sources are used, or if multiple contestable comments are made.
Just a few ideas. Hope this helps. Once these have been done, you might consider re-assessment. This can be done by adding the article to the list at WP:MHA. If you would like more detailed comments, please consider adding the article for peer review. This can be done by adding it to the list at WP:MHPR. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I have removed the following text from the article as it is just a list of quotes, which is not encyclopedic. Also, they were just taken from the PAF website, hence I don't believe that they can be considered exactly neutral. Nevertheless, I am placing them here on the talk page for safekeeping and debate. 
The source of the quotes could be used, if they were to be added into the article in an encyclopedic manner, say for instance in an analysis section, however, just having a list of quotes is not good practice. This isn't meant to be an advertisement. Also, having them in the article as they currently stand creates neutrality issues. It would be better to actually locate the original sources, rather than just quoting the PAF website, as even if it is true (I am making no judgements as I am completely neutral on this issue) it just looks like a non independent source. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added  on these quotes (here) as they need verification from their original quoted sources. I'll add them back in an encyclopedic manner in due time and add the verification needed tags to the ones whose original sources are not present on internet. It seems this has not received any attention since quite some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately your personal feelings and knowledge is not a source of wikipedia, rather reliable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: Despite the Indians claiming superiority over Pakistani Airforce in Aerial Warfare, Independent sources however present a different potrait. Some of the overviews by Western Defence analysts and Defence Issues are given as under.
“By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war.”
(Patrick Seale, The Observer, London, September 12, 1965.) * http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/
“Pakistan’s air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style – Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.”
(Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis Publications – Volume 5)*http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/
“Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources.”
(Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, September 15, 1965.)*http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/
“India’s barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods.”
“The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses.“
(Indonesian Herald, September 11, 1965.)http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/
“For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.
(USA – Aviation Week & Space Technology – December 1968 issue.)http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/
“India is claiming all-out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady towards the front … These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side.“
(Roy Maloni- American Broadcasting Corporation)
"Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan’s pilots and Indian officers’ leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces.”
(Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965.)http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/
00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately your personal feelings and knowledge is not a source of wikipedia, rather reliable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Accounts of Aerial Warfare 

message: Two sources are presented here, one is an article published in the Flight International magazine, written by the British author John Fricker, the other is a book authored by Pradeep P. Barua. URLs are provided. Whether claims in the Flight International article are true or not, surely the info merits inclusion because of the prestigious source.
Reference: John Fricker, "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International magazine, published 1969 (page 89), can be viewed at flightglobal.com archives (URL: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200111.html?search=Pakistan%20Mirage%205), Retrieved: 21 September 2009
* PAF outnumbered 5:1 by InAF
* Both sides claimed to down around 100 aircraft of opposing force
* PAF fleet comprised 12 F-104 Starfighters, some 120 F-86 Sabres, around 20 B-57 Canberra bombers.
* Close air support to the Pakistan Army was very effective, PAF widely considered to have single-handedly neutralised difference in military strength of India and Pakistan.
John Fricker, "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International magazine, published 1969 (page 90), can be viewed at flightglobal.com archives (URL: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200112.html), Retrieved: 21 September 2009
* Indian claim of 100 PAF aircraft downed proven to be highly exaggerated when 86 F-86 Sabres, 10 F-104 Starfighters and 20 B-57 Canberra bombers flown in a parade after the war.
* The InAF is later believed to have admitted loss of at least 75 aircraft
* PAF admitted to losing 19 aircraft. 
* PAF's claim was confirmed by the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group. 
* PAF also claims to have had complete air superiority over the battle area from the second day of operations 
The State at War in South Asia, by Pradeep P. Barua, pages 193-194 (can be viewed at URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Dassault+Mirage+1971+war&source=bl&ots=-0DHCO00yR&sig=U7ZTAI86rgnWH1Lr3GpoeBYh3kM&hl=en&ei=4ZWlSsGSONCOjAfJhaHcAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=Dassault%20Mirage%201971%20war&f=false)
* Indian Army agrees to some extent with PAF claim of having air superiority over battle area.
--Hj108 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info and sources for inclusion

message: the article has been edited several times by vandals and i'm guessing by biased trolls who favor the Pakistani side here and somehow apparently it's become the war of "1969" according the template on the very top left of the page, the result before stated the PAF achieved tactical air superiority (which they didn't) and it was there victory admins please act put the page on semi protection...........--Honorprevails123 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals at work possibly  

message: IT says only 2 planes shot by Alam, so changed accordingly--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is out weighed by sources, do you see? There are some problems with your new addition as well. "Others including Indian govt." is a mislead phrase and a single phrase "Indian sources dispute this" would be more accurate. In addition, the mention that Indian sources dispute this is of no value since it is supported by Pakistani and International sources. Fricker's book is an international publication. I think your citation itself says that atleast three were shot down. Kachar was taken pow are you not counting that? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pushpendra's book does not support the text anymore after you have changed the text from the earlier version. it was a citation for the earlier content not for this one. and so you are using it wrongly, --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier content was not having the references that I added. And I'm not using the Pushpender's book to base the content or my arguments on (though I might have mistakenly left it there, as you might have noticed a lot of content didn't load and got removed because my internet was slow). It should be removed if its in the contradiction. I want you to review the citation esp. fricker's book. Your source here is out weighed and Indian dispute doesn't matter in that regard. I guess you have already been informed that it is an international publication on the 65 war article where you were aiming to remove Pakistan Air Force's performance. So a consensus is already there supporting fricker as a more reliable source than yours. If you weigh the neutrality of our sources, you have only the Indian sources in your favor while I gave you both Pakistani and International neutral sources. You have no case here. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: *The Earlier content was correctly cited before you changed it , also Its imp to note that your net becomes slow only when you have completed adding Paki PAKISTANI POV and blanked content related to INDIA, (it has already happened earlier also) Just Because you think does not make the point i have raised redundant. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't need to give proof for the obvious, I'm giving it to in good faith. Here is another similar edit that I made around the same time and I self reverted it due to blanking (and I didn't notice or I would have fixed this one too) . And mind you, you've already been warned for personal attacks and this is the last time I'm going to take that from you! I'm very sure that you are aware of this List of ethnic slurs#Paki. And the earlier content was not correct, I've provided established citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *oops thanks for correcting, you are wrong , i was just trying to shorten it. by the way do have a look at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter5.html to get more understanding of the citations that you are wrongly using.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were wrong to shorten it, I doubt your intentions. And this source is outweighed. It has no specified process of fact checking as specified in the RSN along with other objections, and is no match for the Flight Magazine or fricker's book. My source is previously established on consensus. WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Lets not create repetitive headings for the same discussion since it was already going on in the section "Pushpendr's book". The source I gave are already established sources and supported by consensus. This is another form of WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  M M Alam ← Pushpendr's book

message: I think this page should be moved to Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 and the current one should be redirected to that. For example see: Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971 and all other Indo-Pakistani war articles' name format. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Page 

message: Saw a content removal  by User TopGun. also the edit summary by the  same user shows the attitude of the editor. googling is not your responsibility agreed but then the content removal is also not your responsibility. If you cant or dont want to look for truth and citations, then its better to leave it for others too look for. Thats why the  tags are for. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the wiki's policies before the blame game. All uncited content that can be challenged by another editor and is not something trivial is subject to removal. See WP:V, WP:BURDEN & WP:VOLUNTEER. I do put  tags where I feel appropriate. You are wasting everyone's time here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian Aircraft downed 

message: Is hardly written in a neutral manner. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Globalsecurity is a respected source and is far more neutral than any indian source in the article 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Globalsecurity tries to install malware on your PC. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't encountered any issues with the site....109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. Stay away from it as far as you can. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Please read again what I have written, I never said the source was not neutral, I said it was not written in a neutral manner. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PAFF-86s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I'm removing the maintenance tags as I don't see any bias in the article or see the article written as a person essay. warrior4321✆  talk✉ mail 17:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing maintenance tags 

message: A bunch of POV pushers and likely socks are making this article even more messed up than it already is. Full protection may be imminent. In the meantime, editors of good faith need to sort this stuff out. This edit, for instance, is pretty idiotic since there is no Coggins citation anywhere. The same applies to the Van Creveld-sourced claim in the lead: there is no entry for Van Cleveld in a Works Cited list. Besides, the main text is written in just godawful English and needs a copy edit, as well as some structure. It contains random sentences like this one, "On 4 September, an F-86 Sabre was lost. The PAF claimed the cause to be friendly ground fire[21] while the IAF claimed to have shot it down", sourced to some wholly unreliable warloving hobbyist's website. I don't see how Bharat Rakshak can be called a reliable source in this context (see this edit--but that editor has already been blocked as a Nangparbat sock--yawn). There are problems all over the place. Fix them please. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war, etc 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090502014813/http://www.defenceindia.com:80/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html to http://www.defenceindia.com/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090502014813/http://www.defenceindia.com:80/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html to http://www.defenceindia.com/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: High level of bias from both sides, hence I would like the admin to enforce a ban on editing. Hamza 33 99 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing ban 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060613025308/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_321.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_321.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130105022240/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Tango-Chamb.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Tango-Chamb.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927220140/http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?arttype=Feature&articleid=637 to http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?arttype=Feature&articleid=637
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927040737/http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105015854/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Kill1965.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Kill1965.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929074854/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter09.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter09.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927185738/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319114802/http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117032228/http://yespakistan.com/memorialday/Rebirth%20of%20MMAlam.asp to http://www.yespakistan.com/memorialday/Rebirth%20of%20MMAlam.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117222535/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter8.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter8.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hullo,
I have some data on IAF's activity or lack of it vs PAF in East Pakistan. It differs slightly from the existing text and needs to be reworded and integrated with the text that appears in this article:
Of the 460 aircraft that the IAF had in total, approximately 270 combat-worthy IAF aircraft were on the western front against about 170 PAF combat aircraft. Another author indicates that the IAF had a large deployment of squadrons on the eastern front, leaving it with only around 290 aircraft in the west, against his researched Pakistani aircraft strength of 203. 
Aggressive but ill-directed IAF Canberra and Hunter strikes on the night of 6 September and in the early hours of 7 September against PAF airﬁelds in Chittagong, Kurmitola and Jessore drew a strong response from 14 Squadron PAF against Kalaikunda, Central Air Command’s pivotal base in Bengal. Sadly, IAF had such poor intelligence about the location of the only Sabre squadron in East Pakistan that it attacked every base there except Tejgaon, the air base outside Dacca, where 14 Squadron PAF had a detachment of 12 F-86 Sabre Jets. With zero air defence and aircraft parked in the open at Air Force Station Kalaikunda, IAF lost eight aircraft (four Canberras plus four Vampires) to two Sabre strikes on 7 September. However, PAF’s 14 Squadron was bested in an epic aerial battle over Kalaikunda the same morning as a young ace with 14 Squadron of the IAF, Flt Lt A Cooke, ﬂying a Hunter, shot down two Sabres.  I note that F/L Cooke's wingman is not named. He was Fg Offr Subodh Chandra Mamgain 6760 GD(P), who was awarded a VrC.  Comments welcome. I'll wait till May 10...That OK?
--Moitraanak (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition/Integration of Data : IAF vs PAF in East Pakistan  

message: Should this article be mentioning Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare owing to the already added sources in the article and new sources in above section? USaamo (t@lk) 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Uninvolved editors can conclude consensus but anybody in good standing can comment. Any user participating in any RfC is obviously an involved editor and has his set of reasons to support particular version of article. And, I here acted as proponent of particular reason in this RfC. There is no single reliable source meeting WP:HISTRS documenting history for your version. You need to focus only on arguing about it. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your accreditation for above sources upon WP:HISTRS doesn't needed at all since you have double standards for it. I have highlighted at multiple points your defination of reliability as to which bharatrakshak, indiandefence and other Indian media outlets are reliable but Aviation Week, GlobalSecurity, The Guardian and multiple other acclaimed newspapers, journals and authors including Indian journalists accepting Pakistan's edge are not reliable because they are accepting the Pakistan's victory in the aerial conflict which is hard for you to accept. Anyhow things are plane and clear for neutral editors to determine it, let's see where it goes. USaamo (t@lk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

text: this is a subpage about the aerial conflict of 1965 war, victory or edge is not being claimed in whole of 1965 war here. Most of the pages about battles of 1965 war are mentioning explicitly about the victory so does this subpage should. Also if the main article about Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 mentions about the edge as per assessment of losses then why not here... Moreover what you are mentioning about kills on ground are Indian claims, I've attached a nearly a dozen of neutral sources that clears confusion in this regard that who edged aerial battle. USaamo (t@lk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the theory about having 'edge over' is your own creation. Why it would be discussed by reliable sources? --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have presented a dozen references from neutral sources to back it up while a couple were already there to prove this edge. While on other hand there's nothing to refute it other than empty rhetoric. USaamo (t@lk) 08:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare 

message: I think your comment is not necessary here since you are a party to this ongoing dispute and you had given your opinion above and we have had long discussion as to it. Let others examine these all sources and give opinion. Thanks! USaamo (t@lk) 13:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Uninvolved editors can conclude consensus but anybody in good standing can comment. Any user participating in any RfC is obviously an involved editor and has his set of reasons to support particular version of article. And, I here acted as proponent of particular reason in this RfC. There is no single reliable source meeting WP:HISTRS documenting history for your version. You need to focus only on arguing about it. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your accreditation for above sources upon WP:HISTRS doesn't needed at all since you have double standards for it. I have highlighted at multiple points your defination of reliability as to which bharatrakshak, indiandefence and other Indian media outlets are reliable but Aviation Week, GlobalSecurity, The Guardian and multiple other acclaimed newspapers, journals and authors including Indian journalists accepting Pakistan's edge are not reliable because they are accepting the Pakistan's victory in the aerial conflict which is hard for you to accept. Anyhow things are plane and clear for neutral editors to determine it, let's see where it goes. USaamo (t@lk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

text: this is a subpage about the aerial conflict of 1965 war, victory or edge is not being claimed in whole of 1965 war here. Most of the pages about battles of 1965 war are mentioning explicitly about the victory so does this subpage should. Also if the main article about Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 mentions about the edge as per assessment of losses then why not here... Moreover what you are mentioning about kills on ground are Indian claims, I've attached a nearly a dozen of neutral sources that clears confusion in this regard that who edged aerial battle. USaamo (t@lk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the theory about having 'edge over' is your own creation. Why it would be discussed by reliable sources? --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have presented a dozen references from neutral sources to back it up while a couple were already there to prove this edge. While on other hand there's nothing to refute it other than empty rhetoric. USaamo (t@lk) 08:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Since IAF lost more aircraft than PAF, doesn't that make it an Attritional Victory for Pakistan?
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/iaf-defeated-paf-in-1965-war/ Xtreme o7 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attritional Victory for Pakistan 

message: Request change/addition of information on events of 18 sept. see pilots article for information.
On 18 September a Sabre was shot down by a Gnat Piloted by Squadron Leader Amar Jit Singh Sandhu of No 23 Squadron.https://www.orbat.info/cimh/iaf/IAF_1965war_kills.pdf
https://theprint.in/defence/1965-india-pakistan-war-how-iafs-heroes-slayed-pafs-superior-sabre-fighter-jets/287642/ Dvj1992 (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Why should we add pilot name? He doesn't have an article and isn't that notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been published. Please add his name. Dvj1992 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: spelling mistake in the edit. It’s is “Sandhu” not “Sandu”. Please correct it. Dvj1992 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2022 

message: Make correction to edit
“ On 18 September, a Sabre was shot down by a Gnat over Amritsar piloted by Amar Jit Singh Sandu”
Last name/ Surname mistake it is “Sandhu” not “Sandu” and add rank S/L.
Change to 
“ On 18 September, a Sabre was shot down by a Gnat over Amritsar piloted by S/L Amar Jit Singh Sandhu” 
Also link to page below 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Jit_Singh_Sandhu Dvj1992 (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Minor edit is needed. Dvj1992 (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: ARandomName123 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2023