Talk:1999 Pakistan Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

message: To Bharatveer, Chankyathegreat: The article was in a good shape after having gone through a debate b/w me and Idleguy. Most of the POVs had been removed and claims of both sides had been listed. I am in no mood to fend off every jingoistic Indian who happens to come along and list their own versions of the article every other day. You guys have deliberatly removed the impartial information while trying to give the article an Indian biased viewpoint. Please refrain from this obvious vandalism.
To Idleguy: Quite shameful the way you have suddenly 'disappeared' once your countrymen have started vandalising the article to their own nationalistic viewpoints. I thought you wanted the information to be backed up by impartial sources but now it seems you are happy to see the Indian opinionated POV. So much for your holier than thou attitude. Red aRRow
:It is ow protected. Please discuss. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalistic paranoia

message: Pakistan claimed that the plane was unarmed and the debris was found on the Pakistan side of the border.
What does this statement prove. It is just absurd when you say that the plane is unarmed and hence it can fly anywhere. Try to fly it over the U.S. 
Debri fall is not what proves that the aircraft is within Pakistan. When the plane is hit in one area it will not go up in smoke and disappear, it will still move sometimes there are instances when after hits planes returning and landing safely. First explain why the debri is also on the Indian side. 
General's latest Joke is Pakistan has provided nuclear technology to India and also retracting his own writing in the book saying that Pakistan has not paid any money to suppress the Pakistan link in the 9/11 attack.
Chanakyathegreat 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogical rotten, as usual untrue claims by Pakistan 

message: "Pakistan sent a company of commandos, equipped with laser-guided, shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, to the site near the border."pl name these missile.User talk:Yousaf465
:I suggest you read the sources carefully before arbitrarily tagging the article as POV (declared as a good article after third party reviews) and questioning sourced statements. If you had done so then you'd have even seen the TIME magazine's picture of the missile in question here Read the sources man. Idleguy 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with new editors is that they don't bother to read the sources or the talk page where issues of POV have already been thrashed out with Pakistani editors (like RedArrow) to arrive at a consensus page that's been peer reviewed for quality and neutrality. Simply tagging them as POV is in violation of Wikipedia policies, more so when sources have been exhaustively provided and cross checked for factual accuracy and maximum possible neutrality. Idleguy 11:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please find a more credible source that says contrary to what the TIME magazine article says. Atleast the article was more mature than what your talk page comments seem to be phrased, which is confusing at times. P.S. Read the talk page discussion above to know who redarrow was. Idleguy 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you kindly provide the original website link from which you got this quote? btw, the TIME article was less about technical nitty gritties and more about the political state and the incident's aftermath. Idleguy 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, you've provided me the main page of the website, can you point the exact web page from which u got this info. btw, there's nothing like political correctness especially in a political magazine and the relations of the two countries was already damaged in 1999 and people were saying a lot of things on both sides of the border. Thanks. Idleguy 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't tag needlessly without reason or rhyme. The source was from Washington Post. Now you seem to dispute everything, even if the authors weren't Indian at all. Idleguy 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the entire paragraph is fully sourced. Going by what you have said here it's clear you haven't read it thoroughly and simply tagging it as POV is a violation of Wikipedia policies. If you think only a specific statement is wrong then only that has to be tagged not the entire section. btw your link in FAS actually says a laser guided anti-tank missile can very well be used against aircraft of some types, though their success rate is questionable. So I don't see what's the sci-fi you are continuously challenging! And it only says it's tough for the terrorists to use it, given that they need to be covert in their operations, but a well trained pakistani soldier with backup fire shouldn't find the level of use impossible. Idleguy 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Crazier things have happened to commandos in Pakistan. The SSG were used in some hair brained schemes in 65 and 71 (in the words of Pakistani authors themselves). But just to resolve this dispute, I'm removing the "laser" thing which is the only thing you have objection against. thanks. Idleguy 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So you say that your own Gen. Musa Khan (Pakistan's then Army Chief in 1965) himself was crazy to write in his book (My Version) about this failed attempt, not to forget the Chief of Air Staffs among other people! You should read more of your own Pakistani writers on this incident. The problem with most wikipedians is that they don't read the sources provided but are ready to challenge everything just because what their governments have been teaching them is nothing but propaganda. If you still have any doubts if this para dropping into indian territory took place, then please read this Pakistani Defence Journal which starts with the official line on who "started" the war, but goes on to show who really instigated things and has a para on S.S.G. COMMANDO PARA DROPS. This from the Pakistani air chief himself. The "Conclusion" from the author is pretty much on the mark that if people cover up facts and the military leaders aren't held responsible, then history would repeat itself. Idleguy 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's something I've seen far too many times and in person too, a fact that I've even seen an editorial written in Dawn newspaper that Pakistanis are being misled and kept in the dark. For instance you believed that the "drop" was a figment of wikipedia's imagination amongst other erroneous beliefs about the war. There is also a lot of frustration among the educated elite in Pakistan that there is hardly any commission or inquisition following a war (1971 being an exception). After kargil, India produced 2 commissions (1 official and 1 secret, both now in public viewing), but Pak has yet to do so and it's not a laughing matter. Idleguy 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the Sci-fi sentence 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have added two citation needed tags for two statements within the article. Please add sources for those within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Nehrams2020 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added inline citations for the requested lines. I hope it satisfies the criteria now. Idleguy 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on adding those so quickly. The article at this point meets the GA criteria and will maintain its status. Keep improving the article, and ensure that all newly added information is properly sourced. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stumbled on this article - I think the GA rating is generous to say the least, but maybe I am influenced by recently noticing that the Theodore Roosevelt article was C-rated. Just from a copyediting standpoint (which I am working on), this article is currently lacking.Vontrotta (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I've removed the article due to inconsistent formatting, too-short lead and use of partisan sources rather than scholarly sources YellowMonkey  (cricket calendar poll!) 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review on hold

message: Almost all articles on controversial India related topics are biased in favour of Indian nationalist position. This is obvious as Wikipedia is a democratic work and Indians on Wikipedia (editing from many countries) are numerous. Please don't complain. This is just the concept of Wikipedia at fault 2.124.209.50 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry Brother but i disagree. Its more like "Truth Hurts", our fellow wikipideans from Pakistan often raise objections on Neutrality in my opinion their Biased education is to blame for that. I will quote a line from blog a Pakistani News Reporter. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or have an education biased against india "The public was led to believe that India had launched a ‘surprise attack’ on Pakistan, and that ‘Hindu India’ would be taught a lesson. Thus the armed forces had full public support." you can read more here . cheers.  http://mehmal.blogspot.com/2007/09/myth-of-september-6-1965.html --dBigXray (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Nationalist Bias in most controversial articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atlantique incident. 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/20140304092141/http://www.defencejournal.com:80/sept99/post-kargil.htm to http://defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm
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) 22:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atlantique incident. 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/20070202195038/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.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) 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified