Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff

message: What are people's opinions about merging Terrorist attack on Indian Parliament (2001) with this article? PBP 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is still sort of incomplete. I need to add more information to it. The terrorist attack is only a part of the standoff — it triggered the standoff but cannot be considered synonymous with the standoff itself. Thanks AreJay 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Dear Ghandar please stop acting like a child and face the facts rather than claiming its a pro islamist writer all your articles are from right wing hindu websites and from anti pakistani writers you dont see me moaning about them its time to be fair.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to find a source other than an op-ed by a crank that backs up such statements? Please don't get some Jamaati rag to substitute, even Arundhati Roy is better.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghanadar lies 

message: Poor dude died in 1997.
Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Shankar Dayal Sharma (as a commander) 

message: Some people here continue to amaze me. This was a standoff, not an actual conflict. Therefore, having a template with sections such as "combatants", "commanders", "strength" and "casualties" is plain silly. Having this template not only undermines the credibility of this article but also adds to the confusion. I see that no consensus was achieved before the template was added and I cannot think of any logical argument in support of keeping this template. --Nosedown (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.. this template was added by someone in Islamabad, Pakistan. Why am I not surprised.. --Nosedown (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warbox template, again 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_June_3/ai_86623659
** In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-05-25 07:17:17, 404 This requested article does not exist.
** In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-06-10 08:47:39, 404 This requested article does not exist.
--JeffGBot (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/15/top1.htm
** In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-05-25 07:17:30, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
** In 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff on 2011-06-10 08:51:44, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
--JeffGBot (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Okay, first of all, we know for certain that the number isn't "none"--it has to be no less than 6, since reference 16 (covered in the May-June section) verifies 6 Pakistani soldiers killed.  But it's ludicrous to think the number isn't in the many hundreds--unless Pakistan's military is somehow that much better than Indias, that they can inflict over 700 deaths while taking nearly none of their own.  Until we know for sure, we have to write "unknown" in the infobox, not "none".  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that reference, thanks for pointing out. Per now, we should make it "6" as we have a reference. We cant put "unknown" there because now we do have a known number. It is quite possible for that figure to be true as the war never occurred and many of the casualties happened due to artillery fire or from own mines. In anycase, we cant put things in infobox because it is hard to believe them instead of relying on citations. 6 should be added till a larger number is found. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's....I'm going to say it, even if it's arguably incivil: that's absolutely positively insane.  The news article does not state that the number of casualties was 6.  It says that the number of casualties from a single fight was 6.  And putting something like ">6" implies something not true.  We have no source that speaks to the number of casualties, so none can be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no source either which would state that there were any more causalities than that number (from that fight) other than a gut feeling... --lTopGunl (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have a source stating anything for the number of casualties for the standoff, so you cannot put anything in the box.  And I'm not saying that the number of casualties from that fight was greater than 6. I'm saying that the number of casualties in that specific fight has no correlation to the total number of casualties.  We cannot speculate, and putting "more than 6" implies something that isn't true. Unless sources appear, that box will simply have to stay as "unknown". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure, I just added it.  It seems a little odd to me (like we want a source stating that the number is unknown), but I can see why you think it might help. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistani casualites 

message: TG is adding, what in my opinion is weasel wording to try ang get around the need for a citation needed tag. Adding the word allegedly instead of finding a source for the Pakistani denial is almost certainly not right. In fact WP:ALLEGED bears this out. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined Without the Pakistani denial being sourced then there are no way to know that the wrongdoing is undetermined. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Denial has no relation in itself to the allegation. This is a 'claim' as previously termed in the sentence. 'Allegedly' is the right word here per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. You need to read WP:WEASEL before quoting it. Also your continued following of my edits is not going unnoticed. The only possible way you got here is from my contributions given your previous history and block because of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again with the paranoia. See  this list as to how I got here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would have agreed if I wasn't seeing many of this 'coincidences' after a history like that. You've violated WP:3RR by adding that tag in the end instead of discussing content. It does not matter what content you add, your edits still count to 3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to report me. Your inability to follow the same essay you continually cite is highly amusing Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BRD applies to you here. You need to discuss on the first revert instead of readding content. Even your tagging is incorrect. You are assuming a dispute here. No weasel words have been used. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: LMFAO, god your a card sir. You added content, it was reverted, you should have discussed instead of edit warring. Perhaps you need to reread your favorite essay ) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, this was already listed as a claim in the same sentence. I just made it coherent. Your assertion of weasels is completely incorrect. POV attribution is not usage of weasel words. Feel free to call in WP:30. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: POV Attribution means you actually say who made the claim, not just add "allegedly" (which Darkness shines is correct falls under "words to avoid").  I've fixed the problem by, you know, reading the source, finding out whose POV it is, and saying that.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please note that if the claim that Pakistan denies it is not sourced in a few days, I'm taking it out. This is a very contentious claim, which must be sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text: (ec)No it was not, It is not a claim, it is a statement of fact. You must have missed my previous post. 'In fact WP:ALLEGED bears this out. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined Without the Pakistani denial being sourced then there are no way to know that the wrongdoing is undetermined. So you see, without the Pakistani denial being sourced it is not a claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel 

message: The two sources recently added  do not support the statement. The sources give are Pakistan denying having anything to do with the attacks, not denial of ISI support for the group. Also is World Socialist Web Site really a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ISI-Pakistan are not two different things. ISI does not necessarily release its own press details. You've been previously clarified about this. Also, the statement is "Pakistan denied this charge". This is clearly mentioned in the sources. You should self revert the 'failed verification' tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstand. You may not use a source in which Pakistan says they had naught to do with the terrorist attack to say the ISI have not supported them, especially as one of your source's says they have. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to look at the sentence in the article again. It doesn't mention ISI. And certainly ISI is an organization of Pakistan. Pakistan's denial is the official one. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to listen, India claimed that the attacks were carried out by two Pakistan based Terrorist groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), both of whom India has said are backed by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency,[4] a charge Pakistan denied One follows on from the other. You need a source which says they deny ISI support of the groups, or any Pakistani denial of support for the groups. Using a source whic hsays they had nothing to do with the attacks = they deny having supported the groups is WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are clear in context here about the denial. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in your own mind. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification 

message: I have restored the figures of the Indian Army casualties in the infobox. There had been a demand from a user regarding "sources". The reliable sources from the famous Indian newspaper "Times of India" were already present. Could someone explain me why I was reverted? Faizan 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Faz, I had not seen them in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. Faizan 08:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties in the Infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070929150119/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp
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 10:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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/20070929150119/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/06/05/story29703.asp
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 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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/20120604034533/http://ipripak.org:80/papers/india-pakistan.shtml to http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml
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) 04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff. 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/20031130174834/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=25384627 to http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=25384627
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106131408/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/25/india.pakistan.kashmir.missiles/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/25/india.pakistan.kashmir.missiles
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919042907/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C09%5Cstory_9-8-2009_pg3_5 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C09%5Cstory_9-8-2009_pg3_5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202061336/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-5/Sunils.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-5/Sunils.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) 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the end of "Confrontations" in May–June is the following suppose to be references? "This was the only operation to include Cadets in the history of Indian Defence  ." Adamdaley (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they References? 

message: "However, Pakistan has been frequently accused by various countries other than India of backing designated terrorist groups, as well as by sending state-trained terrorists across the Line of Control and de jure India–Pakistan border to launch attacks in India proper." (with credible sources belonging to US State Department)
Removal of: Anything related to Kashmir insurgency. 
This in my opinion is a fair compromise and add well needed context and information to readers.  Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add that the US State Department isn't a reliable source. It lists groups like the Iran Revolutionary Guards as terrorists despite it being a government paramilitary of a sovereign nation. It's decisions are based on politics not neutrality. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Regardless of your views on whether or not the US State Department is neutral or not, this is intended to portray and reflect the US government's views on this issue. Similiar to how you may feel that the Times of India is biased towards the Indian government but you added quotations from the Indian defense minister from that platform. The same logic applies Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind what the US State Department says, I was just interjecting to say its not a credible source for neutrality. I don't mind including it as long as the claim is given credit to whoever said it (as well as any opposing opinion included for the purposes of NPOV). I thought you meant to include the statement without saying who said what. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised paragraph on article 

message: Deletion of large amounts of information from the lead citing a "general rule of thumb" is not constructive. Editors wishing to change the layout of the lead should discuss their proposals here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2023 

message: This page should be protected as it is clearly Pakistani victory (I have edited and Givin references) and IP address Indians keep on changing it. 2407:D000:1A:3218:95AC:5B89:8A92:BA42 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please protect this page 

message: It is a obvious Pakistani victory, I have many references: Kumar, Sunil. "India's National Security Dilemma." Asian Affairs, vol. 31, no. 3, 2004, pp. 131-155.  Ganguly, Sumit, and S. Paul Kapur. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Islamist Militancy in South Asia." The Washington Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, 2010, pp. 47-59.  Chari, P.R. Indo-Pak Nuclear Standoff: The Role of the United States. Manohar, 2009. ISBN 978-8125034802. Kampani, Gaurav. New Delhi's Long Nuclear Journey: How Strategic Restraint Challenged India's Security. Lexington Books, 2019. ISBN 978-1498595392  Bhattacharji, Preeti. "India Recalls Troops from Border." CNN, 16 Oct. 2002, edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/16/india.pakistan/. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023.  "The Futility of Operation Parakram." The Hindu, 27 Dec. 2002, www.thehindu.com/2002/12/27/stories/2002122700251000.htm. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023  Ali, Shanthie Mariet. "The Failure of Operation Parakram." Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 12 Jan 2012, www.ipcs.org/article/india/the-failure-of-operation-parakram-3654.html. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023. WikiHence (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some moderator please fix this. WikiHence (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Daniel case WikiHence (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan victory in this Standoff.  

message: Change the number of casualties in the attack on the Indian Parliament from five to nine, Source:  https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/parliament-attack-victims-remembered/article2711970.ece Themapinator (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't see the number of casualties mentioned as five or nine in 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Prelude. Am I looking in the wrong place? --Ferien (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024