Talk:Muhammad Mahmood Alam

message: MM Alam's sources are a bit of a tightrope laced with original research and official citations and a collaboration of the two by some reports. But it is true that he is considered atleast in PAF as a air ace, though it is disputed in India. That has to be mentioned cuz without that context, it would appear that a certain Sitara-e-Jurat has an article without mentioning why he needs one in Wikipedia. Because he is claimed as an air ace, the article needs to state with sources thus.
The source from BR (though not the best) does point that it uses Official Indian history on the war as its source. Please read carefully. This isn't original research, though it appears it is a borderline case.
P.S. It appears the previous talk section has gone because of an improper move. There were some information regarding the controversial kills in that talk. Idleguy 06:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We certainly don't need sarcasm here. M. Shahid Alam is a notable scholar and his brother, and it will not hurt if his link is included in this article. Thanks --Falcon007 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should be included, just because he is MM's brother. Idleguy 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See also section was not a big deal. I could have argued with you regarding this but see no reason to push this. I hardly come to "all rights reserved articles". But anyway enjoy. --Falcon007 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: M. Shahid Alam

message: :Image:M M Alam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:M M Alam.jpg

message: According to this "MM Alam not just lied on the unbelievable incident of shooting down 5 hunters in 5 seconds, he also ran away from battle when he met Flying Officer P.S Pingale flying a Hunter. While MM Alam covered his cowardice by claiming shooting down two Hunters, one with gun and second with sidewinder, Flying Officer P.S Pingale was on record saying “No Missiles were fired – First he (MM Alam) opened up with guns and when we crossed over and I turned, he was already flying straight and away trying to get out of fight.” Flying Officer P.S Pingale also says “……. You know when you are young and you are in fight and all gung ho, you want the other fellow to put up a fight, you don’t want him to runaway…..So he ran away from the fight. I still recollect my thoughts at that moment, ‘this is not right; look at this fellow he is gone away!’” Read the whole incident in Page 255 to 261." Please factor in both sides of the argument before deityfying anyone. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse, like all PAF pilots he knew they were begging for mercy. India beat the hell out of them, it was embarassing. India proved that if need be, it can shoot down the whole of the PAF in 5 minutes, assuming the PAF are brave enough to take off...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.7.78 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: MM Alam did not fight against Pakistan in 1971. Why is it mentioned there? Please change it to correct.
SirDard1 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source to verify.  fetchcomms☛ 01:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed it; there wasn't a reliable source to say that he did.   Chzz  ►  01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The end paragraph of the section is not reflecting the source provided. Source [5] never gives any pretext on why he was relieved of No. 5 command. It also says he was removed from staff college on "absurd" pretext. IMO, absurd is not false. Also, article does not detail his services till retirement. I had altered to these but it was reverted for what so ever reason. I will revert back if OK (fear some revert war). Main thing is, the section is incomplete and factually incorrect as it stands now. -Adi (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) You've been reverted by Bbb23 because it is not ok. 2) Pretext means that the reason was incorrect... what you say is self contradicting. Bbb23's revision was just a bit more concise and avoiding WP:BLP issues --lTopGunl (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, why it is not OK? I have not contradicted, for I did not remove/change the word "pretext", I have retained the same. I only removed "false pretext" to "pretext". Again, incorrect and false are not synonyms in this case. What about other points? source given clearly says he was removed from staff college, not from his command. No reason given (false pretext or anything else) for his removal. So, I am reverting back. Please put false pretext if you want. Do not start wiki lawyering. I have not put anything judgmental/slandering or untrue, but only his career path (that too from the existing source). However, I would be glad to know exactly which clause my edits violated. Lets keep up wiki policy on being bold. Hope you understand. -Adi (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let Bbb23 explain his reverts, but you should know that when you say 'pretext' it already implies false and your current argument doesn't stand. There's no wikilawyering here... those edits were made after a concern was raised at WP:BLPN. You on the other hand seem to know the policy and I find it hard to assume that you don't have another account. If you do, you should reveal the relation on your userpage. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted some repeatedly inserted commentary that the subject was not involved in the Bangladesh Liberation War. I've also changed wording to keep WP:NPOV. JFHJr (㊟) 07:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was not repeatedly inserted (only reverted!) but you also reverted to earlier incorrect statements. Removed mentioning of his removals from command. Please explain (factual inaccuracy - he was never removed from his command under any pretext. it was from staff college). Nowhere there is a connection (direct, I mean) between his removal and personal feud with top brass (very POV and inference from source but let us leave the inferring thing to readers and state only facts). Also, why his non participation in combat duty in 1971 war is POV? it is mentioned in the source itself. Are you saying cited source (source 5) is POV biased?? Request you to undo edits in these cases as I have been warned for edit warring. -Adi (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that is fair that Bbb23 explains his reverts, along with JFHJr. Also, please do not assume something that I am not. Although my user ID is new, I have been contributing to wikipedia since 6 yrs. I was afraid of 1 more username and password. -Adi (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now. My apologies re college. I still think false pretext adequately describes the event under BLP guidelines. So far, consensus appears to support that. If you'd like to be more specific about what the premise was, or reword the service record to emphasize removal based on that source alone, I suggest you bring a thread at WP:BLPN. Perhaps contributors there will agree with you, and your view will be the ultimate consensus. That's worlds more productive than approaching 3RR. No comment on accounts as long as you're not socking. I hope you settle on this one :) Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair and square. Thank you. -Adi (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service with the Pakistan Air Force 

message: The basis of indian dispute of the claims is currently vaguely and possibly inaccurately worded, ("some such reason") which would lead one to dismiss the same. I have some reason to beleive that the cited sources (Fiza ya, others) may not be in accord with the actual wording of the wiki article in that respect. If anyone can verify the same, or provide a more neutral/different phrasing, I request them to do so. 
My attempt to clarify the indian claim on basis of a reputed source (bharat rakshak) seems to be chancing the risk of a revert war and I would rather throw it open to more authoritative sources
The intent is to provide a clear basis of what each side believes, based on accurate depiction of reputable sources and leave it to the reader to decide or dig furthe.
For more information, the history of the page and history of talk here Talk may be referenced.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barath s (talk • contribs) 09:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis of Indian dispute of claims 

message: I doubt the claim that PAF didn't made the gun camera footage public. The Nordeen's book (Air Warfare in the Missile Age) also has images from Alam's gun camera. --SMS  Talk 14:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Camera Footage 

message: Reference no. 2 gives M M Alam's sitara-e-jurat citation from Pakdef. I highly doubt it is official citation (as it says "world record even today" and stuff like that). Also, I think this particular website is non-reliable as per wiki. Can anyone confirm and provide Alam's official citation for SeJ? Else I will remove the source from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityang (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is not really good with inline citations, instead of simply removing un tagged content look for it within the citations provided. There's a good reason it will be in most of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sitara-e-Jurat citation 

message: I propose the article on the road named for Alam be merged here, the raods only notability is form Alam and notability is not inherited. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Article claims 5/6 hunters downed by MM Alam but the source mentioned doesn't give the details. More over, it has factual inaccuracy like Sqdrn Ldr A.B Devayya belonged to No. 7 Sqdrn and was flying Hunter (his sqdrn was No. 1 and he was flying Mystere)[1]. Somebody please correct or it will be corrected by me (I will remove unsourced claims).
-Adi (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced/Incorrect Kill Figures 

message: User  is making disruptive, non-neutral, unreferenced, POV edits to the article. In his two edits, he termed Alam's killings as "lies" and has placed numerous question marks. This is not a forum dear. Faizan (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Shaun dave 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Muhammad Mahmood Alam. 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/20100207194926/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter5.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter5.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 08:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Retired Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Tufail of the PAF is an aviation historian, having written Great Air Battles of Pakistan Air Force. He gives an account of this under Speed Shooting Classic : http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2008/11/speed-shooting-classic.html  The Bharat Rakshak article http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/1161-Koshy.html also specifically addresses these claims, drawing on numerous citations. I suggest that archive links of each be linked as references.
Barath s (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for additional External links 

message: Blogs are not reliable sources and are therefore avoided in articles. Please do not add Blog sites.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree that blogs are no WP:RS (tho rbth is an tertiary source) but why are you removing WP:RS references and instead of discussing it on talk, you violated 1RR (can be seen here) that was imposed on you (on me also but I didn't) yesterday? I provided references for S. Sajad Haider statement, you removed that too? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no excuse to remove reliably sourced content. Also, Bharat Rakshak is an WP:RS per Wikipedia, go and check it on WP:RSN. And, please stop adding WP:FAKE contents just to suit your point of view! Your sources only say per PAF claims that Alam destroyed 5 Indian aircrafts, etc. So how does this become verifiable? One needs to provide evidences like proof of wreckage, captured aircrew, gun-footage camera of shooting down the adversary, serial number of the aircraft and names of pilots (names provided by the fricker and PAF were also incorrect per Indian account), etc and it's on PAF to prove their claim but PAF has provided no/or incorrect evidences to back their claim. Beside, from where you see gun-footage camera of alam's jet in this source?  PAF has not yet revealed the gun-footage camera of Alam's sabre jet30 Seconds Over Sargodha – The Making of a Myth: 1965 Indo-Pak Air War, Chapter 5 , Bharat Rakshak these are mere close observation images from different angles have nothing to do with the claim. See this. In addition, this source only shows images of Folland Gnats fighting against the sabre and F-6 engaging against the Indian Su-7. It doesn't take rocket science to go and click on the preview button of the source and have a insight of it before making FAKE CLAIMS. 
You clearly violated 1RR, please go and do a self-revert (you will be reverted by tomorrow, anyway), or I will have to report at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 19:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: this issue cannot be verified for any modern source, so the only way is to correct the Alam 5 kills claim. This can be sourced and is verifiable, while the original war propaganda claim is not, not even from PAF sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs etc ongoing edits 

message: Kaiser_Tufail is a retired high rank ufficial of the PAF and an Historia, as he has even a wikipage here, evidently he is known for something. Differently than some PAF fans that absolutely take as Alam having shot down 5 Hunter in that famous battle, no matter how bad this is sourced (basically is a myth well debunked), he states CLEARY that:
-the only 3 shot down were: Kacker (27th Sqn), Bhagwat and Brar (7th Sqn). Jog and Chouldry (27th) were just DAMAGED. 
Right?
This is mentioned even in this article on Defence Journal: http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/wars.htm
And is replied in Tufali own (well documented) blog.
So what the hell makes some PAF fanboys so deaf respect to the so called 'verifiable' sources? This cannot be supported by ANY fact except the PAF war propaganda. And if even an HIGH UFFICIAL and HISTORIAN of Pakistan agreed to that, so what kind of support that war claim still has? I found ANY, except some outdated and poorly researched old sources.  
It's time either to call Tufail a LIAR, or change the '5 kills in 30 second' claim. That is, just a claim, like many other made in any war. UNSOURCED and UNSUPPOPTED by any evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The 5 kills is debunked (even for the sources cited

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Mahmood Alam. 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/20071229014857/http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/divisions/ContentInfo.jsp?DivID=7&cPath=62_68&ContentID=3942 to http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/divisions/ContentInfo.jsp?DivID=7&cPath=62_68&ContentID=3942
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) 19:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I still do not understand why some user (Mblaze) insists we add pov to the lead when independent sources also corroborate the information this is pure pov pushing and will not be tolerated. If you have a argument discuss it here rather than adding contentious material to an articles lead to fit your agenda. Meranashraf4i (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the "independent sources" confirm the number of kills, or confirm that the claim of that number of kills was made? There is a difference. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective wording in Lead and pov 

message: hi User:Störm any reason why you believe this category Muhajir people is not relevant here ? I see no reason to remove it from the article. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I got it, Isee a subcategory :Category:Pakistani people of Bihari descent was already added. my bad.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Muhajir people 

message: Currently there have been many edits to the page of M.M Alam where editors (suspected to be Indian) have been editing this page and replacing all the compliments of achievements with insults and fantasies. I urge the wikipedia community to look further into this matter and add a level of security to this page, as this page is repeatedly being a victim of cyber attacks Lolal2 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyber attacks 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion