Talk:Operation Chengiz Khan

message: What is the point of this quotation from Nixon at the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention?  Was this said in reference to Indian intervention in the Bangladesh war?  Context is not clear, I suggest that if this has no Bangladesh connection, it be removed as irrelevant.  
"Remarks of President Richard M Nixon on April 10, 1971 at State Department signing of Biological Weapons Convention.
Every Great Power must follow the principle that it should not directly or indirectly allow any other nation to use force or armed aggression against one of its neighbors. USIS Text, pp 1–2."
24.131.254.142 (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nixon quotation

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
I've put this on hold for up to two weeks because:
*Grammar is good in most places, but needs cleaned up. For example, "However, of its stated objectives, the PAF was unable to neutralise the Indian Air Force in the west. It most certainly achieved surprise."
** I am working on this. Will help if you tell me where it can be improved.
*Also check on punctuation. You have some spaces before references (10, for example) and other areas where you are missing spaces where you should have them. (15) You sometimes have references before punctuation, which should be cleaned up. (19)
**Working on this.
*Use of bold text in some places seem out of place, both within the text and within the references. (Did you intend to use italics?)
**Addressed. 
*Many of sections are stubby and look more like lists. Consider following the advice of Wikipedia:Embedded_list to make them flow better. 
**Sorted, I believe
*The last paragraph of "Analysis" may not be a neutral point of view. You have it well-cited, but it seems biased. Maybe state sources which were surprised.
** You will notice that this section only uses sources and references dervied from Pakistani sources, the "TIMES magazine" article written in December 1971 that analysed the conflict (and had accounts of this particular air raid), and the Air Combat Information Group (a neutral an multinational group on air warfare) article that is reference no.1. No Indian sources suggesting ineffectiveness has been included, deliberately, to avoid bias and POV. I hope this clarifies the NPOV issue.
*Consider using the standard citation templates for more consistent citations.
**Addressed below (References ordered to consistent order of "Title. Author if known. Source."'''
*I'm not sure your maps are fair use. They would be easy for you to reproduce based on the factual data and the non-copyrighted CIA maps, rather than using someone else's copyrighted maps.
**Addressed below and in the image pages.
I may not be able to respond to comments quickly next week, but I'll be back after that to look on your improvements. JRP 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats the status here, on hold expires today. IvoShandor 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look over in more detail tomorrow (when I am home), but it looks like there is substantial improvement here... but I'm not sure all the points were addressed. (The obvious one is the questionable fair-use on the maps, but I need to re-review more closely. I didn't do the strikeouts.) JRP 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: The images, they are the only ones I have found so far that identitifes the IAF and the PAF bases involved. The locations and geographical co-ordinates of some of the airfields (especially PAF ones) ones are usually not declared and/or publicised. CIA maps and data available on the net don't usually identify sensitive locations, including defence installations. Some of these lie outside of notable cities and/or towns(eg, PAF Masroor, PAF Murid,PAF Talhar, IAF Uttarlai, IAF Halwara). I don't think I can create an alternative map for these, so I guess if that's the sticking point, then there's not really much I can do.Rueben lys 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. We may be at an impasse. I see them as being against Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Examples_of_unacceptable_use #3, though I'll list at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images for someone with better knowledge of faire use to make that call. JRP 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that. I made some queries at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for information on the Indian Information Act which you cite. I just want this to be clear before deciding whether to promote. JRP 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Pass/Fail? Ehh? IvoShandor 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my GA review comments, I gave two weeks to resolve the issues (instead of the normal one week). That ends Apr 26. I believe we are still at the "sticking point" over the maps. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content seems to be that the maps fail fair use. (And I hope Rueben lys will participate in that discussion.) Regardless of other improvements to the article, that would preclude GA until the images were removed or their fair use status was clarified.JRP 10:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the best way to deal with this for GA is to just remove the map from the article until its status is decided and just pass the GA. IvoShandor 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the article, there are still a number of minor (and solvable) problems. The use of unnecessary bold text hasn't been corrected (and some of the bolds should be italics, in names of books, etc.). There's a stray dash after "objectives of the strike", there's a stray space between footnote 10 and 3, weird commas around 12 and 13, and many of the citations aren't immediately after punctuation - some have spaces and some are before punctuation. It would also be nice to have the uniformity in the citation templates. If I were to review the article now, with these problems unfixed, I would be failing the GA nomination. JRP 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the minor problems you mentioned have been sorted. I have made the references consistent in the format of "Title. Author.Source." I am not familiar with the citation template, and will take quite a while to replace all the references. I hope the consistency(uniformity) overrides any negative aspects.
As for the images,first of all they are not subject to subscription, and is not a cause of revenue-loss. Also, it is integrally linked to understand why the PAF struck the bases it did and not other ones (ie, the target airfields were in direct path of the proposed offensive, or were geographically and strategically in a place to provide ground support, while the airfields ignored were not) so the maps are quite important.This is also consistent with the aim with the original image was created.
Lastly there is no uncopyrighted alternative, and it is not possible to create a free alternative since the source data are not known.
The images reproduction is essentially to dissipate information that is essential to understand the operation itself. I do think it satisfies fair use.Rueben lys 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure I am going to relist this anymore, you can fail it if it fails right now.Thanks for the help, though. Rueben lys 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: The lead photo identifies the upper left jet as a Shenyang F-6 but in the second paragraph under "First Strikes" F-86 Sabre Jets are mentioned.  In Canadair Sabre Pakistan is listed as an operator and also that Canadair Sabres were used in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war. Zen-in (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Canadair  F-86 or a Shenyang F-6 in the lead photo? 

message: not even a single plane was lost by pakistan in operation chengez khan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.87.0 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction 

message: There was heavy biasness with uncited content and hearsay in the article. I've corrected and re writen those parts and sourced them properly. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * there has been [| extensive edits] to this article and various contents from veribiable source and books have been quietly remove on the lame pretexts of removing POV.it seems to me that the user lTopGunl (talk) thinks that  anything that says about failure of Pakistan is indian POV  and has to be removed. This is a serious attempt to disrupt the article. I expect the user to give sufficient and proper explanations for these [| edits] which could be reverted to an earlier state otherwise. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely wrong. I've added both Indian and Pakistani sources to back my additions/replacements. The most prominent sources are the book written by the then Indian airforce chief and the already cited sources that were wrongly quoted. The text about humanitarian crisis was removed because a consensus has been reached about it on the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts page. Please review the citations before you make claims like this as it is taken as a personal attack otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the removal of content (properly cited) has to be justified, just the explanation of removing POV is in complete. hope you will self revert the unjustified changes and provide explanation for changes that seems to be justified with proper sources. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion on this topic has already reached a consensus here. Hope you have your explaination. All other content is heavily sourced and justified by the relevant citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and uncited content 

message: The CItation says The Attack on Indian airfields on 3 Dec By PAF was not a success. read
This preemptive strike known as Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the success of Israeli Operation Focus in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. But, unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967 which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India and failed to inflict the intended damage.
"Trying to catch the Indian Air Force napping, Yahya Khan, launched a Pakistani version of Israel's 1967 air blitz in hopes that one rapid attack would cripple India's far superior air power. But India was alert, Pakistani pilots were inept, and Yahya's strategy of scattering his thin air force over a dozen air fields was a bust!", p.34, Newsweek, December 20, 1971
accordingly the contents have been edited. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim is disputed by both Indian and Pakistani sources. The last person to exaggerate damages would be India's airforce chief, yet he too has mentioned all the damages in his book. The facts are heavily sourced here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: [| this edit clearly shows] who is trying to remove REliable sourced contents. and books. Besides you are quoting a Source that talks about an altogether different topic and the content is non verifiable .The content about bangladeshi refugee was well cited from a reliable source a book by Neutral foreign author. there was no point in removing it. you need to explain the removal of content as it amounts to disruptive editing.  This is a serious issue and needs to be discussed . I expect you explain this [| revert of yours] --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm talking about your removal of damages from Indian section. And about the refugee part, I told you, your sources have been considered on a different page and a consensus has been established, Go and change it there. If you can not convince editors for something on one page, it does not mean that you start the same topic again on another WP:POINT. You have to prove it on the page referred to in above section. I'm linking it for you here again: . Get a consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ok i am taking the discussion of Bangladeshi refugees there. but you need to explain the removal of other contents in this [| revert of yours]--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are completely opposite to the current standing text and they are supported by just an Indian website while they are against 3 reliable sources already sourced (which include 2 Indian sources). You further added a reduntant paragraph to present information that was already presented in counter operation section. And a consensus on the dispute resolution (about the operation tredent) has been established on not including retaliations which were not a part of the operation in the losses section. Your edits also contained a lot of peacock words which are not used in wikipedia as per policy. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: you need to be more precise in your arguements. whiich word u seee here a peacock word ? I think we need to discuss each and ever edit in this [| revert of yours] Point by point or else its a clear DISPUTE you are the one who have repeated the same words Indian airfields damaged twice on the the Infobox . (needless and deliberate doubling of content ) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "bust" & "far superior" in this context are peacock words. Other than that your source is outweighed. We already went point by point. I've removed the redundancy from the results section now. You on the other hand gave no explanation and removed the line "Widespread damage to India's all western airfields and radar installations." from the losses section under cover of your other edits. This is obvious vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: bust and far superior are not my own words but they are from the source newsweek, besides since these wordes are not neutral hence i have not used them in the article. it is only in the reference section from the source. These WOrds are not included in the text of the article, do not mislead. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that newsweek used these words (and u just called them not neutral in your above comment) make that source biased. Also, I'm not misleading, the whole sentence was there in the reference section which could be read by any reader following up to the reference section of the article. But looking at the bigger picture here, I'll consider you considering those words as not neutral as an implication that the source is biased. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You reject Indian sources as biased , you are not giving reliable citations from PAkistan to prove your edits , and whats more eurprising is you are considering Newsweek an American news magazine published in New York City. It is distributed throughout the United States and internationally as non neutral. I will wait for citations so that you can support your claims, or else we can take it to dispute board, we are not making progress here. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa. But when an Indian source is telling about damages sustained by India, any reasonable person would consider it as one with least exaggeration if not with deductions. These statements go for both the Indian airforce cheif's book and the indiadefence website. In addition to that, I've given a Pakistani source i.e. pakdef.info. You have given only newsweek, which is outweighed here. News week is contradicting 3 sources here. We might consider it neutral on the word that its American but on the basis of contradiction it is definitely inaccurate. There is no dispute here. You are just pushing POV. If you are really interested in making progress review your own comments and my comments as a third person's point of view and see if I'm properly sourcing my edit or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of [[Operation Chengiz Khan]]  

message: First we need to clarify this.
This article is on a different topic about Longewala and not Changez khan . besides the comment are uncited, and They are all from Pakistani Officers. The language used is also surprising. The citation is does not seem to be a reliable one and the content is questionable unless it is also mentioned in other reliable places. if you disagree then you can reply or  we need to take it to Dispute Board. I suggest we use other citations from reliable sources. you are free to provide any reliable one.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this does not need clarification. Stop deviating from the topic of discussion to prove your edits. This is not on a different topic. The article is on 2-3 events. It is a published article by an Indian officer who is quoting Pakistani officers. Also, the fact that there was widespread damage to Indian airfields was not accredited to the Pakistani source but said on the aurthor's own behalf. This already is backed up by two other sources, the pakdef site and the Indian airforce chief's book. Read WP:HEAR. This section is a baseless attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Refer to the above section for the debate in question. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried looking at the reliable sources, i did not find these claims and spoken citations to verify if they are really said. if you are so sure and certain why dont you give the links so that this discussion can be concluded ?? --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this source is a published source itself and not WP:OR. Stick to one section. This discussion is already going on in the above section where I'm replying. This source is backed up with 2 other sources. Refer to above section where I'll post my further replies. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  using article from http://www.indiadefenceupdate.com/news94.html 

message: we need ciatations for this following quote i tried to search the internet and could not find any crediable source for it. 
“After one of PAF’s night bombing strikes on our airfield, we were all grounded for six hours. The runway had been cratered in many places. The following morning our CO, Wing Commander V B Sawardekar, took us all to the runway to show us the Pakistani pilot’s bombing accuracy. Pointing to the craters on our runway he said ‘this is the kind of bombing accuracy the IAF pilots should achieve against Pakistani targets.’
We should mark it for deletion if there is no ciation for the next 6 months. The citation is from some pakitani Airforce officer, which does not seem very credible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a credible source and cited to an Indian officer not Pakistani. Please check first. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * the content is clearly sourced from pakdef.info and blogs.  removed -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: *Suggestion to topGun do not mask content from wp:SPS pakdef.info as in here  they will be removed-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've indiscriminately removed sourced content. I'm reverting you. Only remove the sps site so that I can add other citations for it. I've not masked anything, it has been there since before that RSN thread. In anycase, there's no reason to remove the content sourced by other books. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *The content as seen in an old version of this article here clearly shows that it was copied from pakdef.info. even the google search supports this . Also note that I have only removed the pakdef.info as reference and a controversial and unsourced claim (as mentioned above).Please show me where did i remove the content sourced by other book. i dont see any such other book in the comment that i have removed.  you are free to restore content but not without proper sources and do not remove the {Cn} tags without providing proper source. if you want to remove remove the content along with the  tags but not just the  tags -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: *feel free to back up the Cn tags by so called other sources that you are talking about, but edit warring on the article and restoring the self published sources  is not the right thing to do. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Editwarring? Look at the page history please, you've reverted a second time and you are the one editwarring. You have removed content sourced by a book which was definitely not Pakdef (Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour, page 451.). You should self revert right away and remove only the site you pointed out. Your second revert is exactly the same as the first. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: That makes it a que for dbigxray to self revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: *I have not violated any 1RR and have even discussed my comments here. do not restore wp:SPS pakdefinfo into the article. about the Unsourced claims that is mentioned above. I will be glad to restore that claim that i have removed if you can give me a wp:RS for that claim I have searched it and could not find it  hence removed, the unsourced controversial claim . I cannot restore and selfrevert unsourced claims back into historical articles, not against policies -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have restored the content for the time being (so that this content dispute will not be portrayed as edit war) but it is clearly sourced from the pakdef.info website. please provide the details of the source as the claim seems to be unreliable. no such statement was given anywhere. if it was it would have been properly documented. i will remove it again unless the reliability of the controversial claim and the source is established. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look again, the book's page number has been provided. That is enough for the verifiability of a source. You're claim that no such statement was ever made is just by you're own word while I've pointed out a source in the article backing it up. For your info, a second revert is a 1RR violation and removing original research (or claimed original research) is not an exception from 1RR or 3RR. Read WP:3RR for the exceptions. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: *yes i have removed the links from the self published source pakdef.info even if you call it IDS or IDK (I Dont Know) or whatever to mask it. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not specified whether you claim Institute of defence studies and Pakdef are the same or what? If you blame me of masking again, I will consider this a conduct dispute. Please keep it to content. You seem to be making a pretty big assumption just because pakdef's link was added to the source of IDS. See this . It seems to be an independent body. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: *This clear masking  of the content from  pakdef info is the cause of this dispute. There no such claim from so called Indian pilot, and unreliable . and dont add blogs as references. Both your links one from  defence journal and the other blog link have the same content and unreliable. This content needs to be properly sources as it is  a controversial claim, which is why its not in the reliable sources. first give one good reliable source then talk of cite overkill  -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for giving the diff above. As it is clear in the diff, I replaced Pakdef with a book source along with page number. Now that we are over that, I will point out WP:SOURCEACCESS to you; it is not necessary that you have access to the sources that I provide. But still for the sake of it I added the writer's own blog source which gives the same text (just to facilitate - not that I was bound). And did you even look at my justification for adding the blog? Self published sources by expert authors are OK to be used, and this one is just a copy of the one published in defence journal. That would be all the justification I've got. Since You've ignored my comment about IDS, I will be looking into that matter in due time to see if it was actually pakdef or IDS. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sure I'll be watching, I'll be waiting  -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations needed 

message: Please restore to this version, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, I had again removed the BLPPRIMARY violations, and it was again restored by topgun. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: There's an awful lot going on in the reverts here (example). Even though I've looked at the diffs and at the discussion above, I can't actually tell what content you are disputing exactly. Could you be more precise about what you think the BLP violation is? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was written in the section above, there are an entire quote from Flight Lieutenant Harish Sinhji, which is sourced to a primary document. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Here, just remove all of this "To prove the positive results of PAF's attack, the following narration comes from an Indian Mig-21 pilot taken prisoner after being shot down over Pakistan. Flight Lieutenant Harish Sinhji, who belonged to a Sirsa-based squadron, stated:[28]
“After one of PAF’s night bombing strikes on our airfield, we were all grounded for six hours. The runway had been cratered in many places. The following morning our CO, Wing Commander V B Sawardekar, took us all to the runway to show us the Pakistani pilot’s bombing accuracy. Pointing to the craters on our runway he said ‘this is the kind of bombing accuracy the IAF pilots should achieve against Pakistani targets.’’[29][30][31]" The sources are primary, and one is an opinion piece, but also primary. And one is a blog, being used for statements of fact on living people. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protect 

message: Can someone please let me know how this is considered a reliable, or even a neutral source? Given the publisher is a trust of the Pakistan Air Force. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying it's a Pakistani trust, it makes it a Pakistani source. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written and publised by the Pakistani airforce. Please explain how you think this a neutral or reliable source for information on combat missions. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your own justification, if it is published by PAF, it is completely reliable to represent PAF's point of view. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I left your point. Which is fine as it further specifies the reporting source. But don't add your own commentary in text. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: The source is neither reliable nor neutral, it is well documented that the PAF lied through their teeth over losses in the 71 conflict, this ought to be removed per NPOV RS & UNDUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wars bring propagenda... but which document says that this naration is incorrect? If none, then it becomes opinion on event vs RS narration which has no consideration. Kaiser Tufail is covering it further, and he is also a reliable source in the field being in expert and has independently as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Memoirs are a primary source, Tufail as a source is from an opinion piece and is also primary. So not RS. He is not an expert in the field, he is a former pilot, not a historian. To have that in the article is UNDUE, also it is obviously wrong as the IAF were dropping bombs a few hours later, so the accuracy cannot have been all that great. Please provide a full quote from Tufail though, let us see exactly what it was he wrote. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary source here is the Indian pilot's narration, which is being reported by the reference, which becomes the secondary source as it is not the source's own point of view. Secondly, Kaiser Tufail is a pilot turned historian as he has considerable work in the area (makes him expert on two counts). Even if you debate that, he is still an authentic source according to PAF, which makes him a PAF source if you disregard his independent authenticity and PAF's sources are reliable to represent PAF's citings (to which already the text points so I don't know what more you want). Can't totally censor it because PAF published it, or because an Indian pilot talks favourably for PAF? Infact.... even the PAF pilot is reporting his superior's comments. Makes it secondary on so many counts. With all that disregarded for the sake of argument, as the text is currently in very clear reference, in text mention of it all being published by PAF clears all doubts for the reader. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: TG, another person quoting what another person said does not make it a secondary source, it is still primary. Please provide proof that Tufail is an historian, a search on GBooks shows but one book by him, not published by an academic printing house. And given he is a retired PAF pilot, how can we expect a neutral account from him? So all we have here are to PAF sources, not backed by anything else, making an unsubstantiated claim from a BLP. These are neither neutral nor reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Article already says it's from PAF and not of PAF's own view too. Nothing's unsubstantiated here. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unsubstantiated as only two sources mention it, both from the same guy as near as I can tell. Again, please provide the full quotes from both sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

text: You are not getting it, I want the quote from both those books, for all I know that quote is still there from being sourced to the blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I tell you not to blindly not remove the sources as they are referring further sources. The blog post was a WP:SPS by Tufail and has been published else where (I think it was linked before you started editing out) as a secondary source. Which makes that article a source too. Read it yourself. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The blog is of no use, for the third and final time, please provide the full quotes ffrom the two book sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Do you agree this ought to be removed then? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do and so does the comments at WP:RSN, which indicate that this isn't reliably sourced.  I would have simply removed it but didn't want to provoke another edit war, or have an angry mob camped in my talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am used to angry mobs on my talk page , so will remove it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Simply because a secondary source quoting the original article does not make it worth including and the consensus at WP:RSN reflected that.  The consensus at WP:RSN was as I suspected the original work is a WP:SPS and per that policy should not be used to source a quote from another individual.  Why do you consider such dubiously material to be worth including?  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour 

message: I got interrupted in the middle of moving references, I will get back onto it but if someone has the time to move references to the body of the article feel free. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit