Talk:Indian Armed Forces Tri-Service Commands

Parent article

The parent article of this page is one of the following:

• Jointness in India's military
• Jointness in Indian Armed Forces
• Jointness in India's security apparatus
• Jointness and integration in India's military
• Jointness and integration in the Indian Armed Forces
• etc

DTM (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see and edit if needed

The article is in its beginning stages. Please see and make changes or suggestions if needed. Thank you. Tagging SshibumXZ, Mahusha, Sarvatra, Zwerubae, Adamgerber80, Hemant Dabral, Aumnamahashiva (if anyone else could help out with this page in any way please tag them too thanks!) DTM (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

cc Vaibhavafro. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 15:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that inter-services cooperation was one of the most important lessons of the Bangladesh war for India? Source: Air Chief Marshal (Retd) P. C. Lal wrote that, "The Bangladesh war demonstrated that the three Services working closely together were strong and decisive in their actions. Inter-Services cooperation was indeed the most important lesson of that war."
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Vijayalakshmi Ramanan

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 10:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

• The article is long enough and new enough. I see no copyright violations. I assume good faith on the offline references. A QPQ has been completed. The hook is directly cited. The first 7 items under List of joint and integrated commands need to be referenced, despite them having articles. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• References added. DTM (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is ready. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but reading the first sentence of the lead feels like jumping into an ocean without a paddle. What is this article about? Please start with a statement of fact: Jointness and integration in the Indian military refers to ... Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging DiplomatTesterMan to fix Yoninah's issue with the lead. Just in case the talk page comment wasn't noticed. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I will make the changes asap. DTM (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah I just noticed that the lead was updated. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah and SL93, I have made more changes. I think this should do it now...? DTM (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the lead reads much better, thanks. Restoring tick for online book source per SL93's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

title

is 'jointness' a suitable word? what about "inter-service cooperation" GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Jointness is a suitable word, as per the references used, and accordingly the scope of the article.

• Take for example usage of the word "Jointness" in the reference "Joint Doctrine: Indian Armed Forces". There is an entire section called "SECTION I - UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION AND JOINTNESS" (pg.39). The word is used 14 times in the document.
• Other references in the article with jointness in the title itself: "Enhancing Jointness in Indian Armed Forces: Case for Unified Commands", "Jointness in India’s Military —What it is and What it Must Be" etc

If somehow 'joint' (from joint warfare) could be placed in the title instead of 'jointness', maybe it would sound better. But cooperation is not a substitute for the word in the context of the article or the references mentioned above. I have used 'inter services cooperation' for the DYK hook as per the quote and the time period of war it references, 1971; as a precursor to the modern usage, and accordingly its placement is in the beginning of the history section. While upfront "inter-service cooperation" my be easier for the general public to understand, don't you think that the phrase does not cover the scope that the article currently aims to cover? DTM (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, inter-service cooperation is a hot contender for the title. As for now I will include it clearly into the lead, also as per suggestion of dyk nom DTM (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've got three variations of the word now - joint, jointness and jointmanship. DTM (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)