This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Anna Orton (2010), India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, Epitome Books
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Solblaze, I have reverted your edit because you didn't provide a reason in the edit summary. If you want to make changes to the article, we can reach a consensus here. This article is a contentious topic, so please follow the guidelines. DSP2092talk 16:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The current lead makes it seem like PAF dropped hundreds of bombs on India out of the blue, but India had begun occupying chunks of East Pakistani territory and supporting Bengali rebels in the months before. That is an important detail that shouldn't be left out.
To be honset though, I should've done this in smaller chunks. Solblaze (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@DSP2092: Additionally, India invaded East Pakistan with an entire brigade's worth of force in November 1971, and Pakistan declared a state of emergency in response a day later on 23 November 1971; India would declare a state of emergency 10 days later when Pakistan launched retaliatory airstrikes on 3 December. Solblaze (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The academic consensus is that the casus belli for the war and the consequent Indian military involvement was the preemptive aerial strikes on Indian air bases conducted by Pakistan under its Operation Chengiz Khan. If you have sources that contest this position of scholars, you are welcome to present them for our evaluation here. But unilaterally whitewashing longstanding content cited to high quality sources and sneaking in your synthesis of information is not acceptable. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft,[13] not including any F-6s" Change F-6 as it is not the correct designation to J-6 Ghostpepper111111 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not done: When checking the source, I found that most of the material, including the statement on the F-6, was entirely not mentioned in the source text. Therefore, I have removed most of the paragraph, including the part in question here (in case you're still curious, I believe the F-6 designation is used for some export versions of the Shenyang J-6, although that's largely irrelevant now). Liu1126 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The recent removal of longstanding, cited content from the article's lead by User:Solblaze (e.g., diff, diff) based on groundless and frivolous reasons like [1] is disruptive enough for me to observe it here. Scholars need neither be personally notable to you nor need whet your appetite for which of the belligerents should be hailed as a liberator and which of it be crucified as oppressor. That's precisely their preserve, and indeed, a scholar observing such propositions would necessitate that we present the same perspective to our readers in the manner becoming of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia defers to the scholars for adumbrating perspectives on a war if anything. Kindly desist from engaging in disruptive removals of such content for reasons that betray a WP:IDONTLIKEIT outlook. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note, however, the RfC consensus earlier this year to deprecate the inclusion of "supported by" sections in military conflict infoboxes. The close acknowledged that in rare cases such sections are suitable, but said such cases would require affirmative consensus at the article. No RfC on this precise matter has been held here, but the weight of policy-based arguments in previous related discussions has leaned towards excluding such nuanced information from the infobox.[1][2][3](Full disclosure:I commented in the last linked discussion). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the "Background" section, 5th paragraph, in the last statement please re-wikilink/pipe the "generic" term "Bihari" to more context-specific wiki articles - i.e. either to the Bihari (piped to "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh") or the Bihari (piped to "Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh"). Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Current wikilinking seems accurate.Accesscrawl (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: When checking the source, I found that most of the material, including the statement on the F-6, was entirely not mentioned in the source text. Therefore, I have removed most of the paragraph, including the part in question here (in case you're still curious, I believe the F-6 designation is used for some export versions of the Shenyang J-6, although that's largely irrelevant now). Liu1126 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)