Talk:Battle of Chawinda
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Chawinda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 360 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Territorial changes[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The territorial changes section says that
India captures around 460 km (180 sq mi) of Pakistani territory
While the source cited to it doesn't say that it was captured during the Battle of Chawinda, rather it was captured in the Sialkot region. So it should be removed as the Indian advance was halted at Chawinda they didn't gain any territory in this battle. LiamKhan469 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- This appears to be a fair observation of the actual battle. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157:Then please remove it.LiamKhan469 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
RFC: Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In light of the sources mentioned below, should the result be changed from "inconclusive" to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory? Thanks --101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
Following are some independent sources that state that this battle result was an Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory:
Independent sources that states that this battle was a Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory
|
---|
|
*WT:MILHIST notified.--101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I also have noticed that this source is mentioned in the result field even though the source is talking about a stalemate at the whole Sialkot Front, not in this battle which was a part of Sialkot Front. --101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
Comment: As Mar4d has pointed out. Adding the link to previous RFC 2015 RfC, here the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" but then it was removed with a one-sided 2018 "RfC". 101.53.225.41 (talk) Blocked sock
Comment Could I suggest that you provide fuller bibliographic details for the sources cited above. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC) It would also be useful to indicate which of these sources were not considered in the course of the previous RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Survey (Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory)[edit]
- Comment sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with the "inconclusive" interpretation. I'd be curious if there are any military journals that look at this outcome. Since this is generally a contested subject, I suggest avoiding newspapers like The Independent or The Diplomat. The independent even says "what has been regarded as a victory" which begs the question, regarded by who? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
::The sources that describe it as India's failure they at best fall in the Indian Defeat interpretation. If editors disagree with adding newspaper then I have no problem with it.-101.53.225.41 (talk) Blocked sock
- 101.53.225.41, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the
{{rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The complex formatting may be exacerbating the problem. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)- To editor Redrose64: fixed format of initial statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Inconclusive/Speedy close MOS:MIL is the applicable guidance, with X victory and Inconclusive but not X defeat being permitted parameters for the result field. The parameter should represent the consensus of [good quality, independent] sources. We are explicitly cautioned against WP:OR. We should also consider the "immediate result" and not subsequent events that may have resulted from. Indy beetle would suggest avoiding newspapers. I would agree. Furthermore, I would be cautious in using popularist histories (ie Bloomsbury and Osprey). The OP would state:
Now in the light of the sources mentioned above should the result be changed to Indian Defeat or Pakistani Victory?
However, a goodly number of these source were explicitly considered during the preceding RfC only 18 months ago. I am not seeing what is new or changed that might reasonably lead to a different outcome. The sources would clearly indicate that the Indians failed to achieve their objective. However, this is not the same as a defeat for one side or a victory for the other. Leaving aside the newspaper sources, only two make anything like a categorical statement. Zologa would say:the 25th Cavalry at Chawinda, where they defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes
. But the 25th Cav was only part of the Pakistani force and the statement would be referring to an early phase of the battle, so we can scratch that one. Spencer Tucker (A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume 2) would say:The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle.
The problem is, the article is not telling us this and that India still retained control of Pakistani territory? The OP would ask us to read the other sources and draw a conclusion that this is either a Pakistani victory or an Indian defeat. However, when the sources aren't specifically saying as much, that would be WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, we do have two or three sources that are specifically calling it inconclusive, indecisive or a stalemate (the immediate result following Chawinda). Both sides got a bloody nose and lacked the will to continue. One side withdrew and the other side couldn't follow. There is nothing new to discuss. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)- Without being too familiar with the particulars, I would add that an option is always to add a bullet point under "Inconclusive" that says "See Outcome section". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose (Summoned by bot) taken in their overall balance, and mostly in particular, these sources endorse "Inconclusive", and none speaks of a clear victory/defeat AFAI can see - without WP:OR interpretation of their content.
sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with … "inconclusive"
. I endorse everything Indy beetle & Cinderella157 say below. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Previous RFC stands - Two sections above, you find a six-month long RfC barely a year ago, with wide-ranging comments from a variety of editors. It came out with the result of "no consensus"/"inconclusive". What has changed so that a new RfC is warranted again? WP:RFCBEFORE is not satisfied. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment In before we get further comments along the lines of "but past RfC was inconclusive"; the question wasn't answered then, and the closure itself acknowledged this; again, which of the multiple sources available on the subject clearly negated the Indian military's tactical failure in this battle? Quoting one of the participants from the last RfC, the "Indian military were unable to take Chawinda". Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Pakistani victory. Sources have been clear all along that it was the overall conflict that was "inconclusive". The final battle of that conflict, at Chawinda, was a decisive victory for Pakistan. Had it not been so, then the overall outcome would not have been so "inconclusive", imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- I was the closer of the 2015 RfC, and I've been asked to comment here by a message on my talk page. When I closed the 2015 RfC I knew nothing about the Battle of Chawinda, but since then I've learned a lot about it, having been required to defend my close against attempts to overturn it and having read a lot of commentary and sources.The battle of Chawinda was the final battle of an inconclusive war. Territorial changes after the battle were minimal and not material, and the Indian side likes to portray the Battle of Chawinda as a draw. This case is arguable, and if you cherry-pick the right reliable sources and pretend the others don't exist, you can justify the outcome of the 2018 RfC. But really, this ignores the fact that India outnumbered and outgunned Pakistan at Chawinda. The Indian Army attempted a set piece assault on fortified positions and was bloodily repulsed. The Pakistani side likes to portray it as a glorious last stand that held off the enemy onslaught until peace was achieved.Personally, I think the Pakistani side of it is less wrong than the Indian side. Pakistan was trying to hold India off, and succeeded. This was the best result for Pakistan that was militarily possible.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hear hear, well put – much to be said for the ability of people to defend their home territory. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment For the record, I am confident that the IP editor who started this RfC is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. Girth Summit (blether) 11:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
RFC on the Result - Pakistani Victory/Indian defeat[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As already mentioned, an RFC concluded that it was a Pakistani Victory. The decision was further reviewed and consensus was once again in favor of the RFC - Pakistani Victory.
The participants of this short talk page discussion concluded the battle was inconclusive.
Should the result of the Battle of Chawinda be "Pakistani Victory" or "Indian defeat"? Joooshhh (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Pakistani Victory It's cut and dry - as the reliable sources state - the Indians failed to attack, the Pakistanis successful defended themselves. Joooshhh (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)- Close RfC This seems ridiculous to make an RfC after a block evading IP created one a few weeks prior and now an account with 17 edits on a page that is ECP? This does not seem like the correct protocol. – The Grid (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following sections
==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity==
- Battle of Asal Uttar
- Battle of Chumb
- Battle of Chawinda
- Battle of Ichogil Bund
- Battle of Kasur
- Battle of Pul Kanjri
== See also ==
Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Start-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- Start-Class India articles of High-importance
- Start-Class Indian history articles
- Mid-importance Indian history articles
- Start-Class Indian history articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- WikiProject India articles
- Start-Class Pakistan articles
- Mid-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistani history articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- Start-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- Start-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles