Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
It is requested that amap ormaps, showing the course of the war, and the positions and territories occupied by the parties at the time of the ceasefire, beincluded in this article toimprove its quality. Wikipedians from or interested in India or Pakistan may be able to help!
It is ironic that the sources which are uses to cite casualties are being used in misleading people. TheWarfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed 's page 600 (which is being used as a neutral reference) cites -
Pakistan admitted to only 830 KIA. Independent estimates accept the Indian figures for its personnel losses, put Pakistani casualties at about 5,800, including 1,500 killed, and give armor losses at about 200 tanks lost and 150 damaged for Pakistan.
It is clearly written Independent sources claim 1500 killed, but it is written 3,800. Not only this, the armour losses are also write ranged from 200 to 300, which contradicts this source.
TheEncyclopedia of Wars's page 602 cites,
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:India, 900,000; Pakistan, 233,000CASUALTIES: India, 3,712 killed, 7,638 wounded;Pakistan, 1,500 killed, 4,300 woundedTREATIES: Conference at Tashkent, 1966
But it is ironic that these two sources are being misused. I have changed the number, if anyone has any objection you may state it here.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)08:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen other references and have written the casualties within a range, as per the sources, to avoid favouritism towards one side and keep it neutral.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)08:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A problem is that there is no section in the article dealing with casualties. Infoboxes are only meant to be a summary of information that is in the article. Detail and nuances belong in the article.
Encyclopaedia's of wars and conflicts are not particularly reliable sources - some parts of them may be excellent, but other parts are bodged together with whatever data the compilers could find in the time - and you have to be an expert to tell which bits are which.
There are good sources from both the Indian and Pakistan points of view, and both details and comments in them are of value, include the opinions of people like Lt GenHarbakhsh Singh about the accuracy or not of their side's estimates of enemy destroyed.-- Toddy1(talk)08:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this topic is highly disputed, I think there are two best options left. Either we use a range like the present condition, or we remove casualties from infobox or write just add "See #Casualties" in infobox, and write it in the main article and link it with casualties.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)09:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paper at theInstitute of Mathematics and its Applications conference in April 1997 that had a table summarising available data on Indian and Pakistan casualties in the 1965 war. Underneath the table the paper said: "Obtaining good information on casualties is harder than obtaining good information on force strengths. If we had evaluated the outcome of campaigns in terms of casualty ratios, we would have added a layer of 'noise' to the results, making it harder to draw conclusions."
Well, in that case, we should remove casualties from infobox, and separately create another casualties section, mentioning Indian, Pakistan and neutral claims. A linking will be done in the casualties of infobox to the newly created section.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)12:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly easy to find the figures that are contradicting the infobox, however, it is more sensible to keep the long-standing version regarding the actual neutral estimates. The CIA is not a neutral source here, given the American support for Pakistan in the war. The points you are making were already refuted above when they were also made by Pr0pulsion 123.MBlaze Lightning (talk)06:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your version's existing sources don't cite the number mentioned. Then I think either remove the casualties or replace with better sources. Till then I'd request not to revert.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least read the sources to find out the figure, by your edit you are misleading people with false information, whereas the source itself says 1,500 killed you are using that source to say 3,800 killed. How ironic.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before changing, find another neutral source that says the 3,800 figure. Since the figure has been in the article for long time, I've added the both, though I should have added only what the sources cite.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)06:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link takes me to a page where it's only written about the author and book's topic. There is no mention of any other number.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)06:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since two of the sources say two different things, that's why I had used a range for both of them. I don't understand why are we using a source which says 1,500 figure for the 3,800 claim.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)06:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since we have two different numbers of casualties for both Indian & Pakistani, why not add both with a range? I'm not saying to only add 1,500, but both of the 1,500 and 3,800 for Pakistan and 3,000 and 3,712 for India.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)07:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extorc @MBlaze Lightning, to maintain neutrality, I suggest of using the range, which I had did before. Since two sources are saying two different things, a range would be the best to represent the casualties for both Indian & Pakistani figures.𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)06:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page reverted to the last stable version and protected for one week for you all to discuss this and form a consensus. Anyone who touches the casualty numbers again before a clear consensus emerges will be blocked from editing. Also, don't ask me to revert to your preferred version, the answer is no.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)16:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to this, I dont think anyone should be opposing the 3000 death figure for India and 3800 for Pakistan. The number of wounded is dubious and there is no consensus for it as [war of 1965/Archive 10] show.
The long standing version of the article also supported this figure until April 2025 before the recent edit war took place.[5]
I'll second restoring the longstanding version of this article prior to all recent, contentious changes, marred by nationalistic POV, that have been made deliberately to skew the balance of the article. I'll proffer going as far back asTalk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965/Archive_7#Change_in_result_in_the_infobox when the last major consensus was reached for the article. Regarding the edit that introduced the dodgy claim of"Pakistan occupying 1,600 square miles of Indian territory...and India conquered 350 square miles of Pakistan" at the very beginning of#Neutral_assessments, it is really typifying the attempts at nationalistic hijacking of this important article. The claim is nothing but a war propaganda churned out by the Pakistani machinery and it is being, every so often, pushed into the article clothed as an independent estimate emanating from some scholarly tome, starting at least 2016; videTalk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965/Archive_6#new_section., when we went over it and looked up reliable sources that explicitly recognized it as such. The claim has no place being in the article, for it is both fringe and undue as most books focusing on the war do not discuss it at all, and absolutely no place being in a section earmarked for independent assessments of the third-party scholars that researched and wrote accounts of the war in great depth, and, as a matter of fact, providecompletely opposite estimate of territorial gains and losses for India and Pakistan.MBlaze Lightning (talk)09:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I participated in those discussions. The article has been unstable since this year and all these new changes had no consensus.>>> Extorc.talk11:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The account of a Pakistani general is indeed not a reliable source for writing that Pakistan inflicted heavy casualities on the Indians and occupied its villages given the extent of Pakistan's war propoganda. There is also the additional question of the content being DUE ?!, and this should first be demonstrated with, as Orientls says, "scholarly sources independent of the subject", and it should cover all the viewpoints.MBlaze Lightning (talk)11:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2025
Not done: the article is only EC-protected. You can make the change yourself.voorts (talk/contributions)23:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
