text:
Talk:Kargil War

Beware of the plagiarists
I found this unsourced passage in the article, which has apparently been there since 2008 in some form:

When I look for sources, I find very much the same passage in two places:

and

I am getting rid of the unsourced passage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Result in infobox
As a part of my current focus to accurately reflect the correct results on "list of wars" articles, I was thinking of changing the results of this page but later I thought of notifying/discussing first. The war ended as Indian victory. I will try discovering more sources. These sources are probably enough for such inclusion and there is no support for the contrary. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reiterating here what I said on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please let the discussion play out. I will need some time to look at this and respond back. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 * The two sources above are excellent and comply with WP:RS when it comes to the inclusion of results as an Indian victory. I note that sources also mention that India "registered a decisive victory in Kargil." --RaviC (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Support The third party neutral sources look good to me. I support the proposal by User:Sdmarathe-- D Big X ray  14:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am back now with more sources. Like I said, there are a substantial number of reliable sources that support the fact that India won the Kargil war hands downthere's no two ways about it. Some of these I will mention:

 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Support Sdmarathe has a done a commendable job in compiling all the reliable source about the Kargil war result. After having a careful look at the sources, It is clear that the result section should state "Indian Victory".
 * Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the result parameter should accurately describe the outcome, it should accurately reflect what the sources say to comply with neutrality. I would also like to add that a number of sources describe the result as "decisive" Indian victory.    Razer ( talk ) 07:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I also support Indian victory or decisive Indian victory giving the large amount of high quality sources supporting such. Not to point that Pakistani politicians such as Nawaz Sharif also agreed that war was defeat for Pakistan. My Lord (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "As two prime ministers of Pakistan later acknowledged, 'Kargil war was Pakistan's biggest blunder and disaster." "He also admitted that Pakistan was defeated in Kargil", "He argued that had he accepted defeat then.." Sharif gave a lengthy interview to India Today about this. My Lord (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Support Indian victory per policy supporting comments above and heavy number of reliable sources. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose The conflict ended with status quo ante bellum. An invasion of one side over the other was repelled, pre-war land control and leadership was restored, there were no "war winners" or "war losers", no peace treaties, war reparations, etc. It is even technically incorrect to call this a war (even though sources use this word) as it was actually a minor conflict, almost can be called a border skirmish (temporary occupation of some uninhabited land by a few hundred troops). It was not a declared war in the legal sense. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, Kashmiri. You have been here long enough to know that that doesn't wash. Are you saying that all the reliable sources given here have no clue and you know better? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I should have clarified better that there is a distinction between being defeated in a military operation (which is what the majorirty of above quotes say) and being the side that legally lost the war. One concerns military technique, the other concerns legal proceedings. The legal re-establishment of status quo ante is the doubtless indicator that neither side was to be legally recognised as winner or loser. Similarly, continuing encroachments and repels on many borders (Armenia-Azerbaijan, Iraq-Turkey, the two Sudans, etc.) do not mean that the repelling side "won the war". — kashmīrī  TALK  10:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to read some reliable sources that would lend support to your overview. Remember that this war was more than just skirmishes and was different in each aspect than any other war. There was status quo, was Pakistan was defeated given their failure to annex Kargil district. Orientls (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Support: Reliable sources appear to overwhelmingly state that India decisively won the Kargil War. If a small number of sources say otherwise, we could briefly note that in the article body, but not the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus far, a number of editors have supported that the results should state "Decisive Indian victory", in accordance with the sources, so there is a clear consensus on this. I've also found another reliable source for this and have made changes in the infobox accordingly. --RaviC (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support change to "Indian victory". Thanks to once again, for a good job of culling the sources. I would also like to note that this was a war between two nuclear powers under a nuclear umbrella. The norms for gauging such a thing are quite different from traditional wars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"temperate" and "-54 degrees F" do not go together
This article says that Kargil enjoys a "temperate" climate: cool summers with frigid nights, and long cold winters where the temperature often reaches -54° F. That is NOT a "temperate" climate. In a temperate climate, a temperature of -25° F is extremely cold, and is a rare event. This article describes a cold, alpine climate, colder than a continental climate. --Ed Rigdon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigdon (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I do get your point, what is your suggestion , do you have a proposal to change some X to Y ? -- D Big X ray  15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can be classified as alpine climate too, since the range of temperatures is −48 to +35 °C. —Gazoth (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Classifying it as continental climate seems to be fine, as Kargil district puts the highest temperature of the coldest month (January) at −4.3 °C. I've made the change to the page. —Gazoth (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Related to Brigadier Surinder Singh
Which exact section and paragraph of the Kargil Review Committee report mentions Brigadier Surinder Singh by name? I will go through the original report for his name more carefully but if someone else can find out faster than that would be of great help. The current news sources in the article where he is mentioned in the KRC section do not address this specific question and hence I am asking this here for clarification. Was it only a separate army inquiry that named him, or even the KRC report? And if so, where is here mentioned in the report? If it was only a separate army inquiry, than the current wordings in the article are misleading. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

US blocks GPS signal for this conflict, no mention in article
https://m.timesofindia.com/home/science/How-Kargil-spurred-India-to-design-own-GPS/articleshow/33254691.cms

Does anybody else have an idea how to integrate this info? I'm not sure where it should go, but it certainly seems important enough to be included Ninjalectual (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what the source says. It says that "GPS data" was denied, more accurately, it would have been satellite data, perhaps even fine-resolution satellite images. The need for these was pressed by Brig. Surinder Singh long before the Kargil war, but the army and the political leadership gave a cold shoulder to it:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3, Ninjalectual I think the aftermath section at Kargil_War seems to be the most reasonable option to add this information about "denial of GPS data" and development of indigenous SATNAV. The idea may have existed before but this event was made it a reality, I don't see any solid reason not to mention this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, good plan. See the IRNSS page and these articles:
 * India completes its GPS alternative, for the second time, The Register, 13 April 2018.
 * Gurbir Singh, How India built NavIC, the country's own GPS network, Plantery Society, 17 July 2018.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * It has been mentioned by me in Operation Safed Sagar. Please read https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ This article explains the difference between civilian and military modes of the US GPS. It made little difference to the IAF. The MiG-21 and 27 had no navigation equipment of note and were employed for area bombing rather than pinpoit bombing, the latter task being allotted to the Mirage 2000 when it joined battle. The GPS was not required for LGBs or for carpet bombing with 4 or 6 x 250 kg dumb bombs. The US Govt did deny India the military version of the GPS, but the civilian version was adequate for high-level navigation.
 * The Indian Army probably needed the military version, as they were trekking through areas which could have fallen in zones not accessible to one frequency of the GPS, at times both, due terrain. The Military version was not available.
 * Moitranaak (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Related to the point made in "Result" section
The editor who edited this 2 hours ago, has blatantly ignored the fact and edited this to satisfy his and his country people's ego.His name happens to be younis chandio. I s h u17 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Independent estimates of losses
Routledge is a publisher and reliability is primarily determined by the author and their sources. Leaving that aside, the two sources are not even comparable in this case. Your new source quotes an estimate without attributing it to anybody, while the older source explicitly attributes it to United States Department of State which demonstrates that it is an independent estimate. The author Ravi Kalia could have been quoting anybody's estimates and there is nothing in the source to show that it is an independent estimate. —Gazoth (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable references which also treat those US department figures as "independent"? Shashank5988 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The cited source itself does. —Gazoth (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019
Respected Sir/Madame, I request you to allow me to edit this web page because a few claims made by Nawaz Sharref have to be removed. Nawaz Sharref has been declared corrupt and a liar by the supreme court of Pakistan. ( https://www.dawn.com/news/1401362 )This link is for reference. A person's opinion has no value if he has been declared a liar according to article 62. I suggest you allow me to change the number of Pakistani casualties told by Nawaz Sharref. I hope you accept my request. Yours sincerely Global Reporter100 Global reporter100 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    19:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous question. ∯ WBG converse 18:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rework Air Effort under a separate heading
--Moitraanak (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC) The section India attacks Pakistani positions needs reworking. The Air Effort needs to be written as a stand alone topic. It could be re-integrated with the main body subsequently. I will do so next week.

--Moitraanak (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)My online link to Wikipedia was disconnected halfway through my proposal. That is a lot of work gone waste.

KARGIL WAR: Section --India attacks Pakistani positions
The section referred to above is an unhappy mix of Indian Army and Air Force efforts. I propose to bifurcate the two as shown below. I will wait until March 31 for comments.

India attacks Pakistani positions
The terrain of Kashmir is mountainous and at high altitudes; even the best roads, such as National Highway 1D from Leh to Srinagar, are only two lanes. The rough terrain and narrow roads slowed down traffic, and the high altitude, which affected the ability of aircraft to carry loads, made control of NH 1D (the actual stretch of the highway which was under Pakistani fire) a priority for India. From their observation posts, the Pakistani forces had a clear line-of-sight to lay down indirect artillery fire on NH 1D, inflicting heavy casualties on the Indians. This was a serious problem for the Indian Army as the highway was the main logistical and supply route. The Pakistani shelling of the arterial road posed the threat of Leh being cut off, though an alternative (and longer) road to Leh existed via Himachal Pradesh.

The infiltrators, apart from being equipped with small arms and grenade launchers, were also armed with mortars, artillery and anti-aircraft guns. Many posts were also heavily mined, with India later stating to have recovered more than 8,000 anti-personnel mines according to an ICBL report. Pakistan's reconnaissance was done through unmanned aerial vehicles and AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radars supplied by the US. The initial Indian attacks were aimed at controlling the hills overlooking NH 1D, with high priority being given to the stretches of the highway near the town of Kargil. The majority of posts along the Line of Control were adjacent to the highway, and therefore the recapture of nearly every infiltrated post increased both the territorial gains and the security of the highway. The protection of this route and the recapture of the forward posts were thus ongoing objectives throughout the war.

The Indian Army's first priority was to recapture peaks that were in the immediate vicinity of NH 1D. This resulted in Indian troops first targeting the Tiger Hill and Tololing complex in Dras, which dominated the Srinagar-Leh route. This was soon followed by the Batalik-Turtok sub-sector which provided access to Siachen Glacier. Some of the peaks that were of vital strategic importance to the Pakistani defensive troops were Point 4590 and Point 5353. While 4590 was the nearest point that had a view of NH 1D, point 5353 was the highest feature in the Dras sector, allowing the Pakistani troops to observe NH 1D. The recapture of Point 4590 by Indian troops on 14 June was significant, notwithstanding the fact that it resulted in the Indian Army suffering the most casualties in a single battle during the conflict. Though most of the posts in the vicinity of the highway were cleared by mid-June, some parts of the highway near Drass witnessed sporadic shelling until the end of the war.

Once India regained control of the hills overlooking NH 1D, the Indian Army turned to driving the invading force back across the Line of Control. The Battle of Tololing, amongst other assaults, slowly tilted the combat in India's favour. The Pakistani troops at Tololing were aided by Pakistani fighters from Kashmir. Some of the posts put up a stiff resistance, including Tiger Hill (Point 5140) that fell only later in the war. Indian troops found well-entrenched Pakistani soldiers at Tiger Hill, and both sides suffered heavy casualties. After a final assault on the peak in which ten Pakistani soldiers and five Indian soldiers were killed, Tiger Hill finally fell. A few of the assaults occurred atop hitherto unheard of peaks – most of them unnamed with only Point numbers to differentiate them – which witnessed fierce hand to hand combat.

As the operation was fully underway, about 250 artillery guns were brought in to clear the infiltrators in the posts that were in the line-of-sight. The Bofors FH-77B field howitzer played a vital role, with Indian gunners making maximum use of the terrain. However, its success was limited elsewhere due to the lack of space and depth to deploy it.

In many vital points, neither artillery nor air power could dislodge the outposts manned by the Pakistani soldiers, who were out of visible range. The Indian Army mounted some direct frontal ground assaults which were slow and took a heavy toll given the steep ascent that had to be made on peaks as high as 18000 ft. Since any daylight attack would be suicidal, all the advances had to be made under the cover of darkness, escalating the risk of freezing. Accounting for the wind chill factor, the temperatures were often as low as -15 to -11 C near the mountain tops. Based on military tactics, much of the costly frontal assaults by the Indians could have been avoided if the Indian Military had chosen to blockade the supply route of the opposing force, creating a siege. Such a move would have involved the Indian troops crossing the LOC as well as initiating aerial attacks on Pakistani soil, a manoeuvre India was not willing to exercise fearing an expansion of the theatre of war and reduced international support for its cause.

The Air War

It was in this type of terrain that aerial attacks were called for. The Indian Govt cleared use of offensive Air Power only on May 25, with the caveat that IAF fighter jets were not to cross the Line of Control under any circumstance, for fear of undesirable escalation. Surprisingly, there was no opposition at all by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), leaving the IAF free to carry out its attacks with total freedom.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) flew its first air support missions on 26 May, operating from the Indian airfields of Srinagar, Awantipora and Adampur, with MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-27s, SEPECAT Jaguars and helicopter gunships striking insurgent positions. On 27 May, a MiG-27 strike aircraft, piloted by Flt. Lt. Nachiketa was lost to engine failure, and its escorting MiG-21 fighter, which circled the area to locate Nachiketa, was shot down by a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. Nachiketa was captured but the MiG-21 pilot, Sqn Ldr Ajay Ahuja, was killed by his captors and his body returned with two close-quarter bullet wounds. The next day, an Indian Mi-17 helicopter with four crew was also lost to Stinger SAMs. Tactics were changed immediately to preclude similar losses.

The LGB capable Mirage 2000 fleet was inducted on 30 May, and used extensively, armed initially with 250 kg "dumb" bombs, as technical problems had to be resolved to permit use of Litening laser designators and Paveway kits for Laser-guided bombs (LGBs). Moreover, aiming index solutions had to be found by all aircraft of the IAF to cater to reduced air density and concomitant variation in ballistic trajectory when hitting targets at heights 6,000’ to 18,000’ AMSL and keeping outside any MANPADS launch range. The receding snowline in June laid bare the hitherto camouflaged Pakistani positions, opening them up to non-stop day and night attacks by the Mirage 2000 and, subsequently, all aircraft.

On June 17, Mirage 2000s destroyed the enemy’s main administrative and logistics depot at Muntho Dhalo in the Batalik sector using 1,000-pound dumb bombs with both demoralising and paralysing results. Through the last weeks of June, the Mirages, armed with LGBs as well as with "dumbs", repeatedly struck the heavily defended Tiger Hill. Interestingly, only 9 LGBs were used in this war, 8 by the Mirage to take out command and control bunkers, and one by a Jaguar, as the dumb bombs proved highly effective. The Mirage 2000 proved its worth in this war, albeit without enemy opposition. Moitraanak (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased Article Does Not Reflect Ground Realities
Why is there no mention mention of the several peaks Pakistan captured in 1999 and continue to hold on to this day? Recapturing one peak (Tiger Hill) and claiming overall victory is ridiculous, but then again so are imaginary surgical strikes. It seems like this was initially reported in the Indian media but then hushed up to avoid embarrassment.

The Hindu wrote this in August 2000: "Pakistan soldiers perched at peak 5353 metres, on the strategic Marpo La Ridge had a grandstand view of this year's Vijay Diwas celebrations, marking the official end of the Kargil war. At least some of them must had wry smiles on their faces, for although peak 5,353 metres is inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), Pakistani troops held the mountain through the Kargil war and continue to do so today."
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Qwerfjkl  talk  21:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Peaks captured by Pakistan in 1999

 * Point 5353
 * Point Aftab-I
 * Point Saddle Ridge
 * Point Bunker Ridge
 * Shangruti
 * Dhalunag
 * Tiger Hill

Peaks recaptured by India in 1999

 * Tiger Hill

Peaks still under Pakistan control as of 2019

 * Point 5353
 * Point Aftab-I
 * Point Saddle Ridge
 * Point Bunker Ridge
 * Shangruti
 * Dhalunag

Quotes

 * "Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

 * "Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months."...he said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)
 * "Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed...the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta."..."It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches,"..."attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)". - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

 * "If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then why did they launch the attack?" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

 * "It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders. - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019
Could you change the security settings so that nobody except the Wikipedia officials can edit pages. This will play a big role in making Wikipedia a more reliable site as it is currently banned in many institutions. 103.198.166.28 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that anyone can edit almost every page. If there are specific pages you feel need protection under Wikipedia's protection policy, you can request they be protected at WP:RFPP. ‑‑ El Hef  ( Meep? ) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019
Please change the word "killed" to either "casualties" or "killed or injured" at citation no. 11 as the source of this citation uses the word 'casualties' which refers to people killed or injured in a war or accident according to all of the major dictionaries including Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and Collins. Helloabc1234 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Melmann 17:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
2409:4052:2E1D:C617:0:0:1A4B:5003 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  D Big X ray ᗙ  15:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019
Kargil conflict in 1999 was generally portrayed as one of the big events in the relation of two neighboring but hostile countries_ Pakistan and India. For Pakistan, it was a defensive strategy, which ultimately went towards a permanent conflict. This conflict erupted along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir. Many agreements related to borders were signed between both countries like Cease Fire Line in 1948 and Simla Agreement and Line of Control (LOC) in 1972. All these agreements failed to meet the desired results because India was persistently violating every agreement and considered them of no value. She violated the agreement of LOC. It showed aggression in Siachen, Nellum Valley and finally in Kargil. There were multiple factors, which led Pakistan and India to war in Kargil. Pakistan’s army won Kargil war militarily but did not win it diplomatically as well as politically. Indian diplomats exploited the conflict and went to get support from America, in which they succeeded. Repercussions of this conflict had been damaging for Pakistan internationally and domestically.it proved that there was a huge communication gap between army and the government.

Kargil conflict has its root in the past, when two agreements were signed between India and Pakistan. First military exchange between India and Pakistan over Kashmir established in 1948 having the name of Cease Fire Line. It was considered international border line between both the countries. In 1972 another agreement was signed namely as Simla Agreement with little modification of what was Cease Line Fire and became Line Of Control (LOC). In this agreement both countries come to the settlement that both were to be remained in their own dominions within the area of LOC. First violation of LOC was done by India in 1984, when attack had been initiated by Indian army on Siachen and occupied 10 sq Km area across the line. Indian military showed aggression and it was a first challenge to Simla Agreement. A serious conflict was started between both countries. About six talks took place between both rivalries, in which Pakistan was at the point of view that India had to withdraw from the Siachen but Pakistan did not get fruitful results of these talks. Once again in 1988 Indian troops attacked on Qamar Sector, Pakistan’s army did respond but Indian managed to hold 10 posts within Pakistan’s territory. This was accompanied by an Indian attack on Nellum Valley route in Pakistan’s side. These consecutive conflicts proved to be an eye opener for Pakistan because all the agreement failed to prevent an Indian aggression.

For Pakistan things were going wrong and she started to realize that this is the time to deter the Indian bellicosity. India attacked Nellum Valley on regular basis and for that Pakistan responded and started to attack Dras-Kargil road, Where India faced much difficulty because Indian supply route was blocked. Pakistan army had subjugated the kargil and some posts which came under the dominions of India and the height advantage also went to Pakistan. Indian leader L.K Advani and many other leaders condemned this act of Pakistan. India also started to deploy its army on these areas. A mission was started having the name Vijay Operation, in which about 200,000 soldiers were mobilized by India. A serious conflict was started and many innocent people along with the LOC were killed. India attacked on Pakistan army equipped with many weapons like small guns, anti-aircraft guns and grenade launcher and air force of India also got involved. The only motive which Indian army had at that time was to remove, the Pakistan army posts, which had clearly height advantage. For that, Indian firstly targeted the Tiger Hill with full power, in this operation India managed to recapture some of the important territories. Both countries had lost many soldiers in this area. Then clash was started in Dras Sector, where India simply damaged the Pakistan army and this post was also recaptured by Indian. India faced a lot of problem from the Mujahedeen of Kashmir in every step of their planning. Many Indian soldiers had been killed by Mujahedeen. India initiated its final attack on Pakistan army on every occupied area and got about 80% of its territory back in their pockets.

At the end, Pakistan withdrew from Kargil because of the pressure of America. American role in this conflict was an obvious fact. It looks like that America was playing neutral role in this conflict but the reality stands somewhere else. American adopted a unilateral approach and that was Pakistan must withdraw from Kargil. Indian diplomats were completely exploiting the existed conditions during Kargil conflict. The image of Pakistan came in international community as a hostile and terrorist country. On the other hand, America was not happy of Pakistan nuclear program. Another most important factor was Nawaz Sharif’s unprecedented tour to America and unscheduled meeting with American president Clinton. This made Pakistan a culpable state and it also played a role to tilt American towards unilateral approach.

Kargil War ended up with a lot of casualties from both sides. About 587 soldiers were killed of India and roundabout 387 soldiers were killed of Pakistan. Repercussions of this conflict were devastating for Pakistan than India. Inability of politicians can be seen during the war and the result was that in same year Nawaz Sharif’s government had to depart. Weak and nominal communication between military and civilian government came in front of the picture. Even Pakistan nation had no idea that what was going on in Kargil? This war affected the image of Pakistan in international level. Pakistan was about to face many problems from international community and international community started to tilt towards India more sympathetically than Pakistan. Even international media exposed its biasness and started to publish against Pakistan and Nawaz-Clinton meeting depicted as “Pakistan will withdraw from Kashmir”. Mujahedeen took complete advantage from this situation and started to target Indian military. This conflict gave the chance of freedom fighter of Kashmir to act more organized and properly.

To conclude, Kargil war for Pakistan was a Defensive-offensive approach but it failed in both. A clearly won battle on military basis ultimately was lost badly on diplomatic level. Pakistan had to pay the price of this both, internationally and domestically. 110.36.239.174 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 * ❌ Unsourced and too poorly-written, sorry. El_C 09:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kargil war.jpg

UNDUE obsolete content
, it is not appropriate to cherry pick content from old newspaper reports about events that happened two decades ago. Note also that the article does not make synthesized statements like those that you added. Please use books and scholarly sources, which indicate the WP:WEIGHT to be given to various aspects. See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox very inaccurate
The infobox says that Pakistan withdrew from all positions on the LoC, while this has been proven wrong by not only independent and Pakistani sources, but also Indian sources. This has also been discussed by users before me, who have cited those many sources. Interestingly, I have already written about this here but it seems an Indian user has reverted this page claiming that what I said did not count as improving the artice. If the infobox and result are factually wrong, is suggesting to fix them not an improvement to the article? I am willing to believe it was a mistake while they were cleaning up previous un-neccessary topics, so I will paste a short excerpt of my message:

'''A solution. Fix the results in the infobox to reflect the reality: That Pakistan withdrew from all captured areas except those mentioned above, and that India remained in posession of Kargil. The victor could be disputed, similar to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, or not mentioned at all, similar to Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948.

The infobox (and parts of the article) are flat out wrong at the moment, and must be corrected as quickly as possible. However, I will refrain from making any edit while others reply to this section. If there are no suggestions/objections, I will go ahead and fix the infobox as soon as possible.'''

If any Indian editors have objections with this, I encourage them to respond here and not engage in edit warring (what is the point of a talk page?) SpicyBiryani  (talk)  23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

'''It has almost been 2 days and it seems that the community has no objections to correcting the infobox. I will still wait a third day to address any objections and then will correct the infobox with relevant sources, since this level of inaccuracy on such an important conflict should be corrected ASAP.'''

SpicyBiryani  (talk)  15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 * You should substantiate your arguments with reliable sources than assess outcome per your own understanding. See WP:OR. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that previously users had written detailed pieces on this with sources and I did not want to repeat what they said and clutter the talk page up. These are a good place to start. I will use these along with other sources such as this, this, this, this, and this. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep making obscure references to "users" but all you've linked to so far is to an old post by a chronic sockpuppeter. We do not entertain socks' posts. They have no credibility here. You seem to be just obfuscating an issue regarding how exactly are the "sources" you have used here relevant to this particular article? This article isn't about Point 5353 - a mountain feature on the LoC or its concomitant controversies -- they've been dealt with in that article. The BBC article has to do with Pakistan's formal denial to an Indian opposition party member's unsubstantiated charge of occupying border peaks. So what are you on about? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC article is one of the multiple sources provided and shows and Indian confirmation that Pakistan did not withdraw from all areas it captured on the other side of the LoC and is supported by the numerous other sources mentioned. The article, specifically the infobox, which is the first thing a reader sees and considers to be a summary of the whole event, contradicts reality. There is a whole article on point 5353, for example, that states it is under Pakistani control. Pakistan did not withdraw from all areas across the LoC and in fact gained a valuable strategic area. So not only is this article factually wrong when it comes to claiming Pakistan withdrew from all the areas it occupied, but it is also incorrect in over excitedly claiming India won a decisive victory because as a result of this war, attacking Kashmir is a whole lot easier for Pakistan (but that is an issue to deal with later). And so what if Pakistan denies controlling those areas? Pakistan denies ever sending their army into the war and says that everyone was a freedom fighter. Why would they release a statement that contradicts their own narrative? And is there any evidence that the user is a sockpuppeter? Even so, does that change the credibility and content of his/her sources? Hitler drank water, does that mean we can't drink it? SpicyBiryani   (talk)  20:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is easy to once-over the veracity of what you're saying by just glancing at the articles. And neither the BBC article nor the Wikipedia's article show what you're claiming.  A random politician's "accusations" don't tantamount to statement of facts. Your reply shows you are ignoring the major points, which in turn import problems on your part. The Wikipedia's entry on Point 5353 describes it as a "mountain on the Line of Control", and not "across the LoC" as you falsely claim. As far as the result in the infobox of the article is concerned, it's drawn from reliable scholarly sources and is backed by a unanimous consensus of editors. By repeatedly resorting to WP:OR and arguments which smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to get rid of something that's reliably sourced. You still haven't explained why you pluralized "users" when you were in reality really alluding the banned sockpuppeter's arguments using non-scholarly military-history sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article says: 'Today, Point 5353 remains in Pakistani military possession.[10] The peak became a subject of controversy after the Kargil War. Soon after the war had ended The Hindu correspondent Praveen Swami and an Indian opposition party leader, Ram Kumar Anand claimed that the peak was inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) and it was captured by the Pakistan Army during the Kargil War.' The point was attacked by the Indian army because Pakistan had taken control of it from India and they wanted it back, along with all the other areas mentioned above (CITED IN THE ARTICLE). Additionally, that is the conclusion that the whole article comes to, it is not an isolated sentence just there to inform readers about a random claim by one side. Are you claiming that I travelled back in time and submitted my 'original' research to Praveen Swami? Since providing more and more sources and repeating their credibility is pointless considering your replies are ignoring all of that, I will state what I am saying again in very simple words: The territorial changes as a result of the war are not 'none'. Point 5353 is just one example of that. Reliable sources including Lt. Generals and analysts support this, it isn't just my opinion. I am still waiting for proof of that user's sockpuppetry. So far, you are the only one who has objected to this correction and a 'consensus' doesn't really mean much anyway considering that India who has the largest internet presence in the world, the most fake news in the world, and IT Cells who actively spread propaganda in organised brigades for the government, even against opposition parties. If you still insist on keeping the current territorial changes result, then the least that can be done is separating the claims into two, like Indian official/army claim = no changes, xxx claims yyy change etc. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeating your thoroughly debunked comments, while engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will do you no good. You're not going to convince me or anyone of your edits with this attitude. You would do well to read my above comments again, then read your own quotes again and if you don't get it still, you should get off the page altogether. It's also not a good idea to brush aside a unanimous consensus of editors with rhetoric and go on to personally attack other, fellow editors, and by labelling them as "it cell" working for "government" to "spread propoganda". As far as the banned sock is concerned, it says on his userpage that he is banned from the English Wikipedia and hence nothing related to him is to be entertained. Surely you checked it given how overzealous you were concerning him that you even pluralized him as "users" and his only post which was never entertained by anyone as "discussions" and stuff... Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Aman.Kumar.Goel. And can we stop with the narrow and disproportionately undue focus on Point 5353 already? Point 5353 is not even on the Indian's side, it's the peak through which the LoC passes near the Dras area. Pakistan's occupation thereof does not mean an encroachment upon the other party's territory. Just like India's possession of Point 5240, the very next mountain peak south-east to Point 5353, along the same ridgeline in the area, and also on the LoC, doesn't mean to an encroachment upon the Pakistani territory.

But Point 5310 is a mountain peak, a kilometer inside the Pakistani side of the LoC as the crow flies in Chorbat La and is controlled by India since the Kargil times. South of Turtuk, a strategically located mounting peak, also inside the Pakistani administered part of the Kashmir, is under India's possession, as also a feature adjacent to the Kupwara sector. FWIW, the Indian occupation of these features caused a discernible territorial change because India continues to have possession over them. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 * There you go, another example of why the territorial changes were not 'none'. I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chest thumping is the purpouse of these discussions. The article on Point 5310 says, 'Some analysts see it as an Indian retaliation for the capture of Point 5353 on the LoC by Pakistani troops.'. And Point 5353 is on the Indian side of the LoC as well, So both countries have gained and lost territory. Aman.kumar.goel, I have not targeted a single editor but given a reason to doubt the validity of any quantity based decisions made involving India on the internet, supported with reliable sources. In fact, your repeated allegations and claim of 'thourougly debunking' are yet to be validated, considering that I am saying that there were territorial changes after the war and Capankajsmilyo has confirmed that as well. Here is yet another Indian source saying that re capturing point 5353 was an objective of the Indian military. Moreover, it seems you ignored the fact that a well known Indian analyst had verified my claims and resorted to calling R. K. Anand a 'random politician'. And I am yet to see any indication of that editor being a banned sockpuppeter. Their IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality in this, eliminating any Indo-Pakistani bias. Their userpage does not say anything about being banned, so attacking them with baseless allegations isn't helping your case. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't lend more credibility to sockmaster by speculating his nationality. Can you find any military history sources backing your claims. Cobbling up various claims for creating an argument isn't going to work. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Is there any evidence that I am quoting a 'sockmaster'? All their userpage(s) has told me is that they are a Canadian and that's it. No indication of any ban. Plenty of sources already. I'll find more if you really want. SpicyBiryani  (talk)  06:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What solely matters is the legal situation - whether both sides agree that the LoC delineation contained in the Simla Agreement still holds, or that any territorial changes took place. For now, both parties – their respective ministries (MFAs) – are adamant in saying that no territorial changes took place in 1999 and the Simla Agreement still holds with no need to update it. Trying to prove otherwise based on (very imprecise!) Google Maps and a handful of media articles is precisely what we call here original research. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition or objection in Failure of both the armies
Any objection or contribution under the heading of failure of the army can be discussed hereTruthwins018 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflict Events Section Is Not Neutral
The Conflict Events Section is not neutral at all it has a neutral source cited to it but what the neutral source says is not in the section. The section mentions the content which is on this website, isn't this a primary source? It should mention the content which is on this neutral source -NomanPK44 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Conflict Events Section which is under War progress especially the table it is totally based on a primary source. The neutral source is already cited but nothing from it is mentioned in the section. NomanPK44 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , first wikipdia works on RS, not "neutral", something which is neutral to you can be biased to other and if there is any dispute it's sorted out with discussion. Now enlighten please which specific information you think cannot be backed by RS, keep in mind the table is a summary of whole event. Drat8sub (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It shows the summary of the whole event but what it is based on an Indian website i.e so it should be considered a Primary Source rather than a reliable source. NomanPK44 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an Indian newspaper. That does not automatically make it non-neutral. Is there any content from it that you are disputing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are these events disputed by Pakistan or any other sources? If so, we can attribute the events as "according to Indian sources" and present the Pakistani version alongside it per WP:NPOV.VR talk  02:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not neutral
This article is not at all neutral and a disrespect to wikipedia overall and its neutrality policy. I see many indians trying to defend this undermining the neutrality policy and only putting the indian side and not the pakistani version, e.g war is also remembered each year in pakistan and many newspapers quoted pakistan victory too. So i propose result of the war be changed from decisive indian victory to Disputed Truthwins018 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the request edit because I doubt that you have a conflict of interest with war. Thanks!  Darth  Flappy   '«Talk»'  21:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the result field should not include terms such as "decisive", this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive", then Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Ordinarily I would just be bold, but since this has been discussed above thought it sensible to start a new discussion first. FDW777 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I was thinking the same thing myself. Almost every other article on past military conflicts also follow this standard so I don't think this is really up for debate if the answer is this obvious. Zeex.rice (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you, I was just in the process of returning here to implement the change. As there was an Rfc at above I thought it better to start this discussion than potentially edit against consensus, but as there has been no reply it seems consensus is for the change. FDW777 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New image for introductory infobox
Given the fact that the other Indo-Pakistani Wars articles just have a map of Kashmir on them with the exception of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, I was wondering if it would be more appropriate to show this image (of the Kargil district in Indian-administered Kashmir) in the introductory infobox:

Zeex.rice (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 * There is already a map called "Location of the conflict" on the page. Why do we need a new proposal?
 * In any case, this map is inappropriate because the conflict was not in the entire district. Secondly, the fighting was not limited to the Kargil district either. (There are some mentions of Chorbat La and Turtuk etc. on the page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020
Change-

Operation Talwar to Operation Talwar

(In Naval Action section, 3.3.1) SenatorLEVI (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, . Pahunkat (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SenatorLEVI (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Peak 5353
I am surprised that the article has no mention of point 5353 which remains in Pakistan's control, and still it is mentioned of indian victory in the info box. As a user mentioned already in the talk page, but he received no replies,

Why is there no mention mention of the several peaks Pakistan captured in 1999 and continue to hold on to this day? Recapturing one peak (Tiger Hill) and claiming overall victory is ridiculous. It seems like this was initially reported in the Indian media but then hushed up to avoid embarrassment.

The Hindu wrote this in August 2000: "Pakistan soldiers perched at peak 5353 metres, on the strategic Marpo La Ridge had a grandstand view of this year's Vijay Diwas celebrations, marking the official end of the Kargil war. At least some of them must had wry smiles on their faces, for although peak 5,353 metres is inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), Pakistani troops held the mountain through the Kargil war and continue to do so today."

Peaks captured by Pakistan in 1999
 * Point 5353
 * Point Aftab-I
 * Point Saddle Ridge
 * Point Bunker Ridge
 * Shangruti
 * Dhalunag
 * Tiger Hill

Peaks recaptured by India in 1999 Quotes "Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000) "Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months."...he said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)
 * Tiger Hill
 * Peaks still under Pakistan control as of 2019
 * Point 5353
 * Point Aftab-I
 * Point Saddle Ridge
 * Point Bunker Ridge
 * Shangruti
 * Dhalunag

"Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed...the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta."..."It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches,"..."attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)". - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

"If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then why did they launch the attack?" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000) "It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders. - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

Infobox again
I'm confused by two contradictory pieces of information in the infobox. Under result we have "India regains possession of Kargil", yet under territorial changes we have "No territorial changes". If the former is correct, "India regains possession of Kargil" should be moved into the territorial changes field. If the latter is correct, "India regains possession of Kargil" should be removed entirely. Which is it? FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything inconsistent in the two sentences. India regains possession of Kargil constitutes a return to the status quo ante. It's the same as saying that no territorial changes took place as a result of the war. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021
Indian soldiers fought with bravery and recapture the posts which result the Pakistan forces to move back.

Though the PM of Pakistan Nawaj Sharif declared withdrawal of his forces at Conference with Bill Clinton, but the ground reality was not according to his declaration.

Pakistani forces were forced to disengage by the Indian soldiers.

The Indian Government strictly followed The Shimla Agreement of 1972 at its end and not crossed the Line Of Control(LOC). 157.41.170.116 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –– Sirdog9002 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2022
Result chance to Strategic Pakistani victory. India failed to recover all of the land it lost to Pakistan when Pakistan first instigated the conflict. India captures 90 percent leaving Pakistan with 10 percent more than they started war with H10khxn (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ No references provided. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

what a joke. Aryanjaiswal1234 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting edits in Subsection:Aftermath on crucial detail
SubSection:Aftermath Heading: Pakistan

You can find this line in the article "Responding to this, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said, "It hurts me when an ex-premier undermines his own forces", and claimed that Indian casualties were more than that of Pakistan.[187] "

According to the article Pakistan Prime Minister was Nawaz Sharif while Army Chief was Pervez Musharraf during Kargil. But the above line contracts the facts by calling Musharraf as Prime Minister.

Humble request to please check on this and modify if needed.

203.115.84.180 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Ekta

Requesting edits in Subsection:Aftermath on crucial detail
Subsection: Aftermath Heading: Pakistan

You can find a sentence "Responding to this, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said, "It hurts me when an ex-premier undermines his own forces", and claimed that Indian casualties were more than that of Pakistan.[187]"

According to Article, during the Kargil war the Pakistan Prime Minister was Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief was Pervez Musharraf, but above it reads that Pervez Musharraf was Prime Minister which is confusing.

Humble request to please verify and update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EktaGambhir (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, . ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Artillery ( units that participated)
Request to add 286 Medium Regiment (KARGIL) that participated in the conflict and also has been awarded with many unit citations and personnel decorations during the period of conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.99.80 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the citations and references from indian sources.
Fairly describe both sides of the conflict. 2400:ADC5:131:C600:1126:92D5:BB61:38B7 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Request addition of citation to support infiltration https://www.britannica.com/event/Kargil-War
Add citation https://www.britannica.com/event/Kargil-War 122.106.100.12 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023
In the following sentence:

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif officially announces the Pakistan Army's withdrawal from Kargil following a meeting with POTUS Bill Clinton. Indian forces subsequently take control of Dras.

Use hyperlink for Nawaz Sharif. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif WriterPankajRai (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅RegentsPark (comment) 13:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Heading :Gallantry Awards; Link to Naik Ao and Capt Suri Missing
The above information is available at : https://www.gallantryawards.gov.in/awardee/1509 https://www.gallantryawards.gov.in/awardee/1510 Please include details in Link Glenmenezes (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Who won? Who lost?
It's not clear from the article. 223.19.227.203 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The result is clearly states in the infobox SKAG123 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * you still have this question in 2024..? ADWikiax (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not Indian victory
It is not Pakistan victory either. In the infobox it is better to point it to "see aftermath section", like done with Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 article. There was no territorial changes in the end in this Kargil war. It did not damage Pakistan greatly either. In the end it was a status quo. It was India victory in 1971, where pakistan got divided, but not in 1948, nor in 1965, nor in this 1999 Kargil war. All these wars were status quo or stalemate or ceasefire. I'm saying all this as an Indian myself. Crashed greek (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 * As an Indian or Pakistani or Whatever nationality, it does not matter. What matters is what WP:RS say, and what is consensus among WP editors. As per Talk:Kargil_War, where extensive sources are put forth in favour of Indian Victory. Putting a comment on the talk page does not mean bypassing previously established consensus and creating a de-facto one. If you want to change from 2018 consensus, do an RfC, and challenge on WP:RS and Consensus. Not personal whims. But also in 1965 article... Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I felt Crashed greek could see Talk:Kargil_War but nevertheless it has been linked right above now. Ratnahastin  (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Kargil Air War into Kargil War
There was no "Kargil Air War", the air combat was not notable enough to be included as standalone. Further, I did not find any RS calling it "Kargil Air War". WP:REDUNDANTFORK Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Yeah it'd seem more suitable as kargil air operations, and 3 aircraft lost and 1 damaged is pretty much of an air combat M Waleed (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Operation Safed Sagar into Kargil War
WP:REDUNDANTFORK Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Opppose:That's a singular operation, the involvement of the airforce so I don't think it should be M Waleed (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Operation Talwar into Kargil War
WP:REDUNDANTFORK Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 * That's a naval blockade, a singular operation Again Oppose M Waleed (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kargil War


text:
Talk:Ivvavik National Park

Untitled
Where is this park? Anyone have a map?

suggested map source
https://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/60326BA1-88A6-4EF1-B079-309275FCE713/fig1.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ivvavik National Park


text:
User talk:Sparquin

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 23:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sparquin


text:
Category:Ambassidae

The Ambassidae, also known as the Asiatic glassfishes (and formerly called the Chandidae), are members of family Ambassidae of freshwater and marine ray-finned fish belonging to order Perciformes. This category consists of articles on genera and species in family Ambassidae.

title: Category:Ambassidae


text:
Grenadier (manga)

Grenadier (グレネーダー) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Sōsuke Kaise. It was serialized in Kadokawa Shoten's shōnen manga magazine Monthly Shōnen Ace from April 2002 to March 2005, with its chapters collected in seven tankōbon volumes. In North America, the manga was initially licensed by Tokyopop and released in print from 2006 to 2008. It was later licensed for digital release by Viz Media and released in 2015.

A 12-episode anime television series adaptation, produced by Studio Live and Group TAC, and directed by Hiroshi Kōjina, was broadcast on Wowow from October 2004 to January 2005. The series was licensed in North America by Media Blasters.

Plot
Grenadier follows the travels of Rushuna Tendō, an expert gunfighter, and the samurai Yajirō Kojima, a mercenary swordsman. A Senshi or "Enlightened" is one who is skilled to some degree in the use of guns. The series begins with Yajirō and a small army of samurai launching a frontal assault against a fort in an attempt to free their lord, which was taken over by a group of gunners. The assault fails.

Yajirō orders a retreat, but is spotted by the enemy and chased to a small cliff, which he jumps off of to escape. With his pursuers still following, he follows a nearby hot-water stream upcurrent where he finds Rushuna bathing in a hot spring. She seems undisturbed by his presence or her own nudity and hides him in the hot spring with her ample breasts as cover until the enemy passes them by. After this, she introduces herself as a traveler and reveals the ultimate battle strategy to Yajirō; to avoid battle by removing an enemy's will to fight.

Hearing the gunfire of the renewed assault upon the fort, Yajirō leaves Rushuna to rejoin combat. He arrives in time to see the leader of the gunners use a Gatling gun to decimate the samurai. Rushuna also arrives at this point and shows her considerable gun talent and effectively ends the battle by defeating the lead gunner and rescuing the lord by herself.

Something in him changing, Yajirō decides to become Rushuna's partner and travel with her.

During their travels, Rushuna and Yajirō face a mysterious masked figure known only as "The Jester" who is responsible for a weapon called "Enlightened Evil". Then they discover that Tenshi, who sent Rushuna to travel in order to learn the "Ultimate Battle Strategy", had apparently put a price on her head. Joined by a young girl named Mikan Kurenai, a balloon maker, Rushuna and Yajirō make their way to the capital of Tento. Along the way they overcome many of the Juttensen, Tenshi's elite personal bodyguard.

When the three reach Tento, they discover the truth and the final showdown against the Jester begins.

Manga
Written and illustrated by Sōsuke Kaise, Grenadier was serialized in Kadokawa Shoten's shōnen manga magazine Monthly Shōnen Ace from April 26, 2002, to March 26, 2005. Kadokawa Shoten collected its chapters in seven tankōbon volumes, released from June 26, 2003, to May 24, 2005.

In North America, the manga was licensed for an English print release; the seven volumes were released from August 8, 2006, to August 12, 2008. The manga was later licensed for an English digital release by Viz Media; the seven volumes were released from April 21 to September 29, 2015.

Anime
A 12-episode anime television series adaptation, titled Grenadier: The Senshi of Smiles (グレネーダー 〜ほほえみの閃士〜), produced by Studio Live and Group TAC, and directed by Hiroshi Kōjina, was broadcast on Wowow from October 15, 2004, to January 14, 2005. The opening theme is "Kohaku" and ending theme is "Kanashimi ni Makenaide" (悲しみに負けないで) by Mikuni Shimokawa. When the series was later re-broadcast, opening and ending themes were replaced with "Akatsuki no Sora wo Kakeru" (暁ノ空ヲ翔ル) and "Hana no Youni" (花のように) by Hiromi Sato.

In North America, the series was licensed by Media Blasters. The episodes were collected on three DVDs released in 2005. Media Blasters re-released the series on a single Blu-ray set on January 18, 2022.

Reception

 * Manga
 * "If you prefer your action stories free of humor and completely serious then this series isn't for you. But if you like the idea of a skimpily-clad lead female character who reloads her revolver by bouncing six bullets out of her cleavage and loading them into her gun in midair then you should check out this title." — Matthew Alexander, Mania.
 * "Yes, Rushuna is eye-candy and there are plenty of upskirt shots to keep most otaku happy, but she's also a complete badass with a gun. Hopefully future volumes will develop her character more so this isn't all we have to judge her on." — A. E. Sparrow, IGN.

 * Anime
 * "The character of Yajiro is a refreshing change from the typical male sidekick seen in this genre. Rushuna's character is not quite as appealing at the start, but her ties to the underlying main plot, along with the plot itself, have great potential." — Luis Cruz, Mania.
 * "Well, Rushuna seems to have a penchant for baths and hotsprings, which means nudity of the non-explicit variety. There are also a lot of battles and fights, which does lead to red shirt death and bleeding wounds. Things never get really messy, though, so the show is probably fine for teenagers." — Stig Høgset, T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.

title: Grenadier (manga)


text:
Category:Music by year

Music by year.

See List of musical events for more detail.

title: Category:Music by year


text:
User:Paul Martin/archive talk 01

Talk archiv I

License tagging for Image:Half-a-digital-foot ruler.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Half-a-digital-foot ruler.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system
Hi Paul Martin

I see Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system has been restored. It was me who requested it to be deleted, though I was surprised when I suddenly saw it speedy-deleted. I requested its deletion because I didn't perceive it as a talk page, but rather as an article that got in the talk namespace (or at least some kind of special page as you have called it). After all, it has all the looks of an article, though I guess it wouldn't last as an article for long. I suppose you will now move it to your user namespace. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 07:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice
Hi,

I have closed the MfD on "Hexadecimal metric system", and have (as directed by consensus) userfied the page to you at its previous location, User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system. As I mentioned in closing the MfD, the cross-namespace redirect created by this move was speedy-deleted via CSD R2 and CSD G6, as is routine in userfication procedure. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections on History of France subpages
Paul Martin - There is discussion underway on the order of sections in the History of France subpages. I'd appreciate your input, if you have a chance. Go to Talk:History of France. Thanks- NYArtsnWords 22:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Paul Martin/archive talk 01


text:
Girls Bravo

Girls Bravo (GIRLSブラボー) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Mario Kaneda and serialized from 2000 to 2005 in Shōnen Ace by Kadokawa Shoten. The story focuses on a high school boy who is allergic to girls who is transported to a mysterious world with a mostly female population; when he returns, one of the girls from that world becomes his housemate.

The anime adaptation of Girls Bravo, directed by Ei Aoki and animated by AIC Spirits, aired in Japan from 2004 to 2005. There are 24 episodes total. The anime series was released in English by Geneon, and the manga was released in English by Tokyopop. A visual novel was also released for the PlayStation 2.

In July 2010, Funimation Entertainment released a statement on their Twitter feed confirming that they have licensed Girls Bravo.

Plot
Yukinari Sasaki is an average high school student who is frequently ridiculed by girls to the point that he developed an allergic reaction to them. As a result, he breaks out in hives whenever he comes into contact with a female. One day, when he returns home from school, he is kicked into his bathtub by his neighbor Kirie Kojima, but is transported to Seiren (セーレン), a mysterious world with a mostly female population. He befriends Miharu Sena Kanaka, who ends up following him to Earth. Other Seiren girls with various motives soon visit and join the household. They are taken on many adventures as Miharu discovers the wonders of Earth.

Main

 * Sasaki Yukinari (佐々木 雪成)
 * Yukinari has been ridiculed by girls all his life, and has developed an extreme case of gynophobia in which he suffers an allergic reaction whenever he comes into contact with one. One day, after he is kicked into his bathtub by Kirie Kojima, his next door neighbor, he is transported to the alien world of Seiren, a planet where men comprise less than 10% of the population. He meets Miharu who does not trigger his allergy. She follows him back to Earth and is the main cause of his misadventures involving girls and subsequent abuse by Kirie.

 * (ミハル·セナ·カナカ)
 * Miharu is a resident of Seiren who pulls Yukinari Sasaki to Seiren and follows him back to Earth to live with him. She has a mark on her forehead shaped like three dots in a triangle called Seikon, which provides her with several powers, including the ability to travel between Seiren and Earth and the power to create explosions whenever she is in emotional distress. She is also the only woman who can touch Yukinari without triggering his allergy. Miharu has a large appetite and a rapid metabolism. On Earth, much of her focus is in questioning her friends as to whether something is edible or not (like butterflies), and her continuous misunderstandings about Earth (such as believing that April Fools' Day means that everyone on Earth lies for one day) are the title's primary source of humor. Despite this, she has a heart of gold, an explorer's fascination with Earth, and has a close relationship with Yukinari. She is an extremely innocent girl who does not show any discomfort with being partially or fully naked in front of Yukinari, and she does not lose her temper even when made the target of Fukuyama's lecherous actions, unless the process involves food or disrupts her eating time.

 * Kojima Kirie (小島 桐絵)
 * Kirie is Yukinari Sasaki's next door neighbor, classmate, and childhood friend who takes care of him from time to time since. She is especially well-endowed, which makes her a natural target for Kazuharu Fukuyama's perversions. However, due to her physical aptitude and martial-arts abilities, she always defeats him. She regularly beats up Yukinari Sasaki for his bad luck. Kirie inadvertently sends Yukinari to Seiren for the first time when she slugs him for innocently walking in on her when she was showering in his bathroom. Despite their often turbulent relationship, Kirie has a deep affection for Yukinari and usually tries to help him. Because of her strong character and appearance, Kirie attracts a large number of admirers among the boys in her high school. In the manga, Kirie is accosted by an alternate version of Lisa Fukuyama when she enters a parallel world through an enchanted mirror in Fukuyama's house. In the anime adaptation, she also attracts female admirers, specifically Kosame and Hijiri Kanata, much to her displeasure. A running gag throughout the series is Kirie's complete lack of cooking skills which result in the creation of food that is inedible and dangerous. Kirie has a fear of ghosts and the paranormal, and despite her tomboyish character enjoys collecting dolls.

of which O'Brien received a nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy at the American Anime Awards.
 * Fukuyama Kazuharu (福山 和春)
 * Fukuyama is a classmate of Yukinari Sasaki and Kirie Kojima. Fukuyama is rich, powerful, and perverted, and while he often chases girls and insults Yukinari by calling him "Puny-Nari" (チビなり), he does show a serious, caring side in critical situations. He suffers androphobia to the point that he has developed an allergy that causes him to break out with a rash whenever he comes into contact with another male. He often appears without the others noticing until he announces his presence, whereupon he either gropes or strips the girls of their clothing, which always earns him a severe beating from Kirie. Despite his own lecherous behavior, Fukuyama is highly protective of his younger sister, Lisa, and strongly objects to her affections for Yukinari.

 * Fukuyama Risa (福山 リサ)
 * Lisa is Kazuharu Fukuyama's slightly insane younger sister. Lisa is a master of black magic, which causes several issues throughout the series such as infesting her family's mansion with ghosts, summoning a giant octopus in the school swimming pool, and causing an explosion within a shopping center. Lisa is constantly accompanied by Hayate and Kosame, who cater to her every whim such as gathering intelligence or even kidnapping. She develops an infatuation for Yukinari after his appearance matches a description in her horoscope for her soul mate and often employs her magic to get closer to him—with predictably disastrous results. Although she considers Miharu a rival, she is very fond of Ebi, who reminds her of the pet cat she owned when she was a little girl. In the anime adaptation, Ebi's girl form reminds her of a doll she used to spend her days with, which she reunites with later on thanks to Tomoka's magic.

 * (コヨミ·ハレ·ナナカ)

 * Koyomi is an androphobic resident of Seiren. She has fear of men on Earth and her phobia is only made worse by being one of Kazuharu Fukuyama's favorite targets; in the manga, she keeps a diary of how many times he has accosted her. Originally sent to Earth on a mission from the Space Travel Agency to 'retrieve' Miharu Sena Kanaka, she later moves into Yukinari's house along with her companion Tomoka Lana Jude on a prolonged mission to find a husband for Miharu's sister Maharu. However, her fear of men makes the act of even talking to a man nearly impossible. Koyomi's favorite pastime is reading, but she has a natural talent for table tennis, having won a tournament for a similar sport on Seiren. In the anime adaptation, Koyomi is also searching for her father, a native of Earth, whom she eventually reunites with. Koyomi's mother possessed a Seikon mark, and Koyomi herself possesses a dormant form of Seikon allowing her to create a portal to Seiren after Miharu is kidnapped by Hijiri Kanata. After she loses in Fukuyama's Cosplay Mahjong game, she is forced to wear nothing but a python, which she later ironically adopts as a pet.

 * Tomoka Rana Jūdo (トモカ·ラナ·ジュード)

 * Tomoka is a resident of Seiren who is sent to aid Koyomi Hare Nanaka in finding Miharu's older sister Maharu a groom after her less than productive efforts. Although a child, Tomoka deeply resents being treated as one and insists that she is as mature as anyone else, despite frequent actions by her which prove otherwise. She gets along fairly well with Fukuyama, whom she later refers to as an older brother after the two team up to obtain some mutual objective. She has developed a small crush on him but it is not something he is aware of. Tomoka can also use transformation magic. In the anime adaptation, Tomoka frequently uses Ebi as a makeshift club for hitting almost anything and anyone; she becomes friends with Lisa after conceding defeat in a magical duel. She is also obsessed with Poyon, her favorite TV show character. Because she is a child, Tomoka is able to have contact with Yukinari without triggering his female allergy. She also looks up to Kirie as an older sister. For example, she follows Kirie's example of drop-kicking Fukuyama right in the face. Tomoka is later revealed to be a genius capable of instantly answering a complex math equation from a college entrance exam.

 * (えび)]

In the Mahjong episode, Voiced by Fumihiko Tachiki (Japanese); Dameon Clarke (English)
 * Ebi is a creature from Seiren that resembles a plump miniature seal with the face of a cat and a pair of large bobbing antenna, which causes Miharu to claim she resembles a shrimp (ebi is the Japanese word for shrimp). She is accidentally summoned by Miharu during a bath, and becomes a pet for Miharu and the girls. In the anime adaptation, Tomoka pulls her out of her bag. She suffers a great deal of torment at the hands of Tomoka, who uses her as a club, flail, fishing bait, or handball. When Tomoka transforms Ebi into a girl for a brief amount of time, Yukinari and Kirie pay more attention to the transformed Ebi than to her. In the anime episode where the gang play Mahjong, Ebi is able to think through the entire play in her mind but is unable to communicate the move to novice Tomoka, rendering her plan fruitless. Also in the anime, Ebi can shoot a powerful beam attack called the E-beam from her mouth although it takes a while to recharge.

Supporting

 * (マハル·セナ·カナカ)
 * Maharu is Miharu's well-endowed older sister. She is very determined and will not hesitate to use violence to get her way. Although initially jealous of Miharu's relationship with Yukinari Sasaki, she eventually gives them her blessing. Much to Yukinari's dismay, that does not stop her from flirting and fondling him whenever she gets a chance. Due to Seiren's low male population and the fact that she is close to 30, Maharu assigns both Koyomi and Tomoka to find a man of her own on Earth. Though flirtatious, she is, in fact, quite picky by Seiren standards, rejecting Kazuharu Fukuyama immediately upon discovering his perverted nature. In the epilogue for the anime adaptation, she proposes to Hayate. Despite proposing to him, getting married in the manga, and giving Yukinari and Miharu her blessing, she is still obsessed with Yukinari, loves him, flirts with him, and wants to be with him. Maharu is voiced by Sayaka Ohara in Japanese and by Karen Thompson in English. Kotono Mitsuishi provides her voice for the Drama CDs.

 * Ririka Suteijī (梨々花・ステイジー)
 * Lilica is the Fukuyamas' chief maid. She is stoic and polite, even when Kirie destroys some expensive equipment. However, she shows shock when Kirie and Yukinari introduce themselves as Fukuyama's friends. She later reveals that she has fought in military operations in Bosnia, Somalia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. She is highly intelligent and is sometimes seen with a laptop which operates mechanical devices within the Fukuyama mansion, and also a spy satellite, which explains how Kazuharu Fukuyama constantly finds Koyomi and the others. In the anime adaptation, Lilica places Mamoru Machida as an apprentice after being impressed by his desire to clean the world. She is also occasionally hinted to be in love with Fukuyama. Lilica is voiced by Natsuko Kuwatani in Japanese and by Wendy Tomson in English.

 * (疾風)
 * Hayate is one of Lisa Fukuyama's attendants. While he only makes a handful of appearances in the manga, Hayate in the anime forms a strong rivalry/friendship with Tomoka, and the two occasionally battle one another in friendly duels. Hayate is a very calm, loyal, and serious individual who will go to great lengths for his mistress, Lisa; this usually involves doing some sort of research or private investigating. Tomoka nicknames him "ninja" because of his stealthy ways, only revealing himself when attending to Lisa, or to attack. Hayate is voiced by Takanori Hoshino in Japanese and by Patrick Seitz in English.

 * (小雨)
 * Kosame is Lisa Fukuyama's second attendant. In the anime adaptation, Kosame is also a considerably stronger fighter than Kirie Kojima, and after fighting with Kirie, she falls in love with her. Her obsession is so strong that just being in Kirie's presence is enough to make Kosame either grope or make some other pass at her, which usually requires Hayate to rein her in. When not fawning over Kirie, Kosame is as stoic a figure as Hayate and frequently uses her gun to either pry information out of others or to force them into doing her bidding. Kosame is voiced by Nozomi Masu in Japanese and by Robin Rhodpa in English.

 * Nanae Kū Haruka (ナナエ・クウ・ハルカ)
 * Nanae is Koyomi and Tomoka's superior in the Space Travel Agency. Nanae is in charge of the missing persons department and assigns agents to find and retrieve residents of Seiren who have accidentally been transported to Earth. In the anime adaptation, she helps Maharu Sena Kanaka contact Yukinari so that the others can rescue Miharu. Nanae is voiced by Yukiko Iwai in Japanese and by Rita Stevens in English.

 * Machida Mamoru (町田 守)
 * Mamoru is an obsessive-compulsive classmate of Yukinari Sasaki's. He dons an alter-ego, Lightning Squadron Mamo Ranger - a parody of the Super Sentai series - in the pursuit of his passion for cleaning and pointing out litterbugs, although at first glance his 'squadron' consists of only him. Extremely accident prone, he tends to cause more problems than he solves, whereupon his deluded sense of reality causes him to blame his "villainous opponents." He later drafts the others into the Mamo Rangers, although they want absolutely nothing to do with it. In the anime adaptation, Mamoru becomes an apprentice to Lilica which turns him from a mild annoyance into a serious threat to public safety. Mamoru is voiced by Hiroyuki Yoshino in Japanese and by Sam Regal in English.

 * Kanata Hijiri (彼方 ヒジリ)
 * Hijiri is a strict guidance counselor who joins Yukinari's high school. In the anime adaptation, she serves as a subordinate for Yukina, whose mission is to observe and eventually kidnap Miharu. Hijiri had been obsessed with Miharu since they were both children, and Yukina promises to give Miharu to her in exchange for helping her achieve her goals. However, Hijiri is eventually defeated by Kirie, and forgets about Miharu and begins to obsess over Kirie instead. Hijiri is voiced by Aya Hisakawa in Japanese and by Erica Shaffer in English.

 * Mrs. Sasaki
 * Mrs. Sasaki is Yukinari Sasaki's mother. As Yukinari keeps Miharu Sena Kanaka a secret from her, Mrs. Sasaki begins to fear that the strange occurrences in her house were due to a ghost, but eventually decides not to worry about it since all the "ghost" did was eat all the food. She later leaves Yukinari to be with his father, who is on a business trip.

 * Vegetable Store Keeper
 * A local grocer who befriends Miharu at the start of the series, and gives her the nickname Banana Girl. He is voiced by Takashi Nagasako in Japanese and by Doug Stone in English.

 * The Boss (弟分)
 * A character exclusive to the anime adaptation, The Boss is an overweight and soft-spoken thug dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and is usually accompanied by an exuberant man in a blue leisure suit. The thugs cross pass Yukinari Sasaki and his friends throughout the series. However, after Miharu Sena Kanaka is kidnapped by Hijiri Kanata, the Boss helps Yukinari realize that the only way to get Miharu back is to fight for her with everything he has got. When his friend later asks why he never spoke before, the Boss tells him that he simply never had anything to say. The Boss is voiced by Toshihide Tsuchiya in Japanese and by J.C. Miller in English.

 * Hakana (はかな)
 * A ghost who has been haunting the Fukuyamas' private hot spring. Last winter, she was bathing at the spring when a pervert caught and groped her. When she tried to catch him, she slipped on a wet rock, hit her head and died. In order to move on to the afterlife, she wants to catch a pervert. Lisa suggests they re-enact the scene, and volunteers Yukinari and herself, although Hakana accidentally possesses Kirie instead. When Kirie tries to resist the groping, Hakana realizes that Kirie likes Yukinari. When Kirie and Yukinari hug, Hakana is freed; she thanks the group and tells Kirie what a wonderful person Yukinari is. She is voiced by Ai Shimizu in Japanese and by Tara Platt in English.

 * (ユキナ)
 * A character exclusive to the anime adaptation, Yukina is the ruthless leader of the Space Management Bureau's Special Forces Division in Seiren, who also has the power of Seikon. Because of her slight build and Seikon markings covering her body, Yukina felt that no man would ever love her and developed a condition that causes her to break out in hives upon contact with men. Her illness and anti-masculine prejudices are what cause Yukina to decide that if she cannot be loved by men then no one in Seiren can. Eventually, Yukina has her subordinate Hijiri Kanata send Miharu Sena Kanaka back to Seiren to permanently seal the gateway to Earth using her power, making Seiren a "woman-only paradise". But after being shown kindness by Yukinari Sasaki, Yukina falls in love with him and releases Miharu. Yukina is voiced by Sakura Nogawa in Japanese and by Elise Baughman in English.

Manga
Written and illustrated by Mario Kaneda, the manga was originally serialized in 2000 in Kadokawa Shoten's Shōnen Ace magazine and has since been released in 10 tankōbon volumes. The first volume was published and released in Japan by Kadokawa Shoten on June 27, 2001 and the last volume was released on April 9, 2005. In English the series was released by Tokyopop. Book one was released in September 2005 with the last book being released in December 2007. Viz Media released the digital version starting with volume one on March 17, 2015 and completing with the release of volume ten on September 29, 2015.

The series has also been licensed in Europe and Asia. In Europe, the series was published in French by Pika Édition and in German by Carlson Comics. In Asia, the series was published in English by Chuang Yi.

Anime
An anime adaptation of the manga was directed by Ei Aoki and produced by Anime International Company's AIC Spirits division. It aired on Fuji Television on July 6, 2004 and ran until September 28, 2004, spanning 11 episodes. A second season, consisting of 13 episodes was later broadcast on WOWOW from January 27 to April 21, 2005. Four pieces of theme music were used in the series. The first opening theme, titled "Going My Way", was performed by Yozuca*. Yozuca* also sang the second opening theme, titled "Ever After". "Koko ni Iru kara", the ending theme, was performed by Miyuki Hashimoto, who also sang the second ending theme "And Then...". In Japan, the series was released across 13 Region 2 DVD compilation volumes. Geneon Entertainment also licensed the series for an English-language dubbed release in North America. Madman Entertainment also licensed the series for release in Australian and New Zealand.

In July 2010, North American anime distributor Funimation Entertainment announced on their Twitter feed that the company has licensed Girls Bravo after streaming the first episode of the series on YouTube.

Video game
Kadokawa Shoten published a video game based on the series for the PlayStation 2 in 2005, entitled Girls Bravo Romance 15's (GIRLSブラボー Romance15's). The game received a CERO rating of "15 up".

Reception
Chris Johnston of Newtype USA comments that "The 17+ rating is well-earned," and that "The raunchy, raucous humor is definitely not for young ones." Carlo Santos of Anime News Network writes "Girls Bravo has moments of promise as a screwball comedy, but as a whole, it falls victim to the same flaws of every other harem anime." Mania reviewer Chris Beveridge wrote "Though Girls Bravo does dip into some of the traditional elements of the harem anime design, it's naughtier and slightly raunchier take along is a welcome change for a lot of it." In his review Stig Høgset of THEM Anime Reviews wrote that "Characters get kicked, kneed in the face, stomped on and god knows what else" and that "the show is THICK with fan service that, while censored in the fansubs, might be VERY explicit in any potential future release."

title: Girls Bravo


text: Category:Heterokonts

title: Category:Heterokonts


text: Category:United States Department of State images


text:
Oh, No! It's Devo

Oh, No! It's Devo (stylized as oh, no! it's DEVO) is the fifth studio album by American new wave band Devo, released in 1982 by Warner Bros. Records. The album was recorded over a period of four months, between May and September 1982, at Cherokee Studios in Hollywood, Los Angeles, and was produced by Roy Thomas Baker.

Background
Oh, No! It's Devo features an even greater reliance on programmed synthesizers and drum machines than its predecessor, New Traditionalists (1981). DJ Pangburn of Reverb.com noted that these elements, "combined with the minimal use of guitars, gives the record a metronomic, roboticized feel."

According to a 1982 interview with lead vocalist Mark Mothersbaugh, the album was titled Oh, No! It's Devo because "there are many people out there who, when they hear we're around again or have one more album coming out, that is their reaction." In later interviews, Devo's co-founder and bass guitarist Gerald Casale stated that the album was born out of critical reviews in which the band were alternately described as both "fascists" and "clowns". In response, the band decided to make an album that would answer the question, "what would a record by fascist clowns sound like?"

The song "I Desire" brought the band controversy, as the lyrics were taken directly from a poem written by John Hinckley, Jr., who had attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in an effort to impress actress Jodie Foster. The band had first read the poem in the National Enquirer and thought it was "pretty great", despite the source. Casale later said that Hinckley was "quite proud" of the song, but "completely didn't understand that what we did was invert it. We knew how nuts he was, of course, and the third verse I added clearly turns the mirror on the psycho." While Foster gave the band her blessing to use the lyrics, the FBI issued them several warnings. "Big Mess" was inspired by letters sent to a game show host by someone using the name "Cowboy Kim".

Devo took on another new look for this album, wearing black T-shirts and slacks with white "Spud Ring" collars. In concert, these were augmented with Freedom of Choice (1980) era energy domes and New Traditionalists era shirts and ascots for part of the performance. The LP jacket had a cutout stand on the back so it could be stood up like a picture frame.

Promotion
Devo supported the album with a North American tour.

The band also produced three music videos for the album: "Time Out for Fun," "Peek-a-Boo!" and "That's Good". All three videos eschewed Devo's previous narrative style for a basic performance against a bluescreen background displaying related visuals to the song. These were intended to replicate the band's intentions for the forthcoming tour for those who would be unable to attend. The video for "That's Good" ran into censorship troubles on MTV, as the juxtaposition of a cartoon french fry penetrating the hole of a doughnut and quickly cutting to a writhing, smiling nude woman, shot from the neck up, was considered too risqué for airplay. Band member and video director Gerald Casale later elaborated in an interview for the 33⅓ series book Devo's Freedom of Choice in 2015: "'We got this call from [MTV co-founder] Les Garland, He was like, 'Look, we know what you're trying to do here.' I go, What do you mean? He goes, 'Ya know, when that cartoon French fry glides through that cartoon donut and then it's with the girl looking happy. You can have the French fry, or you can have the donut, but you can't have the French fry and the donut, Otherwise, you can't cut to the girl.' And I go, 'But what about when the French fry hits the donut and breaks in half and she's sad?' And he goes 'Alright you little smart ass.' It was horrible. Then I go, 'What about that Billy Idol video you have and the girls are in skin-tight pants and their asses are full on in the screen and his head is between her legs and then somebody slaps her ass? What about that?' He goes, 'we're talking about you, we're not talking about them.'" Casale eventually relented and made significant cuts to the video, which he came to regret, as "the song was going down in the charts, not up."

Critical reception
Debby Miller of Rolling Stone observed that "Devo again proves to be at their best with a singular brand of dance song—sort of a Chubby Checker-in-space idea, with loony instructions set to a mechanized stomp." However, she cited "Peek-a-Boo!" and "That's Good" as the album's sole highlights, adding, "it's getting harder to take the whole Devo package—the dumbbell retrograde-evolution philosophy and all the promotional merchandise. Trouser Press felt the album was "pointlessly produced by Roy Thomas Baker" and "failed to slow the creative slide." The Globe and Mail determined that the band and Baker captured "a full and satisfying sound without losing the spastic mechanical repetitiveness for which Devo is known."

In retrospective reviews, Steve Huey of AllMusic praised the album's "quality singles" but felt that Baker's production "smooths out any remaining edges in the band's sound", noting its "colder-sounding digital synths" and "thudding electronic percussion, which contributes heavily to the album's overall feeling of bloodlessness". The Spin Alternative Record Guide deemed "That's Good" and "Big Mess" "Devo at its most pointed and charming."

Track listing
1993 Virgin Records Oh, No! It's Devo/Freedom of Choice CD bonus tracks:

1995 Infinite Zero Archive/American Recordings CD bonus tracks:

Personnel
Credits adapted from Pioneers Who Got Scalped: The Anthology CD liner notes:

Devo
 * Mark Mothersbaugh – vocals, keyboards, guitar
 * Gerald Casale – vocals, bass guitar, keyboards
 * Bob Mothersbaugh – lead guitar, vocals
 * Bob Casale – rhythm guitar, keyboards, vocals
 * Alan Myers – drums

Credits adapted from the original album's liner notes:

Additional musician
 * Annerose Bücklers – backing vocals on "Deep Sleep"

Technical
 * Roy Thomas Baker – producer
 * Gordon Fordyce – engineer
 * Stuart Graham – assistant engineer
 * George Marino – mastering
 * Erik Arnesen – cover photography
 * Devo Inc. – graphic concept
 * Rick Seireeni – art direction
 * Brent Scrivner – "Spudring" manufacturing

Tour
Devo's tour for the album was an innovative set up performed against a 12-foot, rear-projected video. Animated videos were produced for most the songs, synchronised to the music. For several songs, the band appeared to interact with the visuals, such as being kicked down by a giant pirate at the end of "Peek-a-Boo!", or shooting icons of unsynchronized dancing girls in "Out of Sync."

Later in the setlist, the screen would be removed to reveal Devo lit by moving lighting effects (Panaspots provided by Morpheus Lights). The Oh, No! It's Devo tour was the second concert tour known to utilize computerized moving lights, about one year after Genesis used 50 Vari-Lites (VL1's) on their Abacab tour.

The first show of the tour took place on October 30, 1982, at the Warner Beverly Hills Theater in Beverly Hills, California, and featured Wall of Voodoo as the opening act. It was filmed and transmitted live in 3-D to college campuses around the country, billed as "3-DEVO". This first performance was marred by technical mishaps: the backing track went out of sync during "Speed Racer," forcing the band to abandon the following performance of "Big Mess"; Mark Mothersbaugh's microphone cut out during "Out of Sync" and he was forced to perform the rest of the first set with guitarist Bob Mothersbaugh's microphone. In the second half of the show, the 3-D effects were ineffective and the band attacked the company providing the video twice: once during "Jocko Homo," with a series of cheap 3-D tricks (mostly snake nut cans) by Mothersbaugh; and once in a rant during "Beautiful World," delivered by the character Booji Boy. This concert was the only known live performance of "Explosions", which was cut from the rest the tour for unknown reasons.

The "3-DEVO" concert was later rebroadcast in a heavily edited version, omitting the technical gaffes and critical remarks. Both versions are available as bootlegs and several audio recordings of the tour exist in varying quality.

title: Oh, No! It's Devo


text:
Königs Wusterhausen Central Tower

Königs Wusterhausen Central Tower was a 243 m, freestanding steel framework tower on the Funkerberg of Königs Wusterhausen, Germany. The tower, with its unique triangular cross section, was built from 1924 to 1925. The tower collapsed during the storm Quimburga on 13 November 1972.

title: Königs Wusterhausen Central Tower