Talk:Rashid Minhas

Untitled

I want to let it be known that I have tried to discuss both sides to this interesting tale. I hope that people on both sides can learn from it

??? bit of a cryptic message above  t ali 28/01/06

Ragib Undo

Ragib, your insistence is illogical and therefore I have removed your edit. Following are the reasons. Please do not undo without logically responding to each:

1. As I had indicated earlier, it is irrelevant to mention a difference of opinion between PAF and BAF about the incident, since that's speculation from both organization. Let's stick to the facts only. 2. There was no BAF at the time of this incident, nor was BAF a party to the incident, so the mention of BAF's opinion is completely irrelevant. 3. You gave your reference of BAF, but the link is to the History of BAF, not about Rashid Minhas. Therefore, it needed to be removed. IrfanMajeed (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Irfan Majeed, August 31, 2009, 10:39AM.

Please don't waste everyone's time by insisting on "your way", without sound logic. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrfanMajeed (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I changed "War with India" to Bangladesh Liberation War, as the war with India didn't officially start until December 3. What caused the plane to crash is not known with certainty to this day. Speculations range from a struggle between the two officers, to friendly fire by Indian forces. So, I reworded the "Minhas realized that ..." part adding the note about that. Thanks. --Ragib 06:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Ragib: How could the plane be shot down by Indian forces if it was found 40km from the Indian border? That possibility can be safely ruled out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dargay (talk • contribs)

Comment, remember, India and Pakistan were at (unofficial) war at that time. --Ragib 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Ragib: The plane wreckage was 40km inside Pakistani territory, that means it was not shot down during any "unofficial" war. Among speculation the theory of struggle between the two men is more plausible.

Ragib reverted my edit (Cisguy)... "What caused the plane to crash is not known with certainty to this day." OK. that was a real cowardly act by MutiurRahman, a treator, who kidnapped a young boy of 21. You cannot justify this and it is a fact that Rashid Minhas himself crashed the plane.. His last words are recorded (You can find it on google) in which he said he is taking the plane down. :struggle between the two officers" it was not a struggle, one was chloroformed and the other was a kid. Be Real and see the fact and revert my old edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisguy (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your message. Who is a traitor, and who is a hero, depends on what side you are in. There hasn't been *any* proof that Minhas crashed the plane. If you quote a Pakistani patriotic source, it is also possible to quote a Bangladeshi patriotic source that makes Minhas look like a villain. I don't say so, and both of these persons were equally patriotic, and victims of a meanlingless war of a Military junta against its own people. Both of them are heroes in their own right, and keeping things neutral is the best thing we could do for their memories. Thanks. --Ragib 03:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. You are right. I was a bit overambitious. But I really admire your last sentence of that being a military war against its own junta. I still consider Bangalis as my brothers and always will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.112.63 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. 1971 was a tragedy, because Bengalis did opt for a unified homeland in 1947. But I guess the liberation of Bangladesh was inevitable. Anyway, I really feel sad about Minhas, considering his age, and equally sad for Matiur Rahman, a father of two young girls. Both of them are heroes. Thanks. --Ragib 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ragib if you wanted to be neutral, you should not have replaced "war with India" to "Bangladesh Libertion War". A fairest label would be "Pakistani Civil War of 1971". "Bangladesh Libertion War" makes it sound like West Pakistan was an imperial occupier, while in fact it was a civil war. I request that you make that change to be fair. Thanks - Irfan Butt 4:11PM, 24 October, 2006.

Well, the war is more commonly, and also officially known as "Bangladesh Liberation War". Thank you. --Ragib 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the page slightly by removing the sentence "either rehman crasehed the plane" because no one has ever made this claim, not even the bangladesh govt.PAF's official version says that Minhas crashed the plane. Other versions either uphold this view or say that the plane crashed due to the struggle between the two pilots.--Shahin-e-Iqbal

The Plane was brought down "with a cause not known" . . . are we stupid here? Why else would the damn plane come down? Mechanical failure on a serviced T-33 trainer that just took off? Friendly fire from India 40 miles INLAND from the border. The author of this is some piece of shit that can't come to grips with the fact that the pilot in a valiant act of courage took the plane down. I don't care what country you are from, being from neither, I recognize and respect valor when it is displayed. Get a grip, get the facts straight and use some common sense. The pilot, at age 21, downed the plane himself, which of course had no bearing on the eventual separation of the two nations, but still took the plane down HIMSELF! "cause not known" please lets stop the bullshit there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.133.98 (talk • contribs)

If you are done with your rant, then please come up with some references from neutral 3rd party reliable sources which shows conclusive evidence related to the crash. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ragib, dont bite offense, but it seems that you are a little bit biased when it comes to the 1971 war, or Pakistan. I hope you are aware of the way bias and incivility are dealt with on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:List of policies. Shayanshaukat (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Hello Ragib, thanks for your comments. I went through the last few edits and have noted quite a few additions and subsequent deletions of 2 links to Internet Discussion forums that I added in my last edit to this article. My thoughts, which were something very similar when I first put the links in place, are as follows -

1. The basic principle behind Wikipedia is also like that of an internet discussion forum, where users share their thoughts and exchange ideas in a recordable form. The main difference is that , while in an Internet discussion forum, the changes are not overwritten, in wikipedia, they can be overwritten. I therefore disagree to your comments that "these are not really articles, rather forum discussions" and "Please link to an article. Discussion in an Internet forum is not encyclopedic". Wikipeida is based on the same principles. Moreover the first of the 2 Internet Discussion Forum webpage has actually some very good and factual information on the incident.

2. I have moved these 2 links to the new heading of External Links now, from the earlier heading of References. I have also clearly mentioned that these are Internet Group Discussions and not articles.

Please do let me know your thoughts on this.

In pursuit of getting it right, I have actually ended up editing the article a couple of time in the space of the last few minutes. Do excuse me for this. Jordy 13:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oops ! Sorry, I did have 2 different links, infact they were 2 different Internet Discussion Forum webpages. I am sorry to have made the mistake of linking 2 same pages. I will fish out the other Internet Discussion Forum webpage.Jordy 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image has been re-tagged as fair use because of the non comercial nature of its display.

Image copyright problem with Image:Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas.jpg

The image Image:Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke

The plane did not crash by itself, Minhaas turned the direction of the plane towards the ground. This is a known fact and taught in Pakistan's textbooks everywhere. If the facts are changed or portrayed in a way that doesn't correctly display the bravado of a pakistani pilot just because he is a Pakistani, wikipedia is not NEUTRAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.202.16 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani textbooks are hardly a neutral source for info about this incident. Wikipedia is also not the place to "display the bravado" of anyone, rather the place for verifiable facts. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Its claimed by Pakistani sources that he informed the control tower that he would be crashing the plane. This the official account by PAF. The actual cause of the crash cannot be proved, therefore i've included a more neutral note which says the cause of the crash is unknown, but its claimed by Paistanis that Minhas crashed it himself. Please don't remove this note, if you do, you will not be being neutral, you will be clearly acting defiantly towards Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.202.16 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have kept your change, but just removed the speculation part. I.e. the cause of the crash is unknown. --Ragib (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't speculation, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide COMPLETE information which often includes the story from both sides. Providing complete information while making it clear that it is the view of one side only is better than providing incomplete or inconsistent information. I'm including my last note, if you want to remove it again please involve an admin or a 3rd party to mediate this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.202.16 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's see a citation for "Pakistani sources claim that ....". Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link for the official account of PAF:

http://www.paf.gov.pk/Airwarriors.htm

If the site doesn't load (gave me a refresh error a few times) try this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080116111514/http://www.paf.gov.pk/Airwarriors.htm

I'm not aware of the procedure of adding a citation so please do it yourself if it has to be done. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.112.236 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, while the original site you linked to is not working, I saw from the archive copy that the claim is present there. So, I've added that claim, and also a related reference. --Ragib (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we worked out a solution, the content we have now is truly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.112.236 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion though, the text you have now says: "Pakistani Air Force's website claims that...". This sounds confusing because it appears to say that ONLY the PAF website makes this claim. A better choice of words may be "Sources from Pakistan claim that..". Many other links to support this statement can be found just by a google search.

I agree Shayanshaukat (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But "Sources in Pakistan" is extremely vague. Who are these "sources"? It is much better to be as precise as we can. --Ragib (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I shall get back to you in a couple of days with some reliable references. Shayanshaukat (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While celebrated as a hero in Pakistan , Minhas is viewed negatively in Bangladesh because of

I removed this line because Minhas is unknown in BD ( not only unknown, he is completely unknown in Bangladesh ). Welcome to search this among BD friends if u have around.

Shahadat?

This should be changed as it is biased and not understandable. Further, it is mentioned that Minhas proved himself 'on and off the battlefield'. I do not see any reference for 'on battlefield'. The language of this article, again, is unfairly biased towards so called gallantry of Rashid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarChaser (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Minhas "Crash" the plane?

I am requesting references from reliable sources backing this claim. Per my request, TopGun has added the following. I claim that the following are not at all reliable sources for such an important claim:

• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/kamra.htm - really?? This is just a copy paste from Pakistan Airforce's webpage [1]. The "author" of this page is definitely NOT John Pike as TopGun claims ... either Pike plagiarized the piece or this is a user submitted content. In any case, this is not an independent reference, rather a copy of Pakistan Airforce's version of the event.

• http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/country-by-country/pakistan.htm And the source of this page's text? None other than "Members of www.pakdef.info", a Pakistani defence related forum.

• http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/awpreview/TextContent.aspx?pId=176  ??? A Pakistani Government website cannot be expected to provide an objective history for the event

• http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1 Another case of plagiarism, this time a Pakistani newspaper simply copypasted a "story" from Pakdef.info - a Pakistani defence forum [2], which itself plagiarizes the text from Pakistan Army's website mentioned above [3].

So, we need objective and neutral sources (and NOT Pakistan Airforce's version of the event) that supports the claim about the crash. With utmost respect to Pilot officer Minhas, I request that either neutral and WP:RS sources are provided about the event. At any rate, we need to make it NPOV by providing other theories about the cause of the crash. BTW, even none of the non RS sources support the claim about Minhas carrying "state secrets". --Ragib (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me start by clarifying that primary sources can present information about themselves. So the link of Pak airforce website is correctly placed and is not serving the purpose alone and is a confirmation. The global security website has been used many times to site Indian claims as well. The website doesn't automatically become a non reliable source if it re-publishes content from a non reliable source. It infact gives its own reliability to it. Same goes for samaa.tv. You are assuming plagiarism on your own here while the sources have published the content. Samaa.tv for instance is a mainstream media source. You can certainly not claim it to be a non neutral source. The same way... a website publishing Pakistan Airforce's version doesn't become a primary source until it is quoting it as their version. When published by a third party, this becomes reliable. Actually that's what WP:RS says. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say your logic is convoluted here. I just showed that the globalsecurity webpage you linked to is not an independent one, rather it is a page which plagiarized content from Pakistan Army's website without any attribution. It does not matter who else cites it ... (e.g., "Indian claims"). All your sources actually boil down to Pakistan Army/Airforce's website. It is quite a stretch to say that a few websites plagiarizing content from Pakistan Army's website make it a RS! Saama TV can be a mainstream news source in Pakistan, but I just demonstrated that rather than publishing anything independently, their reporter also just copy pasted from Pakdef.info, which is deemed a non-RS source (and you know it, per your comment in your talk page, right?).

Now, about the reference from Pakistan Army's website. I'm not saying that you can't use it here, but then you have to use qualifiers to show where the "crash" claims come from. Please take a look above in this talk page. The issue was raised before and other Pakistani editors have in the past added the official Pakistan Army/AF version of the event. As I stated before, you need to qualify the statement as "According to Pakistan Airforce" or according to "Pakistan Government sources". Otherwise, the information becomes a POV statement. --Ragib (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually WP:RS says any content that is published by a third party is a reliable source. Saying that now it is plagiarism is a fallacy. Saama TV, itself being a reliable source, published the content and since I don't see it being sued I assume it has the permission of Pakistan Army/AF or Pakdef to publish it without attribution. In anycase, you can not say a reliable source is plagiarizing when it republishes content from a non-RS. The content is not being cited to Pakdef rather the reliable sources. Before we continue... do you have an opposing claim or are you just disputing the current one? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please sound logical here? Samaa TV demonstrably plagiarized content. A copy-pasting of content by another party doesn't make it a third party source. That makes it a mirror. It is not a discussion of the primary source ... rather a blatant copyvio of the primary source. Whether Pakistan Army sues SAmaa tv for plagiarizing its website is moot. But copypasting it as "news" doesn't make it a third party source either. (even if they have permission, this type of verbatim copying makes it a mirror only). Also, information sourced originally to Pakdef won't magically become reliable if they are repeated by an otherwise trustworthy source. --Ragib (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is per Wikipedia:Published. When content is published by a third party (even in the same form) it is treated as a third party source. This might simply be similar to you first publishing a blog on your own domain and then submitting it to a main stream source which publishes it. This actually does make that work published even though we have a mirror dating prior to the third party publication. I've also added more references. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the plagiarized content of Samaa tv meet any of the RS or TP requirements? To put this in context: (1) a POV source (Pakistan Airforce publishes some content (2) Several sources such as Globalsecurity and Samaa tv plagiarize the text and produce it verbatim sans any attribution and (3) you now claim the information is backed by "reliable third party sources" such as Samaa TV and GlobalSecurity! No part of Wikipedia:Published covers such an outrageous claim. Also, this proves Samaa TV and Globalsecurity (at least the page on GS) can't be considered independent sources in this context, since the are merely reproducing content plagiarized from the Wikipedia:Primary source, rather than citing it. And I have already pointed out that Pakdef.info is NOT a reliable source (as you admitted earlier), and hence other sources citing that forum can't be deemed as RS for this. --Ragib (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Publishing of content in a reliable source makes it notable and reliable regardless of it's previous position as I explained above. I'm not basing my argument on pakdef but on samaa tv and other sources which I added. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, plagiarism of a POV content shows how "Reputable" Samaa TV's website is. :) Except for the Tribune article (which I haven't checked yet), all other links you added are demonstrably non-RS or POV text plagiarized from Pakistan Airforce's website. --Ragib (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add further sources later.. but do not revert yet. Per WP:NEWSORG, news sources can be taken as reliable for factual statements. Just to state further, you don't even have an opposing claim here. Republishing content does not affect a site's reputability. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, what newsorg? Do you claim that a website that plagiarizes content sans any attribution is a "reputable" one? In any case, the samaa tv site merely "republished" (i.e. plagiarized) Pakistan Airforce's webpage on this. It was NOT a report from Samaa tv, rather a report from Pak AF that is found in the linked page on Samaa Tv. Therefore, the qualifier is correct. --Ragib (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And I don't need an opposing view to question the accuracy of a statement per WP:V. Since the there is no independent investigation of what caused the crash, how do we possibly know what or who caused the plane to crash? I'm not saying Minhas did it or did not do it, rather I'm pointing out that in the absence of an investigation of the event, the claim of Minhas' role in the crash is merely speculation. (i.e. effort by Pak AF to showcase the heroism of one of its pilots). --Ragib (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

PS, you might want to read WP:NEWSORG since you mention it above. "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the AP. Each single story must only count as being one source." Even if you sugarcoat the plagiarism as "republishing", that is a single source (PAkAF/Army) rather than multiple sources. --Ragib (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well your terming the republishing as plagiarizing is incorrect. You may not term a publication in a main stream media source as plagiarism on your own which amounts to WP:OR. About your quotation from WP:NEWSORG, I've read that and that applies to publications in multiple news sources. And even if we taken them to be a single source... here we count the third party source which is publishing the content as fact. I don't agree with your view of absence of an investigation. As such PAF was the only authority that could investigate the event. In all cases the authority that investigates an event is the one having jurisdiction over it. This was duely done and this has been published by third parties. That makes it reliable. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly my point ... the information originates from PAF, and hence there is no problem using the qualifier as such. Stating that as fact is incorrect since PAF has a vested interest in glorifying Minhas' role in the incident. --Ragib (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we do not have disputing claims, this is a non contentious matter and does not need such. Also, we have reliable sources confirming these claims not by quoting PAF but by publishing such on their own accord. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The globalsecurity website lends its own authority to information that it republishes from other sources. However, the claim that Minhas deliberately crashed his jet is very thinly supported. The story is too easily seen as nationalistic and hopeful rather than neutral and accurate. Minhas could very well have crashed by accident; no proof of his intention is described in the reports. He did not radio to his base to say something like "I will now die for my country and take the traitor with me!" He could have been continuing the struggle to regain control at the moment of the crash. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a point that those details are not known or mentioned in the reports, but then again.. we are not debating on those details but just on whether he crashed it or not. The sources says he did and the content is referenced. I think this needs to be left on the reader to decide whether he believes. I've been explaining the same to Ragib that when republished content is not in quoted form.. the publisher lends its own authority to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that Pakistan has always put forward one version of the story, which is that Minhas crashed on purpose?

Why does the article have nothing about the immediate investigation of the crash site by Wing Commander Cecil Chaudhry? Chaudhry determined that the canopy had come off prior to crashing, that Rahman had been blown out of the jet before it crashed, and that Minhas died at the controls while he was strapped into his seat, with the jet hitting the ground nose first. Chaudry's investigation was unable to determine which man jettisoned the canopy as both seats had controls to do this. Chaudry says that Rahman was probably not strapped in, and that he was sucked out of the cockpit, or he fell out, when the canopy was jettisoned. At that point, if Minhas had been able to regain control he could have lived. It is likely that the jet was too far out of control by that time, too close to the ground. Chaudry guessed that Minhas jettisoned the canopy, not Rahman. Chaudry guessed that Minhas crashed after the canopy was gone because of the low altitude and perhaps because he strongly countered a final control movement from Rahman, but with Rahman gone the counter force was also gone. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

About the attribution of POV, as you told Ragib that this is further published by third party sources. This can be stated as a fact per WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate you pulling out the intermediate investigation which seems pretty much notable. I think there's a simple solution to this. The investigation by Cecil gets to have its own section and there all the investigation related details can be mentioned along with the fact that it is not the version put forward officially by PAF and other sources. Do you have any sources for the investigation you provided? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading of NEWSORG does not lead me to believe that the various fairly weak sources give the Minhas crash story an absolute foundation of truth, only that they tell a national and politically motivated story of heroism. We should first present the externally provable facts, then allow the heroism story to be presented as the official Pakistan story, with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have the samaa tv and the global security to give the external/third party proof and I don't think the sources are weak. Also, if you have a source for Cecil's investigation it would be reasonable to create a section for that investigation. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, NEWSORG works against the multiple references saying the same thing. I went through the article and removed the repeated cites along with the dead and non-working ones. I removed the youtube video because it is a docudrama, not an accurate report. I added the Yawar A. Mazhar version of what Cecil Chaudhry said to him. I removed a bunch of fluff that was fact challenged and not cited. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The youtube video was ridiculous! It said that Rahman hit Minhas with a wrench or spanner in the head to knock him unconscious, and that he chloroformed him. No other source says this kind of stuff. It appears to be somebody's idea of extra tension or plot device. Two thumbs down. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the current version by Binksternet ... this clearly provides the facts without nationalistic fluff and PAF propaganda. And I'm all for including Cecil Chaudhury's investigation report. The youtube drama can't be used as a reference as it is completely non-RS (anyone can make up a muffled audio and upload to Youtube. The authenticity of the audio cannot be ascertained). --Ragib (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We do, however, need a RS ref for the crash investigation by Cecil Chaudhury. Right now, the reference provided is from Pakdef, and it has been deemed a non-RS source by consensus. --Ragib (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Pakdef version is being given kind of priority over the official version here. Also the only sourced story of his death is about him forcing the plane to crash which should be stated as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The "unreliable" !votes at the RSN threads were about the website being self-published and too promotional of Pakistani views. The author I used, Yawar A. Mazhar is one that has had his articles published by other journals such Fliegerrevue Extra in Germany, in this case an article about "F-104 Starfighter im Kampfeinsatz bei der pakistanischen Luftwaffe" ("F-104 Starfighter in combat at the Pakistan Air Force"). This gives his work added credibility. Mazhar's article is not at all promotional of Pakistan; it is instead a self-examination. Also, the commentary from Mazhar is not so extraordinary that it requires extraordinary sourcing. He does not, for instance, say that Minhas survived and became a secret spy for Pakistan! He just gives extra details about the well-known crash, ones that are not in the obviously celebratory and vague award citation. I don't see the Mazhar material being presented in my version as anything but a minor viewpoint augmenting the major viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The point I'm making here is, the majority (and official/investigated) POV that the plane was 'crashed by Minhas should be stated along with the description of the incident instead of the end and as a fact (even if attributed). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The official citation is already quoted, that Minhas crashed the jet on purpose. We all can see that the official citation pretends to be omniscient in that it assumes that it is possible to know whether Minhas crashed on purpose or not. Of course, it is not possible to know this, unless you could tap the last few thoughts of Minhas, which is impossible. So the official story is clearly conjecture, not fact. Why emphasize it? Ah, to promote Pakistan. We don't have to do that here. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the majority view... That is why it is needed to be stated as fact... along with any other possibilities which should be put in appropriate weight. I don't think stating majority view as a fact is promotion. I'm not here to promote anything... this is what the sources say. Just to point out there are many incidents where much of the information is kept classified. I don't see a source saying that full recording of RT was released by PAF... however the investigation concludes as such, which is the undisputed version I'll say other than another intermediate investigation which is added right after it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact? No, national myth. There is no information about the aircraft's navigation or signals that lend any kind of credence to the notion that Minhas "without hesitation ...tried to regain control of his aircraft... [then] forced the aircraft to crash". First, the citation describes the men struggling for control. This is confirmed in Chaudhry's account as told to Mazhar: villagers in the flight path witnessed the aircraft flying erratically at a low altitude, leading to the conclusion that the men were fighting over the controls. But after that there is nothing else of a concrete nature that can lead anyone to know whether the aircraft crashed during the struggle for control or after a particular moment when Minhas decided to force the crash. There would be no difference between these two scenarios in terms of navigation data or signals. Even with today's more sophisticated methods it would be extremely difficult to determine, maybe impossible, but in 1971 it was absolutely impossible. The official award citation was written to have a positive propaganda effect on the living, not as a factual account for technical persons. It stands as the official myth or legend, not the official accident report. Unfortunately, the accident report is not publicly available. So, the majority view cannot be stated as fact, because it claims to know the impossible. The award citation serves as its own worst enemy by making shit up; what it should have said was that Minhas tried to wrest control from Rahman in "the highest traditions of the Pakistan Air Force" to prevent him from taking jet, then aircraft crashed, killing them both. That is all that is known as fact. It could even say that Minhas jettisoned the canopy to try and stop Rahman, but that the loss of the canopy either wounded Minhas, damaged the vertical rudder of the jet, or caused some sort of aerodynamic instability leading to a crash. There is no doubt that Minhas worked very hard to prevent Rahman from taking the jet! The citation could focus solely on that fact, but it does not. Instead, it takes us on the impossible journey into Minhas's brain where we are witness to a decision to crash on purpose. No, no. The award citation is not a reliable source for the technical aspects of the crash. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible for PAF to have a complete (classified) RT record, which makes clear the intentions, to base the report on (which is a possibility like the ones you were stating). But wait... I'm not arguing the real world facts such as this here that you explain. This does not necessarily have to be added as a simple fact... rather attributed to PAF. Other incident articles are doing it this way.. stating the majority view (attributed) and then other sources' views. Here we're simply adding the description of the incident in an unrelated form and then later adding citations. Actually the current version shows no views of how the crash happened until after it is fully described. My argument is on the sources. Yes, you say that the report does not have technical details... but then again, I don't think that is followed in any other news reports. Also, I've not stated that the wording used here should be promotional. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to know Minhas's intentions. Classified or public, no report can tell us this. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did not get the abbreviation RT, it was referring to radio transmissions which can have such information... but that was not the point... the point is the article currently implies there are no majority views on how the plane crashed and later reads a citation from PAF and an investigation. Since this is going no where.. I'll come up with a suggested rephrase here and see if you agree. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is widely reported that Minhas's last known words to the outside world were to the control tower to say that he was being hijacked, a signal which he repeated. That's it. We cannot base our interpretation on supposed subsequent radio transmissions that nobody knows about. Don't you think that if Minhas radioed that he was going to kill himself and Rahman that this specific transmission would be reproduced for the public with great fanfare, to help build the legend? Of course it would. Common sense tells us that there is no secret transmission indicating Minhas's decision to crash instead of save the aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking me wrong again.. I'm not even debating on that possibility... it was an example (correct or not) of real world facts like ones you were stating because we cant know any of them. Ok, I'll kill this debate and add a rephrase here in time. Let's see if you understand my point then. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you imply that you now agree to the "According to PAF" attribution I had originally asked for? As Binksternet mentions, the PAF version is full of nationalistic propaganda and hero-worship that is almost impossible. So, even though it is a majority (in Pakistan) view propagated by PAF (and blindly repeated by textbooks and Pakistani news media), it is in essence an impossibility when looked at objectively. --Ragib (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Here's what I mean:

"Minhas struggled physically to wrest control from Rahman; each man tried to overpower the other through the mechanically linked flight controls. Per Minhas's Pakistan military citation for the Nishan-E-Haider, without hesitation, he forced the aircraft to crash in order to prevent Rahman from taking the jet to India. Some 32 miles (51 km) from the Indian border, the jet crashed near Thatta. Both men were killed."

This is more in order than the current version. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How do we know all these? The only source is the NeH citation, which is more likely written as propaganda. Also, you should put the claim stated in the NeH citation in quotes ... that is not fact, rather a claim. So, you need to write "Minhas' Pakistan military citation for Nishan-E-Haider claims that Minhas crashed the plane ....". As Binkster states above, there is no way PAF can come to that conclusion since there is no physical evidence for any part of that sentence. (how on earth, for example, do we know Minhas didn't hesitate? That type of propaganda language belongs to PAF citations, and to mention it in Wikipedia, you need qualifiers and quotations to properly attribute this). --Ragib (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Without hesitation

I'm sorry that my recent edit to the article mistakenly connected the phrase "without hesitation" to the act of crashing the plane on purpose. The official NeH citation says that Minhas "without hesitation" fought to take control from Rahman. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rashid Minhas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611011403/http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1 to http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)