Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 90 days

Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 26, 2009	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in both Indian and Pakistani English. The narrative sections that are not quoting Indian or Pakistani usage should avoid all forms that are not common to both varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Pakistan Top‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Asia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Post-Cold War CL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Results column to reflect Same Results as in the respective Main article[edit]

Transcluded from Talk:List of wars involving Pakistan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see there is an effort to rectify the content in the results section and I think more work needs to go in this direction. All the conflicts sections should be updates to reflect their current statues or statues as reached by consensus on the conflict pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calore123, DBigXray, and Sdmarathe: Can we please discuss this here and not constantly revert. Please present what you think is incorrectly represented on the page because I feel we are arguing over semantics. Also, some of the statuses (conflict results) here are incorrectly represented (IMO) compared to the actual conflict pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me one editor is constantly edit warring here and there. Anyway, whether the main article says something else or not, it is not really a matter especially when the results are apparently correct and longstanding. I would better think of changing the main article results to avoid this confusion and yes I am saying that we need to focus on what is correct. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blaming one editor over the other, but simply wish to reach a consensus here. Results here should reflect the one's on each conflict's main page. The statuses for each conflict were reached by great deliberation on their respective talk pages so as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are correct (not what we think is correct in our mind). The scope of discussion on this page is to correctly reflect the statuses of these conflicts as they occur on their respective pages not to deliberate if they are correct or not. If you feel (or anyone else feels) that they have been incorrectly represented on their conflict pages then please feel free to open a discussion on those talk pages. Those discussions are beyond the scope of this page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80 May I know what is the dispute about ? lines showing current and proposed version in the beginning of the section would be helpful for all. --DBig Xray 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it seems we have people arguing over Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. One editor places it as Ceasefire and the other as Armistice. I propose we replace this with what is reflected in the conflict page infobox. Namely,

"Inconclusive; United Nations mandated ceasefire.

Both sides claim victory

No permanent territorial changes (see Tashkent Declaration)."

This is just one issue. There are others. For example, Afghan Civil War which is incorrect based on the conflict infobox. Another is the multitudes of First Balochistan Conflict, Second Balochistan Conflict all the way to Fifth Balochistan Conflict which all point to Insurgency in Balochistan. So I am unclear how did the a Insurgency in Balochistan (which is ongoing) get split into multitudes of smaller conflicts. And if it did why don't they have their separate articles?

We can discuss all of these separately but there are other such issues on this page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the table result section should be same as result section of the infobox of the respective war pages. any row not having its own article page should be merged and the results should be as per the infobox. There is no justification for keeping a discrepancy between the Main article and this table. The wordings of the Infobox result page in the article page are already after much debate and as per WP:CONSENSUS, Let me know what is your solution. --DBig Xray 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed results of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 per reliable sources and expect no reverts unless someone has clear rebuttal. thanks! Sdmarathe (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: I have reverted your edit on that page since it needs consensus first. I have also initiated a discussion so you can reply there. Also, this discussion is only about depicting the results as they occur in the conflict infoboxes and not about updating them. Any update requires a distinct discussion on the respective article talk page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I concur with your observation. This also needs to be reflected in the List of wars involving India (which needs a separate discussion on that talk page). There are other issues here for example, Soviet–Afghan War which does not show Pakistan as a party to the conflict but is still reflected here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply, No a seperate discussion will not be needed for Indian War list page, Just a section with Wikilink pointing to this should be ok.Based on the discussion above I am claiming WP:Consensus among all of us as below. --DBig Xray 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

The table result section should be exactly the same as result section of the infobox of the respective war pages. Any row not having its own article page should be merged and the results should be as per the infobox. No War can be Added if it does not have its own Main page article
— User:DBigXray, Adamgerber80 and Sdmarathe support this Consensus, 11 June 2018

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

CHANGE status = Ongoing TO status = Ongoing Waonderer (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Not sure why it was orange. If that was due to prior consensus, any extended confirmed editor is free to change it back, and any non extended confirmed editor can ping me with a link to the consensus. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 03:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]