Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

Results column to reflect Same Results as in the respective Main article

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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. --DBigXray 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. --DBigXray 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

@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)

@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)

• 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. --DBigXray 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

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 29 March 2025

Please add Template:India topics, Template:Afghanistan topics, and Template:Pakistan topics to the end of the page:

Agowa (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Lova Falk (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2025

Please replace the current mention of the "2025 India–Pakistan standoff" with the following:

2025 India–Pakistan standoff: The crisis began on 22 April 2025, following a deadly militant attack in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir. The attack resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians, including 25 Indian tourists and one local resident, with over 20 others injured. The Resistance Front (TRF), a group suspected of links to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba—designated a terrorist organization by the United Nations—initially claimed responsibility but later retracted the statement.

In the aftermath, India accused Pakistan of harboring groups responsible for cross-border militancy and announced a series of measures including the expulsion of Pakistani diplomats, suspension of visas, closure of border crossings, and a temporary withdrawal from the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan denied any involvement and described India’s allegations as politically motivated. In response, Pakistan introduced reciprocal measures, including restrictions on trade, closure of its airspace and land borders, and suspension of the Shimla Agreement.

Both governments issued travel advisories warning their citizens against travel to each other’s territories. India’s Cabinet Committee on Security urged Indian nationals in Pakistan to return, while Pakistan’s foreign ministry issued similar guidance for its citizens in India.

Reason for change: The current version of the article includes language and framing that could be perceived as unbalanced, assigning blame to one side. The revised version presents events using neutral terminology, reflects both nations' perspectives and actions equally, and includes citations from reputable international news sources. This ensures compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:RS (reliable sources) policies.

Thank you. Doanld12312 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)