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: 3 months

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 High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-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
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
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

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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists List‑class 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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

May 4 to 10, 2025

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

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

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.

j

in short India will win against Pakistan as they have better military and economy. India also has more and better ties as they have good ties with Russia, USA and Israel who will support them while Pakistan only have China and Bangladesh on their side. Even though China could do some good damage their economy has been down due to the 245% tariffs USA put on them.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2025

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

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2025

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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.^[1]

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.^[2] 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.^[3]

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.^[4]

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)[reply]

inovlement of other states

if i say that in this the main involvement of other so what you said about it 2402:E000:546:1D11:DAD:E981:4A68:E95B (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This War Will Not Be Fought By Both States

One of the major resson is the investing of the core states in the both states either pakistan or india. Recently pakistan goverment invite to invester to invest in pakistan and pakistan never goes to war if the unfortunatly the india attack the pakistan then pakistan immidiatly response the india of its attack. 2402:E000:546:1D11:DAD:E981:4A68:E95B (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025

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

Typo: Skirmishes, incidents and standoffs > 2025 India–Pakistan standoff:

 from: "... India's actions by with trade restrictions, ..."  
 to: "... India's actions with trade restrictions, ..." Thatusername96 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done HudecEmil (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2025 (2)

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

Change 'and withdrawal from the Indus Waters Treaty' to withdrew from the Indus Waters Treaty, to make it grammatically correct. Gorkhor (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done HudecEmil (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat got hit by the terror attack in Pahlgam, and to cover its failure, Bharat attacked nine holy places in Pakistan, claiming to be terror sites and killing 31 civilians, including kids and women. These places were mosques and religious schools. In response to that, Pakistan downed five fighter jets of Bharat, including three Rafale. Again, Bharat failed to defend itself and launched several drones at Pakistan's different cities, targeting civilians. On 10th May night, Bharat tried to attack three military bases in Pakistan and ultimately, Pakistan had to retaliate and responded so fiercely that it attacked 26 air bases and military sites in Bharat. Pakistan did not attack civilians like Bharat did. In Pakistan's attack, Bharat's defense system, including S-400, was destroyed and Bharat has to beg the USA to opt for a ceasefire.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Update last bullet in Skirmishes, incidents and standoffs. See Recent Developments.

Also, add link for 2025 Pahalgam attack in the text for context when the terrorist attack is mentioned. 14.139.128.52 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update and add the entire topic of 2025 India–Pakistan strikes in brief. 14.139.128.52 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025

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

The map of India is incorrect . 2409:40C2:601D:63AC:C4A4:FDFF:FE6B:33D2 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's unclear what kind of edit the User is requesting. Please be more specific and informative. Don't forget to include a citation. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025 (2)

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

Change "India then expelled Pakistani diplomats and called back its diplomats, suspended visas, closed borders, and withdrew from the Indus Waters Treaty." to "India then expelled Pakistani diplomats and called back its diplomats, suspended visas, closed borders, and put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance"

^[5] Raijai883 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the word from "withdrew" to "suspended" as I decided that saying "and put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance" is a bit too wordy. Contest if you disagree. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "What is Kashmir Resistance, the group claiming the attack on tourists in Kashmir?". Reuters. 2025-04-23. Retrieved 2025-04-30.
^ "India Takes Diplomatic Measures After Kashmir Attack". BBC. 2025-04-24. Retrieved 2025-04-30.
^ "Pakistan Suspends Simla Agreement in Retaliation". Dawn. 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-30.
^ "Travel Warnings Issued Amid Rising Tensions". Al Jazeera. 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-30.
^ Vishwanath, Apurva (26 Apr 2025). "Indus Waters Treaty, Simla Agreement 'in abeyance': What this means". Indian Express. Retrieved 10 May 2025.

I feel like the current situation should be in skirmishes as opposed to conflicts

No ground conflict 2600:1008:A131:9966:682B:5536:F859:C499 (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025

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

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Why it should be changed:
The link to Tashkent Declaration in the phrase "...and played a pivotal role in negotiating the peace agreement between India and Pakistan." is currently on "pivotal role"; it should be on either "peace agreement" or "peace agreement between India and Pakistan", as the article is about the agreement itself rather than, specifically, the Soviet Union's role in it. The proposed edit also changes the linked article from "Agreement" to "Declaration", given that the former is a redirect to the latter. (note: I previously requested this without the edit-request template, but it received no response.

References supporting the possible change:
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Link_clarity

LordArtemis (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've changed the link from one word to the recommended word. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "What is Kashmir Resistance, the group claiming the attack on tourists in Kashmir?". Reuters. 2025-04-23. Retrieved 2025-04-30.

[2] "India Takes Diplomatic Measures After Kashmir Attack". BBC. 2025-04-24. Retrieved 2025-04-30.

[3] "Pakistan Suspends Simla Agreement in Retaliation". Dawn. 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-30.

[4] "Travel Warnings Issued Amid Rising Tensions". Al Jazeera. 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-30.

[5] Vishwanath, Apurva (26 Apr 2025). "Indus Waters Treaty, Simla Agreement 'in abeyance': What this means". Indian Express. Retrieved 10 May 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]