Talk:List of wars involving Pakistan

War summaries

"Return to status quo ante bellum" for Kargil war was a recent change. In fact, until October 2014, we recognized that 1965 and 1999 Indo-Pakistan war as "Defeat" for Pakistan.[1] Globlasecurity is a unrelibale source and it should not be used anywhere. Balochistan conflict seems to be reflection of main events, it is not continuous, that's why we had added 1970s Operation in Balochistan, the very major one. For these few reasons I have removed the recent edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

How "things were done" are of no consequence on wiki. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We got a consensus on the war article and list should only be a reflection of that. If you have an issue, go back and change that consensus. It is disruptive to sneak in POV elsewhere esp. when consensus has just been in another direction on the dedicated article. I don't think global security is unreliable... For Balochistan conflict, I don't know why it was originally added but my reason for the revert was that War in Northwest Pakistan is of similar nature... both are prolonged conflicts. This list is quite a mess, it could do better if formatted like Indo-Pak wars. Also thanks for telling me how we 'do' things here, but we don't. A further request, you seem to be reopening editwars that have cooled down / gone away recently... it might or might not get you blocked but it will definitely make the newbie editors who were editwaring not knowing better start it all again and either burn out or lost to the wiki at blocks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on other page doesn't apply here since this is wholly different subject. Globalsecurity is a unreliable source, you can look through the archives of WP:RSN. What is actually wrong with the summary that Pakistan withdrew from the Kargil? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

By consensus, I only referred to Kargil war result. That applies. For the rest, I have answered you separately for each point. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, especially when the changes are longstanding. And for that you have to make "blanket revert"? Again, what was actually incorrect about Pakistan's withdrawal from Kargil? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree.. and I did not make a blanket revert, I addressed each point I reverted. You, on the other hand, have reverted everything in your first revert without addressing much of it.. and again in your following reverts. You have a POV about the result, that's not how the sources call it and we've discussed abundantly. Not getting conesnus and then going to obscure articles to unilaterally implement is not something you want on your record. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because you claim some unreliable source to be reliable, it doesn't means that it becomes reliable. It was effectively a new edit to the article, thus you have no idea about WP:BRD. Arguments like "I addressed" doesn't fit when you have only misrepresented a bunch of policies and talked about edit wars. Clearly you are pushing POV like no one has claimed that Pakistan had to withdraw from the war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It was in since a month, that's not a new edit. See WP:BURDEN when you revert out standing content from the article. As I said, go get a consensus at Kargil war, don't unilaterally change summaries in obscure articles. I can't tell you that endlessly so I'm done as far as Kargil war summary is concerned. For the rest, you've failed to clear WP:BURDEN as of yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Series of edits were made by SawTooth on 3 November, and they were reverted twice. That would lead to discuss him his changes first, rather than adding unreliable sources and removing the informative war summaries that remained unchanged since the page was started. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no victory of Pakistan in 1965. http://herald.dawn.com/2013/10/08/who-won-the-1965-indo-pak-war.html నిజానికి (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece. Secondly, lists are a reflection of what the article says. It does not say anything like that. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That is discussion among experts. 1965 war maybe 'UN ceasefire', 1999 war's extra note should link to aftermath of the article. నిజానికి (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it utter POV to change 65 war to defeat.. esp without changing that article result. "UN defeat" seems like UN lost a war... doesn't make sense. It was ok before. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My main dispute was with the use of globalsecurity.org and the summary of 1999 Kargil War, it would be fine to link to their main results link in the summary and consider these to be "Ceasefire" or whatever any similar term would be. I don't think that we actually require sources to be mentioned here, if there are sources, it can be helpful for the main articles. I hope TopGun agrees. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not a fan of or against global security, though I don't want articles to lose a reference without the removing editor specifically linking the consensus that asks to remove it. So I wont revert GS in for now if you can link the RSN discussion. For the Kargil war, we spent some time discussing and finding a neutral infobox statement which was really objective and had consensus and I would have still added that regardless of the standing result on this article. It does not make sense to editwar at a list which is in really poor condition anyway IMO. If you want to change the result, go to the article, get consensus, come back and change all lists to reflect it. All I am saying is that this is unhealthy. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it, and removed a wordpress ref. I think I should also remove some links of see also, they link to very common words and many of them are provided under the template. నిజానికి (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question, why were all the references eg. [2] removed? The dispute was only about GS... it's not that lists shouldn't have refs.. its just that they can mostly do without them. Always better to have refs when we can. For your non-controversial part of the suggestion, it's hell of a list and needs a full overhaul.. generic see also links aren't helpful, you're right. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I can care pretty less about rest of the changes, but I also agree that see also must be changed a bit, you can look prior to my versions, I had only changed its heading as it included "Siachen War" and numerous conflicts. How about the Balochistan conflict? The one that started from 1947 is not different to the one that started from 1973. You have to either keep any one of them or merge together. Agree TopGun? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Added wsws.org. I had no intention to remove it. నిజానికి (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks.. kindly always check the reverts.. there are things like this that create unnecessary WP:BATTLE. The article seems fine now. OZ, One operation / battle is not the complete conflict. So they can't be merged. Would you check Indo-Pak wars and see how I did it there... it's never been objected even when people from both sides try to push POV. It might do some good here as well to separate long standing conflicts and one time wars into separate sections. Tell me what you think. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is good to see that we all three agree with the current version. I agree with your idea, and there no hurries. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While there is mixed consensus in the international community about the 1965 war (with the claim than India had the upper-hand when ceasefire was implemented) the 1999 Kargil war has been viewed as a Pakistani defeat (except for by Pakistanis). It was Pakistan who retreated, thereby not completing their mission, whereby India completed its mission of evicting the Pakistani army. Pakistan also lost bargains in the war with India fulfilling its goals. See the List of wars involving India page for more details, as both the wars are mentioned as 'Victory' there. I have therefore made the necessary changes. But I will give the benefit of the doubt about the 1965 war and not change its status, so just changing the result for the Kargil War. Please discuss here before starting an edit-war. Thank you, and I hope this article helped you. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you click on KARGIL WAR and read it , you will find that its clearly mentioned "decisive Indian victory" . And its been known known that pakistani government withdrawed from fighting the kargil war . Moreover it should be noted that the kargil is with India. Please edit it. Nishantpuri10 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

Khawar1281 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

ShahabKhanJadoon1, please see Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, where the result of the war was decided by editor consensus. If you want to contest it, you need to discuss it there. Please refrain from WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

The Results of the First Indo-Pakistani War should be changed to 'Victory' for Pakistan wholly due to the fact that before the war, India was going to annex Kashmir. However, the war led to a division of Kashmir, which was beneficial for Pakistan. Kageuchiha (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DBigXrayᗙ 17:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

After getting independence , kashmir was neither a part of India nor pakistan . But pakistan armed forces attacked kashmir , and so, kashmiri king came for help to India and officially declared kashmir to be a part of India , So indian forces fought and won a far more percent of land than pakistan ,So I think that India should be the winner , But as UN interferred , so its called a ceasefire. Nishantpuri10 (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Kargil war 1999

If you click on KARGIL WAR and read it , you will find that its clearly mentioned "decisive Indian victory" . And its been known that pakistani government withdrawed from fighting the kargil war . Moreover it should be noted that the kargil is with India. Please edit . Nishantpuri10 (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

This information and provided results on the Pakistan vs India and other conflicts is biased. It seems to be the version of Pro-Indian bias. For example the first war of Pakistan vs India on Kashmir is being shown as "Ceasefire", which was the case for ALL of PK vs. IND conflicts. This war resulted in the capture of Kashmir 1/3 territories of Pakistan from India, thus it was India's defeat.

The same goes for few other events being mentioned such as 1965, Kargil, Aghan War, War on Terror etc.

68.147.20.202 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 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. Jack Frost (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

After partition of ind and pak , kashmir decided to become a seprate nation . But pakistan army attacked kashmir so as to capture it . So the kashmiri ruler went to India for help , and Indian government agreed to help him only if kashmir becomes part of India . So India captured more portion of kashmir than pakistan . Nishantpuri10 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Add on: Same thing goes for 1965 War being shown as "Inconclusive", which has been the final eventuality in ALL such conflicts etc for the Civil War of West vs. East Pakistan, where the West Pakistan was badly defeated by the East Pakistan (and India was the East side of the Civil war).

However, in 1965 conflict, Pakistan captured significant portion of Indian Punjab which is a known fact.

Kargil conflict became eventually a cease fire, however after heavy casualties on both sides with a ratio of 1:2 (and sometimes quoted as high as 1:3) where Indian army had to take much more casualties. Thus from the battle perspective scoring, it was a defeat of the Indian side, which was then mediated by the US for the PK Armed forces to retreat. Majority of the causalties on the PK armies took place in the retreat process.

2019 IND vs PK mini battle-Pulwama: Defeat for India where atleast 1 plane has been recorded to be shot down by the PK (PAF) and India's pilot being captured and returned back to India.

Afghan War- PK/US/Afghan "Mujahideen" Allaince VICTORY against USSR/India/ other communist block allies/Afghan communist groups.

Afghan Civil War since 1990's - Present- Still ongoing for 20+ years, especially since 2001. The sides are Afghan Northern Alliance vs Aghan Taliban with very fluid backings of various state actors on all sides. Inorder to keep it focused between India and Pakistan, India is supporting the Northern Alliance and PK the Aghan Talibans. The US/Iran had been fluid all sides, with the most recent announcement of the Peacy Treaty withdrawal plan between the US and Aghan Taliban being announced. Thus the odds seems like at the moment that between PK vs IND proxy war of 20 years, PK has defeated IND on this front.

War on Terror: PK defeated the Indian/Aghan backed insurgents known as TTP.

In general, this attempt to create a Pro-Indian biased history is quite obvious, which is not based upon the facts. If one start listing All the historical events, the history reader will come to a conclusion that in most cases PK has won more the mini conflict or the longer term proxy conflicts.

On the traditional battle fronts the score is more on PK side (4-2). 1. 1947 Battle on Kashmir- PK won and captured territory what is known as AJK.

2. 1965 Battle- PK won and captured Indian Punjab swathes of acreages till the ceasefire was called and land returned back to IND.

3. 1971 Civil War- IND won and West. PK was defeated very badly to a point they were 7 days from completely loosing W. PK, had the ceasefire not called upon.

4. 1980's Siachen Battle- IND won based upon the first capture of startegic locations (few hundred meters), which is still under IND's control.

5. 1999 Kargil Conflict- PK won based upon the casualty counts higher on IND's side and the US intervention which lead to PK's voluntary retreat from the Startegically captured areas.

6. 2019 LOC Pulwama Conflict- PK won based upon the Indian Airforce plane/s being shot down and pilot/s captured.

68.147.20.202 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Because this otherwise really looks like WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Wars and Battles Involving Pakistan into List of wars involving Pakistan

Newly created page contains additional information which could be integrated into this page.  GILO   A&E⇑  16:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghan Civil War

I wanted to discuss two subjects here.

To begin with, I believe it is imperative for this page to distinctly include each of the various phases of the Afghan Civil War. At the moment, it only displays the 1996-2001 conflict even though Pakistan had been deeply involved in the preceding periods as well, namely 1989-1992 and 1992-1996.

The relevant sources highlighting Pakistani involvement can be seen in the following articles which showcase Pakistan as a belligerent to the conflicts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%931992)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996)

It can be noted that the distinct periods have separate articles to properly distinguish them from one another. Moreover, they are independently identified as the “Second” and “Third” Afghan Civil Wars on this page here as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Afghanistan

Secondly, I hoped to discuss the result attributed to the conflict entitled “Afghan Civil War (1996-2001)” with respect to Pakistan. It states “Defeat. End of the Taliban government rule in Afghanistan”.

This directly contradicts the information showcased in pages closely tied with the conflict. For instance, when the main page for the conflict itself is observed, it establishes the result as a “Military Stalemate” rather than “Defeat” which contradicts the result stated here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1996%E2%80%932001)

Furthermore, the statement “End of Taliban government rule in Afghanistan” is misleading as well considering the “Afghan Civil War (1996-2001)” did not result in the collapse of the Taliban government.

The Taliban only fell when the United States intervened which is seen as a completely separate conflict from the Afghan Civil War. This distinction can be noted on the aforementioned page as well. The downfall of the Taliban is only listed on the “War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)” instead of “Afghan Civil War (1996-2001)”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)

The US Invasion of Afghanistan was directly facilitated by Pakistan which provided military bases and direct flight to American forces. The Pakistani government aligned itself with the United States following the September 11 Attacks and supported Coalition forces in toppling the Taliban regime. As such, I find it strange that the result is considered a defeat for Pakistan. 103.145.230.77 (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> }} 42.201.171.125 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) P Bruh who do you think I am

Article cleanup

I have added maintenance citation needed tags to entries in the list that either: 1) Do not have citations showing the entry meets the article inclusion criteria "list of wars" or 2) Do not have citation for the details in the entry row. In some cases the linked article has citations for the entry and I have not marked those.

Unsourced material may be removed at any time per WP:BURDEN. Do not remove maintenance tags without fixing issue or removing entry as appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  18:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I have added maintenance citation needed tags to entries in the list that either: 1) Do not have citations showing the entry meets the article inclusion criteria "list of wars" or 2) Do not have citation for the details in the entry row. In some cases the linked article has citations for the entry and I have not marked those.

Unsourced material may be removed at any time per WP:BURDEN. Do not remove maintenance tags without fixing issue or removing entry as appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  18:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding wars/Conflicts to list of wars involving countries

@TimothyBlue

Hi, there something i would like to discuss, if you could add rebbellions, uprisings and large scale operations, battles/skrimishes to the page (involving any country of course) :-

(List of wars involving Pakistan)

As you reverted my edit in which i had added a uprising giving the reason it was not a war, where as in other countries lists the same rebbellions, uprisings, Large scale operations/battles and skrimishes and other small scale conflicts are also added to lists of wars involving other countries by why were they not removed just like in the ones which i added ? like in (List of wars involving the United States), (List of wars involving India), (List of wars involving Afghanistan)

Also majority of these conflicts are added in other pages are without even a citation ! If it dosent matter then why were they removed here ? Rahim231 Rahim231 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct there are many of these lists that have content that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. I've been cleaning up a number of these lists. This is a list of wars involving Pakistan, not an exhaustive list or index of battles and military engagements involving Pakistan.  // Timothy :: talk  20:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks it got me worried As i was adding articles and getting removed all of a sudden even . Rahim231 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked further into the category tree related to Pakistani military history and believe a broader outline would help readers. Bloating this article won't improve it, but here is a place where the subject area can be outlined: Outline of Pakistan military history. Its very underdeveloped, but will definitely help readers find articles once some additional work is done.  // Timothy :: talk  21:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also i have seen your work there its great and pretty much good for now. But it does not give a instant and overall result of the battle,conflict instead there should be a seperate section or timeline for battles in form of a list just like the war page which would help the reader understand quickly and grasp intrest in the article and be helpful simple wikipedia readers.

As for a example:- just like in (maratha portugese war) the conflict section, Each of the event is listed with citations.

Also this page would be freed from battles section, Im looking forward to add this section (conflicts/timeline) to the Outline of Pakistan military history @TimothyBlue. Rahim231 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Pakistani support in JVP Insurrections, Sri Lanka, Nagorno-Karabakh 2020

Pakistan provided military support during the First and Second JVP Insurrections. The List of wars involving India article mentions this (Post-colonial wars). We added the Korean war even though that was only diplomatic.

Additionally, Pakistan also provided military arms to Sri Lanka during their Civil war, as mentioned in the Sri Lankan Civil War article and Military history of Pakistan (support for Sri Lanka) too. India was initially supporting the Tamils, but switched sides towards the end. However, this is not mentioned in the article overview at all.

Lastly, Pakistan gave diplomatic support to Azerbaijan throughout the entire Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (for Azerbaijan providing diplomatic support on the Pakistani stance on Kashmir). This is mentioned in the Armenia-Pakistan relations and Azerbaijan-Pakistan relations articles. Again, we added the Korean war for less.

I'm bringing the articles directly as the sources used to substantiate those claims would have been verified.

Thanks. OperativePhase33 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Content

I wanted to let know that, in the list the drone war addition is copied content from page name:List of wars involving the United States see that page's history for attribution. Rahim231 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of wars

@TimothyBlue

Hi, i Have noticed that you have removed the wars which i added to the list and stating in the edit summary "no sources stating this was a war or that Pakistan was a party to a war, entry does not meet article list criteria"......I will state some sources here mentioning Pakistani involvement by troops,support or any other type:-

• Congo Crisis

1- Congo Crisis Page itself states that :-

a) (The crisis began almost immediately after the Congo became independent from Belgium and ended, unofficially, with the entire country under the rule of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu. Constituting a series of civil wars, the Congo Crisis was also a proxy conflict in the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and the United States supported opposing factions.)

b)The UN iteself led a intervention (Congo Crisis#Foreign reaction and UN intervention) and a Military intervention qualifies as joining a war.

2- Congo Crisis was the first ever Contigent of troops from Pakistan sent to fight for UN Missions.

Sources:-

a)This page mentions Pakistani troops involvement through the United Nations. (United Nations peacekeeping missions involving Pakistan)

b)Pakistan army official https://web.archive.org/web/20160323103158/https://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPReview/TextContent.aspx?pId=412

c) I already used this source which mentioned pakistan sent its troops to take part in its first ever Un mission https://web.archive.org/web/20240126174846/https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/UN-Peacekeeping-Operations-Pakistans-Contributions-edit.pdf

d) This book used as a source also mentions Pakistani troops taking part in page Number 12 https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=j6ajCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

• 1999 East Timorese crisis

I would agree with you in this case that pakistan did not take part in the military intervention along australia in the 22 member led military intervention so let it be removed International Force East Timor.

Overall with the sources i provided it should be enough for the Congo crisis edit to be revereted by you instead of me reverting it. Rahim231 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources are what is needed. Pakistan did contribute peace keeping troops, but this is very different from being a part of a war. Peacekeeping missions are often just to monitor and are not suppose to get involved, are there reliable sources stating that Pakistan was a part of the war?  // Timothy :: talk  08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

These missions were part of the intervention in congo.

Sources state that :-

1- Pakistani troops were involved in interior and troop movements to and from the Congo.

2- Logistics support to the UN troops during intervention. (1960-1964)

This makes clear that they provided support in organization of operations in the war in logistics center and troop moevments.

Source :-

a) https://hilal.gov.pk/view-article.php?i=7789#:~:text=Pakistan%20Army%20provided%20logistical%20support,UNSF%20(1962%2D1963).

b) https://web.archive.org/web/20160323103158/https://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPReview/TextContent.aspx?pId=412 Rahim231 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Your source refute your claim. Pakistan was not involved in the war, they sent 400 non-combat personnel to support UN peacekeeping operations. Nothing more. They were not combat troops, they were not involved in any battles, they did not play any role in ending the fighting. They provided logistical support at airports and transportation hubs. They were not involved in the war.  // Timothy :: talk  14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do understand it now what you meant, thanks for clarifying.

Also does this (2007 Kurram Agency conflict) war qualify to be added in the list as a war, if yes how should it be added? Rahim231 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The article and sources refer to this as a terrorist attack followed by one week civil conflict, and a military crackdown, I don't see anywhere in this is discussed as a war in reliable sources, and the article doesn't describe a war. Clearly terrible bloodshed, but not a war.

Outline of Pakistan military history is the place for listing articles related to Pakistan military history. it is a newer article so it needs work; once it is more developed I will integrate it into overall Wikipedia navigation system. You can see the general format of entries here: A section title with a hatnote linking the main article (don't link section titles per WP:SECTIONTITLE), followed by a brief paragraph describing the entry; if there are articles about events, individuals, units, locations, they can be added under an appropriate heading (see this section for an example ([3]).

Navigation lists and articles are only useful if readers find what they are looking for, in this case a list of wars. If the list is filled up with events that do not meet the criteria or becomes overly detailed, readers will not be able to find what they are looking for, hence we have WP:LISTCRITERIA. In this case, this is a list of wars, the "top level" major military events - this is what readers are expecting. If the reader is looking for something more detailed and expansive, we have the Outline I mentioned above. This works well per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE where Military history of Pakistan is the main topic article and the list of wars and outline are navigation lists to support this main topic.

You'll notice when looking at Military history of Pakistan it doesn't mention 2007 Kurram Agency conflict or the Congo Crisis (except in a list of peacekeeping missions); if these were wars, they would have (or should be) been discussed in the article on the military history of Pakistan, not discussing a war would be a notable omission in an article about the military history of a nation; they are also not mentioned in History of Pakistan (1947–present); this is an indication these are comparatively minor events; they are terrible, but minor events compared with the items that are indisputably wars in the list.

There is no one standard here, duration, international involvement, conflict intensity, labeling by English language reliable sources (more weight on English Wikipedia), labeling in non-English language sources (less weight on English Wikipedia); sometimes wars are label conflicts (eg: Balochistan conflict), sometimes lesser events are label as wars (eg:List of bloodless wars). One helpful criteria would be "is the questionable event I am thinking about including, the same type/level of event of those events that indisputably meet the criteria". For example, no one would dispute that First Indo-Pakistani War is a war and belongs in the list; compare this with 2007 Kurram Agency conflict - are they the same type of event, the same level of conflict? If not then it should go into another navigation list.

Lists on Wikipedia are often filled with entries that do not meet the criteria, it is a known problem and one some editors are trying to fix.

I hope the above is helpful. Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This explanation helps alot i will study this in detail slowly.

1- correct me if im wrong but the so-called sunni groups except TTP (Pakistani Taliban) were designated as terrorist group by pakistan since 2001-2002 and later TTP in 2008 (List and date of parties banned or designated as terroist group) . The shia militias were local civillians in Pakistani's they fought ttp, who were targetting them for being shia's after a certian event. They handed over the land to Army.

2- Another Topic i wanted to discuss a experienced user since a long time. The Wars involving British Indian Empire should be added to the Pakistani List of wars, as Pakistan and its people were also part of British Raj and numerous troops recruited, fought under the British indian army Military history of Pakistan#1857–1947. So there for a section like this List of wars involving India#Modern India (c. 1850s to 1947 CE) would be added to Pakistan's page.

Thanks for co-operating. Rahim231 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)