Jump to content

Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 180.151.30.24 - "→‎attack of qabailies on kashmir: new section"
Line 39: Line 39:
If there is an infobox of [[War on Terror]], then can't on it. Does not [[WP:BRD]] does not apply there, [[lTopGunl (talk)]].{{unsigned|Jozoisis}}
If there is an infobox of [[War on Terror]], then can't on it. Does not [[WP:BRD]] does not apply there, [[lTopGunl (talk)]].{{unsigned|Jozoisis}}
:Please read [[WP:BRD]]... it means when some one objects, ''then'' you need to come to the talk page and discuss those edits, if your edits stay it means there is a silent consensus. War on terror is a single war on the whole going on over a long duration. It's nothing more than [[65 war]] having an infobox. In this case it is different, these conflicts are not all directly related even though 3 might be on Kashmir. And then adding Lashkar-e-Taiba etc in the infobox on Pakistan's side would be a blatant POV as those are only accusations. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
:Please read [[WP:BRD]]... it means when some one objects, ''then'' you need to come to the talk page and discuss those edits, if your edits stay it means there is a silent consensus. War on terror is a single war on the whole going on over a long duration. It's nothing more than [[65 war]] having an infobox. In this case it is different, these conflicts are not all directly related even though 3 might be on Kashmir. And then adding Lashkar-e-Taiba etc in the infobox on Pakistan's side would be a blatant POV as those are only accusations. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

==edit request==

i would like to tell that Indai hasnever lost any of its military batttles except the Indo-china war of 1962, whereas in this article, no proper result is given.
[[User:Shashwatpkumar|dragonphoenix]] ([[User talk:Shashwatpkumar|talk]]) 15:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


== Your wiseness ==
== Your wiseness ==

Revision as of 15:04, 7 August 2012

Former good article nomineeIndo-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
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2009Articles for deletionKept
December 17, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Infobox

The infobox recently added in the article is 1) unsuited for a series of (sometimes unrelated) conflicts and 2) a blatant WP:NPOV violation. Please self revert per WP:BRD and discuss instead of editwarring. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. An infobox of this kind is meant for one battle/one campaign. It is meaningless since its a summary/list. TG, go ahead & revert. AshLin (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an infobox of War on Terror, then can't on it. Does not WP:BRD does not apply there, lTopGunl (talk).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozoisis (talkcontribs)

Please read WP:BRD... it means when some one objects, then you need to come to the talk page and discuss those edits, if your edits stay it means there is a silent consensus. War on terror is a single war on the whole going on over a long duration. It's nothing more than 65 war having an infobox. In this case it is different, these conflicts are not all directly related even though 3 might be on Kashmir. And then adding Lashkar-e-Taiba etc in the infobox on Pakistan's side would be a blatant POV as those are only accusations. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

i would like to tell that Indai hasnever lost any of its military batttles except the Indo-china war of 1962, whereas in this article, no proper result is given. dragonphoenix (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiseness

User lTopGunl (talk) u are wise, this article is mainly about the armed engagements not on the other conflicts. In your heading of Other Conflicts, there are other military engagements.--Jozoisis (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article title does not say it is only about the armed engagements, it is about all wars and conflicts. Conflicts here include the given topics. It is better suited to have a single article for such instead of having one for the wars and another for the conflicts. Infact this is rather a descriptive list. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lTopGunl, In that case, may we add a few more paragraphs about the armed engagements? The way the article is currently organised, the plot does not get sufficient explanation. There has to be some clarity on the motives of each of the story elements. Satanclawz (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social conflicts

Jozoisis, a good idea will be to add this [1] to India-Pakistan relations, Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Indophobia articles in the relevant sections. Your additions are good, but probably not for this article as it is about military conflicts and engagements. Maybe a bit of inline highlights in the introduction can still be due about social conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I think some of the threads have been missed in the archiving... please include those too. [2]. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

attack of qabailies on kashmir

friends i have been hearing about the qabaily attack on india where pakistans indirect involvement as proven .. have seen the documentaries as well quiet many years back but dont remember when and what exactly was it... could that be added to this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.30.24 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]